Goodmorning everyone I wrote this morning and I do not know where it has gone i perhaps did not submit. please bear with me
I went to the Tribunal on the 23rd Nov. 2010 on the 17th i received in the mail the determination which was dismissed.
this is what he the I.judge wrote
the burden of proof is on the appellant and the standard of proof is on the balance of probbabilities. the appelant's claim arises unders section 82(1) of the nationality and immigration act 2002 and the circumstances at the date of the hearing are admissible. i have today heard the evidence of the appelant and her bro-in-law. i have also seen teh documents in relation to the applelant's brother who is an eea national. on the basis of the evidence before me I am able to accept that the appellant is living wither her sister and her husband. I however bear in mind that extened family members would have to establish that they are genuinely dependent on the eea national or resident in another country with the EEA national sponsor on a dependent basis. the appellant is a thirty yr old adult who has beena student in the u.k. after having arrived here as a visitor. there is little evidence before me to establish that the appellant has been solely dependent on the eea national. the appellant has also not established that she has lived in another country in the household of the eea naional prior to her arrival in the u.k. for these reasons i find that the appelant does not satisy the requirements of the relevant regulations.
in considering the appellant's article 8 rights i consider the appellant's private and family life in the u.k. the appellant's life as demonstrated before me has been mainly on the basis of her student life in the u.k. and therefore would have been in the knowledge that her studentships would be coming to a conclusion at some stage. given the limited and temporary nature of her student life, i do not find it sufficiently to cause a breach of article 8. turning to the question of the appellant's family life the appellant is an adult. she has arrived in the u.k. as an adult in oct 2002 and although having lived with her sister and her bro-in law for some peroid of time, has not demonstrated that her relationship with her sibling and her brother in law is anymore than that might be between adults. in applying the Rasgar Principles, i do not find in the first instance find that there is a family life to the extent that her removal would cause an interference, so as to cause the u.k. to be in breach of its' obligations of the european convention of human rights.
case dismissed
Lord have mercy at the first instance they said my brother in law was not qualifed and then some other silly grounds like 1. he was not qualified and He is dutch 2. i am not extended family member but we showed birth certificates n marriage certificates which they ignored. now we have those two points to fight.
an uncle of mine told me that the home office lost a case on the 17th which i can use to argue my case and also saint luica is part of the E.P.A. European Partnership Agreement which i should use as well as quoting me Proverbs 3:5-6
My queries ladies n gents are
1. what should i do and write on the iaft4 form? i am not using a solictor this time around.
2. what cases i can use to argue my points?
since august 2009 i hv not been working and i do not receive state benefits. besides i was diagonosed with a spinal disease in 2007 but i am not sure whether i should include this fact. my private life includes the friendships i have formed at school yes and working part time and my involvement in ministry but i do not think my last solictor put it in. oh well i do wait an answer i think tomorrow is my deadline i am not sure.
sorry for the long post and thanks any and all help is greatly appreciated.
- FAQ
- Login
- Register
- Call Workpermit.com for a paid service +44 (0)344-991-9222
