HELP needed urgently on surinder singh route

[wiggsy]

We have been together over 5 years and have 2 british children. We have paid a fortune having 2 years brazil bills translated to prove this. This surely is what they are asking, or have I got something wrong ?

The two years are more flexible if you have children... (and can therefore show a true relationship). Despite not being married, your partner has a right to join the CHILDREN as EU citizens to holland ETC.

Can you clarify why you left in such an hastily way? did you apply for leave to remain and get refused or? note: if you were already on the family migration route then the financial threshold didnt apply to you (from what I gather). it was only applications post july '12.

Did you approach all avenues first or go for Singh... My wife has been here for years without "leave to remain" and nothing has happened to her yet.

Did you consider Zambrano ETC? Have a look at [24] of this judgment from the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal Bassey - [2011] NICA 67 - whilst Chen based, Zambrano relied heavily on Chen.

I've got a few useful links for Zambrano here. You could well try and apply for an EEA FP on the basis of Zambrano should it Singh fail. (which it hopefully shouldn't)

[wiggsy]

Singh doesn't mean being treated as EEA national for all aspects of the Free movement directive. It allows you under certain conditions to be regarded as such for certain elements of the directive. What you quoted refers to family members of (non UK) EEA nationals.

The UK view Singh in a very narrow way. To use this route, your circumstances need to be similar to Singh (i.e. only employment is accepted as treaty rights. Only married couples). See the legislation in Regulation 9. You can challenge this view in the courts but that more time and money.

There are a fair few Singh cases on the BritCits websites where people have had their family members with them and got a FamilyPermit ETC... so...

[AngelaV]

I heard this afternoon that Nigel received an e-mail from the Home Office to inform him that durable partners are not covered by surinder singh as they are classed as extended family,regulation 8, who don't have an automatic right to live in the UK.

There is someone who is going to seek legal advice as there are other couples who have been granted residency under surinder singh and another who was recently told at border control that it is acceptable.

I will let you know of any developments.

[putlibai]

I know the conversation on this thread happened some time ago, but this may help anyone still acing these problems. The existing Regs do not help unmarried partners or other extended family members of British returning workers, nor does Surinder Singh apply directly. However, there is a very recent case where a High Court judge has said the surrender singh principles apply to extended family members and allowed an appeal (for an unmerited partner) on that basis. I don't know if this forum will allow me to post a URL, I will try in a moment in a second post, but in case it doesn't allow it, search for "Kamila Santos Campelo Cain v Secretary of State for the Home Department" and look for the uk-immigraiton-blog link. Good luck. Pxx

[putlibai]

ok, as i promised i would try to post the URL linking with the um-immigration-blog "dot com" which has the new surrender singh case: it is Kamila Santos Campelo Cain v Secretary of State for the Home Department at http://uk-immigration-blog.com/category/surinder-singh/. There is also different reference to the same case here: http://www.ibarristerschambers.com/clie ... dence-card

I hope I have not broken any of the forum rules by posting the URLs- but the case has not been reported yet and these are the only online references at the moment

Px

[dalebutt]

Crikey! Serves them right, foolishly stubborn.

[tebee]

Just as a matter of interest is the Kamila Santos Campelo Cain v Secretary of State case about Nigel ( the original poster) and his wife ? The dates, children and nationalities seem to fit.

If so it's good he had the guts and stamina to stand by his principals and do this he hard way, so establishing a good precedence for others.

I too fail to see the logic in the British government fighting tooth and nail over these things, wasting taxpayers money and making life hard for British citizens - it seems such a lot of effort for so few people.

[dalebutt]

UKBA might like to think their staffs are clever, in fact only a handful of them are, ignorance is a bliss, how can one be foolishly stubborn to the point of setting a new precedent, when the government's goal is to reduce migration to the tens of thousands, that's about as sensible as an alcoholic strolling down the street of Saudi waving a bottle of vodka around their head. As I said foolish department.