https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/c ... 5/1075.pdf
Recommendation 5 (j)
The Government said on page 11
METOCKWE HAVE AGREED with the EU that the agreement will apply concepts of EU law interpreted in line with case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) by the end of the implementation period, including cases such as Metock, which limits consideration of the previous immigration status of those applying as non-EEA family members of EU citizens.
Metock was a Cameroonian national married to a British national working in Ireland.
In Metock, the European Court of Justice said people who are not covered by the 2004 Directive should not be denied residence.
The European Court of Justice ruled definitively that national rules
- making the right of residence of non-EU national spouses of Union citizens
- resident in a member state
- but not possessing its nationality under the Citizenship Directive 2004/38
- conditional on prior lawful residence in another member state
DISCUSSION
1a.) The case of Metock was decided before 31 December 2020, so the UK definitely has to apply it.
1b.) Like Metock, Zambrano carers were not covered by the 2004 Citizenship Directive.
1c.) I suspect the only reason the UK Government included Zambrano carers in the EU Settlment Scheme is because of the case of Metock.
1d.) You could argue in your grounds that the Home Office did not faithfully implement Metock for Zambrano carers. They created a category for Zambrano carers, but they always sought to undermine the category by denying 90% of Zambrano applicants.
2.) The UK Government did NOT ONLY agree to follow case law handed down before 31 December 2020. The Withdrawal Agreement says the UK will apply case law handed down AFTER 31 December 2020, too.