Zambrano Settled Status EU settlement scheme Paper Application Form - NEW

Legitimate expectations: METOCK

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/c ... 5/1075.pdf

Recommendation 5 (j)

The Government said on page 11

WE HAVE AGREED with the EU that the agreement will apply concepts of EU law interpreted in line with case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) by the end of the implementation period, including cases such as Metock, which limits consideration of the previous immigration status of those applying as non-EEA family members of EU citizens.

METOCK

Metock was a Cameroonian national married to a British national working in Ireland.

In Metock, the European Court of Justice said people who are not covered by the 2004 Directive should not be denied residence.

The European Court of Justice ruled definitively that national rules

• making the right of residence of non-EU national spouses of Union citizens

• resident in a member state

• but not possessing its nationality under the Citizenship Directive 2004/38

• conditional on prior lawful residence in another member state

were unlawful.

DISCUSSION

1a.) The case of Metock was decided before 31 December 2020, so the UK definitely has to apply it.

1b.) Like Metock, Zambrano carers were not covered by the 2004 Citizenship Directive.

1c.) I suspect the only reason the UK Government included Zambrano carers in the EU Settlment Scheme is because of the case of Metock.

1d.) You could argue in your grounds that the Home Office did not faithfully implement Metock for Zambrano carers. They created a category for Zambrano carers, but they always sought to undermine the category by denying 90% of Zambrano applicants.

2.) The UK Government did NOT ONLY agree to follow case law handed down before 31 December 2020. The Withdrawal Agreement says the UK will apply case law handed down AFTER 31 December 2020, too.

SUMMARY

The Government implemented Metock in line with the European Court of Justice ruling.

HOWEVER, they implemented Metock in a way that contradicts the spirit of the ruling.

They have discriminated against Zambrano carers.

=========

The Government made public statements to say they would implement and respect Metock.

The Government's failure to apply Metock faithfully, violates the legitimate expectations of Zambrano carers.

=========

The Government made public statements to say they would respect case law passed BEFORE 31 December 2020.

The Withdrawal Agreement says clearly in the next paragraph that case law passed AFTER 31 December 2020 must be taken into account.

The European Court of Justice case of E.K. has not been addressed by the Goverment.

(In the case of Ms. E.K., a Zambrano carer, the ECJ said people covered under Article 20 TFEU are eligible for permanent residence after 5 years.)

Zambrano carers had a legitimate expectation that the Government would apply cases such as Ms E.K.

Metock (2008)

Court of Justice of the European Union in Metock and Others (Area of Freedom, Security and Justice) [2008] EUECJ C-127/08 (25 July 2008)

https://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/EUECJ/2008/C12708.html

Take a look at paragraph 41

They submitted that Directive 2004/38 governs exhaustively the conditions of entry into and residence in a Member State for a Union citizen who is a national of another Member State and his family members, so that the Member States are not entitled to impose additional conditions.

Since the directive makes no provision for a condition of prior lawful residence in another Member State, such as that imposed by the Irish legislation, that legislation is not consistent with Community law.

The European Court of Justice agreed with Metok's lawyers that Member States can not add conditions to an EU Directive.

Yet, post-Brexit, the UK added provisions to the EUSS. They include the requirement to not have leave under Appendix FM and to be forced to apply for leave under Appendix FM, if you do not have it.

Zambrano carers with pending applications or appeals are still covered by the EEA Regulations. The EEA Regulations derive from Union law.

The UK can not add conditions to rights already guaranteed by Union law. But that is what the Home Office has done.

Do you see?

If you are waiting for a decision, or in the process of an appeal, you are covered by the EEA, which is built upon Union law.

Yet, the Home Office has limited your rights under Union law - by adding conditions or 'provisions' for you to obtain a right of residence under Union law.

So, eventhough the statutory instrument SAYS you are entitled to the rights under EEA regulations (which come from Union law), you are not really.

Because, if you apply for residence based on your time spent under Union law, you will almost certainly be refused.

The UK can't have it both ways.

They say a Zambrano carer is a Zambrano carer - based on the EU's definition - while they apply for EUSS or appeal their EUSS decision.

On the other hand, they say a Zambrano carer is not a Zambrano carer - based on the EU's definition - when the evaluate the EUSS application.

It makes absolutely no sense. It is irrational and therefore unlawful. I don't understand why no one has raised this point before the judges.

Discrimination: Metok, paragraph 75

Those governments further submit that that interpretation of Directive 2004/38 would lead to unjustified reverse discrimination, in so far as nationals of the host Member State who have never exercised their right of freedom of movement would not derive rights of entry and residence from Community law for their family members who are nationals of non-member countries.

Although Ireland did not want Metock to win, Ireland was right about one thing.

Ireland said if Metock were to get residence because his British wife left Britain for Ireland, it would be unfair for British citizens who never left their home country.

Although the Zambrano case happened four years later in 2012, this argument applies to Zambrano carers. British Zambrano children never exercised their freedom of movement rights.

Said again, Metock would be getting residence because his British wife moved to Ireland.

But EU citizens who never left their home country would not be able to bring their family members in.

That's what Ireland meant by 'reverse discrimination' against EU citizens who never left their home country.

Rather predictably, British children (and their Zambrano carers) are experiencing unjustified discrimination.

Metok & Zambrano, paragraph 78

Any difference in treatment between those Union citizens and those who have exercised their right of freedom of movement, as regards the entry and residence of their family members, does not therefore fall within the scope of Community law.

In this quote the European Court of Justice is saying Europeans who never moved to another Member State are not covered by European Union law.

The Metok case was decided in 2008. Thankfully, four years later, we had the Zambrano ruling.

When Zambrano happened, the European Court changed its opinion. It agreed that people who never moved were also covered by EU law.

So, Mr Metock was able to get residence in Ireland in 2008.

And, Mr Zambrano was able to get residence in Belgium in 2012.

Metock, Zambrano carers & Human Rights, paragraph 79

Moreover, it should be recalled that all the Member States are parties to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms signed in Rome on 4 November 1950, which enshrines in Article 8 the right to respect for private and family life.

This quote is saying that eventhough EU citizens who never left their country are NOT covered by Community law, they could always rely on the European Convention on Human Rights.

As per the previous post, the European Court of Justice changed its mind four years later.

The ECJ later said that family members of EU citizens who never left their native country were covered by Union law.

But, even before they changed their mind, the judges said EU citizens could rely on the ECHR.

You know what is happening today?

UK judges refuse to consider human rights on EUSS appeals. They say the Celik tells them not to.

But the UK agreed to follow case law handed down before Brexit.

Metok happened before Brexit.

The judges at the European Court of Justice said the ECHR must be applied to people who never exercised their freedom of movement rights.

If I were you, I would really consider raising Metok in your grounds of appeal. Especially paragraphs 70 to 80.

References
https://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/EUECJ/2008/C12708.html

2 Questions to ask yourself

• Did you apply to the EUSS before 30 June 2021?

• Is your application or appeal still pending?

If you answered yes to both questions, you are still a Zambrano carer as the EU defined it. (Based on what the statutory instrument says.)

It is irrational, and therefore unlawful, for the Home Office to refuse your application just because you are not "their type of Zambrano carer."

• They made the statutory instrument that says you are still an EU type Zambrano carer.

• They need to judge your application based on the EU definition.

Just my opinion. Hope that helps.

Metock & Legitimate Expectations

To wrap this argument up, let's start from the beginning.

So, how did I get to the Metock case?

Well, I recently decided the 'breach of legitimate expectations' is probably the strongest ground for Zambrano carers.

So, then I looked at what public statements the Home Office made, to show they broke their promises.

I noticed that they told Parliament that they planned to create the EU Settlement Scheme in a way that was compatible with the case of Metock.

So, then I decided to understand what Metock says.

Thankfully, the Irish government raised the question of what the Metock case means for people who do not exercise their free movement rights.

Zambrano children are people who do not exercise their free movement rights.

In 2008, the European Court of Justice said this group were not covered under 'Community Law'.

(In 2012, they changed their mind when Zambrano appealed to them for residence rights.)

The European Court of Justice said, crucially, that eventhough this group who never left their home country was NOT covered by Community law, they could still rely on Article 8 of the ECHR.

Look at the grounds of appeal in the statutory instrument governing EUSS appeals.

It is called the The Immigration (Citizens’ Rights Appeals) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020

Do you see Article 8 ECHR as an available ground of appeal in Section 8?

You can see it here - https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/202 ... ion/8/made

No, you don't see Article 8 ECHR as a ground of appeal.

Therefore, the Home Office did not fully or faithfully apply Metock - eventhough they promised to do so.

As such, the Home Office breached the legitimate expectation Zambrano carers.

The Zambrano expectation was, at the very least, that the Home Office would assess their EUSS applications taking into account

• the case law of Metock, and, in particular,

• their Article 8 human right to family and private life.

At the end of the day, they chose Metock. No one forced them to. The UK judges should make the Home Office stand by their decision.

The Home Office may say in response.....

In the prevoius post, I said

• The Home Office said the EU Settlement Scheme would reflect the 2008 European case law of Metock.

• The ECJ says in Metock that people who never left their home country can rely on Article 8 ECHR.

Therefore, Zambrano families can raise Article 8 ECHR right to family and private life in their EUSS appeals.

The Home Office lawyer may tell the judge,

"If Zambrano families are concerned about having their Article 8 rights taken into account, they should apply under Appendix FM."

To which I say,

• Something about the Metock case made the Home Office feel compelled to open the scheme to Zambrano carers. They could have said we don't want to extend the scheme to Zambrano carers, but they didn't. What compelled them to open the scheme to Zambrano carers, was the human rights aspect of Metock.

• If the Home Office did not intend to apply Article 8 ECHR to families where the UK citizen never left the UK, they should not have opened the scheme to them in the first instance.

• Once the scheme opened, Zambrano carers can NOT be unilaterally barred from the Scheme - eventhough that is basically what happened.

• The Home Office approved hundreds of applications from Zambrano carers who did not have leave to remain under Appendix FM

• Judges have ruled in favour of Zambrano carers who did not have leave to remain under Appendix FM.

• Human rights are to be considered per application - regardless of the appendix. Public authorities such as the Home Office and the Courts can't say human rights are only to be considered per Appendix. They can't say, "We will only consider human rights for Appendix FM appeals but not for Appendix EU appeals.

https://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/EUECJ/2008/C12708.html

Grounds: Procedural Impropriety: Yvette Cooper in January 2018

https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2 ... rawal)Bill

We need to make sure that when Parliament has a meaningful vote, we have proper transparency and a debate on the decision, and that is why new clause 17 is so important.

The Government have ruled out membership of the single market and the customs union.

Everyone recognises that the single market issues are complex, linked as they are to questions of immigration and how we deal with future rules.

That makes it even more important for Parliament and the public to be able to scrutinise the Government’s decisions on those complex issues.

To do so, we need to know the facts and the impact on the economy and our constituencies.

Procedural impropriety and unfairness

A failure on the part of a public authority to act in accordance with the requirements of procedural fairness and in compliance with the common-law rules of natural justice.

A decision may be unfair if the body:

• Does not properly observe and comply with its procedural duties- a decision maker must always act fairly

• Fails to consult or give reasons for its decision

• Shows bias

The Argument
The Government was not open and transparent about how it would decide Zambrano applications under EUSS. It did not consult the public or tell Parliament about the plan to refuse Zambrano carers with Appendix FM.

Grounds: Procedural Impropriety: Stephen Gethins - 9 March 2017

See - https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2 ... oQuestions

Stephen Gethins asks,

I look forward to having the Secretary of State’s support for his leave campaign’s promises on immigration power being given to Scotland.

As part of that and on the issue of EU nationals, will he consider the 2012 European Court of Justice judgment in the case of Zambrano v. Office national de l’emploi, which gave EU nationals with primary caring responsibilities the right to reside in the member state of which their dependent child or adult is a national?

David Davis, Brexit Secretary, responds -

I am not familiar with the individual case the hon. Gentleman raises. I will look at it in detail and come back to him, as is my normal approach.

I say this, however: the European Court of Justice will not rule over the United Kingdom after the date of Brexit.

That does not mean that we will not have a very humane, sensible and straightforward policy with respect to things such as family relationships, which the hon. Gentleman talks about.

DAVID DAVIS, Brexit Secretary, never talked about Zambrano Carers again. He never responded to Stephen Gethins eventhough he promised he would.

Grounds: Procedural Impropriety - Paul Blomfield - 7 January 2020

That is also why it is important to have the right to challenge individual decisions.

Under the withdrawal agreement, the Government agree to ensure that EU citizens have a right of appeal against any decision to refuse settled status.

Clause 11 of the agreement specifically confers powers for Ministers to make regulations providing for appeal rights, but this Bill does not confirm the provision of appeal rights for all applicants.

To that end, amendment 2 seeks to clarify that EU citizens have the right to appeal a decision on settled or pre-settled status.

Clearly, the Government are not intending to accept any amendments, so I would welcome the Minister intervening to confirm today on the record that the right of appeal will be created using powers under the withdrawal agreement and that it will cover all those in the UK, particularly those who came under the Zambrano and Surinder Singh routes.

Would he like to intervene?

[Interruption]

He indicates that he will come back at a later stage, and I would be grateful for that.

Legitimate Expectations - Brandon Lewis - 7 January 2020

THE SMOKING GUN!?!

Please see - https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2 ... ement)Bill

After May resigned in 2019, Prime Minister Boris Johnson appointed Brandon Lewis to be the

Minister of State for Security and Deputy for EU Exit and No Deal Preparation.

Brandon Lewis @8.15pm

Sadly, he did not give the whole quote, so colleagues are probably not quite aware of the point I was making, which was that the whole point of the settled status scheme is to ensure that nobody is left behind and all rights are properly protected.

Paul Blomfield @8:15pm

When the Minister says that this will apply to all citizens, does he include those who came under the Zambrano and Surinder Singh routes?

Brandon Lewis @8.15pm

Yes, absolutely.

...

It is important that we encourage people to apply for this settled status. It is simple, quick and easy; it delivers on people’s rights; and it delivers on our promises. That is why we will not accept any amendments or new clauses this evening.

MY THOUGHTS

To refuse 90% of Zambrano applications IS to leave people behind and NOT protect their rights....

I would strongly recommend including this exchange in your submissions....

Statutory instruments

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS TO KNOW

FOR APPEAL RIGHTS

Immigration (Citizens' Rights Appeals) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020
SI 2020/61, laid on 30 January 2020
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/202 ... tents/made

FOR EEA REGULATIONS

Citizens' Rights (Restrictions of Rights of Entry and Residence) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020
SI 2020, laid on 21 September 2020
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/1210/made

FOR BENEFITS ELIGIBILITY

Immigration (Citizens’ Rights etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020
SI 2020/1372, laid on 1 December 2020
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/1372/made

STEPS TO FIND ALL RELEVANT STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS

1.) Go to https://statutoryinstruments.parliament.uk/
2.) Click the "Show more options"
3.) Go to the box called "Enabling Acts"
4.) Enter Withdrawal Agreement (or similar)
5.) Click the blue Search button on the right

You will see about 42 statutory instruments.

*When you click on the statutory instrument, you get more detailed information about it. Notice what each instrument is "Enabled by". In my opinion, all of these statutory instruments should be enabled by the Human Rights Act.

Grounds

1.) Procedural impropriety
2.) Breach of legitimate expectation
3.) Breach of the immigration rules
4.) Discriminatory
5.) Irrational
6.) Unreasonable
7.) Violates your family's human rights under the ECHR and the HRA
8.) Misdirection on law

3 QUESTIONS TO ASK YOURSELF

Can you define each term in simple language - in a way that makes complete sense to you?
Can you explain how each ground relates to the situation of Zambrano carers generally?
Can you explain how the grounds you choose relates to your situation?

Judicial Review

Ideally, someone on legal aid would hire a lawyer to represent them in a judicial review against the Home Office.

Anyway, most of the grounds listed in the post above are not mentioned in the statutory instrument that governs EUSS appeals.

The only two grounds allowed in the EUSS appeal document are

a) the refusal goes against Part 2 of the Withdrawal Agreement, and
b) the refusal goes against the Immigration Rules

Part 2 of the Withdrawal Agreement is not applicable to Zambrano carers.

The Home Office keep updating the Immigration Rules every time they lose in court. So, unless you were refused a long time ago, before the latest changes, it is hard to argue this point.

That's why Zambrano apppeals belong in judicial reviews.

I still think you should consider appeal to the First-tier Tribunal.

I don't know how the judge will treat your other grounds if you raise them. Although, the judge should at least accept your human rights grounds. But, Celik.

The Judicial Review and Courts Act - No right to challenge UT

You can no longer ask for a judicial review of a decision by the Upper Tribunal!

As of last year, decisions of the Upper Tribunal are no longer eligible for judicial review

The Act reverses the judgment in R (Cart) v The Upper Tribunal

The government introduced the Judicial Review and Courts Bill in July 2021. It received royal assent and became law on 28 April 2022.

If you win at the First-tier Tribunal and lose at the Upper Tribunal, you can't challenge your loss via judicial review.

Akinsaya, Celik & Prospective-only quashing orders

Let's say Akinsaya's new judicial review finally happens and Akinsaya wins.

The Court of Appeal may issue a prospective-only quashing order.

Any previous unlawful decisions would be upheld.

Let's say your situation is almost exactly like Akinsaya's except that you went to court and lost.

Eventhough Akinsaya wins in late 2023 or 2024, her win won't help you.

You would not be able to rely on her win to get settlement under EUSS.

The judge's "prospective" quashing order can't help you.

That is why it was so important for Akinsaya's case to be determined in a timely manner.

By the time it is determined, it will be too late for thousands of Zambrano carers.

*The same argument goes for people who did not have their human rights taken into account due to the Celik case.

So, what does that mean for you? You may want to delay, delay, delay!

If you have an administrative review that is outstanding, you may want to let it remain outstanding.

Also, you can let your leave under Appendix FM expire while you wait.

Your status does not change as long as the AR remains open. Just my opinion.

How to file a Judicial review

So, you want a judicial review? Perhaps you are on legal aid? Perhaps you are not on legal aid, but you are willing to take the financial risk?

You can't appeal a decision by the Upper Tribunal via the judicial review process.

You CAN still file for judicial review, however.

You would file a judicial review against the Home Office.

You would not appeal to the Upper Tribunal.

You would appeal to one of the Admin Courts in the Royal Courts of Justice, London, Birmingham, Leeds, Manchester or Cardiff.

AN EXAMPLE OF TYPICAL COSTS
An application for permission to apply for judicial review costs £154.00
After permission has been granted to continue the judicial review costs £770.00

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/upl ... EB__2_.pdf

https://www.judiciary.uk/courts-and-tri ... uide-2022/

WHEN THE STORY IS TOLD...

From where I stand, it looks like the following happened:

1.) Create a contract called a Withdrawal Agreement.

2.) Write the contract in such a way as to exclude Zambrano carers from most parts of it.

3.) Create legal documents (statutory instruments) that refer to the parts of the contract that DO NOT relate to Zambrano carers.

4.) Create a scheme for people who relied on EU laws. Announce you will include Zambrano carers in the scheme.

5.) Reference ECJ case law from 2008 which says Zambrano children are not covered under EU law, eventhough by 2012 the ECJ agrees Zambrano carers are covered by Article 20 TFEU.

6.) Do not engage with experts, MPs or the public to allow them to ask you questions about how you will treat Zambrano carers. (Procedural impropriety).

7.) A few Members of Parliament will ask you questions about how you will treat Zambrano carers. Tell them you have never heard of them. Say you will get back to the MP in due course. Never do.

8.) Do not tell Zambrano carers that you will create your own definition of the term "Zambrano". The term will be far, far more restrictive than the EU definition.

9.) Send letters to Zambrano carers telling them to apply for leave to remain under Appendix FM before the 31st December 2020.

10.) Create a policy for Zambrano carers to automatically refuse them if they have leave to remain under Appendix FM. Under the EU's definition Zambrano carers can concurrently have LTR under Appendix FM.

11.) Tell Zambrano carers they must apply on paper. Allow Europeans to apply via an app.

12.) Make Zambrano carers wait for years to get a decision. Decide the vast majority of applications by Europeans within hours.

13.) Refuse 90% of valid applications by Zambrano carers. Accept over 90% of valid applications by Europeans.

14.) Force Zambrano carers to appeal their refusals by judicial reviews to the Admin Court (super expensive). Allow appeals to the First-tier Tribunal only after years pass.

15.) Have the President of the Upper Tribunal create case law that prevents human rights considerations by First-tier Tribunal and Upper Tribunal judges. Ignore the ECHR and UK Human Rights Act.

16.) Create a statutory instrument with grounds of appeal that exclude those parts of the Withdrawal Agreement that Zambrano carers would need to rely on. Also, do not include appeals on human rights grounds.

17a.) Change the rules. If past rulings by judges are now understood to have been unlawful, don't allow previous victims justice.

17b.) Change the rules so that Zambrano carers can not appeal decisions by the Upper Tribunal.

18.) When the Court of Appeal rules your definition of a Zambrano carer is unlawful and not in accordance with EU law, announce you will update the rules. Wait six months then say your position is unchanged.

19.) When the lawyer for the Zambrano carer threatens a fresh judicial review, have the second JR stuck in the pre-action phase for years.

20.) In the meantime, ensure as many Zambrano carers go through the Court system as quickly as possible. Make sure they lose by continuously updating the immigration rules. The immigration rules are the only grounds upon which Zambrano carers can easily challenge the EUSS refusal.

21.) Discourage lawyers from representing Zambrano carers.

22.) By the time the human rights appeal and Zambrano judicial review are complete, many Zambrano carers would have given up or lost.

23.) The judges rule against the Home Office on the human rights appeal and the Zambrano judicial review. But it doesn't matter. The order will be a 'prospective' quashing order.

Goal achieved: Thousands who should have qualified for settlement under EUSS / Appendix EU were denied justice!

The prospective quashing orders in the Celik and Akinsaya appeals means those families will not be able to have their unlawful decisions overturned.

Stephen Gethins, SNP

Stephen Gethins was one of the 3 or so politicians who publicly supported Zambrano carers.

He lost his seat at the 2019 general election. He was the only SNP candidate to lose.

Moreover, his party won 8.1% more of the vote than in 2017, when it won 35 seats.

Ms Sturgeon said the result had exceeded her expectations.

Interesting, huh?

Paul Blomfield, MP

Paul Blomfield is one of the 3 or so MPs who publicly support Zambrano carers.

He is in a safe Labour seat. He would almost certainly win if he were to run again.

In February 2022, he announced he will not run again at the next general election.

Interesting, no?

Exceptions - Judicial Review and Courts Act 2022

The Judicial Review and Courts Act is meant to stop judicial reviews of decisions by the Upper Tribunal -

(2)The decision is final, and not liable to be questioned or set aside in any other court.

(3)In particular—

(a)the Upper Tribunal is not to be regarded as having exceeded its powers by reason of any error made in reaching the decision;

(b)the supervisory jurisdiction does not extend to, and no application or petition for judicial review may be made or brought in relation to, the decision.

People don't seem too happy about the new rule. They are trying to bring judicial reviews, anyway.

The Judicial Review and Courts Act allows for exceptions.

See - https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/20 ... /2/enacted

Here is a recent example:

A lady was refused leave to remain by the Home Office.

She lost her appeals before the First-tier Tribunal and Upper Tribunal.

She said the judge committed an error of law. She said the judge misquoted her.

Both the FtT and UT had listened to her on a recording of the hearing.

She then wanted to file a judicial review.

Unforunately for her, the judge did not agree that there was a fundamental breach of the principles of natural justice.

QUESTIONS

If Celik wins his human rights appeal, will the judges allow people who already lost their appeals to file judicial reviews?

If Akinsaya wins her next judicial review - assuming there is another hearing - will the judges allow Zambrano carers who already lost their appeals settlement?

Anyway, it looks like even IF Celik and Akinsaya win, there will just be more legal challenges. More drama.

If you lost at the Upper Tribunal

Maybe you lost at the First-tier Tribunal and Upper Tribunal.

Maybe you won at the First-tier Tribunal but lost at the Upper Tribunal.

Then you find out in September 2023 that Celik wins.

You think, I don't want to remain on Appendix FM for the next ? years. I want to try again for Appendix EU / EUSS.

You may be tempted to apply for judicial review of the Upper Tribunal's decision.

The question becomes, will you apply as a litigant in person? I think it could be tricky.

The point of this post is that you may want to start saving money now to hire someone if you want to go for judicial review.

Also, you may want to see if you qualify for legal aid. Just my thoughts.

EU Settlement

If you lost your appeal(s), there is a little bit of good news.

Over 60% of British people think Brexit was more of a failure, than a success.

Less than 10% consider Brexit to be more of a success than a failure.

56% of people think the country was WRONG to vote for Brexit.

Just 31% think the UK was right to vote for Brexit.

Let's say you have a young child, and you were recognised as a Zambrano carer BEFORE Brexit.

It's not fanciful to think you may become a Zambrano carer again.

The UK may rejoin the EU before your child becomes an adult.