Welcome to immigrationboards.com!
I guess they're using this - as I am legally there for 3 months (whatever the case may be) but for longer than 6 months, I must show some evidence. But the 'has been' implies that I am there. As I am going there, my initial right of residence is under scrutiny. So yes, I guess you are right, but what are we supposed to about it if not appeal. The decision has been made, and we need to travel in 2 weeks.vi. The EEA national is not a qualified person because there is no evidence of Treaty rights being exercised:
'You have failed to provide evidence that your EEA national family member is a qualified person in accordance with Regulation 6 of the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006. I am, therefore, not satisfied that your EEA national family member is residing in the UK in accordance with the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006.'
Please note: because of the initial right of residence, the ECO cannot refuse someone on the basis that that their EEA national family member will not be a qualified person in the UK on arrival. However, if the ECO is satisfied that the EEA national has been in the UK for longer than three months, the ECO must be satisfied that the EEA national is a qualified person.
Is this ok? Or too 'strong'?REMOVED FOR SECURITY REASONS
Will it be possible to refer to those documents in this application as they have them already?Our supporting evidence consists of our identity documents and our marriage certificate (and sworn translation of the afore mentioned). Other supporting evidence that was submitted with our previous application is no longer available (as the originals were kept), however according to legal and UKBA guidance evidence such as confirmation of employment/student status, financial statements, mobile telephone bills, accommodation reports and photographs are not required for the EEA Family Permit and lack of the afore mentioned does not constitute grounds for refusal.
I don't think it is right to say "legal advice" unless you consulted with a professional beside the forum. I would also not say "illegal" but rather "against EU regulations".Szmek wrote:Thank you for your reply,
I will make an official letter and send it (via email) to the visa dept. Should I say that 'after legal advice' (?) it was brought to attention that 'the decision was illegal' (?) or 'against EU Regulations' (?) - I want to sound as official as possible
Is this information in the covering letter that I wrote above roughly correct or in need of any major correction? I'm considering using it in the complaint to the manager of the Visa Department
Sorry for the very early reply, but we were waiting for the passport to travel, and the decision of the UK Embassy was even more ridiculous in that it was made LAST WEEK, even thought we mentioned (via email) that my wife needs her passport back in order to travel ASAP they only rang yesterday - absolute joke
I would personally never say this. I prefer to reduce options from the situation, rather than adding themSzmek wrote:Should our travel arrangements change, she will meet me once I am in the United Kingdom.
REMOVED THE LETTER FOR SECURITY REASONS
I would not say this. It can be read the wrong way. I personally would sayand has put the integrity of our family at threat
I would say something like:Refusing my EEA Family Permit means you have restricted my husband's freedom of movement and his right to move to the UK
The EEA Family Permit must be issued as soon as possible, on the basis of an accelerated process". The applicant must also be given "every facility".
You already have my finger prints, my supporting documents, and all details of my application. I was incorrectly refused the EEA Family Permit. Please ensure that "every facility" is given to ensure that my previously applied for EEA Family Permit is now correctly issued, or the new application is processed quickly enough for us to use our existing and paid for travel arrangements. If this is not done, we will use our right under EU law to request compensation from UKBA.
Should you have any question about any aspect of this application, do not hesitate to contact us immediately or contact the European Casework team for guidance
There is NO option to refuse a spouse of an EU citizen "on the grounds that they might require recourse to public funds due to lack of employment/finances".Szmek wrote:So what is the wording of the regulations that refuse someone on the grounds that they might require recourse to public funds due to lack of employment/finances?
I understand that this is the most common type of refusal for all visa applications (non EU route) as to prevent anyone becoming a burden to the UK social system (namely benefits)
So there is an option to refuse on the grounds of regulation 21. And also if it is a marriage of convenience. That is it. No other options. Note the use of the word must!Issue of EEA family permit
12.—(1) An entry clearance officer must issue an EEA family permit to a person who applies for one if the person is a family member of an EEA national and— (a) the EEA national—
(i)is residing in the UK in accordance with these Regulations; or
(ii)will be travelling to the United Kingdom within six months of the date of the application and will be an EEA national residing in the United Kingdom in accordance with these Regulations on arrival in the United Kingdom; and
(b) the family member will be accompanying the EEA national to the United Kingdom or joining the EEA national there.
(2) [relevant only to extended family member]
(3) [relevant only to extended family member]
(4) An EEA family permit issued under this regulation shall be issued free of charge and as soon as possible. (5) But an EEA family permit shall not be issued under this regulation if the applicant or the EEA national concerned falls to be excluded from the United Kingdom on grounds of public policy, public security or public health in accordance with regulation 21.
Where is this entitlement? (I thought it was this 'public policy')I am entitled to be satisfied that the EEA national and his family members will not be a burden on the social assistance system in the UK.
(UK) The Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006 transposes that as:
(1) An EEA national is entitled to reside in the United Kingdom for a period not exceeding three months beginning on the date on which he is admitted to the United Kingdom provided that he holds a valid national identity card or passport issued by an EEA State.
(2) A family member of an EEA national residing in the United Kingdom under paragraph (1) who is not himself an EEA national is entitled to reside in the United Kingdom provided that he holds a valid passport.
(a) this regulation is subject to regulation 19(3)(b); and
(b) an EEA national or his family member who becomes an unreasonable burden on the social assistance system of the United Kingdom shall cease to have the right to reside under this regulation.