Ngoo wrote: ↑Wed Feb 12, 2020 11:39 pm
snooky wrote: ↑Wed Feb 12, 2020 10:15 pm
@Ngoo
The term 'person subject to immigration control' (PSIC) is defined in s. 13(2) of the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 as a person who requires leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom (whether or not such leave has been given).
So if you have ltr under Appendix FM your subject to 13(2) Act which is defined in 17A of the derivative right to reside.
Interesting! I have read the refusal letter again to understand their grammar but I bet they purposely make everything more complicated...
Part of the letter:
A Zambrano application centres on a person seeking to remain in the U.K. as the primary Carer of a British Citizen.
There is significant overlap with the right to respect for private and family life is protected by Article 8.
It goes on to say that derivative right to reside is a right of last resort which only applies if a person has no other means to remain lawfully in the UK.
And then, your application is refused for the following reasons:
Since your most recent application under appendix FM was issued, there has been no significant changes in your circumstances and it is open for you to reapply under the UK domestic law.
The final part of the letter:
As you have been issued leave to remain in the UK under appendix FM previously and your circumstances remain the same it is deemed that a further application under that route would have a realistic prospect of success.
To me this sounds like the home office is contesting my decision to apply for Zambrano derivative card.
Then they concluded the letter:
As a result, refusing you a Zambrano right to reside under the EU settlement would not prevent the British Citizen from residing in the UK.
Ngoo morning
It is very interesting to see that Home Office still discriminating against TCN due to where you’re born. In rule of law there is no difference between these to. Home Office created apartied system to make TCN very inferior.
Third country nationals derives all their EU right from their minor Union citizen. So what power your EU minor child can never be taken away with bureaucratic administrative guidance.
The article 20 of TFEU does not say that you should be refused or had first applied under domestic law before you can be issued a Zambrano derivative. The Zambrano ruling C34/09 2011 does not say that too. Rather it created another route within the wider EU Laws.
Home Office due to that created domestic Zambrano Under the domestic immigration laws Appendix FM, Ex1 to reflect that judgement so that they can sell it to people and make money.
The Supreme Court on 16 December 2019, Sent a clear message to the Home Office that by infringing peoples right it amount to contempt of EU laws directives and Regulations.
Home still has not change their policy and has now made the Court to decide who should have a Zambrano right.
The law is the utmost instrument not the Policy guidance.
The courts said in my case before the Supreme Court ruling that, Home Office guidance is incompatible to my case and does not hold and even not similar and same under their guidance.
Shame to the Home Office for disregarding Supreme Court ruling and we have to write to the attorney General and the Supreme Court to voice out.
Every application refused after Supreme Court ruling becomes a contempt of Court as Home Office refuse to follow Supreme Courts directions
#correction# 7A not 17A
So if you have ltr under Appendix FM your subject to 13(2) Act which is defined in 7A of the derivative right to reside.
