- FAQ
- Login
- Register
- Call Workpermit.com for a paid service +44 (0)344-991-9222
ESC
Welcome to immigrationboards.com!
Moderators: Casa, Amber, archigabe, batleykhan, ca.funke, ChetanOjha, EUsmileWEallsmile, JAJ, John, Obie, push, geriatrix, vinny, CR001, zimba, meself2
The new decision simply recasts the previous decision in new language, still making no reference to either M (Ivory Coast) or Zambrano. And says a fee has to be paid to be considered as a Chen parent.Your Application
On 25/05/2011 you applied for admission to the United Kingdom by virtue of European Community Law as the family member of a European Economic Area national who is exercising, or wishes to exercise, rights of free movement under the Treaty of Rome in the United Kingdom. Your application was refused and a notice of refusal duly served.
The Decision
The notice of refusal of EEA Family Permit dated 07/06/2011 has been revoked. This notice serves as a revised notice. You are therefore entitled to a further 28 day appeal period in which to address the subsequent reasons for refusal outlined below.
Given that the UIT has made a Direction to give effect to its ruling I wonder what they are reviewing and under what conditions they would not approve the FP. But at least it appears that they have decided not to apply for leave for a further appeal. Because of travel commitments etc the passport won't be submitted until the end of December. I wonder whether that will cause a new problem.Your application for EEA family permit received on 25/06/2010 is currently under review, following the outcome of your appeal. Your passport is therefore required, so that entry clearance can be issued without delay, if your application is approved. Please submit your passport at your earliest convenience to the British Embassy in Prague.
Kind regards
This worries me, because the mother of my British son has a Residence card issued by the Czech republic as a family member (the mother) of an EEA Citizen. Czech law (The Alien Act) treats parents of EU citizens under 21 as family members. This is a more favourable provision of their national law.66. It follows that the criterion relating to the denial of the genuine enjoyment of the substance of the rights conferred by virtue of European Union status refers to situations in which the Union Citizen has, in fact, to leave not only the territory of the Member State of which he is a national but also the territory of the Union as a whole.
Article 20, paragraph 2, TFEU says:34. In fact, at first sight, concerning the situation of the family Dereci, there is no risk that the refusal of the residence card that the Austrian authorities have refused to grant to Mr Dereci could result in the wife and three young children of Mr Dereci, all four being Union Citizens, being deprived of the benefit of one of the rights listed in Article 20, paragraph 2, TFEU. In particular, concerning the right of free movement and residence in the territory of the Member States, mentioned in Article 20, para 2) sub para a), TFEU, Mrs Dereci, as an Austrian, can continue to benefit from a right to reside in Austria and can genuinely benefit from her right to free movement between the Member States. This is also true for her children who, owing to their age, could not exercise this right independently of their mother. Furthermore, and as opposed to the situation at the heart of the Zambrano case, it does not help the case that none of the four Citizens of the Union are dependent on Mr Dereci, a third country national. Finally, if Mr Dereci is not granted a residence permit, and/or is deported to Turkey, neither his wife, nor his children, unlike the children of Mr Zambrano, risk being obliged to leave the territory of the Union.
This immediately begs the question of what rights are covered by that "inter alia". But only (a) will be of practical value to Zambrano parents.2. Citizens of the Union shall enjoy the rights and be subject to the duties provided for in the Treaties. They shall have, inter alia:
(a) the right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States;
(b) the right to vote and to stand as candidates in elections to the European Parliament and in municipal elections in their Member State of residence, under the same conditions as nationals of that State;
(c) the right to enjoy, in the territory of a third country in which the Member State of which they are nationals is not represented, the protection of the diplomatic and consular authorities of any Member State on the same conditions as the nationals of that State;
(d) the right to petition the European Parliament, to apply to the European Ombudsman, and to address the institutions and advisory bodies of the Union in any of the Treaty languages and to obtain a reply in the same language.
These rights shall be exercised in accordance with the conditions and limits defined by the Treaties and by the measures adopted thereunder.
I have no words to express what I feel about UKBA`s attitude. What exactly are they traying to achieve?Rolfus wrote:I had another day in court, first-tier tribunal, arguing for a family permit on the basis of Chen and Zambrano, but also on the basis of the mother as an extended family member. The judge was not unsympathetic, but his written ruling will be the test! Probably early in January.
Rolfus, congrats on the FP!Rolfus wrote:I had another day in court, first-tier tribunal, arguing for a family permit on the basis of Chen and Zambrano, but also on the basis of the mother as an extended family member. The judge was not unsympathetic, but his written ruling will be the test! Probably early in January.
Thanks we still haven't got anywhere.Rolfus wrote:I still haven't received the ruling. I will comment on it as soon as I have it.
Hi RolfusRolfus wrote:Application for EEA FP as unmarried partner of a British Citizen with Surinder Singh rights: Appeal allowed, upheld at Upper Tribunal.