Awww Snooky!snooky wrote: ↑Sat Jan 29, 2022 9:34 amHello Board
I am well and kicking and following all the postings here, though I haven't contributed for a while.
Let us thank God and the Judges' for upholding the dignity of the oppressed through the law. Though not all questions where answered and still there are lot of legal shenanigans that are still embedded within the SSHD's guidelines, one thing you should know is that the warning by the courts tells HO that, Alvin vs SSHD is still paramount in all government departments when policies are been considered.
It is clear here that EEA Regulation 16(7-7A) doesn't exclude anyone who is termed as PSIC under domestic immigration policy :- "A person ‘subject to immigration control’, as defined at section 115 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999."
So since these few days, HO has started sending lots of biometric registration letters to applicants in the category termed 2.5 LTR under Appendix fm to now go for their registration so that their cases could continue.
But don't be fooled members, HO still has their eligibility and public health policy and suitability still running. The courts are still going to be revisited for unfair decisions.
Don't rest because the judges didn't say that HO misinterpreted the eea regulations wrongly but rather Appendix EU Zambrano DR guidances were
ill-prepared to exclude people who had had 2.5 LTR as Partners/or with LTR and now having British children.
HO hasn't changed and will never change. For how long the rules could be rewritten is another problem of its own.
Just tell people you know within who falls with these category to apply as zambrano DR EUSS is still alive and many will benefit no matter what comes.
I saw these long time and most people took advantage and had either their pre/settled status from it.
Keep fighting and all shall be well.
Thanks for all your sweet comments and your love for me too. I appreciate a lot. Divide we fall, united we become strong.
CHRONOLOGICAL UP TO TODAY
Let us first appreciate Judge Neville for his first strick then Judge Mostyn for their had work.
On 30 January 2020 and having heard a number of test cases, Judge Neville of the First-tier Tribunal (IAC) at Taylor House ruled that a person meeting the requirements Regulation 16 of the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2016 (‘the 2016 Regulations’) has a derivative right of residence notwithstanding that he or she has not yet made an application under the Immigration Rules and pursuant to Article 8 ECHR.
The upshot is that the novel concept set out in Home Office 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.
Appeal by the SSHD against the order of Mostyn J of 09 June 2021 by which he declared that:
The SSHD erred in law when providing, in Annex 1 to Appendix EU to the Statement of Changes to the Immigration Rules HC 395 as amended, that the definition of a person with a Zambrano right to reside includes paragraph (b) a person without leave to enter or remain in the UK unless this was granted under this Appendix.
Akinsanya judgment in Court of Appeal: Home Secretary must re-think EUSS rules for Zambrano carers 25/1/2022
Good luck
Well said! Thanks a million
