Retained rights application refused becoz of ex's ID

[MD Islam]

NO they didnt give me right of appeal and Thanks to everyone but i hope i wont come to this stage and will get my ROR .will let you know with any updates

Hi Pola
Sorry one more thing, what changes did u make this time? like original ID or more explanation anything else. someone told me i need to show my effort like i tried to get the ID like screen shoots or phn calls but these stuff u have already done. can plz share

[pola 23]

I didn't send Ex ID bcoz i dnt have it and sent email or Facebook conversation history, dont have whatsapp or SMS conversation bcoz my Ex got new number.i had original Blue Registartion Card so sent it with other documents.hopefully this time it will work.

[Obie]

The difficulties in your case which home office always use, is that if you have her registration certificate and other documents, why not her ID card or passport.

[MD Islam]

The difficulties in your case which home office always use, is that if you have her registration certificate and other documents, why not her ID card or passport.

Obie
I dont have her regi certificate. I just have some pay slips which she gave me for the sake of relationship. when i asked for ID she doesnt want to give it as she wants to travel and obviously she does not want to keep it with some she hates. the only think i may get a certified copy . will it be ok or i just should appeal.
And also as u said next time even if i dont have appeal right i can still appeal to lower court??

[Richard W]

You do not have leave to remain but a residence card under EU law in the UK, therefore the option of switching is not available.

That advice is several years out of date. The current relevant rule (Immigration Rules as updated 2 January 2018) is

The applicant must not be in the UK –... in breach of immigration laws (except that, where paragraph 39E of these Rules applies, any current period of overstaying will be disregarded), unless paragraph EX.1. applies.

The Immigration rules state that “In breach of immigration laws” means without valid leave where such leave is required, or in breach of the conditions of leave.

Of course, it is still necessary to demonstrate that EU law or the EEA Regulations relieve the OP of the need to have valid leave to remain. Thus attempts to switch are liable to fail when the Home Office does not accept that the applicant has an EEA right to reside. Switching in the UK only makes sense if the right under the EEA rules is likely soon to be lost, e.g. if the OP was likely to become unemployed. If the right to reside has been lost, there is usually no right to switch while still in the UK.

[Obie]

Was referring to Pola

[pola 23]

I already had Registation Card but you can understand that after divorce is very less chance that someone will provide you original ID or passport.Well I don't understand why HO keep rejecting application on this ID reason

[pola 23]

You do not have leave to remain but a residence card under EU law in the UK, therefore the option of switching is not available.

That advice is several years out of date. The current relevant rule (Immigration Rules as updated 2 January 2018) is

The applicant must not be in the UK –... in breach of immigration laws (except that, where paragraph 39E of these Rules applies, any current period of overstaying will be disregarded), unless paragraph EX.1. applies.

The Immigration rules state that “In breach of immigration laws” means without valid leave where such leave is required, or in breach of the conditions of leave.

Of course, it is still necessary to demonstrate that EU law or the EEA Regulations relieve the OP of the need to have valid leave to remain. Thus attempts to switch are liable to fail when the Home Office does not accept that the applicant has an EEA right to reside. Switching in the UK only makes sense if the right under the EEA rules is likely soon to be lost, e.g. if the OP was likely to become unemployed. If the right to reside has been lost, there is usually no right to switch while still in the UK.

Thanks for your reply. Can you please explain in simple terms what Laws have changed in January 2018 it's difficult to understand the above.

Thanks for your help in advance.

[Richard W]

Thanks for your reply. Can you please explain in simple terms what Laws have changed in January 2018 it's difficult to understand the above.

I don't believe this rule has changed at all this year - unless not being present as a visitor (as opposed to not having leave as a visitor) is new.

The point is that there was a time when to apply for leave to remain as a partner one had to already have leave to be present in the UK. This was then changed to not being present in breach of the immigration rules. The beneficiaries of that change that I am aware of are some who enter the UK from another part of the 'common Travel Area', typically from the Republic of Ireland, and those who have an EEA right of residence.

[Obie]

Apart from the fact that you are wrong , and there is clear evidence on this forum from EEA national who naturalized as British and their family members who were subsequently refused when they applied for FLR(M), the fact remains that OP will be in breach of immigration law if the source of the right to the residence card cease to exist.

A residence card is not an immigration status, it is not leave to enter or remain. It merely confirms the status of the holder at the time when it was issued.

Therefore a residence card holder could be in Breach of immigration law, when they cease from having directly enforceable rights once they cease from.being a family member and has no leave to enter or remain.

Residence Card is issued under the freemovement provision, and not a leave. A person must have leave which was issued for a period of over 6 months inorder to be able to meet the immigration status requirement.

Since the 9th July 2012 I and my fellow moderators and other contributors have sought to explain this to you, but unfortunately it is not getting through. We can only do our best.

[Richard W]

Apart from the fact that you are wrong ,

That is an assertion, not a fact.

... and there is clear evidence on this forum from EEA national who naturalized as British and their family members who were subsequently refused when they applied for FLR(M),

Once the sponsor had naturalised, the family members no longer had a right of residence as family members that derived from either Directive 2004/38/EC or from the EEA Regulations. (None of the instances seemed to be cases where the McCarthy transition arrangement applied.) The Home Office therefore did not believe that they had any right of residence and were therefore in breach of the immigration rules. (We now know by the Lounes judgement that they did have such a right.) Nowhere have I claimed that such people qualified for leave to remain other than by the human rights exceptions.

... the fact remains that OP will be in breach of immigration law if the source of the right to the residence card cease to exist.

Moreover, switching to UK rules (strictly speaking, briefly following both) will rarely make sense. Who we have not heard from is people who tried to switch from so-far successful Surinder Singh to FLR(M) to avoid the tightening EEA Regulations without leaving the country.

A person must have leave which was issued for a period of over 6 months inorder to be able to meet the immigration status requirement.

How do you deduce that? Are you sure you are not relying on an obsolete interpretation? What is true is that, with important specific exceptions, any leave held must have been granted for more than 6 months.

Since the 9th July 2012 I and my fellow moderators and other contributors have sought to explain this to you, but unfortunately it is not getting through. We can only do our best.

Indeed, it can be very trying to try to persuade someone that things are not as they are, which is what you seem to have been doing. The only attempt at explanation that I remember was by Vinny - only for him to find that his explanation no longer held, for the immigration rule had changed from the form he quoted. Examples have been cited, but in each case the right of residence appears to have already been lost when the application for FLR(M) was made.

Perhaps you could explain how someone who has only a retained right of residence is "in breach of the immigration laws", as Immigration Rule E-LTRP.2.2 puts it. In the Immigration Rules,

“in breach of immigration laws” means without valid leave where such leave is required, or in breach of the conditions of leave.

I have previously made the mistake of thinking that "settled" had the same meaning as in acts of Parliament, so perhaps there is some such subtlety here that I have missed. Surely a mere holder of a retained right of residence is not "on temporary admission or temporary release"!

[pola 23]

hi.tnxs for your time But I have a question .i applied my ROR on 11/10/17 so rang my lawyer this morning and they said they haven't got any post from HO but few ppl who applied after me received documents from HO and now I'm getting worried.
Any advice on this pls..

[jay.ho]

Hi pola I apply in 15 Dec and still I didn't receive biometric yet I am waiting for biometric anyone else apply in mid of Dec and apply for biometric
Please share


Jay

[pola 23]

Hi jay.i read your posts and I think you applied ROR in August and now you applied for PR but my situation is different . I applied in october for ROr and I read few post where ppl already got ROR from Oct.tnxs

[jay.ho]

I apply for PR before as well but it was refuse because i didn't provide the id .....

Now I made application on 15 Dec but I didn't got my biometric yet just want to know if anyone apply on mid of Dec and still waiting for biometric

Regards

Jay

[jay.ho]

Normally now a days it's take 3-4 months but if apply online with joint application it's take quicker ... you have to wait 1 month more I think

Hope it's may help

[pola 23]

Hi.yes last time for me it took 3 n half months but this time is almost 3 months now.im just worried bcoz one guy who applied after me on 06/10/2017 got his documents back from HO.hopefully this month.tnxs

[dihahs]

Hello Everyone

I have applied ROR in November 2017 without Ex ID

now i got ID from ex should i send to home office? or wait for decesion.

Thanks everyone

[Japanpiya]

Hello guys
One time they rejected my ror same reasons.i applied again last November again.I don't think they will give good news for me. Some body won same like this case from appeal?
If I certify by notary my ex I'd photocopy is this valid?
Please help me

[pola 23]

Hello Everyone

I have applied ROR in November 2017 without Ex ID

now i got ID from ex should i send to home office? or wait for decesion.

Thanks everyone

Hi.i think you should send your ex id.tnxs

[pola 23]

Hello guys
One time they rejected my ror same reasons.i applied again last November again.I don't think they will give good news for me. Some body won same like this case from appeal?
If I certify by notary my ex I'd photocopy is this valid?
Please help me

Hi.second time what documents you sent ??did you show them any effort that you tried to get ur ex id?

[Japanpiya]

Hi
I send same document.but my lawyer he wrote covering letter about reason why i can't collect ex I'd.c
What do you think notary certified photo copy?

[pola 23]

Hi
I send same document.but my lawyer he wrote covering letter about reason why i can't collect ex I'd.c
What do you think notary certified photo copy?

Hi.yes it may help bcoz someone did the same and HO granted his application.

[dihahs]

Thanks pola23


did anyone send any documents after application and home office received them??

Thanks

[dihahs]

Obie and other memebers please suggest me.

Thank you