Zambrano Settled Status EU settlement scheme Paper Application Form - NEW

[marcidevpal]

The first step is to write down all the ways the delay affects you, personally.

Options

1. Ombudsman route (PHSO)
a.) fill out form
b.) send to local mp
c.) mp sends form to PHSO

2. Legal route
a.) write a pre-action protocol letter and send to pre-action protocol team at the home office
b.) wait at least 14 days
c.) file for judicial review(JR)
d.) if JR fails, file a complaint with the European Court of Human Rights

Pre-action protocol letter to say unless a decision is made within X days, you will proceed to judicial review.

They may make a decision after they receive a pre-action protocol letter or the PHSO begins an investigation.

[marcidevpal]

Directive 2003/109/EC: An analogy

Scenario 1
Imagine you live in a town in which your town, Londontown, and the next two towns over lack an elementary school. One day, all three the local authorities form a coalition or partnership. They agree to build the school. At the school opening, the coalition says,

Under the 2003 Schools Proclamation, we declare this school is everyone- expect for people who live in Londontown.

So, children from the neighbouring towns can attend the school, but not children from your town. Your neighbour, who has a child, is unable to send her child to the school because she lives in an excluded town. So, your neighbour takes the coalition to court.

Your neighbour argues that under the Doctrine of Fair Play, her child should be able to go to the elementary school. The judge agrees with your neighbour and her child is able to go to school.


Scenario 2

Now, imagine Londontown and the other towns nearby are also without a hospital. One day, the coalition agrees to build the hospital. At the opening, they say,

Under the 2004 Hospital Proclamation, we declare this hospital to only be for people who earn more than 100,000 GBP per year.

No one in Londontown or the other two towns who earns less than 100,000 GBP can go to the hospital. You decide to take the coalition to court. You argue that under the Doctrine of Fair Play, you should be able to go to the hospital. The judge agrees with you and everyone earning less than 100,000 GBP per year is now allowed to go to that hospital.


Explanation

Doctrine of Fair Play = Article 20 TFEU
2003 Schools Proclamation = 2003 Directive
2004 Hospitals Proclamation = 2004 Directive

Scenario 1 is the situation with the 2003 Directive. Scenario 2 is the situation with the 2004 Directive. The Doctrine of Fair Play

Both Directives exclude UK Zambrano carers of British children (and also in Ireland and Denmark).

The person in Scenario 2 is Ruis Zambrano. The person in Scenario 1 does not exist. No one from the UK or Ireland or Denmark raised the issue before the EU court.

Again, the 2004 Directive was challenged by Ruis Zambrano. That case applies to all Zambrano carers. The 2003 Directive was never challenged. But that does not mean the 2003 Directive is correct.

A big problem is

• No one has challenged the 2003 Directive, and

• No one has challenged the Withdrawal Agreement (which relies on the 2004 Directive)

Zambrano carers (of British children who remain in the UK) are entitled to permanent residence - eventhough they are not part of the 2003 Directive. They are not temporary residents.

To say that this group are not eligible due to not being part of the 2003 Directive is to miss the bigger picture. The overriding principle is Article 20 of the Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).

The September 2022 case by the Grand Chamber makes this argument quite clear. If you read the ruling, there are constant references to Article 20 of the TFEU.

My thoughts

When the UK refused to give Ms Akinsaya permanent residence after a reasonable amount of time, say five years, they violated her rights under Article 20 of the TFEU.

When the EU and UK published a Withdrawal Agreement that excluded UK based Zambrano carers of British children, they violated their rights under Article 20 of the TFEU.

When the Home Office published guidance to ban a particular type of Zambrano carer, they violated Ms Akinsaya's rights under Article 20 of the TFEU.

Article 20 of the TFEU is an extension of Article 8 under the European Convention on Human Rights.

What can be done?

If the UK judges do not grant residence, Ms Akinsaya (or someone similar) may go before the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). Applications have to be filed within 4 months of the final court decision.

Apply to the Court
https://echr.coe.int/Pages/home.aspx?p=applicants&c=

[marcidevpal]

Treaty of Amsterdam/Protocol on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland

This treaty says that any regulations made under the EC Treaty do not apply to the UK. The UK does not have to follow the treaty, but they do have to follow through on their commitments under international human rights laws. You may want to add international laws to your arguments.

The Home Office argues their original intention was to exclude Zambrano carers who had leave to remain under FM or FP as of 31 December 2020. You may want to argue that this intention, original or not, is not lawful under the international human rights laws.

What the treaty says

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Treaty_o ... nd_Ireland

None of the provisions of Title IIIa of the Treaty establishing the European Community, no measure adopted pursuant to that Title, no provision of any international agreement concluded by the Community pursuant to that Title, and no decision of the Court of Justice interpreting any such provision or measure shall be binding upon or applicable in the United Kingdom or Ireland; and no such provision, measure or decision shall in any way affect the competences, rights and obligations of those States; and no such provision, measure or decision shall in any way affect the acquis communautaire nor form part of Community law as they apply to the United Kingdom or Ireland.

Relevant International human rights laws

Article 8 of, and Article 3 of Protocol 4 to, the European Convention of Human Rights (‘the ECHR’) state as follows: (6)

‘Article 8

1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.

2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

Article 9.1 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (5) states:

‘1. States Parties shall ensure that a child shall not be separated from his or her parents against their will, except when competent authorities subject to judicial review determine, in accordance with applicable law and procedures, that such separation is necessary for the best interests of the child. Such determination may be necessary in a particular case such as one involving abuse or neglect of the child by the parents, or one where the parents are living separately and a decision must be made as to the child’s place of residence.’

Article 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (4) provides:

‘1. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his honour and reputation.

2. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.’

[marcidevpal]

At the end of the day, if a Zambrano carer has lived in the UK for a long time and they go to the European Court of Human Rights to challenge the Home Office's refusal, I think they will win.

Can you imagine if Ms Akinsaya went to the ECHR and told them she has lived in the UK since 2012, and that the Home Office still refused her application for permanent residence?

I think she would win. There is a basic level of fairness that is not being met by the Home Office towards a group of people. If the UK judges won't recognise it, she should go to the ECHR.

[marcidevpal]

The EC Treaty (Treaty establishing the European Community)

is not the same thing as the

TFEU (Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union)

UK Zambrano carers are NOT covered by the EC Treaty.

They used to be covered by the TFEU, until Brexit.

Now, they are covered by international human rights laws.

[marcidevpal]

An interesting point about Ruis Zambrano's court case:

Mr Zambrano did not succeed in getting Zambrano carers added to the 2004 Directive
-(also known as the Council Directive 2004/83/EC (the Qualification Directive)).

The UK simply accepted the idea of "Zambrano rights" under EU case law, by virtue of Article 20 of the TFEU.

By the same logic, Zambrano carers did NOT need to be added to the 2003 Directive to benefit from it.

In other words, UK (and Irish) Zambrano carers did not need to go to court to get the UK to join the 2003 Directive (not that that would ever be possible, anyway).

UK (and Irish) Zambrano carers just needed to prove that, under Article 20 TFEU, they were entitled to the same rights as all the other Zambrano carers in the EU.

Put another way, a UK or Irish Zambrano carer could have perhaps gone to the same court as Mr Zambrano and requested to have the same rights.

The arguments they could have used would be similar to the arguments made by the Grand Chamber in September 2022.

Why this matters:
If you can convince the UK judge that such a request would have been successful, then it could become, in theory, relatively straightforward to be granted permanent residence.

[marcidevpal]

Based on my reading, it seems if your situation is like Ms Akinsaya's

(Note: I am not 100% sure about the below points. I am just thinking logically based on published reports.)

1. You can appeal and ask the judge to delay making a decision until Akinsaya has concluded; or

2. You go ahead and the judge could refer the issue to the European Court of Human Rights (not the EU Court because of Brexit), or

3. You go ahead, lose and ask the UK judge to refer the issue to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), or

4. You go ahead, lose and ask the judge to refer your claim to the ECtHR, but the UK judge refuses. You apply on your own anyway.

It seems that the UK SSHD / Home Office does not like to fight cases before the ECtHR.

They often settle the case.

So, you could make a claim to the ECtHR and the Home Office quietly decides to give you permanent residence under the EU Settlement scheme.

They may quietly offer Akinsaya permanent residence, too, in which case, you would probably have to go through the court process.

[marcidevpal]

International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (New York, 16 December 1966)

In an earlier post, I suggested the right to residence is based on the ECHR. Some have argued that, with the exception of the right to education, the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) does not protect economic and social rights. So, the judge may or may not agree with that point. There is another point you could make.

If you look at the language of the 2003 Directive aka the Long Term Residence Directive (LTRD), you will see that it seeks to promote

economic and social cohesion, as a fundamental objective of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) among third party nationals.

The EU may have created the 2003 Long Term Residence Directive to comply with the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (New York, 16 December 1966).

I am aware the UK does not have to follow the 2003 Directive.

But the UK, however, also appears to be a signatory to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (New York, 16 December 1966). You can see the United Kingdom's name listed on the treaty. It's all publicly available.

https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetai ... _en#EndDec

What the treaty says:

https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-me ... ral-rights

Also see summary below

Considering that, in accordance with the principles proclaimed in the Charter of the United Nations, recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

Recognizing that these rights derive from the inherent dignity of the human person,

Recognizing that, in accordance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the ideal of free human beings enjoying freedom from fear and want can only be achieved if conditions are created whereby everyone may enjoy his economic, social and cultural rights, as well as his civil and political rights,

Considering the obligation of States under the Charter of the United Nations to promote universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and freedoms,

Realizing that the individual, having duties to other individuals and to the community to which he belongs, is under a responsibility to strive for the promotion and observance of the rights recognized in the present Covenant,

Article 2

1. Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to take steps, individually and through international assistance and co-operation, especially economic and technical, to the maximum of its available resources, with a view to achieving progressively the full realization of the rights recognized in the present Covenant by all appropriate means, including particularly the adoption of legislative measures.

2. The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to guarantee that the rights enunciated in the present Covenant will be exercised without discrimination of any kind as to race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.

Article 4

The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize that, in the enjoyment of those rights provided by the State in conformity with the present Covenant, the State may subject such rights only to such limitations as are determined by law only in so far as this may be compatible with the nature of these rights and solely for the purpose of promoting the general welfare in a democratic society.

Article 10

The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize that:

1. The widest possible protection and assistance should be accorded to the family, which is the natural and fundamental group unit of society, particularly for its establishment and while it is responsible for the care and education of dependent children. Marriage must be entered into with the free consent of the intending spouses.

Conclusion

The integration of third-country nationals, who are long-term residents in the United Kingdom, is a key element in promoting economic and social cohesion, and a fundamental objective of the United Nations International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (New York, 16 December 1966).

[marcidevpal]

COMPLAIN to the United Nations

This page explains the procedures open to individuals who claim that they are a victim of a violation of rights contained in international human rights treaties.

https://www.ohchr.org/en/treaty-bodies/ ... unications

"The complaint mechanisms are designed to be accessible to the layperson. It is not necessary to be a lawyer or even familiar with legal and technical terms to bring a complaint under the treaties concerned."

"Anyone may bring a human rights problem to the attention of the United Nations and thousands of people around the world do so every year."

"It is through individual complaints that human rights are given concrete meaning."

Since the early 1970s, international complaint mechanisms have developed apace, and complainants can now bring claims to the United Nations concerning violations of their rights contained in the nine so-called ‘core’ human rights treaties. The nine treaties concern:

(ii) torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment;
(viii) economic, social and cultural rights;
(ix) rights of the child.

The UN Treaty you could consider filing a complaint about is the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

Essentially, the EU recognises the need to respect the economic, social and cultural rights of third party nationals outlined in the UN Treaty. So, it created the 2003 Long Term Resident Directive.

The UK is a signatory to the same UN Treaty, but does not offer the third country nationals who have resided in the UK for a long term, long term residence.

[marcidevpal]

Updates on options regarding permanent residence (Akinsaya cases)

1. Appeal and ask the judge to delay making a decision until Akinsaya has concluded; or
2. Ask the judge to refer the issue to the European Court of Human Rights under Article 8
3. Apply by yourself to the ECtHR under Article 8
4. Raise a complaint with the United Nations regarding the UK's purported refusal to adhere to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

a.) It seems that the UK SSHD / Home Office does not like to fight cases before the ECtHR. I have come across statistics which suggest they often settle most cases before trial.
b.) You an apply to the UN while you go through the legal process.
c.) The argument you make before the ECtHR under Article 8, is not necessarily exactly the same as the argument you make before the United Nations, with regard to the International Covenant.

[marcidevpal]

I think a key "benefit?" of Brexit, is the ability for UK citizens and migrants to go directly to either the European Court of Human Rights, as opposed to waiting years for the EU.

Just as an FYI, the EU is having problems getting the 2003 Long Term Residence Directive implemented:

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktan ... 022)699469

Briefing 02-02-2022

In 2019, the European Commission found shortcomings both in the EU legal migration framework and in the directive itself. The LTRD is currently under-used, as most Member States continue to issue almost exclusively national long-term residence permits. (National residence permits do not entitle third-country nationals to the right of free movement, nor to the right for them and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States.)

Many third-country nationals who could benefit from the rights of the EU status do not have access to it.
The Commission has received numerous complaints from citizens, and has launched several infringement procedures pursuing legal action against EU Member States.

The European Parliament's November 2021 resolution on legal migration policy and law called on the Commission to amend the LTRD, lowering the period required to apply for long-term residence from five years to three.

The EPC further highlighted that the LTRD could also provide additional rights for UK nationals residing in the EU, who from February 2020 are designated as third-country nationals.

[marcidevpal]

3 Possible ARGUMENTS

Putting it all together....

Ms Akinsaya should be granted permanent residence for three reasons:

1.) The original intention by the Home Office was to give everyone who was legally in the UK on Brexit day permanent settlement, or pre-settlement. Regarding Zambrano carers, the stated intention was to ensure anyone who met the EEA Regulations definition would qualify. Their original intention was not to create more than one category of Zambrano carer; and, to exclude Zambrano carers who had acquired leave to remain after they became a ZC

2.) Ms Akinsaya should have been granted permanent residence after five years residence; and, by 2017, in accordance with Articles 18, 20, 21 and 79 TFEU, Article 8 of, and Article 3 of Protocol 4 to, the European Convention of Human Rights (‘the ECHR’), Articles 21, 24 and 34 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and Article 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to name a few.

3.) Even if the original intention of the Home Office was to exclude applicants like Ms Akinsaya, this requirement is unlawful under international law (see UN International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights). Also see Directive 2003/109/EC (the Long-term Residents Directive, or LTRD for contrast to how the EU incorporates this Treaty.

[Eburnie27]

3 Possible ARGUMENTS

Putting it all together....

Ms Akinsaya should be granted permanent residence for three reasons:

1.) The original intention by the Home Office was to give everyone who was legally in the UK on Brexit day permanent settlement, or pre-settlement. Regarding Zambrano carers, the stated intention was to ensure anyone who met the EEA Regulations definition would qualify. Their original intention was not to create more than one category of Zambrano carer; and, to exclude Zambrano carers who had acquired leave to remain after they became a ZC

2.) Ms Akinsaya should have been granted permanent residence after five years residence; and, by 2017, in accordance with Articles 18, 20, 21 and 79 TFEU, Article 8 of, and Article 3 of Protocol 4 to, the European Convention of Human Rights (‘the ECHR’), Articles 21, 24 and 34 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and Article 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to name a few.

3.) Even if the original intention of the Home Office was to exclude applicants like Ms Akinsaya, this requirement is unlawful under international law (see UN International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights). Also see Directive 2003/109/EC (the Long-term Residents Directive, or LTRD for contrast to how the EU incorporates this Treaty.

I don't even know how to thank you for all this valuable information.
I am preparing my arguments well in time and will make good use of that

[marcidevpal]

You are welcome, EBurnie

There may be grounds to challenge the Home Office before the European Court of Human Rights under Article 8.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... accessible

The Supreme Court in February 2017 in

• MM (Lebanon) & Others v SSHD [2017] UKSC 10 and

• Agyarko & Ikuga v SSHD [2017] UKSC 11.

The Home Office accepts it has a duty under Article 8 to give permanent residence to parents of British children.

They even acknowledge that Akinsaya's situation would be precarious:

A person’s immigration status is precarious if they are in the UK unlawfully - if they require leave to enter or remain in the UK but do not have it. For the purposes of this guidance, a person’s immigration status is also precarious if they are in the UK with limited leave to enter or remain but without settled or permanent status, or if they have obtained leave fraudulently or been notified that they are liable to deportation or removal.

The real question becomes, does Ms Akinsaya meet the requirements of Appendix FM, even though she had a derivative residence card at the time?

If Ms Akinsaya met the requirements under Article 8, the fact that her right to reside was based on a derivative residence card, as opposed to Appendix FP or FM, should not really matter.

Article 8 doesn't say the type of visa you have to be under. You just have to show that over the five years, you met the rules. The rules matter, not the visa.

So, to sum

1.) The Home Office are changing their original stated intention to represent something unlawful
2.) After five years in the UK, a Zambrano carer should get permanent residence under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, regardless of the visa category they were in

More quotes to use in the ECHR part of your arguments

In particular, these rules reflect the qualified nature of Article 8, setting requirements which properly balance the individual right to respect for private or family life with the public interest in safeguarding the economic well-being of the UK by controlling immigration, in protecting the public from foreign criminals and in protecting the rights and freedoms of others.

[marcidevpal]

To summarise again,

1.) The Home Office's original stated policy was not to create two categories of Zambrano carers. It was to give all Zambrano carers as of the Withdrawal Date permanent residence. And, even if separation was their original intent, this policy is unlawful.

2.) Ms Akinsaya should be granted residence under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, to which the United Kingdom is a member.

3.) Ms Akinsaya should be granted permanent residence under the United Nations International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1966), of which the United Kingdom is a signatory.

[marcidevpal]

Article 8 is key because

1.) The UK already accepts it has to give people permanent residence after 5 years under Article 8

2.) The UK outlined the requirements to qualify under Article 8

3.) The only difference between their requirements and Akinsaya's situation (or so it seems), is their insistence on having leave to remain under the UK's rules: Appendix FP or FM (as opposed to the EU's rules). Either option should be valid. Either option should count towards the five years.

4.) You can make your argument pretty straightforward for the judge.

First, you could point out the areas that you and the Home Office agree - the five years, no criminality, etc
Then, you could also point out the area in which you disagree - the need for leave to remain under Appendix FP or FM

Finally, you may want to argue before the judge that

• Article 8 does not require leave under the host country's rules. They just require valid leave; and,

• To require Ms Akinsaya to spend another X years under Appendix FP or FM is irrational, and not in the public's best interest.

It's hilarious how the Article 8 argument was there all this time...

[JB007]

The barristers who argued before the First Tier Tribunal for Zambrano carers to get permanent residence after five years were right according to the EU Grand Chamber, even though they lost.

Forney, this is from the Hackney Law Centre (who brought the Akinsanya case).

Although Ms Akinsanya was successful overall in the Court of Appeal, the Home Office were successful on one ground, regarding their interpretation of EU law. Their interpretation is that a person does not qualify for a Zambrano right to reside if they have another form of leave to remain and this interpretation was found to be correct by the Court of Appeal. In their announcement of 13 June 2022, the Home Office stated that the Appendix EU exclusion of Zambrano carers with other forms of leave from applying to the EU Settlement Scheme is justified, because this exclusion correctly reflects EU law.

https://hclc.org.uk/2022/06/euss-zambra ... june-2022/

[marcidevpal]

The two quotes above are not related:

The 2003 Long Term Residence Directive excluded UK Zambrano carers because the UK opted out. The Directive was based on Article 20 TFEU and the UN International Treaty. UK Zambrano carers were covered by both and so should have qualified for permanent residence.

Parents who apply under the UK rules and then who apply for a derivative residence card, are not considered Zambrano carers.Ms Akinsaya applied for a derivative residence card before she applied for leave to remain under the UK rules.

[marcidevpal]

If the UK's intention is to follow the EEA Regulations, then Ms Akinsaya clearly qualifies for permanent residence.

If the UK's intention is not to follow the EEA Regulations, the UK still must abide by Article 8 of the ECHR and the UN Treaties to which it is a signatory.

The Home Office can't say, we won't rely on the EEA Regulations, and Zambrano carers can only rely on Article 8 if they apply under Appendix FM or Appendix FP.

Remember how, to be a Zambrano carer, you did not have to apply for a card? You could simply exercise that right, as long as you met the requirements.

Article 8 ECHR is the same. The UK outlined it rules for Article 8. You can google the docs. As long as Ms Akinsaya met the tests, she should have been able to claim residence under Article 8.

She became a Zambrano carer in 2012. She should have been granted permanent residence by 2017, provided she fulfilled all the criteria - except for the incorrect requirement to apply under Appendix FM or FP.

Ultimately, this case may come down to whether or not one has to apply under Appendix FM or FP to be recognised under Article 8 ECHR.

[marcidevpal]

Moreover, the September 2022 case makes it clear that the Zambrano right to reside is not a temporary right, as the Home Office likes to argue.

(Yes, I know the hearing is not directly applicable to UK Zambrano carers due to Brexit, but the reasoning in that case by the Grand Chamber is both sound and instructive).

[marcidevpal]

In the UK, Article 8 ECHR applicants who do not meet the minimum income requirement still get permanent residence after 10 years.

Ms Akinsaya should have been granted permanent residence under Article 8 by 2022.

[marcidevpal]

It is clear Ms Akinsaya should have settlement under Article 8 ECHR. The question becomes, should permanent residence be granted under the EU settlement scheme (Appendix EU) or something else?

Perhaps people granted pre-settlement who have been in the UK for longer than five years can challenge the status with an Article 8 ECHR claim....

[marcidevpal]

If you submit an appeal to the First Tier Tribunal, you may want to make it clear you claim raises Article 8 ECHR considerations.

Then, in your submissions, you may want to outline

• how you meet the UK's Article 8 ECHR residence requirements

• how you may not meet the UK's Article 8 ECHR requirements

And, why you should be granted settlement even if you don't meet some of the UK's requirements (such as time spent outside of Appendix FM or FP).

The UK has its interpretation of Article 8 ECHR. The European Court of Human Rights will have its own interpretation.

You may also want to point out your position under the UN treaties.

[marcidevpal]

Supreme Court Decision, MM and others v SSHD

On the legality of Appendix FM under Article 8 ECHR

https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/ ... dgment.pdf

68. That said, it remains the Secretary of State’s position, as we understand it, that a principal objective of the new rules was to achieve Convention-compliant decisions in the generality of cases. Thus, as already explained, the current instructions reflect the view that a decision in accordance with the rules will not involve a breach of article 8 save in “exceptional circumstances”; which expression is equated with circumstances where a refusal would lead to “unjustifiably harsh” consequences for the individual or their family. An important issue in the case is whether that is an acceptable approach. But that is an issue as to the legality of the relevant instructions, not of the rules.

The SSHD's position on Akinsaya is in breach of Article 8 ECHR. It leads to "unjustifiably harsh" consequences.

[marcidevpal]

Council of Europe

The United Kingdom is still a member of the Council of Europe.

Mr James Cleverly, MP is the Foreign Minister. He represents the UK.
https://www.coe.int/en/web/cm/members-cm

Based on what I read on their website, the Council of Europe is very clear that family members should be given residence after five years

Recommendation Rec(2000)15 of the Committee of Ministers to member states concerning the security of residence of long-term migrants
https://search.coe.int/cm/Pages/result_ ... 16804eb800

Recommends that the governments of member states apply the following principles in their law and administrative practice:

1. As regards the acquisition of a secure residence status for long-term immigrants

a. Each member state should recognise as a "long-term immigrant" an alien who:

i. has resided lawfully and habitually for a period of at least five years and for a maximum of ten years on its territory otherwise than exclusively as a student throughout that period; or

ii. has been authorised to reside on its territory permanently or for a period of at least five years; or

iii. is a family member whose residence on the territory of the member state has been authorised for a maximum period of five years for the purpose of family reunification with a national of the member state or an alien as defined in sub-paragraphs i and ii above.

Why was the CoE not mentioned earlier on this forum? Did Akinsaya's lawyers raise the CoE issue during the hearing?

Also see:
Recommendation on the legal status of persons admitted for family reunification Rec(2002)4
https://www.refworld.org/docid/5a4cadb34.html