Zambrano Settled Status EU settlement scheme Paper Application Form - NEW

[marcidevpal]

Summary

Here are a few topics you may want to learn about and potentially raise in your appeals:

1.) United Nations Human Rights Council, special rapporteurs, investigations, etc
2.) ECtHR case law - previous pages list about 20 cases to review
3.) CJEU / ECJ case law - in particular Zambrano, Dereci and E.K.
4.) Supreme Court rulings - MM
5.) Court of Appeal rulings - Akinsaya, Celik, Velaj
6.) Upper Tribunal Zambrano cases - Akinsaya, Celik, the Colombian Zambrano carer who won, early Zambrano cases (circa 2013)
7.) The Withdrawal Agreement and Political Declaration references to ECHR, discrimination, Union law
8.) The Human Rights Act - requirements put upon judges
9.) Appendix EU and the related policy guidance - highlight unlawful passages
10.) How the Secretary of State for the Home Department current state of mind is illogical and irrational
11.) Articles 8 ECHR and more
12.) Discrimination by reference to the UN, ECHR, HRA

It is no secret that I largely blame UK immigration barristers and solicitors, charities and judges for the position we are in. The refugees are under attack in my opinion, because the lawyers failed to protect migrants. The question becomes, why did this occur? I don't think lawyers, charities, and judges should be the moral leaders in a society. That is the role of the political class. Labour refuse to fight the good fight. The mimic the talking points of the Tories and, in doing so, validate their approach. That vacuum in moral leadership leaves the people who actually do the work exposed. What Sir Keir Starmer and Yvette Cooper should be doing, is focusing on the blatant lawfulness of the Illegal Immigration Bill. They should outline in detail how it contravenes various international agreements. It is not enough for them to simply say it. They need to educate the public. That way, immigration folks will not be so easily attacked. So the question becomes, why do the Labour Party refuse to properly address the inconsistencies and barbarism of the Tory proposals? I believe it is because of the media and how bad press may hinder their personal ambitions. But I could be wrong. It's just my guess at this point.

[marcidevpal]

Wait for it....(the boomerang effect)

Many Zambrano carers gave up fighting and decided to go the Appendix FM route. That's fair enough. I think it is good to see how the Home Office treats refugees, to get a feel for their next moves against migrants. Any child born of a mother who arrived by boat will not be allowed to become a British citizen (at least, not on the level of other British citizens). If the mother is later sent to Rwanda, or similar country, the child will have to go with the parent. If a young child arrives in the UK on their own, they will have to leave the UK once they turn 18, and will be denied British citizenship. This Bill has not passed Parliament yet, so how can you say it takes place today? Because they plan to BACKDATE the bill. That is huge. The point I am making is that we have seen the Home Office go to extreme to deny people the right to stay, or, if granted the right to stay, put them into a category that offers less freedoms and fewer rights than those enjoyed by current British citizens. If you can fight to the ECtHR, you may want to go for it. One the one hand, the judges are probably very much aware of the mental and emotional state of the decision makers UK's Home Department. Let's say the decisions aren't exactly balanced, in my view. So, if you apply, the judges are likely to agree with you without the need for a lot of evidence or arguments. One pitfall may be that the ECtHR judges could sacrifice migrants to save the refugees and ensure the UK does not leave the ECHR. You know, give the UK something to save face. So, they could rule against Zambrano carers and the other EUSS applicants. By the way, the only evidence I have that the ECtHR moves that way is when they apparently gave way on an issue in John Major's government. Anyway, the way to reduce that risk is to point out all of the cases by the ECtHR that are similar to yours, and in which the ECtHR ruled in favor of the migrant.

[marcidevpal]

What is an error of law?

https://tribunalsdecisions.service.gov. ... 09484-2014

If you lose at the First-tier Tribunal, you may want to use these reasons to appeal to the Upper Tribunal:

Background: She applied for a residence card on 1st March 2013. She claimed asylum on 8th April 2013. She was granted five years' leave to remain under Zambrano on 11th September 2013 to 11th September 2018.

6. Areas of legislative interpretation, failure to follow binding authority or to distinguish it with adequate reasons, ignoring material considerations by taking into account immaterial considerations, reaching irrational conclusions on fact or evaluation or to give legally inadequate reasons for the decision and procedural unfairness, constitute errors of law.

7. It is not an arguable error of law for an Immigration Judge to give too little weight or too much weight to a factor, unless irrationality is alleged. Nor is it an error of law for an Immigration Judge to fail to deal with every factual issue of argument. Disagreement with an Immigration Judge's factual conclusion, his appraisal of the evidence or assessment of credibility, or his evaluation of risk does not give rise to an error of law. Unless an Immigration Judge's assessment of proportionality is arguable as being completely wrong, there is no error of law, nor is it an error of law for an Immigration Judge not to have regard to evidence of events arising after his decision or for him to have taken no account of evidence which was not before him. Rationality is a very high threshold and a conclusion is not irrational just because some alternative explanation has been rejected or can be said to be possible. Nor is it necessary to consider every possible alternative inference consistent with truthfulness because an Immigration Judge concludes that the story is untrue. If a point of evidence of significance has been ignored or misunderstood, that is a failure to take into account a material consideration.

[marcidevpal]

CLIFT v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
(Application no. 7205/07)

https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-99913%22]}

This case is a discrimination case - Article 14. The applicant, who had been granted legal aid, was represented by Amal Solicitors, a firm of lawyers practising in Huddersfield. He was imprisoned for two years longer than he felt was fair. He argued the policy was discriminatory. The ECtHR agreed.

Because of their direct knowledge of their society and its needs, the national authorities are in principle better placed than the international judge to appreciate what is in the public interest on social or economic grounds, and the Court will generally respect the legislature's policy choice unless it is “manifestly without reasonable foundation” (Stec and Others v. the United Kingdom, [GC], nos. 65731/01 and 65900/01, § 52, ECHR 2006).

78. In the circumstances, the Court considers that the early release scheme... lacked objective justification.

[marcidevpal]

STEC AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

(Applications nos. 65731/01 and 65900/01)

https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-73198%22]}

2006. The women said their benefits were lower because of their gender. The court DID NOT agree that was discriminatory.

What the ECtHR seems to always say on discrimination cases

• Article 14 does not prohibit a member State from treating groups differently in order to correct “factual inequalities” between them; indeed in certain circumstances a failure to attempt to correct inequality through different treatment may in itself give rise to a breach of the Article (see Case “relating to certain aspects of the laws on the use of languages in education in Belgium” (merits), 23 July 1968, pp. 34-35, § 10, Series A no. 6, and Thlimmenos v. Greece [GC], no. 34369/97, § 44, ECHR 2000-IV).

• A difference of treatment is, however, discriminatory if it has no objective and reasonable justification; in other words, if it does not pursue a legitimate aim or if there is not a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be realised.

• The Contracting State enjoys a margin of appreciation in assessing whether and to what extent differences in otherwise similar situations justify a different treatment (see Van Raalte v. the Netherlands, 21 February 1997, § 39, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-I).

• The scope of this margin will vary according to the circumstances, the subject matter and the background (see Petrovic v. Austria, 27 March 1998, § 38, Reports 1998-II).

• As a general rule, very weighty reasons would have to be put forward before the Court could regard a difference in treatment based exclusively on the ground of sex as compatible with the Convention (see Van Raalte, cited above, § 39, and Schuler-Zgraggen v. Switzerland, 24 June 1993, § 67, Series A no. 263).

• On the other hand, a wide margin is usually allowed to the State under the Convention when it comes to general measures of economic or social strategy (see, for example, James and Others v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1986, § 46, Series A no. 98, and National & Provincial Building Society, Leeds Permanent Building Society and Yorkshire Building Society v. the United Kingdom, 23 October 1997, § 80, Reports 1997-VII).

• Because of their direct knowledge of their society and its needs, the national authorities are in principle better placed than the international judge to appreciate what is in the public interest on social or economic grounds, and the Court will generally respect the legislature’s policy choice unless it is “manifestly without reasonable foundation” (ibid.).

[marcidevpal]

Putting it all together

The cool thing about Article 14 ECHR is, if you win on this point, you don't have to win on Article 8, and you potentially help a bunch of other Zambrano carers. I think the ECtHR will say, ok, UK, you had the right to exclude Zambrano carers from the EU settlement scheme, but once you decided to include Zambrano carers in the EU settlement scheme, you should have treated all of them the same and based on the original definition of a Zambrano carer. (The original definition comes from the EEA Regulations and includes Akinsaya type carers). Or, even better, the ECtHR may way that based on Article 20 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, even Zambrano carers are indirectly covered under the Withdrawal Agreement. Or, even better still, the ECtHR judges may apply the case of Ms E.K. In any case, neither the UK judges nor the Home Office have explained the legitimate aim behind accepting some Zambrano carers over others. Therefore, the policy is discriminatory and unlawful.

[marcidevpal]

The UK Court of Appeal

The biggest difference, to my mind, between the ECtHR judges and the UK Court of Appeal judges is this: The Court of Appeal judges are completely fine with any madcap scheme dreamed up by the Home Office. They say, we don't care what you do to migrants, so long as it doesn't interfere with any existing legal obligations. The Court of Appeal do not count human rights as an existing obligation, whereas the European Court on Human Rights does. The Court of Appeal (and Upper Tribunal) should have done two things, in my opinion. First, try to determine whether Akinsaya carers are Zambrano carers. They did this step and said that Akinsaya type Zambrano carers are indeed Zambrano carers. In the second step, the UK judges should have asked what the legitimate aim would be in denying Akinsaya type Zambrano carers settlement under EUSS? It is not clear whether or not Akinsaya's legal team raised this point, or if the judges simply refused to consider it, or something else. If the judges had raised this point, the Home Office would have had to have gone on record with explaining how society's interests are either advanced or preserved by forcing Akinsaya type Zambrano carers into the Appendix FM route. So, there you have it. Hope that helps.

[marcidevpal]

Or, put another way...

UK judges be like, "We are the UK, and our Parliament is sovereign. Whatever (secondary) legislation our Parliament creates, we accept. And you are bonkers if you think you deserve anything more."

Whereas ECtHR judges be like, "Beg your pardon? YOU decided to join the Council of Europe. YOU agreed to accept the terms. The terms mean you can't just make policies that hurt people or restrict their rights - without explaining why. And the reason(s) have to be legitimate."

Hope that helps. UK judges should be simply taking orders from Parliament. They should hold them to account.

When did UK judges become policemen with wigs?

[marcidevpal]

The Article 8 blockade

Across all UK Courts, there seems to be no chance of your Article 8 rights being taken into account. Let's look at the key cases

Supreme Court - The judges refused to make an Art 8 determination in Agyarko, because the Home Office had already done so. That is not good enough. The judges should have done one themselves.

Court of Appeal - no Art 8 determination in Akinsaya. The judges didn't even mention Article 8 and they should have. They acted as if human rights were not in play for Akinsaya, when they clearly were, in my opinion.

Upper Tribunal - ban on Art 8 determinations on EUSS in Celik. Here, we have the boldest move to date. The President of the Upper Tribunal actually instructed judges NOT to make Article 8 determinations on EUSS appeals. (This case is under appeal).

So, any way you look at it, the UK judges adopt a default position of ignoring Article 8 - at least for some people. To me, that means if you want your human rights to be given due consideration, you will have to appeal to the European Court on Human Rights. The CJEU/ECJ is off limits for two reasons. One, it is not clear they will accept you are covered by the Withdrawal Agreement. That remains an open question. Two, only the Independent Monitoring Authority (IMA) or European Commission can bring a case. In the UK, it is the IMA. For British people living in Europe, it is the European Commission. The IMA is funded by the Ministry of Justice and say they do not take on "individual cases".

[marcidevpal]

They did it again!

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/b ... 220262.pdf

If a Zambrano carer appeals and chooses Article 8 as a ground of appeal, the Home Office will say it is a "new matter" that can only be considered with their consent. If an asylum seeker appeals and raises Article 8, they have a very different process. In the new Illegal Immigration Bill, the Home Office created a section called, "Upper Tribunal consideration of new matters".

This part is similar to Zambrano carers -

2. The Upper Tribunal may consider any matter which it considers relevant to the substance of the decision.

3. But the Upper Tribunal must not consider a new matter unless the Secretary of State has given the Upper Tribunal consent to do so.

4. A matter is a “new matter” if—
(a) it is raised by the person in the course of the appeal or application, and
(b) the person did not provide details of the matter to the Secretary of State before the end of the claim period for the suspensive claim (see sections 40(7) and 41(7)).

But UNLIKE Zambrano carers, the Upper Tribunal has the ability to override the Secretary of State's refusal -

6. If the Secretary of State does not provide consent under subsection (3)—
(a) the Secretary of State must notify the person, and
(b) the person may apply for a declaration from the Upper Tribunal that there were compelling reasons for the person not to have provided 15 details of the matter to the Secretary of State before the end of the claim period.

8. If the Upper Tribunal grants a declaration on an application under subsection (6), the Secretary of State must provide consent under subsection (3).

So, basically, asylum seekers will have to raise Article 8 as soon as they encounter an immigration officer. But if they don't, they can explain why and if the judge accepts it, their Article 8 rights will be considered by the Upper Tribunal. Zambrano carers do not have this option, currently.

Also, if the asylum seeker loses at the Upper Tribunal, they are not allowed to appeal to the Court of Appeal. Zambrano carers can currently appeal to the Court of Appeal.

[marcidevpal]

When did UK Judges become nightclub bouncers with wigs?

A refugee's human rights application will be immediately declared inadmissible by the Home Office. Let's put aside for one moment the ridiculous idea that a Home Office has the right to decide which legal applications are admissible or not. Because it is inadmissible instead of refused, the refugee will have no right of appeal, apparently. And, the refugee cannot change to apply under another part of the Immigration Rules, such as Appendix FM.

But, if you keep reading, it talks about appeals before the Upper Tribunal, anyway. So, eventhough the first part of the Bill tells you there is no right of appeal, there is a later part of the Bill that tells you about the appeal process. Let's put aside for another moment the fact that this bill should be rejected outright for contradicting itself. The refugee has to raise human rights early or risk not having it considered at all. The Upper Tribunal judge is not supposed to consider the refugee's human rights without Braverman's consent, unless the refugee gives a really good reason. That is why I say UK judges become like nightclub bouncers. What is a "good reason"? What safeguards are in place to ensure two people with the same "good reasons" have similar outcomes? The process will be chaotic. It is by design.

[marcidevpal]

Siddiqa v SSHD

https://tribunalsdecisions.service.gov. ... 23-ukut-47

THE HON. MRS JUSTICE HILL UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE KEBEDE
Between SIDDIQA Appellant and ENTRY CLEARANCE OFFICER Respondent
Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr M Biggs and Mr M West, Counsel, instructed by Lexwin Solicitors
For the Respondent: Ms A Ahmed, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

17. A sole ground was advanced, to the effect that the First-tier Tribunal had materially erred in law by failing to appreciate the scope and nature of its jurisdiction, because it assumed that the appellant had only appealed under the Immigration (Citizens’ Rights Appeals) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 (“the CRA Regulations”); whereas in fact she had (also or only) appealed under the 2016 Regulations (“Ground (1)”).

19. The appellant’s skeleton argument dated 14 October 2022 sought to add a further ground of appeal, relating to the First-tier Tribunal’s interpretation and application of Article 18(1) of the Withdrawal Agreement, in particular Articles 18(1)(o) and (r) (“Ground (2)”).

34. The appellant’s case under Ground (1) was that the First-tier Tribunal had materially erred in law by wrongly assuming that the appellant had only appealed under the CRA Regulations when in fact she had also, or only, appealed under the 2016 Regulations.

74. Further, he submitted that in Celik at [62] (see [68] above) it was expressly acknowledged that an applicant could benefit from the protections of Article 18(1)(o) even if they did not satisfy the personal scope provisions in Article 10.

76. It is clear that a key part of the appellant’s case on personal scope relies on whether or not she had made an application under the 2016 Regulations. For the reasons set out under Ground (1) we find that the ECO was entitled to conclude that she had not.

78. Beyond that, we do not consider it necessary to reach a final view on this issue. Rather, we are content to accept, for the purposes of argument, that the appellant can, in principle, invoke Article 18 on the basis of Celik at [62].

[marcidevpal]

Appeal to the Upper Tribunal (UTIAC) on a point of law

An appeal on a point of law could include any ground of challenge that would be available in an application for judicial review. You may want to challenge the First-tier Tribunal judge if their decision:

• ignores relevant factors

• takes into account irrelevant factors

• fails to direct itself properly in law (ie failure to follow the statute or the case law that has interpreted how the law should be applied)

• reverses the burden of proof or imposes too high a burden of proof

• fails to give the applicant the benefit of the doubt (where there is a doubt)

• fails to make findings of fact

• fails to give adequate reasons for its decision

• fails to follow the statutory review procedure

• reaches a decision totally at variance with the facts or for which there is no factual basis

• fails to act in accordance with the objects and principles of the relevant Act

• fetters its discretion (often referred to as operating blanket policies)

• goes back on a legitimate expectation

• acts dishonestly or in bad faith (this is normally very difficult to prove)

• comes to a decision which is so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could have come to it

[marcidevpal]

UK Judges & Human Rights

There is an undeniable truth: Human rights are fundamental and universal. When judges say some groups of people in the country are not entitled to have their human rights considered - either at any point in their application and appeal process, or, by the Home Office but not by any UK judge - what message does that send?

The judge is effectively saying that some human beings are worthy of human rights and other humans are not. Those who are not worthy, are, by extension subhuman or not human. It's eugenics on steroids. You simply can't run from that conclusion. And if you have the temerity to dehumanize people, at least be honest about it.

[marcidevpal]

But still respectful

The UK judiciary, lawyers, charities, et al operate under extremely challenging circumstances. They have dedicated years, if not their entire careers, to helping others - notably migrants. I would not want anyone to think I have some sort of 'vendetta' against them. I present the worst case scenarios on this thread in part so that should you be on the receiving end of bad news, you will hopefully feel less shocked and more confident that attractive options remain open to you. Do I recommend you not accept at face value what you are told, and to instead do your own research? Yes. For the record, I would like you to know that my criticisms are not meant in any way to suggest the ecosystem of judges, lawyers, charity workers, administrative staff, and others deserve any less than our utmost respect. Enjoy your week.

[marcidevpal]

Example arguments - error of law

I copied these from published decisions. You may want to select arguments that relate to your situation and update them for your specific appeal.

• The FtT had impermissibly considered the authority of [insert case here], when it was not relevant to the present case.

• The FtT had not considered fully the Appellant’s case outside the rules or set out the relevant considerations in section 117B of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (the 2002 Act).

• The list of factors to be considered in a balancing exercise - for the purposes of proportionality - was not closed. The balance sheet assessment weighed in favour of the appellant.

• The FtT had failed to consider the psychological report and to address the risk of suicide.

• As per the authority of Nwaigwe (adjournment: fairness) [2014] UKUT 00418 (IAC), the appellant has been deprived of a fair hearing unless we were to adjourn again.

• The appeal has not been determined with proper regard to the correct test for the existence of a derivative right to reside under regulation 16(5).

• The FtTJ had no regard to the leading authority in the Supreme Court decision in [insert case here].

• The FtTJ wrongly assessed the evidence. Whilst the FtTJ referred to [insert case here], the judge's assessment was flawed. FTTJ’s assessment about [insert argument here ] was also flawed. The judge's concerns were not corroborated by the evidence. Given [insert words here] was a reason for refusing the appeal, the FtTJ’s ultimate conclusion was flawed.

• Whilst the grounds are individually argued, the appellant submits collectively they amount to an error in law.

• The important question is whether the FtTJ applied the correct test.

Or, if you want to argue there are no errors of law

• The appellant invites the Tribunal to find that there was no error in law and the FtTJ had made findings open to her/him. The appellant submits the SSHD's [first/second/third] submission had no merit. The FtTJ was entitled to reach the conclusion she did.

[Notright30]

Right to work
Hello Guys,
Would require some support from you.
I have just been dismissed from work due to a Right to work check.
I applied for EU settlement scheme as a zambrano carer in 01/2022 before my flp(fp) expired.
I was refused in 08/2022 and I appealed still in the upper courts.
I decided to apply for an extension on my Flr(fp) in December 2022.
Thought all was well utill last week when my employers carried out a Right to work check and both applications kept coming back that I don't have the right to work

Has anyone experience this situation and I would kindly like some advice

[marcidevpal]

Edman v SSHD - Important case!

https://tribunalsdecisions.service.gov. ... 06859-2021

On the 07 February 2023 Before
UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE HANSON

Between EDMAN Appellant and THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr Williams, a Senior Home Office Presenting Officer.
For the Respondent: Ms D Papachristopoulou, Refugee and Migrant Centre.

Even if a Zambrano carer with leave to remain under Appendix FM wins at the First-tier Tribunal, there is a good chance they will lose at the Upper Tribunal. HOWEVER,

• Upper Tribunal Judge Hanson refused to consider the case of E.K. versus the Netherlands.

• The judge also did not consider her Article 8 rights under ECHR, either.

Background: She had a Zambrano carer residence card from 2 June 2014 until 2 June 2019. She applied for leave to remain under Appendix FM in November 2018. It was valid to 3 August 2021. The First tier Tribunal Judge ALLOWED Ms Edman’s appeal against the refusal of an application for EU Settlement -

26. The lack of response from the Respondent has left this tribunal and the Appellant in an invidious position. It is impossible for me to determine whether there has been a clear breach of the Immigration Rules noting that it is still guesswork as to whether the Rules as presently drafted reflect the intention of the SSHD. I note the observations of senior Judges that the SSHD has misunderstood the position of Zambrano carers and so I must conclude that there is more likely than not an error in the drafting in Appendix EU. Noting that pre-EUSS sources indicated that Zambrano carers would be included, I find on balance that the Rules do not reflect that intention. At the very least, the Appellant’s decision should have been withdrawn by the Respondent pending a clear steer from the SSHD to put in place protection for this Appellant afforded to new applicants as outlined in the consent order.

27. On balance, I allow the appeal on the basis that the current Rules lack clarity to allow a decision to be confidently made that this Appellant has not complied with the necessary Rules or government intention as to the policy on Zambrano carers.

Upper Tribunal Judge ruled against Ms Edman -

20. In relation to this matter, as at the date of the application under the EUSS Ms Edman had leave to remain in the United Kingdom. I find the Judge erred in law in not finding that excluded Ms Edman from meeting the eligibility requirements under the EUSS. I therefore set the decision of the Judge aside.

[marcidevpal]

Perhaps you should contact your MP and the Court?

An individual will continue to have the right to work in the UK where they have applied for further leave, or appealed or sought review of a rejection of their application, before their current visa expires up until a decision is made. In such circumstances, the employer must take steps to reasonably satisfy itself that the employee has applied for further leave before their current visa expired. If the employer is reasonably satisfied that the employee has made an application for further leave before their visa expired, they will have the benefit of a 28-day “grace” period from the expiry date. During the grace period, the employee must either provide proof that further leave has been granted or, alternatively, the employer must obtain a “positive verification notice” (“PVN”) from the Employer Checking Service (“ECS”).If a PVN is received, this will provide the employer with a statutory excuse against a civil penalty for six months and the employee can continue working. If the employee has more than 2 years’ continuous service, they will have the right to bring a claim for unfair dismissal even if they do not have the right to work in the UK. Additionally, they will also have the right to pursue a “day one” claim (such as a discrimination claim). It is therefore important that employers do not act rashly when there is a concern that an employee might not have the right to work in the UK.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... o_Work.pdf

https://www.gov.uk/view-prove-immigration-status

If any of your existing or prospective employees require further advice or support with regard to their immigration status, they can access information on 'View and prove your immigration status: get a share code' on GOV.UK. This also provides further information on how to prove immigration status, how to update personal details, and support available. If your employee needs help accessing or using their Home Office online immigration status services, they can contact the UKVI Resolution Centre: Telephone: 0300 790 6268, select option 3, Monday to Friday (excluding bank holidays), 8am to 8pm Saturday and Sunday, 9:30am to 4:30pm.

[marcidevpal]

CURIA versus HUDOC

You may want to reference cases in your submissions.

For the Council of Europe's European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), use the HUDOC database

https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#

For the European Union's European Court of Justice (CJEU or ECJ), search the CURIA database

https://curia.europa.eu/juris/recherche.jsf?language=en#

Enter Zambrano as a search term. The judges are not talking about these cases in their decisions. You can raise them and really talk about them in full. These cases can help you. The case of Ms. E.K is on CURIA.

[marcidevpal]

A reminder about the case of E.K.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Grand Chamber)
7 September 2022 ( *1 )
In Case C‑624/20,

E. K. v Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid

Relevant questions considered by the THE COURT (Grand Chamber)

• Question (1)Is it within the competence of the Member States to determine whether the right of residence on the basis of Article 20 TFEU is in itself of a temporary or a non-temporary nature, or should it be interpreted in conformity with Union law?

• Question (2)If interpretation must be in conformity with Union law, does a distinction then exist, when applying Directive [2003/109], between the various dependents’ residence rights to which third-country nationals are entitled on the basis of Union law, including the dependent’s right of residence granted to a family member of a Union citizen on the basis of [Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC (OJ 2004 L 158, p. 77)] and the right of residence on the basis of Article 20 TFEU?

• Question (3)Is the right of residence on the basis of Article 20 TFEU, which by its nature depends on the existence of a relationship of dependency between the third-country national and the Union citizen and is therefore finite, of a temporary nature?

The Court's responses

Answer (1).The concept of residence ‘solely on temporary grounds’ is an autonomous concept of EU law, which must be interpreted uniformly throughout the Member States.

Answers (2) and (3). The concept of residence ‘solely on temporary grounds’ does not cover the residence of a third-country national under Article 20 TFEU within the territory of the Member State of which the Union citizen concerned is a national.

THE WITHDRAWAL AGREEMENT

ARTICLE 4 Methods and principles relating to the effect, the implementation and the application of this Agreement

1. The provisions of this Agreement and the provisions of Union law made applicable by this Agreement shall produce in respect of and in the United Kingdom the same legal effects as those which they produce within the Union and its Member States. Accordingly, legal or natural persons shall in particular be able to rely directly on the provisions contained or referred to in this Agreement which meet the conditions for direct effect under Union law.

2. The United Kingdom shall ensure compliance with paragraph 1, including as regards the required powers of its judicial and administrative authorities to disapply inconsistent or incompatible domestic provisions, through domestic primary legislation.

3. The provisions of this Agreement referring to Union law or to concepts or provisions thereof shall be interpreted and applied in accordance with the methods and general principles of Union law.

4. The provisions of this Agreement referring to Union law or to concepts or provisions thereof shall in their implementation and application be interpreted in conformity with the relevant case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union handed down before the end of the transition period.

5. In the interpretation and application of this Agreement, the United Kingdom's judicial and administrative authorities shall have due regard to relevant case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union handed down after the end of the transition period.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... munity.pdf

[Notright30]

Perhaps you should contact your MP and the Court?

An individual will continue to have the right to work in the UK where they have applied for further leave, or appealed or sought review of a rejection of their application, before their current visa expires up until a decision is made. In such circumstances, the employer must take steps to reasonably satisfy itself that the employee has applied for further leave before their current visa expired. If the employer is reasonably satisfied that the employee has made an application for further leave before their visa expired, they will have the benefit of a 28-day “grace” period from the expiry date. During the grace period, the employee must either provide proof that further leave has been granted or, alternatively, the employer must obtain a “positive verification notice” (“PVN”) from the Employer Checking Service (“ECS”).If a PVN is received, this will provide the employer with a statutory excuse against a civil penalty for six months and the employee can continue working. If the employee has more than 2 years’ continuous service, they will have the right to bring a claim for unfair dismissal even if they do not have the right to work in the UK. Additionally, they will also have the right to pursue a “day one” claim (such as a discrimination claim). It is therefore important that employers do not act rashly when there is a concern that an employee might not have the right to work in the UK.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... o_Work.pdf

https://www.gov.uk/view-prove-immigration-status

If any of your existing or prospective employees require further advice or support with regard to their immigration status, they can access information on 'View and prove your immigration status: get a share code' on GOV.UK. This also provides further information on how to prove immigration status, how to update personal details, and support available. If your employee needs help accessing or using their Home Office online immigration status services, they can contact the UKVI Resolution Centre: Telephone: 0300 790 6268, select option 3, Monday to Friday (excluding bank holidays), 8am to 8pm Saturday and Sunday, 9:30am to 4:30pm.

Thanks. I have contacted my MP.

[marcidevpal]

Thanks. I have contacted my MP.

You don't have to take my advice, but I would let the court know what is happening. Even if the can't or won't make an interim order, that info is important - particularly if you want to claim compensation later.

[marcidevpal]

UK Judges & Home Office ignore relevant case law

The UK judges and Home Office currently ignore case law from both the ECtHR and the CJEU/ECJ. The statutory legislation that governs EUSS appeals says any issue raised must be taken in to account.

The Immigration (Citizens’ Rights Appeals) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/202 ... ion/9/made

Determination of appeal
10. On an appeal under these Regulations, the relevant authority must determine—
(a)any matter raised as a ground of appeal, and
(b)any other matter which regulation 9 requires it to consider.

[marcidevpal]

3 Errors of Law

The judges ignore case law regarding

1.) Ms E.K. by the CJEU
2.) residence permits by the ECtHR
3.) discrimination by the ECtHR and commentary by the United Nations

Consequently, Zambrano carers who rightly qualified for permanent residence prior to 31 Dec 2020 are denied residence today.