- FAQ
- Login
- Register
- Call Workpermit.com for a paid service +44 (0)344-991-9222
ESC
Welcome to immigrationboards.com!
Moderators: Casa, archigabe, CR001, push, JAJ, ca.funke, Amber, zimba, vinny, Obie, EUsmileWEallsmile, batleykhan, meself2, geriatrix, John, ChetanOjha
at last they have decided to respond, thank god at least this will keep many people going in the mean time. thanks for the update Greenie you are a starGreenie wrote:See Judgement on carers of British Citizens
and
Zambrano - the Home Office Shows its hand
Article 20 TFEU, the operative Article in Zambrano, contains the same language: "the right to move and reside freely". So, it would appear logical that, as established in M, Zambrano parents should be given an EEA FP.Article 18.1 covers both the right to reside freely within the territory of a member state and the right to move to it.
I got a reply today(that was on August 3rd):If a non-EU parent without an entry clearance but with Zambrano rights presents him/herself to a port officer, accompanied by the British child, will the parent be admitted to the UK?
Are we seriously expected to believe that they don't know what would happen???I am writing to confirm that the UK position on the Ruiz Zambrano
judgment is still being finalised. Until it has been finalised we are
not in a position to answer your questions. However we aim to respond to
your questions within 28 working days.
So who does it cover according to curremt UKBA interpretation:bolodeoku wrote:I envisaged the UKBA to do just this, i believe when the provision is included in the Immigration regulation it should then cover every parent with an EU minor and not just parents with British minors, until then it just one step from where to where!
This paragraph incorrectly restates the Zambrano ruling.From: Subject: Date: Issue number:
European Operational Policy Team Implementation of Ruiz Zambrano judgment 16 September 2011 13/2011
Purpose of Notice
1. This instruction provides interim guidance for all UK Border Agency staff dealing with third country nationals claiming to have acquired a right of residence in the UK on the basis of the Court of Justice of the European Union (ECJ) case of Ruiz Zambrano (C- 34/09).
A. Background
2. The judgment in the case of Ruiz Zambrano established that member states are precluded from refusing a third country national, upon whom a Union citizen is dependent, a right to reside and work in the Member State of residence and nationality of that Union citizen when refusing residence would deprive the Union citizen of the genuine enjoyment of the substance of their European citizenship rights. In practice this means that refusal of the right of residence to the third country national, and so their removal, would require the Union citizen to leave the Member state by virtue of their dependency upon that third country national.
Roilfus, Thank you very much for your advice.Rolfus wrote:Easy possibilities:
Have you been in the UK long enough to get permanent residence?
Drive to the Republic of Ireland. Present yourselves to an immigration officer and make a Zambrano application.
Apply for a Chen visa to travel to Ireland (see M (Chen parents/ source of rights) Ivory Coast [2010] UKUT 277 (IAC) (10 August 2010).
Move to the Czech Republic - they give long term residence to parents of EU citizens. (Maybe other EU countries also do this).
Hard possibilities:
Apply for a Zambrano residence in the UK. If it is refused appeal on the basis that they are wrongly interpreting the Zambrano ruling. The court talks about EU citizens, including in their own country. It is probably wrong that UKBA interpret it as applying only to citizens in their own country. You would probably be able to stay while the appeal is undecided.
Apply for an EEA residence card on the basis of Chen and M. If it is refused, appeal on the basis that Chen, M and Zambrano read together entitle you to residence with the right to work.
Do nothing and see if any attempt is made to deport you. If that happens claim Chen/M/Zambrano rights which are directly effective. (I don't recommend this approach).
The Entry Clearance Instructions now say in Chapter 2, 2.440 We therefore conclude that for the time being, subject to future clarification by the higher courts, IJs should adopt the following approach:
i. A person claiming to be an OFM may either be a dependent or a member of the household of the EEA national: they are alternative ways of qualifying as an OFM.
It seems to me that the system now accepts that parents of EEA minors are extended family members. So no need to apply for a Chen visa through 257c of the Immigration rules. Just apply for an EEA Family Permit. Permission to work, and en route for citizenship.Regulation 8 ...also covers...parents...who have failed to provide evidence of financial dependency. Note: there is no dependency test for persons who can show that they have lived under the same roof as the EEA national before coming to the UK
I dont think that is correct.Rolfus wrote: It seems to me that the system now accepts that parents of EEA minors are extended family members. So no need to apply for a Chen visa through 257c of the Immigration rules. Just apply for an EEA Family Permit. Permission to work, and en route for citizenship.
Bigia in paragraph 43 puts a different complexion on it"It seems very likely that the assumption is that the household will indeed be that of the Union citizen, that is, that he was in colloquial terms head of it, the relations were under his roof, and on that basis he can reasonably wish to be accompanied by the members of it when he leaves for another country."
It can be argued that the real issue is to demonstrate closeness and interference with free movement rights. Chen and Zambrano have clarified that, so in the case of minor children, the faint argument about ownership is redundant."It seems very likely that the assumption is that the household will indeed be that of the Union citizen, that is, that he was in colloquial terms head of it, the relations were under his roof, and on that basis he can reasonably wish to be accompanied by the members of it when he leaves for another country".... "only those OFMs who have been present with the Union citizen in the country from which he has most recently come whose ability or inability to move with him could impact on his exercise of his primary right. This also explains Buxton LJ's requirement of very recent dependency or household membership. Historic but lapsed dependency or membership is irrelevant to the Directive policy of removing obstacles to the Union citizen's freedom of movement and residence rights. Unlike Article 2.2 "family members", it cannot be said of them that "the refusal ... to grant them a right of residence is equally liable to discourage [the] Union citizen from continuing to reside in that Member State" (Metock, paragraph 92).