Zambrano Settled Status EU settlement scheme Paper Application Form - NEW

Nyamebeye wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 20, 2022 3:13 pm

Has anyone experienceed this sort of thing before?

rai75 wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 20, 2022 2:38 pm

Shara111 wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 20, 2022 2:19 pm

Hi, Good Afternoon
Just received COA . Don't know its useless or not.
Few days left to renew last extension.
Borrowing money from fnf . May be I apply for flr fp

Hi, when did you do your finger prints? how long after did you get your COA? Was the COA sent in the post or via email? Does it say what the status of your case it?
Thanks

Kmt2014 wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 20, 2022 5:15 pm

Goodevening everyone please any update. Has anyone heard back from HO. Thanks

Onomskky wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 20, 2022 7:02 pm

From their reconsideration, it’s clear they went against a court order not to exclude individuals with LTR despite promising the court they will rewrite their guidance.

JB007 wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 20, 2022 8:59 pm

Onomskky wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 20, 2022 7:02 pm

From their reconsideration, it’s clear they went against a court order not to exclude individuals with LTR despite promising the court they will rewrite their guidance.

If you look at the link to the freemovement site that somebody posted on this thread (sorry, I can't find your post as there have been so many), they did not go against the court.

This situation was challenged, initially successfully in the High Court, but a subsequent trip to the Court of Appeal watered down the impact. Following Akinsanya [2022] EWCA Civ 37, the Home Office ultimately only had to go away and think again about whether it wanted to allow Zambrano carers to use the Settlement Scheme if they already have UK permission to stay. Its verdict is, no:
https://freemovement.org.uk/no-change-t ... -judgment/

JB007 wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 20, 2022 8:59 pm

Onomskky wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 20, 2022 7:02 pm

From their reconsideration, it’s clear they went against a court order not to exclude individuals with LTR despite promising the court they will rewrite their guidance.

If you look at the link to the freemovement site that somebody posted on this thread (sorry, I can't find your post as there have been so many), they did not go against the court.

This situation was challenged, initially successfully in the High Court, but a subsequent trip to the Court of Appeal watered down the impact. Following Akinsanya [2022] EWCA Civ 37, the Home Office ultimately only had to go away and think again about whether it wanted to allow Zambrano carers to use the Settlement Scheme if they already have UK permission to stay. Its verdict is, no:
https://freemovement.org.uk/no-change-t ... -judgment/

Agyapa wrote: ↑

Tue Jun 21, 2022 12:15 pm

But the HO are still issuing settled status to Zambrano carers who already have leave to remain in the UK on a different immigration route?

Kmt2014 wrote: ↑

Thu Jun 23, 2022 8:52 pm

Hi everyone ..its quite here. Any update please.

Jay444 wrote: ↑

Fri Jun 17, 2022 11:17 pm

Hi
My flr fp first lot of 2.5 years expired on 10th December 2021 and I didn't apply for renewal on flrfp as I am waiting for outcome on zambrano I have applied zambrano on 29th June 2021.
What would happen now?
I am so concerned?
Also I haven't received COA yet called them 3 times already.

Catalley09 wrote: ↑

Sat Jun 25, 2022 11:59 am

hello everyone, hope you are well, l received the following on the 22nd June and i have emailed the admin review attaching a copy as l have 2 euss application , 1 which was in admin review and another which l applied on the 29th June 2021

Following the appeal of the decision in respect of your EEA Derivative Residence Card
application, I am writing to inform you that we have considered your application and,
although we are satisfied that you would have qualified for an EEA Derivative
Residence Card as a family member, this route closed on 30 June 2021 and we
therefore cannot issue you with an EEA Derivative Residence.
Your immigration records have been updated to retrospectively recognise your status
under the EEA Regulations. However, as set out above, a document under the EEA
Regulations can no longer be issued.
Next steps
Your immigration records indicate that you applied to the EU Settlement Scheme on
the 29 June 2021 the information contained within this letter will be considered
alongside your EU Settlement Scheme application. If further information is required to
support your EU Settlement Scheme application, you will be contacted by email or

Catalley09 wrote: ↑

Sat Jun 25, 2022 11:59 am

hello everyone, hope you are well, l received the following on the 22nd June and i have emailed the admin review attaching a copy as l have 2 euss application , 1 which was in admin review and another which l applied on the 29th June 2021

Following the appeal of the decision in respect of your EEA Derivative Residence Card
application, I am writing to inform you that we have considered your application and,
although we are satisfied that you would have qualified for an EEA Derivative
Residence Card as a family member, this route closed on 30 June 2021 and we
therefore cannot issue you with an EEA Derivative Residence.
Your immigration records have been updated to retrospectively recognise your status
under the EEA Regulations. However, as set out above, a document under the EEA
Regulations can no longer be issued.
Next steps
Your immigration records indicate that you applied to the EU Settlement Scheme on
the 29 June 2021 the information contained within this letter will be considered
alongside your EU Settlement Scheme application. If further information is required to
support your EU Settlement Scheme application, you will be contacted by email or

• deportation

• exclusion orders

• they lived outside of the UK for five years before they applied

Applicants will be eligible for EUSS status in this category where, by the end of the transition period and during the relevant period relied upon, they met the relevant requirements of regulation 16 of the 2016 Regulations and did not have leave to enter or remain in the UK (unless this was under the EUSS)

The applicant meets the eligibility requirements for indefinite leave to enter or remain...where the Secretary of State is satisfied, including (where applicable) by the required evidence of family relationship, that, at the date of application and in an application made by the required date, one of conditions 1 to 7 set out in the following table is met:

vi) is a person who had a derivative or Zambrano right to reside; and
(b) The applicant has completed a continuous qualifying period of five years in any (or any combination) of those categories; and
(c) Since then no supervening event has occurred in respect of the applicant

Lagosbos wrote: ↑

Tue Jun 07, 2022 12:11 pm

apollo_alpha wrote: ↑

Tue Jun 07, 2022 12:06 pm

Lagosbos wrote: ↑

Tue Jun 07, 2022 12:03 pm

KRES wrote: ↑

Mon May 30, 2022 11:33 am

Lagosbos wrote: ↑

Sat Apr 02, 2022 10:18 am

That was the response i received following my email to their Director. For the highlighted reason no one understands what angle they will be taking in the forthcoming changes in Appendix EU. They are also refusing few people where the other parent (carer) has a settled status in light of the Velaj case which is due to be heard at the appeal court sometime in June, but that is arguable in court as its not in accordance with Paragraph 16 (8&9) of the EEA reg nor appendix EU. We are waiting to see what happens on the 25th April.

For those who might have been refused based on the afore mentioned reason you need include the following in your argument. The words “both primary carers” have been added to reg 16 (5) to reflect the effect of reg 16 (9) and the words in italics in (8) (b)(ii) were deleted by operation of the Immigration (EEA) (amendment) Regulations 2018 SI2018/801. Prior to that amendment, the appellant would not have been entitled to a derivative right of residence as his wife is an exempt person.
13. The explanatory memorandum to SI 2018/801 provides:
Paragraph 10 of the Schedule to these Regulations amends the 2016 Regulations so as to give effect to the judgment of the CJEU in the case of C—133/15 Chavez-Vilchez and others. It does so by amending regulation 16(8)(b) of the 2016 Regulations to allow a person to be recognised as a "primary carer" if they are the sole carer or if they share equally the care with another person, regardless of whether that person is an "exempt person" within the meaning of regulation 16(7)(c).

Hello Lagosbos,

Hope you are well. I am in the process of applying for Zambrano EU Settlement Scheme. I had FLR fp but has expired in 2020. I've submitted PSS application but was denied. I am married to British guy and we have a British child. He works full time and I am a full time mom.

I have done some research about the potential issue of my application as a Zambrano carer as I am sharing responsibility with my husband.

Do you think Regulations 16(5) would help strengthen my application? Can you help me understand this regulation? My apology but my comprehension on laws and regulations is really limited.

Thank you in advance.

There is no part of Zambrano principle that exempts someone sharing care responsibility for EU/British Citizen with another person. HO will always want to play different games, but its down to you fight it out in court. I have similar case in court waiting to be heard later this month and I will be posting the outcome on here. All the best!

The court of appeal have promulgated the decision yesterday. The case of Velaj https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2022/767.html.

Thanks Apollo Aplpha, I had an interest in this case (Velaj v SSHS) as I also have something similar waiting to be heard at the FTT.

forney-again wrote: ↑

Wed Jun 29, 2022 2:27 am

The new Bill of Rights, to be introduced this Wednesday, will remove section 3 of the Human Rights Act.

Lagosbos wrote: ↑

Tue Jun 28, 2022 8:44 pm

Appellant’s case
3. The Appellant entered the UK on a 6 month visit visa, which expired in February 20XX
and on XX November 20XX the Appellant applied for leave to remain under Appendix
FM. On xx March 20xx the Respondent granted 30 months’ limited leave to remain until
xx September 20XX. On XX May 20XX the Appellant applied to the EU Settlement Scheme
(EUSS) for limited leave to remain (pre-settled status) under Appendix EU of the
Immigration Rules, on the basis that she had been a person with a Zambrano right to
reside for a period of x year and x months continuous residence. The Respondent
refused the application by letter dated 1x February 20xx. The Appellant appeals against
that decision. It is the Appellant’s case that she is the primary carer for her x-year-old
child (X) and that she shares this responsibility equally with her partner (Mr XXXXXX),
who is settled in the UK and who is the child’s father. The Appellant states that her
young daughter suffers from significant medical difficulties which require constant and
adequate parental supervision to prevent life threatening crisis. The Appellant seeks
leave to remain in the UK to care for her child.
4. I have not felt the need to put an anonymity order in place in this instance. However,
due to the Appellant’s daughter’s age and medical position, I have not named her herein
and she will be referred to as X throughout the judgment.
The Respondent’s case
5. The Respondent refused the application on the basis that the requirements of Regulation
16(5) of the EEA Regulations were not met. It was argued that the Appellant had not
demonstrated that her daughter would be unable to remain in the UK in her absence, as
the child’s father had indefinite leave to remain in the UK and he resided with the child.
As there was an alternative carer available, A would be able to remain in the UK with
him. Therefore, it was argued, the Appellant did not meet the Zambrano requirements.
The Respondent stated that the Appellant did not meet the eligibility requirements for
settled status set out in rule EU11 of Appendix EU to the Immigration Rules or those for
pre-settled status which are set out in rule EU14 of that Appendix. Therefore, settled
status and pre-settled status were refused under EU6.
Relevant Legal Framework
6. The relevant legal provisions are set out in the EEA Regulations of 2016, which seek to
transpose into domestic law Council Directive 2004/38/EC on the right of citizens of the
European Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory
of Member States. Under the Regulation 16 of the EEA Regulations, a person has a
derivative right to reside if they are not an exempt person and they satisfy each of the
criteria in one or more of paragraphs 16(2) to 16(6).
7. As the Appellant is not an exempt person under Regulation 16(7)(c), the relevant
provisions in respect of this appeal fall under Regulation 16(5) of the EEA Regulations,
which provides a third country national with a derivative right to reside where:

(a) the person is the primary carer of a British citizen (BC);
(b) the BC is residing in the United Kingdom; and
(c) the BC would be unable to reside in the United Kingdom or in another EEA State if the
person left the United Kingdom for an indefinite period.
Regulation 16(8) provides that a person is the ‘primary carer’ of another person (AP) if:
(a) the person is a direct relative or a legal guardian of AP; and
(b) either -
(i) the person has primary responsibility for AP’s care; or
(ii) shares equally the responsibility for AP’s care with one other person who is not an
exempt person.
Burden and standard of proof
8. The burden of proof is on the Appellant to demonstrate that she meets the relevant
requirements to establish a derivative right of residence as the primary carer of a British
citizen. The standard of proof in such matters is that of a balance of probabilities.
Findings of Fact and Reasons
9. In coming to a decision in this appeal, I have considered all the evidence submitted. This
includes the bundle submitted by the Appellant and the bundle submitted by the
Respondent. I have referred in my findings to the material aspects of the claim and
considered all evidence in the round applying the relevant standard of proof, that of a
balance of probabilities, but any absence of a reference to a particular piece of evidence
should not be taken to mean that I have not considered that evidence.
Primary carer
10. A derivative right of residence under EEA Regulations is a right that is derived from the
dependent European Union (EU) citizen, in this case the Appellant’s minor child. A key
issue in determining whether the Appellant has such a right is whether her daughter
would be unable to reside in the United Kingdom or another EEA state if the Appellant
is required to leave, thus depriving her of the benefits of Union citizenship. This
principle arose in the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (‘the
CJEU’) in Zambrano v Office national de l’emploi (Case C-34/09), in which it was held
that a third country national parent of a Union citizen child resident in Union territory,
was entitled to a right of residence to avoid the child being deprived of enjoying the
substance of their Union citizenship rights if their parents were removed. This is why
such applications are referred to as Zambrano cases, though the derivative right of
residence is implemented in domestic legislation by virtue of Regulation 16 of the EEA
Regulations.
11. The Appellant must first establish that she is the primary carer for her young daughter
to satisfy the requirement under Regulation 16(5)(a) of the EEA Regulations. It is of note
that the Respondent does not appear to dispute this within the decision letter. In any
event, I am satisfied from the detailed evidence submitted that the Appellant is one of
two primary carers for her daughter. I find and accept that the Appellant shares her role
as carer for her daughter with her partner. She fulfils the criteria set out within 16(5) and
16(8) of the EEA Regulations.
12. Further, the Respondent has not raised any issue as regards Regulation 16(5)(b). There
is no issue that the Appellant’s daughter is residing in the UK and, in any event, on the
evidence submitted, I am satisfied that she is so resident.
Unable to remain
13. The Respondent’s argument (as set out within the decision letter) is that the Appellant
has not established that her minor child would be unable to reside in the UK or another
EEA state if she left, as required under Regulation 16(5)(c).
14. The Appellant must show that her daughter would be unable to reside in the United
Kingdom if she were required to leave for an indefinite period. I note that this is a
finding of fact to be made in each case. The Appellant’s representatives have helpfully
referred to relevant case law, including the cases of Patel v SSHD [2017} EWCA Civ 2028,
Chavez-Vilcher (C-113 15) 10 May 2017, (EEA Regulations – interpretation, Reg 16(5),
Zambrano) Kosovo [2021] UKUT 235 (IAC) (3 June 2021) and KA v Belgium (C-82/16
EU308). When determining the question of whether the Appellant’s daughter
would be able or unable to remain following the indefinite leave of her mother, it is clear
that relevant considerations include: the age of the child, the best interests of the child,
whether the other parent is willing to assume full responsibility for the child, the child’s
physical and emotional development, the extent of her ties with both parents and the
impact of the separation on the child. I note that I am bound to consider the best interests
of the children in the UK under section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration
Act 2009 as a primary consideration (but not the primary consideration).
15. In the present case, the Appellant’s child is 3 years old. She is therefore very young. She
lives with her mother and her father. It is clearly the case that she will have a strong
bond with the Appellant, who is her mother. I accept this on the balance of probabilities
on the basis of the family set up and the child’s age alone. However, if further evidence
is required, I also accept the evidence of the Appellant’s partner (page 37 of the bundle)
that: “the love they have for one another is unbreakable and has created a special bond between
mother and daughter”. The photographs (provided outside of the paginated bundle) also
depict a loving and close relationship between mother and child and support my
conclusion that there is a close relationship and strong bond. In the present appeal, the
child also has significant medical challenges which require the input and supervision of
both parents. I have been provided with pictures of the XXXXX which is clearly
prescribed for x. I have also had regard to the letter from the GP (page 51 of the bundle)
and the subsequent medical evidence in the bundle which confirms that A suffers from
a significant number of allergic conditions. The level of care and supervision required
for such a young child cannot be provided should the Appellant be required to leave the
family home and the UK. The result would be that A (and the rest of the family) would
have to leave the UK (and the EU) with the Appellant. In coming to this decision, I have
also considered and accepted the evidence of the Appellant’s partner (page 37 of the
bundle). I note and accept that he works full time and that the Appellant works part
time. They have 2 young children. In order to financially, emotionally and physically
care for their children, the Appellant and her partner have to work together and share
that task. If the Appellant was to leave the UK and the family home for an indefinite
period, I find and accept that the family (including x) would be required to leave with
her. I find that the Appellant’s partner would not be able to work and care for the
children on his own in the UK. Further, when considering the best interests of the
Appellant’s child as a primary consideration (albeit not the primary consideration), I am
satisfied that her best interests are clearly met by remaining with her mother within the
family unit in the UK.
16. Having considered all the evidence presented in the round, I find that the Appellant has
established to the required evidential standard that her daughter, x, will be required to
leave the UK or EU territory if the Appellant is required to leave for an indefinite period.
Therefore, I find that the Appellant does satisfy the requirements under Regulation
16(5)(c) to establish a derivative right of residence. Should the Appellant leave the UK,
I am satisfied that her child would be compelled to leave with her on the facts of this
appeal.
Conclusions
17. Given my findings above, the Appellant has provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate
to the required evidential standard that she meets the requirements of Regulation 16(5)
of the EEA Regulations as the primary carer of a British citizen.
18. The Respondent’s decision is therefore unlawful, and the appeal is allowed.
Notice of Decision
I allow the appeal under the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2016.
No anonymity direction is made.
TO THE RESPONDENT
FEE AWARD
As I have allowed the appeal, I determine that the Respondent should pay any fee incurred
by the Appellant in lodging this appeal.

Lagosbos wrote: ↑

Tue Jun 28, 2022 8:44 pm

Appellant’s case
3. The Appellant entered the UK on a 6 month visit visa, which expired in February 20XX
and on XX November 20XX the Appellant applied for leave to remain under Appendix
FM. On xx March 20xx the Respondent granted 30 months’ limited leave to remain until
xx September 20XX. On XX May 20XX the Appellant applied to the EU Settlement Scheme
(EUSS) for limited leave to remain (pre-settled status) under Appendix EU of the
Immigration Rules, on the basis that she had been a person with a Zambrano right to
reside for a period of x year and x months continuous residence. The Respondent
refused the application by letter dated 1x February 20xx. The Appellant appeals against
that decision. It is the Appellant’s case that she is the primary carer for her x-year-old
child (X) and that she shares this responsibility equally with her partner (Mr XXXXXX),
who is settled in the UK and who is the child’s father. The Appellant states that her
young daughter suffers from significant medical difficulties which require constant and
adequate parental supervision to prevent life threatening crisis. The Appellant seeks
leave to remain in the UK to care for her child.
4. I have not felt the need to put an anonymity order in place in this instance. However,
due to the Appellant’s daughter’s age and medical position, I have not named her herein
and she will be referred to as X throughout the judgment.
The Respondent’s case
5. The Respondent refused the application on the basis that the requirements of Regulation
16(5) of the EEA Regulations were not met. It was argued that the Appellant had not
demonstrated that her daughter would be unable to remain in the UK in her absence, as
the child’s father had indefinite leave to remain in the UK and he resided with the child.
As there was an alternative carer available, A would be able to remain in the UK with
him. Therefore, it was argued, the Appellant did not meet the Zambrano requirements.
The Respondent stated that the Appellant did not meet the eligibility requirements for
settled status set out in rule EU11 of Appendix EU to the Immigration Rules or those for
pre-settled status which are set out in rule EU14 of that Appendix. Therefore, settled
status and pre-settled status were refused under EU6.
Relevant Legal Framework
6. The relevant legal provisions are set out in the EEA Regulations of 2016, which seek to
transpose into domestic law Council Directive 2004/38/EC on the right of citizens of the
European Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory
of Member States. Under the Regulation 16 of the EEA Regulations, a person has a
derivative right to reside if they are not an exempt person and they satisfy each of the
criteria in one or more of paragraphs 16(2) to 16(6).
7. As the Appellant is not an exempt person under Regulation 16(7)(c), the relevant
provisions in respect of this appeal fall under Regulation 16(5) of the EEA Regulations,
which provides a third country national with a derivative right to reside where:

(a) the person is the primary carer of a British citizen (BC);
(b) the BC is residing in the United Kingdom; and
(c) the BC would be unable to reside in the United Kingdom or in another EEA State if the
person left the United Kingdom for an indefinite period.
Regulation 16(8) provides that a person is the ‘primary carer’ of another person (AP) if:
(a) the person is a direct relative or a legal guardian of AP; and
(b) either -
(i) the person has primary responsibility for AP’s care; or
(ii) shares equally the responsibility for AP’s care with one other person who is not an
exempt person.
Burden and standard of proof
8. The burden of proof is on the Appellant to demonstrate that she meets the relevant
requirements to establish a derivative right of residence as the primary carer of a British
citizen. The standard of proof in such matters is that of a balance of probabilities.
Findings of Fact and Reasons
9. In coming to a decision in this appeal, I have considered all the evidence submitted. This
includes the bundle submitted by the Appellant and the bundle submitted by the
Respondent. I have referred in my findings to the material aspects of the claim and
considered all evidence in the round applying the relevant standard of proof, that of a
balance of probabilities, but any absence of a reference to a particular piece of evidence
should not be taken to mean that I have not considered that evidence.
Primary carer
10. A derivative right of residence under EEA Regulations is a right that is derived from the
dependent European Union (EU) citizen, in this case the Appellant’s minor child. A key
issue in determining whether the Appellant has such a right is whether her daughter
would be unable to reside in the United Kingdom or another EEA state if the Appellant
is required to leave, thus depriving her of the benefits of Union citizenship. This
principle arose in the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (‘the
CJEU’) in Zambrano v Office national de l’emploi (Case C-34/09), in which it was held
that a third country national parent of a Union citizen child resident in Union territory,
was entitled to a right of residence to avoid the child being deprived of enjoying the
substance of their Union citizenship rights if their parents were removed. This is why
such applications are referred to as Zambrano cases, though the derivative right of
residence is implemented in domestic legislation by virtue of Regulation 16 of the EEA
Regulations.
11. The Appellant must first establish that she is the primary carer for her young daughter
to satisfy the requirement under Regulation 16(5)(a) of the EEA Regulations. It is of note
that the Respondent does not appear to dispute this within the decision letter. In any
event, I am satisfied from the detailed evidence submitted that the Appellant is one of
two primary carers for her daughter. I find and accept that the Appellant shares her role
as carer for her daughter with her partner. She fulfils the criteria set out within 16(5) and
16(8) of the EEA Regulations.
12. Further, the Respondent has not raised any issue as regards Regulation 16(5)(b). There
is no issue that the Appellant’s daughter is residing in the UK and, in any event, on the
evidence submitted, I am satisfied that she is so resident.
Unable to remain
13. The Respondent’s argument (as set out within the decision letter) is that the Appellant
has not established that her minor child would be unable to reside in the UK or another
EEA state if she left, as required under Regulation 16(5)(c).
14. The Appellant must show that her daughter would be unable to reside in the United
Kingdom if she were required to leave for an indefinite period. I note that this is a
finding of fact to be made in each case. The Appellant’s representatives have helpfully
referred to relevant case law, including the cases of Patel v SSHD [2017} EWCA Civ 2028,
Chavez-Vilcher (C-113 15) 10 May 2017, (EEA Regulations – interpretation, Reg 16(5),
Zambrano) Kosovo [2021] UKUT 235 (IAC) (3 June 2021) and KA v Belgium (C-82/16
EU308). When determining the question of whether the Appellant’s daughter
would be able or unable to remain following the indefinite leave of her mother, it is clear
that relevant considerations include: the age of the child, the best interests of the child,
whether the other parent is willing to assume full responsibility for the child, the child’s
physical and emotional development, the extent of her ties with both parents and the
impact of the separation on the child. I note that I am bound to consider the best interests
of the children in the UK under section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration
Act 2009 as a primary consideration (but not the primary consideration).
15. In the present case, the Appellant’s child is 3 years old. She is therefore very young. She
lives with her mother and her father. It is clearly the case that she will have a strong
bond with the Appellant, who is her mother. I accept this on the balance of probabilities
on the basis of the family set up and the child’s age alone. However, if further evidence
is required, I also accept the evidence of the Appellant’s partner (page 37 of the bundle)
that: “the love they have for one another is unbreakable and has created a special bond between
mother and daughter”. The photographs (provided outside of the paginated bundle) also
depict a loving and close relationship between mother and child and support my
conclusion that there is a close relationship and strong bond. In the present appeal, the
child also has significant medical challenges which require the input and supervision of
both parents. I have been provided with pictures of the XXXXX which is clearly
prescribed for x. I have also had regard to the letter from the GP (page 51 of the bundle)
and the subsequent medical evidence in the bundle which confirms that A suffers from
a significant number of allergic conditions. The level of care and supervision required
for such a young child cannot be provided should the Appellant be required to leave the
family home and the UK. The result would be that A (and the rest of the family) would
have to leave the UK (and the EU) with the Appellant. In coming to this decision, I have
also considered and accepted the evidence of the Appellant’s partner (page 37 of the
bundle). I note and accept that he works full time and that the Appellant works part
time. They have 2 young children. In order to financially, emotionally and physically
care for their children, the Appellant and her partner have to work together and share
that task. If the Appellant was to leave the UK and the family home for an indefinite
period, I find and accept that the family (including x) would be required to leave with
her. I find that the Appellant’s partner would not be able to work and care for the
children on his own in the UK. Further, when considering the best interests of the
Appellant’s child as a primary consideration (albeit not the primary consideration), I am
satisfied that her best interests are clearly met by remaining with her mother within the
family unit in the UK.
16. Having considered all the evidence presented in the round, I find that the Appellant has
established to the required evidential standard that her daughter, x, will be required to
leave the UK or EU territory if the Appellant is required to leave for an indefinite period.
Therefore, I find that the Appellant does satisfy the requirements under Regulation
16(5)(c) to establish a derivative right of residence. Should the Appellant leave the UK,
I am satisfied that her child would be compelled to leave with her on the facts of this
appeal.
Conclusions
17. Given my findings above, the Appellant has provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate
to the required evidential standard that she meets the requirements of Regulation 16(5)
of the EEA Regulations as the primary carer of a British citizen.
18. The Respondent’s decision is therefore unlawful, and the appeal is allowed.
Notice of Decision
I allow the appeal under the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2016.
No anonymity direction is made.
TO THE RESPONDENT
FEE AWARD
As I have allowed the appeal, I determine that the Respondent should pay any fee incurred
by the Appellant in lodging this appeal.