Zambrano Settled Status EU settlement scheme Paper Application Form - NEW

We intend to revise and reform the flaws we have identified, and replace the Human Rights Act with a modern Bill of Rights

These proposals will be fully in line with our commitments under the Withdrawal Agreement, the Northern Ireland Protocol and the TCA.

Whilst human rights are universal, a Bill of Rights could require the courts to give greater consideration to the behaviour of claimants and the wider public interest when interpreting and balancing qualified rights.

Under section 2 of the Act, courts in the UK must ‘take into account’ any relevant Strasbourg jurisprudence...The IHRAR Panel recommended that section 2 be amended...Domestic courts must first consider whether a rights issue can be resolved by reference to a specific domestic statute or the common law, before considering Convention rights and Strasbourg case law.

220) The government believes that claims aiming to vindicate rights are serious matters, and the system needs to focus on cases where a genuine harm or loss has been caused. We have witnessed a proliferation of human rights claims under the Human Rights Act, not all of which merit court time and public resources. We also believe rights claims should not be used simply as another avenue of litigation to obtain compensation. The introduction of a permission stage would ensure that courts focus on genuine and credible human rights claims.

Judicial Remedies: section 8 of the Human Rights Act
The government wants a Bill of Rights to refocus rights-based claims on serious cases where a genuine injustice needs to be addressed...Our proposals would require applicants to pursue any other claims they may have first, either so that rights-based claims would not generally be available where other claims can be made, or in advance of any rights argument being considered, to allow the courts to decide whether the private law claims already provide adequate redress.

forney-again wrote: ↑

Wed Jun 29, 2022 2:27 am

Are you a Zambrano carer with leave to remain based on Appendix FM?

Appendix FM is based on Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Article 8 of the (ECHR) protects your right to respect for private and family life.

Appendix FM is also based on the UK's Human Rights Act.

The Conservative party does not want migrants to be able to rely on their right to family life in order to stay in the UK.

The courts interpret UK law according to rights provided under the ECHR (as far as possible). If Parliament makes a law that goes against the ECHR, or the Home Office issues guidance that is incompatible with the ECHR, the judges can ask the Home Office to "reconsider".

Section 3 of the Human Rights Act gives judges the authority to ask the Home Office to reconsider. In my OPINION, I believe the judges in Akinsaya relied on section 3 of the Human Rights Act when they asked the Home Office to "reconsider" their refusals.

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

to be free wrote: ↑

Wed Jun 29, 2022 3:51 pm

https://hclc.org.uk/2022/06/euss-zambra ... june-2022/

to be free wrote: ↑

Wed Jun 29, 2022 3:51 pm

https://hclc.org.uk/2022/06/euss-zambra ... june-2022/

• are not exempt persons and

• are entitled to a derivative right to reside, alongside their leave to remain

• so long as they satisfy the criteria under one of paragraphs (2)–(6).

"where someone has limited leave (and so is not listed as one of the exempt categories above) and can demonstrate that they meet all other requirements of regulation 15A, then they can acquire a derivative right of residence."

In Akinsanya this court was not required to consider, and did not consider, the requirements of Regulation 16(5) and how 16(5)(c) might be satisfied in practice by a primary carer who had limited leave to remain.

(c)an “exempt person” is a person—
(i)who has a right to reside under another provision of these Regulations;
(ii)who has the right of abode under section 2 of the 1971 Act(1);
(iii)to whom section 8 of the 1971 Act(2), or an order made under subsection (2) of that section(3), applies; or
(iv)who has indefinite leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom [F3(but see paragraph (7A))].

I have already rejected the Secretary of State's argument that the true scope of the Zambrano jurisprudence does not extend to people with limited leave to remain. That should be the end of the matter.

The Claimant [Akinsaya] contends that persons with limited leave are accordingly not exempt persons and by virtue of paragraph (1) (b) are entitled to a derivative right to reside, alongside their leave to remain, so long as they satisfy the criteria under one of paragraphs (2)-(6). On any natural reading of the language of paragraph (7) that submission is plainly right.

As Underhill LJ pointed out at [60] the claimant's [Akinsaya's] case was clearly right on any natural reading of Regulation 16(7).

(c)an “exempt person” is a person—
(i)who has a right to reside under another provision of these Regulations;
(ii)who has the right of abode under section 2 of the 1971 Act(1);
(iii)to whom section 8 of the 1971 Act(2), or an order made under subsection (2) of that section(3), applies; or
(iv)who has indefinite leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom [F3(but see paragraph (7A))].

I have already rejected the Secretary of State's argument that the true scope of the Zambrano jurisprudence does not extend to people with limited leave to remain. That should be the end of the matter.

The Claimant [Akinsaya] contends that persons with limited leave are accordingly not exempt persons and by virtue of paragraph (1) (b) are entitled to a derivative right to reside, alongside their leave to remain, so long as they satisfy the criteria under one of paragraphs (2)-(6). On any natural reading of the language of paragraph (7) that submission is plainly right.

As Underhill LJ pointed out at [60] the claimant's [Akinsaya's] case was clearly right on any natural reading of Regulation 16(7).

The Zambrano jurisprudence says what it says.

• the Zambrano right can not exist alongside rights granted at the national level

• the carer must exhaust all options prior to claiming Zambrano carer status

• Mr Lida had a residence permit from early 2006

• He applied for residence under the EU rules in May 2008

• In 2012, the Court refused his application for a Zambrano residence card because he was entitled to indefinite leave to remain. He had already lived in Germany for 5 years by then.

In my view Iida does indeed support Mr Blundell's case, for the reasons that he gives.

• In this case, a Pakistani mother of two German children applied for a derivative residence card in the UK.

• The woman was refused a derivative residence card as a Zambrano carer because she was already eligible for residence under the EU rules.

I accept Mr Blundell's submission that it supports his characterisation of the Zambrano right in the same way.

forney-again wrote: ↑

Wed Jun 29, 2022 9:37 pm

More analysis of Akinsaya - Court of Appeal - LORD JUSTICE UNDERHILL
(Vice-President of the Court of Appeal (Civil Division))

Underhill LJ considers two cases raised by the Home Office

1.) Iida v Stadt Ulm C-40/11
2.) NA v Secretary of State for the Home Department C-115/15

In Iida v Stadt Ulm C-40/11

• Mr Lida had a residence permit from early 2006

• He applied for residence under the EU rules in May 2008

• In 2012, the Court refused his application for a Zambrano residence card because he was entitled to indefinite leave to remain. He had already lived in Germany for 5 years by then.

This case is not relevant to Akinsaya. Akinsaya does not have indefinite leave to remain. If she did have indefinite leave to remain, she would not be in court. Nonetheless, Underhill LJ says,

In my view Iida does indeed support Mr Blundell's case, for the reasons that he gives.

NA v Secretary of State for the Home Department

• In this case, a Pakistani mother of two German children applied for a derivative residence card in the UK.

• The woman was refused a derivative residence card as a Zambrano carer because she was already eligible for residence under the EU rules.

This case is also not relevant to Akinsaya's. Akinsaya has no European children. I don't believe the child's father is European. Nonetheless, Underhill LJ says,

I accept Mr Blundell's submission that it supports his characterisation of the Zambrano right in the same way.

Moreover, the key question in Akinsaya was whether or not you can have both rights at the same time. (And Reg 16(7) does not say you can not have both rights at the same time.)

Meanwhile, Underhill LJ and the Home Office were instead busy off exploring at what point a Zambrano right arises.

And Jesus wept.

In my OPINION, this matter clearly has to go to the Supreme Court. Underhill LJ is the Vice President of the Court of Appeal. It seems the only one higher would be the President or the Supreme Court.

I suspect the Home Office will start sending out refusal letters at some point this summer. People should file an appeal before their deadline, even if it isn't perfect. Then, it is just a matter of waiting for the Supreme Court.

If the Secretary of State's purpose in wanting to "understand the Zambrano jurisprudence" was indeed to restrict rights under the EUSS to people whose right to reside at the relevant dates directly depended on Zambrano, then her approach was consistent with the EU case-law.

• Anyone with a Zambrano status on the relevant date is eligible

• Having limited leave to remain under Appendix FM on the relevant date does not invalidate your Zambrano status

• Mr Nilay Patel was a carer with no right to remain in the UK.

• Mr Shah had no right to live or work in the UK.

1.) The overarching question is whether the son would be compelled to leave

2.) The Court of Appeal made an error of law when it treated as determinative what could happen to Mr and Mrs Shah’s son if the father left the UK, rather than what the FTT had found would happen in that event

The immigration status of a person with limited leave to remain is precarious; leave is likely to be subject to conditions and it is liable to be withdrawn or truncated. It is possible to conceive of situations in which the conditions attached to a limited leave to remain are such as to make it impossible in practice for the primary carer to remain in the UK and look after the child.

forney-again wrote: ↑

Thu Jun 30, 2022 11:20 am

So, what should one do? File an appeal if you get a refusal to get your name on the list, so to speak
Also, enjoy your time with your children. Be extra kind, helpful, etc. At the heart of this drama is a belief that Zambrano carers are somehow less desirable, less capable and less worthy. Prove them wrong, not just in Court, but in your day to day life. They know the incredible amount of stress they cause people. The cruelty is the point. And the Courts let them get away with it for far too long. So, find a way to be happy anyway. As long as you are on the list, and you have your CoA every six months, try not to worry about it too much.

forney-again wrote: ↑

Thu Jun 30, 2022 11:20 am

So, what should one do? File an appeal if you get a refusal to get your name on the list, so to speak
Also, enjoy your time with your children. Be extra kind, helpful, etc. At the heart of this drama is a belief that Zambrano carers are somehow less desirable, less capable and less worthy. Prove them wrong, not just in Court, but in your day to day life. They know the incredible amount of stress they cause people. The cruelty is the point. And the Courts let them get away with it for far too long. So, find a way to be happy anyway. As long as you are on the list, and you have your CoA every six months, try not to worry about it too much.

THGHZ wrote: ↑

Thu Jun 30, 2022 2:04 pm

Hi all could we please avoid dumping loads of references here and stick to straightforward posts... It defeats the whole purpose of forum and not forgetting previous forum was closed down by moderator for such. Thanks

forney-again wrote: ↑

Thu Jun 30, 2022 3:01 pm

The fact that the judges now accept that the EEA Regulations do NOT say

Zambrano carers can not hold limited leave to remain under Appendix FM, and still be considered a Zambrano carer,

is a massive, massive win for Zambrano carers!!!

The Home Office argument revolves around two points. The EEA Regulations and the "Zambrano Jurisprudence." So, it's one point down, one to go.

The other point about Zambrano jurisprudence is highly nuanced. What cases constitute "Zambrano jurisprudence?" It's a free for all out there.

Another key problem is psychological. The Court of Appeal would have to 'eat crow' as they say, and accept that they were wrong. Maybe, just maybe, the judges in the Court of Appeal will talk to Underhill LJ and get him to see sense. Maybe, the media will cover the story and the judges will change their mind. There is always the Supreme Court. And Lady Arden cares about the welfare of the Zambrano children.

Also, their (Underhill LJ and the Home Office) reliance on case law that involves European children and not British children shows they are struggling to prove their point.

Hopefully, you all got something from the posts. This forum is becoming a bit too negative for me so I will have to close the account. I just picked this up a couple of days ago, after a long time, and thought I would add my analysis. If you remember from last time, I am NOT one to just say my conclusions... I develop them, hence the references.

In closing, I will say that I think Zambrano carers will succeed at the Supreme Court, if it gets that far. Hopefully, all decisions will be put on hold and people will be able to live their lives normally in the interim period. Take care of yourselves.

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.

apollo_alpha wrote: ↑

Wed Jun 15, 2022 8:41 pm

LULUBABY wrote: ↑

Wed Jun 15, 2022 10:23 am

UPDATE : JUST RECEIVED THIS

Thank you for your application under the EU Settlement Scheme.



We are in the process of considering your application and we require some additional information or evidence from you to help us to make sure we reach the correct decision. We would like to reassure you that no decision has been made on your EU Settlement Scheme application at this stage and we will work with you to help you with your application.



Consideration has been given as to whether you qualify for pre-settled status on the basis of completing a continuous qualifying period in the UK as the primary carer of a British citizen, referred to in Appendix EU as being a ‘person with a Zambrano right to reside’



This department requires the following information:

Evidence of your primary care over your sponsor, within the last six months, from January 2022 to June 2022 in the form of a school letter, Dr’s letter, or any other evidence that you have been the primary carer of your sponsor during the last six months.


Further guidance on family members who are eligible to apply to the EU Settlement Scheme along with guidance on documentation to provide as proof of your family relationship to an EEA citizen can be found at https://www.gov.uk/settled-status-eucitizens-families.



If you are unable to provide any further evidence that you have completed a continuous qualifying period of five years as defined in Annex 1 to Part 1 of Appendix EU, we will consider your application on the basis of your claimed continuous qualified period as a person with a Zambrano right to reside.



Please provide this information within two weeks of the date of this e-mail so that we can decide your application as quickly as possible.



If you have any queries about this e-mail / letter you can find further information and guidance at www.gov.uk/government/publications/eu-s ... r-guidance.



If you think you cannot provide the evidence we require or think you may need longer to gather the required evidence, please contact the EU Settlement Resolution Centre quoting your unique application number so that we can provide further advice.



You can contact EU Settlement Resolution Centre via telephone or email:



If you’re inside the UK

Telephone: 0300 123 7379

Monday to Friday (excluding bank holidays), 8am to 8pm

Saturday and Sunday, 9:30am to 4:30pm



If you’re outside the UK

Telephone: +44 (0)203 080 0010

Monday to Friday (excluding bank holidays), 8am to 8pm

Saturday and Sunday, 9:30am to 4:30pm

You can find out about the call charges at www.gov.uk/call-charges



EU Settlement Scheme contact form

https://eu-settled-status-enquiries.ser ... v.uk/start



Yours sincerely

Hi Lulubaby,

Hope you are well.

Hopefully, this comes out positive for you.

Just one question. Do you still have valid leave to remain or has it expired and you didn't renew it?

Many thanks,

LULUBABY wrote: ↑

Fri Jul 01, 2022 11:47 am

apollo_alpha wrote: ↑

Wed Jun 15, 2022 8:41 pm

LULUBABY wrote: ↑

Wed Jun 15, 2022 10:23 am

UPDATE : JUST RECEIVED THIS

Thank you for your application under the EU Settlement Scheme.



We are in the process of considering your application and we require some additional information or evidence from you to help us to make sure we reach the correct decision. We would like to reassure you that no decision has been made on your EU Settlement Scheme application at this stage and we will work with you to help you with your application.



Consideration has been given as to whether you qualify for pre-settled status on the basis of completing a continuous qualifying period in the UK as the primary carer of a British citizen, referred to in Appendix EU as being a ‘person with a Zambrano right to reside’



This department requires the following information:

Evidence of your primary care over your sponsor, within the last six months, from January 2022 to June 2022 in the form of a school letter, Dr’s letter, or any other evidence that you have been the primary carer of your sponsor during the last six months.


Further guidance on family members who are eligible to apply to the EU Settlement Scheme along with guidance on documentation to provide as proof of your family relationship to an EEA citizen can be found at https://www.gov.uk/settled-status-eucitizens-families.



If you are unable to provide any further evidence that you have completed a continuous qualifying period of five years as defined in Annex 1 to Part 1 of Appendix EU, we will consider your application on the basis of your claimed continuous qualified period as a person with a Zambrano right to reside.



Please provide this information within two weeks of the date of this e-mail so that we can decide your application as quickly as possible.



If you have any queries about this e-mail / letter you can find further information and guidance at www.gov.uk/government/publications/eu-s ... r-guidance.



If you think you cannot provide the evidence we require or think you may need longer to gather the required evidence, please contact the EU Settlement Resolution Centre quoting your unique application number so that we can provide further advice.



You can contact EU Settlement Resolution Centre via telephone or email:



If you’re inside the UK

Telephone: 0300 123 7379

Monday to Friday (excluding bank holidays), 8am to 8pm

Saturday and Sunday, 9:30am to 4:30pm



If you’re outside the UK

Telephone: +44 (0)203 080 0010

Monday to Friday (excluding bank holidays), 8am to 8pm

Saturday and Sunday, 9:30am to 4:30pm

You can find out about the call charges at www.gov.uk/call-charges



EU Settlement Scheme contact form

https://eu-settled-status-enquiries.ser ... v.uk/start



Yours sincerely

Hi Lulubaby,

Hope you are well.

Hopefully, this comes out positive for you.

Just one question. Do you still have valid leave to remain or has it expired and you didn't renew it?

Many thanks,

Hi Apollo_Alpha, any news yet?. Any update?