Zambrano Settled Status EU settlement scheme Paper Application Form - NEW

[Miss-Suz]

Some appeals are exempt from paying a fee.

You should read the Notice of Decision you received when your application was refused to see if your appeal is one of these types. If you are unsure then you should refer to the person who refused your application to check. Further information is contained in the guidance notes section "Immigration and Appeals Tribunal fees guidance". Important: The tribunal will obtain a copy of your notice of decision and will be able to check whether your appeal is exempt. If you claim exemption where the list below does not apply to your appeal, then your appeal will be delayed whilst the tribunal writes to you requesting payment. If you do not pay, your appeal may not proceed.

If your appeal is against a decision listed below then you should click the appropriate box:

• Section 2A of the 1971 Act (deprivation of right of abode)

• Section 5(1) of the 1971 Act (a decision to make a deportation order)

• Paragraphs 8, 9,10, 10A or 12(2) of Schedule 2 to the 1971 Act (a decision that an illegal entrant, any family
  or seaman and aircrew is or are to be removed from the United Kingdom by way of directions)

• Section 40 of the British Nationality Act 1981 (deprivation of citizenship)

• Section 10(1) of the 1999 Act (removal of certain persons unlawfully in the United Kingdom)

• Section 76 of the 2002 Act (revocation of indefinite leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom)

• Section 47 of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 (removal: persons with statutorily extended leave)

• Regulation 19(3) of the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006 (a decision to remove an EEA national or the family member of such a national)

• Part 2 of the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal (Fast Track procedure) Rules 2005 applies to your appeal

None of the above exemptions apply to Zambrano applications under the EU Settlement Scheme (Appendix EU). You have to pay the fee. Either £80 for a decision made on the papers or £140 for a decision made in person at court.

Ok , understand.
Many thanks Lolwe

[Miss-Suz]

What do you think Lolwe?
An oral hearing or paper?

[Miss-Suz]

Overview

You can appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) if the Home Office has decided to:

refuse your protection claim (also known as ‘asylum claim’ or ‘humanitarian protection’)
revoke your protection status
refuse your human rights claim
deport you or refuse you a residence document under the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2016
revoke your British citizenship
deport you, refuse or revoke your status, or vary the length or condition of your stay under the EU Settlement Scheme
refuse or revoke your travel permit or family permit under the EU Settlement Scheme
The tribunal is independent of government. A judge will listen to both sides of the argument before making a decision.
If you do not have the right to appeal, you might be able to ask the Home Office for an administrative review.

This is what they say in the government website, I am just confused, I don’t want to pay the fees and then the judge refuse it

[lolwe]

You have been refused settlement under the EU Settlement Scheme (Appendix EU).

Overview

You can appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) if the Home Office has decided to:

• refuse your protection claim (also known as ‘asylum claim’ or ‘humanitarian protection’)

• revoke your protection status

• refuse your human rights claim

• deport you or refuse you a residence document under the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2016

• revoke your British citizenship

• deport you, refuse or revoke your status, or vary the length or condition of your stay under the EU Settlement Scheme

• refuse or revoke your travel permit or family permit under the EU Settlement Scheme

The tribunal is independent of government. A judge will listen to both sides of the argument before making a decision. If you do not have the right to appeal, you might be able to ask the Home Office for an administrative review.

This is what they say in the government website, I am just confused, I don’t want to pay the fees and then the judge refuse it

[lolwe]

What do you think Lolwe?
An oral hearing or paper?

You have three points to make.

First, you must convince the judge you are a Zambrano carer. If you can not do that easily on the papers, you should show up in person and explain why you are a Zambrano carer. If it is obvious that you are a Zambrano carer from the paperwork, then you do not need an in person hearing.

Second, you must convince the judge that the Home Office are wrong about the Zambrano right being a right of last resort. As you are not legally trained, it seems unlikely that you would be able to argue this point in person. If you are going to hire a solicitor or barrister to argue the last resort point, then you should go for an in person hearing.

Third, you should show you meet the rest of the requirements for settlement under Appendix EU. This should be pretty easy/straightforward.

I think Ngoo argued a similar point to you on their DRF1 appeal and won on the papers.

[Miss-Suz]

What do you think Lolwe?
An oral hearing or paper?

You have three points to make.

First, you must convince the judge you are a Zambrano carer. If you can not do that easily on the papers, you should show up in person and explain why you are a Zambrano carer. If it is obvious that you are a Zambrano carer from the paperwork, then you do not need an in person hearing.

Second, you must convince the judge that the Home Office are wrong about the Zambrano right being a right of last resort. As you are not legally trained, it seems unlikely that you would be able to argue this point in person. If you are going to hire a solicitor or barrister to argue the last resort point, then you should go for an in person hearing.

Third, you should show you meet the rest of the requirements for settlement under Appendix EU. This should be pretty easy/straightforward.

I think Ngoo argued a similar point to you on their DRF1 appeal and won on the papers.

Oh Lovely, thank you so much Lolwe

[lolwe]

What do you think Lolwe?
An oral hearing or paper?

You have three points to make.

First, you must convince the judge you are a Zambrano carer. If you can not do that easily on the papers, you should show up in person and explain why you are a Zambrano carer. If it is obvious that you are a Zambrano carer from the paperwork, then you do not need an in person hearing.

Second, you must convince the judge that the Home Office are wrong about the Zambrano right being a right of last resort. As you are not legally trained, it seems unlikely that you would be able to argue this point in person. If you are going to hire a solicitor or barrister to argue the last resort point, then you should go for an in person hearing.

Third, you should show you meet the rest of the requirements for settlement under Appendix EU. This should be pretty easy/straightforward.

I think Ngoo argued a similar point to you on their DRF1 appeal and won on the papers.

Oh Lovely, thank you so much Lolwe

You are welcome, Miss Suz!

I suspect the paper route may be faster. I imagine a judge will take a bunch of cases with a refusal letter like yours and spend a day deciding those cases. Olaboy's refusal letter seemed to be just like yours. In an ideal world, you, Olaboy, Ngoo (and perhaps other Zambrano carers on this thread who do not currently have LTR) would work together and share ideas on how to argue or present the legal argument.

[Miss-Suz]

What do you think Lolwe?
An oral hearing or paper?

You have three points to make.

First, you must convince the judge you are a Zambrano carer. If you can not do that easily on the papers, you should show up in person and explain why you are a Zambrano carer. If it is obvious that you are a Zambrano carer from the paperwork, then you do not need an in person hearing.

Second, you must convince the judge that the Home Office are wrong about the Zambrano right being a right of last resort. As you are not legally trained, it seems unlikely that you would be able to argue this point in person. If you are going to hire a solicitor or barrister to argue the last resort point, then you should go for an in person hearing.

Third, you should show you meet the rest of the requirements for settlement under Appendix EU. This should be pretty easy/straightforward.

I think Ngoo argued a similar point to you on their DRF1 appeal and won on the papers.

Oh Lovely, thank you so much Lolwe

You are welcome, Miss Suz!

I suspect the paper route may be faster. I imagine a judge will take a bunch of cases with a refusal letter like yours and spend a day deciding those cases. Olaboy's refusal letter seemed to be just like yours. In an ideal world, you, Olaboy, Ngoo (and perhaps other Zambrano carers on this thread who do not currently have LTR) would work together and share ideas on how to argue or present the legal argument.

Hi Lolwe,

I just rang the tribunal, they said the 14 days start from the date of the refusal letter which was the 20th so I am filling the appeal form now

Thanks a lot

[lolwe]

You have three points to make.

First, you must convince the judge you are a Zambrano carer. If you can not do that easily on the papers, you should show up in person and explain why you are a Zambrano carer. If it is obvious that you are a Zambrano carer from the paperwork, then you do not need an in person hearing.

Second, you must convince the judge that the Home Office are wrong about the Zambrano right being a right of last resort. As you are not legally trained, it seems unlikely that you would be able to argue this point in person. If you are going to hire a solicitor or barrister to argue the last resort point, then you should go for an in person hearing.

Third, you should show you meet the rest of the requirements for settlement under Appendix EU. This should be pretty easy/straightforward.

I think Ngoo argued a similar point to you on their DRF1 appeal and won on the papers.

Oh Lovely, thank you so much Lolwe

You are welcome, Miss Suz!

I suspect the paper route may be faster. I imagine a judge will take a bunch of cases with a refusal letter like yours and spend a day deciding those cases. Olaboy's refusal letter seemed to be just like yours. In an ideal world, you, Olaboy, Ngoo (and perhaps other Zambrano carers on this thread who do not currently have LTR) would work together and share ideas on how to argue or present the legal argument.

Hi Lolwe,

I just rang the tribunal, they said the 14 days start from the date of the refusal letter which was the 20th so I am filling the appeal form now

Thanks a lot

Aha! @Olaboy, do you see? If the person Miss Suz spoke to is correct, that means you should file the appeal within 14 days and not wait for the administrative review. So many people are going for administrative review first. What a confusing mess. For years, everyone would have to go for AR first. They changed the rules without a proper announcement. Thanks for sharing, Miss Suz.

[Miss-Suz]

Oh Lovely, thank you so much Lolwe

You are welcome, Miss Suz!

I suspect the paper route may be faster. I imagine a judge will take a bunch of cases with a refusal letter like yours and spend a day deciding those cases. Olaboy's refusal letter seemed to be just like yours. In an ideal world, you, Olaboy, Ngoo (and perhaps other Zambrano carers on this thread who do not currently have LTR) would work together and share ideas on how to argue or present the legal argument.

Hi Lolwe,

I just rang the tribunal, they said the 14 days start from the date of the refusal letter which was the 20th so I am filling the appeal form now

Thanks a lot

Aha! @Olaboy, do you see? If the person Miss Suz spoke to is correct, that means you should file the appeal within 14 days and not wait for the administrative review. So many people are going for administrative review first. What a confusing mess. For years, everyone would have to go for AR first. They changed the rules without a proper announcement. Thanks for sharing, Miss Suz.

Thanks to you Lolwe

[Miss-Suz]

Hi Lolwe,

I am stuck here, can you please help me explain


EEA Decision

6. If you believe that the Home Office decision is restricting your rights under the EEA right to free movement please explain below why.
If you believe the decision on your EU Settlement Scheme application was not in accordance with the settlement scheme rules please explain why.
If your leave has been cancelled or revoked or you are being deported and you believe the decision was not in accordance with the rules please explain why.
If you believe the decision breaches the withdrawal agreement, EFTA separation agreement or Swiss citizens' rights agreement please explain why.

[Obie]

Do you have Judge Grubb decision?

https://tribunalsdecisions.service.gov. ... 04149-2019

EA/04149/2019

Judge Lever of the First Tier Tribunal agreed with the Court of Appeal ruling. Judge Grubb of the UT disagreed.


In my judgment, Judge Lever materially erred in law by failing to apply the approach of the Supreme Court in Patel and Shah and, in doing so, failed to make appropriate findings as to whether or not the appellant had the required "relationship of dependency" which would, in fact, lead to his daughter being compelled to leave the UK either with, or without, his ex-partner. Of course, Judge Lever did not have the advantage of the Supreme Court's decision in Patel and Shah which post-dated his decision. He, perhaps not unnaturally, applied the terms of reg 16(5) to which his attention was directed. Nevertheless, the declaratory effect of the Supreme Court's decision is that, in retrospect, it is clear that he fell into error. For this reason, his decision cannot stand and I set it aside.

There is one further point on the ground relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Patel and Shah. The grounds are also critical of Judge Lever's adoption of the Court of Appeal's comment (at [78]) that a derivative right is a right of last resort. Although the Supreme Court did not specifically refer to the Court of Appeal's comment that a derivative right of residence is a right of last resort which would only apply if a person has no other means to remain lawfully in the UK, I see no basis for such a limitation in principle. The fact that a person may be able to establish an alternative basis for remaining in the UK does not detract from, if it is established, his EU right of residence derived from the effect of his British citizen child being unable to remain in the UK. Of course, if the individual, in fact, has a right to remain in the UK (say under the Immigration Rules) then the derivative right based upon him leaving the UK and that his British citizen child will be compelled to leave with him would fall away.

Thanks a lot. I have advanced arguments on Patel, Zeldu before and the Tribunal have accepted.

However, no case on the settlement scheme yet.

The decision of the FTT is important but not binding, so one cannot use it as authority.

The Upper Tribunal's decision of Grubbs is good, but not reported either.

But they are consistent with the points advanced.

The Home Office position is unsustainable. They want a message to go out, that Zambrano is tough and people do not succeed, so potential applicants are discouraged from applying.

I think they will fail, but success will require perseverance, people cannot chicken out based on the letter they receive.

I find it hard to understand that Home Office will implement a law that they want no one to qualify under. So absurd.

[Miss-Suz]

Do you have Judge Grubb decision?

https://tribunalsdecisions.service.gov. ... 04149-2019

EA/04149/2019

Judge Lever of the First Tier Tribunal agreed with the Court of Appeal ruling. Judge Grubb of the UT disagreed.


In my judgment, Judge Lever materially erred in law by failing to apply the approach of the Supreme Court in Patel and Shah and, in doing so, failed to make appropriate findings as to whether or not the appellant had the required "relationship of dependency" which would, in fact, lead to his daughter being compelled to leave the UK either with, or without, his ex-partner. Of course, Judge Lever did not have the advantage of the Supreme Court's decision in Patel and Shah which post-dated his decision. He, perhaps not unnaturally, applied the terms of reg 16(5) to which his attention was directed. Nevertheless, the declaratory effect of the Supreme Court's decision is that, in retrospect, it is clear that he fell into error. For this reason, his decision cannot stand and I set it aside.

There is one further point on the ground relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Patel and Shah. The grounds are also critical of Judge Lever's adoption of the Court of Appeal's comment (at [78]) that a derivative right is a right of last resort. Although the Supreme Court did not specifically refer to the Court of Appeal's comment that a derivative right of residence is a right of last resort which would only apply if a person has no other means to remain lawfully in the UK, I see no basis for such a limitation in principle. The fact that a person may be able to establish an alternative basis for remaining in the UK does not detract from, if it is established, his EU right of residence derived from the effect of his British citizen child being unable to remain in the UK. Of course, if the individual, in fact, has a right to remain in the UK (say under the Immigration Rules) then the derivative right based upon him leaving the UK and that his British citizen child will be compelled to leave with him would fall away.

Thanks a lot. I have advanced arguments on Patel, Zeldu before and the Tribunal have accepted.

However, no case on the settlement scheme yet.

The decision of the FTT is important but not binding, so one cannot use it as authority.

The Upper Tribunal's decision of Grubbs is good, but not reported either.

But they are consistent with the points advanced.

The Home Office position is unsustainable. They want a message to go out, that Zambrano is tough and people do not succeed, so potential applicants are discouraged from applying.

I think they will fail, but success will require perseverance, people cannot chicken out based on the letter they receive.

I find it hard to understand that Home Office will implement a law that they want no one to qualify under. So absurd.

Hi Obie,

Can I use this argument on my appeal too?

[lolwe]

EEA Decision

6. If you believe that the Home Office decision is restricting your rights under the EEA right to free movement please explain below why. If you believe the decision on your EU Settlement Scheme application was not in accordance with the settlement scheme rules please explain why.

Draft 4 - less than 2000 characters

SSHD refuse a majority of applications by Zambrano carers for (pre)settled status under Appendix EU. A person who fulfils the requirements of Reg 16 of the Immigration EEA Regulations 2016 enjoys a derivative right of residence, even if an appellant has not yet made an initial (or renewed) application for LTR under Appendix FM (or otherwise pursuant to Art 8 ECHR) on the basis of the relationship with the British citizen child.

SSHD updated their Derivative Residence Card Guidance to mirror the flawed and outdated legal position of Court of Appeal in Patel v SSHD [2017] EWCA Civ 2028 (13 December 2017), notwithstanding Supreme Court in Patel v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2019] UKSC 59 (16 December 2019). The guidance continues to define a derivative right to reside as a right of last resort.

SC overturned the CA’s ruling, and thus invalidated the SSHD’s position. The test developed by SC asks what would happen if Zambrano carers were compelled to leave the EU, rather than whether they would be so compelled. SC indirectly protects the TCN’s right to reside by explicitly safeguarding the Union citizen’s Art. 20 TFEU rights against interference:

"Any rights conferred on third-country nationals are not autonomous rights of those nationals but rights derived from those enjoyed by a Union citizen. The purpose and justification of those derived rights are based on the fact that a refusal to allow them would be such as to interfere, in particular, with a Union citizen’s freedom of movement (Chavez-Vilchez,para 62 and the case law cited)."

Furthermore, “Article 20 TFEU precludes national measures, including decisions...which have the effect of depriving Union citizens of the genuine enjoyment of the substance of the rights conferred by virtue of their status.”

The SSHD’s legal position is untenable. By breaching Art. 20 TFEU, SSHD breaches the appellant’s rights under the EU Treaties, in respect of residence in the United Kingdom.

[lolwe]

Hi Lolwe,

I am stuck here, can you please help me explain


EEA Decision

6. If you believe that the Home Office decision is restricting your rights under the EEA right to free movement please explain below why.
If you believe the decision on your EU Settlement Scheme application was not in accordance with the settlement scheme rules please explain why.
If your leave has been cancelled or revoked or you are being deported and you believe the decision was not in accordance with the rules please explain why.
If you believe the decision breaches the withdrawal agreement, EFTA separation agreement or Swiss citizens' rights agreement please explain why.

1.) Not all Zambrano carers receive the letter you received. The Home Office should treat everyone fairly. It doesn't make sense for some Zambrano carers to be refused for not applying for LTR under Appendix FM, but others are not asked to apply under Appendix FM.
2.) The Court of Appeal ruled the Zambrano right was a right of last resort in December 2017. Supreme Court overturned that ruling in December 2019 in Patel, Shah.
3.) Judge Neville of the First Tier Tribunal and Judge Grubb of the Upper Tribunal (Mohamed v SSHD) both agree with the Supreme Court decided the Zambrano right is NOT a right of last resort.

[lolwe]

Do you have Judge Grubb decision?

https://tribunalsdecisions.service.gov. ... 04149-2019

EA/04149/2019

Judge Lever of the First Tier Tribunal agreed with the Court of Appeal ruling. Judge Grubb of the UT disagreed.


In my judgment, Judge Lever materially erred in law by failing to apply the approach of the Supreme Court in Patel and Shah and, in doing so, failed to make appropriate findings as to whether or not the appellant had the required "relationship of dependency" which would, in fact, lead to his daughter being compelled to leave the UK either with, or without, his ex-partner. Of course, Judge Lever did not have the advantage of the Supreme Court's decision in Patel and Shah which post-dated his decision. He, perhaps not unnaturally, applied the terms of reg 16(5) to which his attention was directed. Nevertheless, the declaratory effect of the Supreme Court's decision is that, in retrospect, it is clear that he fell into error. For this reason, his decision cannot stand and I set it aside.

There is one further point on the ground relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Patel and Shah. The grounds are also critical of Judge Lever's adoption of the Court of Appeal's comment (at [78]) that a derivative right is a right of last resort. Although the Supreme Court did not specifically refer to the Court of Appeal's comment that a derivative right of residence is a right of last resort which would only apply if a person has no other means to remain lawfully in the UK, I see no basis for such a limitation in principle. The fact that a person may be able to establish an alternative basis for remaining in the UK does not detract from, if it is established, his EU right of residence derived from the effect of his British citizen child being unable to remain in the UK. Of course, if the individual, in fact, has a right to remain in the UK (say under the Immigration Rules) then the derivative right based upon him leaving the UK and that his British citizen child will be compelled to leave with him would fall away.

Thanks a lot. I have advanced arguments on Patel, Zeldu before and the Tribunal have accepted.

However, no case on the settlement scheme yet.

The decision of the FTT is important but not binding, so one cannot use it as authority.

The Upper Tribunal's decision of Grubbs is good, but not reported either.

But they are consistent with the points advanced.

The Home Office position is unsustainable. They want a message to go out, that Zambrano is tough and people do not succeed, so potential applicants are discouraged from applying.

I think they will fail, but success will require perseverance, people cannot chicken out based on the letter they receive.

I find it hard to understand that Home Office will implement a law that they want no one to qualify under. So absurd.

You're welcome, Obie.

Miss Suz needs help with her EUSS challenge. I provided a draft of the 2000 words to get her started.

I agree that Judge Grubbs and Neville's decisions are not binding.

I believe the Home Office are aware their refusal letter is inconsistent with the Supreme Court ruling and therefore unlawful. They just hope Zambrano carers don't apply to the First Tier Tribunal at all or in time.

[lolwe]

Hi Lolwe,

I am stuck here, can you please help me explain

Hi Miss Suz,

You want to take a few days with this part of your application. Create a draft response and ask Obie and the moderators for their feedback until they agree that it is ready for submission.

Obie is well versed in the Supreme Court ruling. The heart of your argument is that the Supreme Court says Zambrano is not a right of last resort. Therefore, the refusal letter is invalid.

Anyway, the judge who looks at your case will probably have seen your type of refusal letter before and will already have formed an opinion as to whether or not it is lawful.

[Miss-Suz]

Hi Lolwe,

I am stuck here, can you please help me explain

Hi Miss Suz,

You want to take a few days with this part of your application. Create a draft response and ask Obie and the moderators for their feedback until they agree that it is ready for submission.

Obie is well versed in the Supreme Court ruling. The heart of your argument is that the Supreme Court says Zambrano is not a right of last resort. Therefore, the refusal letter is invalid.

Anyway, the judge who looks at your case will probably have seen your type of refusal letter before and will already have formed an opinion as to whether or not it is lawful.

Ok, thank you Lolwe

[Miss-Suz]

Hi Lolwe,

I am stuck here, can you please help me explain


EEA Decision

6. If you believe that the Home Office decision is restricting your rights under the EEA right to free movement please explain below why.
If you believe the decision on your EU Settlement Scheme application was not in accordance with the settlement scheme rules please explain why.
If your leave has been cancelled or revoked or you are being deported and you believe the decision was not in accordance with the rules please explain why.
If you believe the decision breaches the withdrawal agreement, EFTA separation agreement or Swiss citizens' rights agreement please explain why.

1.) Not all Zambrano carers receive the letter you received. The Home Office should treat everyone fairly. It doesn't make sense for some Zambrano carers to be refused for not applying for LTR under Appendix FM, but others are not asked to apply under Appendix FM.
2.) The Court of Appeal ruled the Zambrano right was a right of last resort in December 2017. Supreme Court overturned that ruling in December 2019 in Patel, Shah.
3.) Judge Neville of the First Tier Tribunal and Judge Grubb of the Upper Tribunal (Mohamed v SSHD) both agree with the Supreme Court decided the Zambrano right is NOT a right of last resort.

I appreciate many many thanks Lolwe

[Miss-Suz]

EEA Decision

6. If you believe that the Home Office decision is restricting your rights under the EEA right to free movement please explain below why. If you believe the decision on your EU Settlement Scheme application was not in accordance with the settlement scheme rules please explain why.

Draft 4 - less than 2000 characters

SSHD refuse a majority of applications by Zambrano carers for (pre)settled status under Appendix EU. A person who fulfils the requirements of Reg 16 of the Immigration EEA Regulations 2016 enjoys a derivative right of residence, even if an appellant has not yet made an initial (or renewed) application for LTR under Appendix FM (or otherwise pursuant to Art 8 ECHR) on the basis of the relationship with the British citizen child.

SSHD updated their Derivative Residence Card Guidance to mirror the flawed and outdated legal position of Court of Appeal in Patel v SSHD [2017] EWCA Civ 2028 (13 December 2017), notwithstanding Supreme Court in Patel v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2019] UKSC 59 (16 December 2019). The guidance continues to define a derivative right to reside as a right of last resort.

SC overturned the CA’s ruling, and thus invalidated the SSHD’s position. The test developed by SC asks what would happen if Zambrano carers were compelled to leave the EU, rather than whether they would be so compelled. SC indirectly protects the TCN’s right to reside by explicitly safeguarding the Union citizen’s Art. 20 TFEU rights against interference:

"Any rights conferred on third-country nationals are not autonomous rights of those nationals but rights derived from those enjoyed by a Union citizen. The purpose and justification of those derived rights are based on the fact that a refusal to allow them would be such as to interfere, in particular, with a Union citizen’s freedom of movement (Chavez-Vilchez,para 62 and the case law cited)."

Furthermore, “Article 20 TFEU precludes national measures, including decisions...which have the effect of depriving Union citizens of the genuine enjoyment of the substance of the rights conferred by virtue of their status.”

The SSHD’s legal position is untenable. By breaching Art. 20 TFEU, SSHD breaches the appellant’s rights under the EU Treaties, in respect of residence in the United Kingdom.

Ooh thanks for this

[lolwe]

6. If you believe that the Home Office decision is restricting your rights under the EEA right to free movement please explain below why. If you believe the decision on your EU Settlement Scheme application was not in accordance with the settlement scheme rules please explain why.

Draft 5 - less than 2000 characters

I am the sole carer of a British citizen child born DD MM YYYY. My daughter and I have a relationship of dependency which would, in fact, compel my daughter to leave the UK with her mother if I were to leave the UK. The Home Office refused my application for settlement on DD MM YYYY. The basis for refusal is that I have not applied for leave to remain under Appendix FM.

The Secretary of State reasoned that a derivative right to reside is a right of last resort which only applies if a person has no other means to remain lawfully in the UK. In doing so, she sought to gain assistance from the Court of Appeal judgment in Patel v SSHD [2017] EWCA Civ 2028). The SSHD, backed by the Court of Appeal's judgements in Patel and Shah, argued that a derivative right of residence is a right of last resort which would only apply if a person has no other means to remain lawfully in the UK.

The declaratory effect of the Supreme Court's decision is such that, the fact that I may be able to establish an alternative basis for remaining in the UK does not detract from my EU right of residence derived from the effect of my British citizen child being unable to remain in the UK. The SSHD's policy that a Zambrano carer must first make an unsuccessful fee-paid human rights application before an application under the 2016 Regulations can be submitted is unlawful. Per Judge Neville, the SSHD's guidance contains legal principles which are ‘unsupported by, and in some cases completely at odds with, previous authority.’

References

• Patel, Shah v SSHD (2017, 2019)

• Judge Neville (2020)

• Judge Grubb (2020)

[Miss-Suz]

6. If you believe that the Home Office decision is restricting your rights under the EEA right to free movement please explain below why. If you believe the decision on your EU Settlement Scheme application was not in accordance with the settlement scheme rules please explain why.

Draft 5 - less than 2000 characters

I am the sole carer of a British citizen child born DD MM YYYY. My daughter and I have a relationship of dependency which would, in fact, compel my daughter to leave the UK with her mother if I were to leave the UK. The Home Office refused my application for settlement on DD MM YYYY. The basis for refusal is that I have not applied for leave to remain under Appendix FM.

The Secretary of State reasoned that a derivative right to reside is a right of last resort which only applies if a person has no other means to remain lawfully in the UK. In doing so, she sought to gain assistance from the Court of Appeal judgment in Patel v SSHD [2017] EWCA Civ 2028). The SSHD, backed by the Court of Appeal's judgements in Patel and Shah, argued that a derivative right of residence is a right of last resort which would only apply if a person has no other means to remain lawfully in the UK.

The declaratory effect of the Supreme Court's decision is such that, the fact that I may be able to establish an alternative basis for remaining in the UK does not detract from my EU right of residence derived from the effect of my British citizen child being unable to remain in the UK. The SSHD's policy that a Zambrano carer must first make an unsuccessful fee-paid human rights application before an application under the 2016 Regulations can be submitted is unlawful. Per Judge Neville, the SSHD's guidance contains legal principles which are ‘unsupported by, and in some cases completely at odds with, previous authority.’

References

• Patel, Shah v SSHD (2017, 2019)

• Judge Neville (2020)

• Judge Grubb (2020)

Perfect

[Miss-Suz]

Hi Lolwe,
Thank yo so much for your help on this which is saving me thousands of pounds if I have to rely on a solicitor.
I have put draft 4 and draft 5 onto my explanation. What do you think?

[lolwe]

Hi Lolwe,
Thank yo so much for your help on this which is saving me thousands of pounds if I have to rely on a solicitor.
I have put draft 4 and draft 5 onto my explanation. What do you think?

Hi Miss Suz,

You are welcome. I wish more Zambrano carers had your courage!

I thought you were limited to 2000 characters in your explanation? I think you will have to choose a draft.

How many days do you have left to submit your challenge to the SSHD's refusal?

Draft 6 - less than 2000 characters

I am the sole carer of a British citizen child born DD MM YYYY. My daughter and I have a relationship of dependency which would, in fact, compel my daughter to leave the UK with her mother if I were to leave the UK. The Home Office refused my application for settlement on DD MM YYYY. The basis for refusal is that I have not applied for leave to remain under Appendix FM.

The Secretary of State reasons that a derivative right to reside is a right of last resort which only applies if a person has no other means to remain lawfully in the UK. The SSHD's argument relies on the Court of Appeal judgment in Patel v SSHD [2017] EWCA Civ 2028).

The declaratory effect of the Supreme Court's decision is that the Zambrano right is not a right of last resort. Per UT Judge Grubb in Mohamed v SSHD (July 2020), "Although the Supreme Court did not specifically refer to the Court of Appeal's comment that a derivative right of residence is a right of last resort which would only apply if a person has no other means to remain lawfully in the UK, I see no basis for such a limitation in principle." FTT Judge Neville's 2020 ruling goes further to say the SSHD's guidance contains legal principles which are ‘unsupported by, and in some cases completely at odds with, previous authority.’ The SSHD's policy that a Zambrano carer must first make an unsuccessful fee-paid human rights application before an application under the 2016 Regulations can be submitted is unlawful. The SSHD's refusal of my EUSS application for settlement should be remade.

References

Patel, Shah v SSHD (2017, 2019)

Judge Neville (2020)

Judge Grubb (2020)

* I am not sure if the word "remade" is correct.

[Miss-Suz]

Hi Lolwe,
Thank yo so much for your help on this which is saving me thousands of pounds if I have to rely on a solicitor.
I have put draft 4 and draft 5 onto my explanation. What do you think?

Hi Miss Suz,

You are welcome. I wish more Zambrano carers had your courage!

I thought you were limited to 2000 characters in your explanation? I think you will have to choose a draft.

How many days do you have left to submit your challenge to the SSHD's refusal?

Draft 6 - less than 2000 characters

I am the sole carer of a British citizen child born DD MM YYYY. My daughter and I have a relationship of dependency which would, in fact, compel my daughter to leave the UK with her mother if I were to leave the UK. The Home Office refused my application for settlement on DD MM YYYY. The basis for refusal is that I have not applied for leave to remain under Appendix FM.

The Secretary of State reasons that a derivative right to reside is a right of last resort which only applies if a person has no other means to remain lawfully in the UK. The SSHD's argument relies on the Court of Appeal judgment in Patel v SSHD [2017] EWCA Civ 2028).

The declaratory effect of the Supreme Court's decision is that the Zambrano right is not a right of last resort. Per UT Judge Grubb in Mohamed v SSHD (July 2020), "Although the Supreme Court did not specifically refer to the Court of Appeal's comment that a derivative right of residence is a right of last resort which would only apply if a person has no other means to remain lawfully in the UK, I see no basis for such a limitation in principle." FTT Judge Neville's 2020 ruling goes further to say the SSHD's guidance contains legal principles which are ‘unsupported by, and in some cases completely at odds with, previous authority.’ The SSHD's policy that a Zambrano carer must first make an unsuccessful fee-paid human rights application before an application under the 2016 Regulations can be submitted is unlawful. The SSHD's refusal of my EUSS application for settlement should be remade.

References

Patel, Shah v SSHD (2017, 2019)

Judge Neville (2020)

Judge Grubb (2020)

* I am not sure if the word "remade" is correct.

Oh I see, I’ll choose the last one then.
I’ve got 7days from today