Welcome to immigrationboards.com!
That old post (2014) does not appear to address prolonged absences.thewhittaker wrote:Hi Thanks for both insights.
I previously posted asking question about returning to UK and got info as below:
You are the family member of an UK citizen who has worked elsewhere in the EU. So you are covered by the ECJ case of Singh. You have the right to be treated as the spouse of an (non-UK) EU citizen now and in the future, so long as you are entering the UK with your spouse.
Finally you need to present yourself at the border for entry into the the UK. Remember that all UK immigration officals have detailed records of your history, so they should be able to see that you are covered by Singh. But it is worth to travel with your marriage certificate and proof that you were previously covered by Singh. (http://www.immigrationboards.com/eea-ro ... 40-20.html)
So apart from husband is not eligible to sponsor me anymore, will I have trouble getting into the country with my son (British) this time?
I don't see anything in the wording of the regulations that breaks the 'as though EEA national' part. The Surinder Singh route principle is different to the PR principle, and predates it. The point of Surinder Singh route is to avoid discouraging movement between member countries, and refusing the OP entry now would discourage it. PR, on the other hand, enables citizens to put down roots in their new home.noajthan wrote:Its possible that, due to the breaks in continuity of residence, the BC sponsor will have lost the right to sponsor you as a family dependent under EU rules.
Even if one prolonged absence was for a one-off and exceptional reason, (eg military service, pregnancy, study leave - or some combination of these) there have been two periods of over 6 months away,
I doubt that simple economic migrancy is a good enough reason for more than 6 months absence;
it does not help to foster and bolster the family unit's cohesion and integration into the host memberstate.
Regulation 3(1) declares the scope of Regulation 3:noajthan wrote:However EEA Regulation 3 covers absences. And Regulation 9 is not declared to be exempt.
Moreover, the only periods in Regulation 9 are the periods spent in the other EEA country.Regulation 3(1) wrote:This regulation applies for the purpose of calculating periods of continuous residence in the United Kingdom under regulation 5(1) and regulation 15.
A family member can not spend say 1, 2, 3, or 4 years outside UK and still expect to be considered a family member resident in UK.secret.simon wrote:There is no regulation that states the period of time for which a family member needs to be resident in the UK for the purpose of maintaining residency.
So the OP is likely to get her Residence Card renewed.
The only possible fly in the ointment that I foresee is if the OP's British spouse needs to meets the requirement of Regulation 9 again at the renewal. S/he could fail the test because Regulation 9(2)(c) requires the center of the British spouse's life to be in another EEA country and the OP had mentioned that the British spouse was employed outside the EU.
If he has now lost his EEA attributes by not residing in UK then sponsor cannot sponsor OP for any RC renewal or for a DCPR.P is residing in an EEA State as a worker or self-employed person or was so residing before returning to the United Kingdom
And undisputed.noajthan wrote:When applying for DCPR the periods over 6 months abroad will certainly have reset the OP's PR clock. That's very clear.
The question is whether the word 'before' in the regulation should be read as 'immediately before' or similar.noajthan wrote:What is not clear is whether the sponsor has lost the ability to be a proxy EEA national.
After all there is no case law for doing Surinder Singh route then travelling the world; only the scenario of leaving one-time and then returning to UK.If he has now lost his EEA attributes by not residing in UK then sponsor cannot sponsor OP for any RC renewal or for a DCPR.P is residing in an EEA State as a worker or self-employed person or was so residing before returning to the United Kingdom
If the sponsor is in the UK or accompanying the OP, any revocation should be on the basis that Surinder Singh route no longer applied. If a decision to admit is made, revoking the card would waste money, some of it the taxpayers'.noajthan wrote:There is a risk the RC could be revoked at the border too; a slight risk admittedly as, so far, our tax £££ appear to be financing sleeping IOs.
Up to 6 months absence in a 12 months period is acceptable without issue. Whether the absence is piecemeal or in one continuous block.thewhittaker wrote:I couldn't edit the post so I want to clarify that short absence is absence less than 6 months in my meaning (I know my absence is not 'short')
Similarly for DCPR, see Article 16(3).The validity of the residence card shall not be affected by temporary absences not exceeding six months a year, or by absences of a longer duration for compulsory military service or by one absence of a maximum of twelve consecutive months for important reasons such as pregnancy and childbirth, serious illness, study or vocational training, or a posting in another Member State or a third country