Updated 'Surinder Singh' guidance (as of 25 October 2017)

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... 3.0EXT.pdf

For all those applying under 'Surinder Singh' route

Thank you very much.
This is very interesting. It basically waives the CSI requirement and the requirement for the BC to be a qualified person before 25.11.16 if I am reading this correctly?
Very good they are putting forward transitional arrangements. Would love to see a detailed legal analysis of this, hope the Free Movement blog does it.

JulietSoul wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 30, 2017 3:39 pm

Thank you very much.
This is very interesting. It basically waives the CSI requirement and the requirement for the BC to be a qualified person before 25.11.16 if I am reading this correctly?
Very good they are putting forward transitional arrangements. Would love to see a detailed legal analysis of this, hope the Free Movement blog does it.

To be honest I am so sick of these people. My wife was told to leave the office today in a vicious move, the charity where she works not even bothering to consult Home Office about her right to work. (https://www.gov.uk/check-job-applicant-right-to-work).

We are now all without work, and I have had to sign up for the dole today to prevent a crisis as my struggling business cannot continue without my wife's salary to supplement our income.

Our appeal is waiting the tribunal date, yet with these new rules (still illegal I might add) we would have been approved as I only have under these new rules 6 weeks to prove QP, and can prove in those 6 weeks that I was self employed, registered with HMRC.

Classy bunch..................................................................................................

Should we reapply for EEA(PR) while waiting for our Appeal to be heard?

UKBALoveStory wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 27, 2017 10:54 pm

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... 3.0EXT.pdf

For all those applying under 'Surinder Singh' route

The guidance, just like the regulation 9 is unlawful. It makes no difference.

You cannot say Eind is a good law, and then pick and choose what you like about eind, or say O B overturns Eind, which is what the Home Office was saying.

Firstly the question asked in O &B was different to the question in Eind, therefore even if O and B says something that is inconsistent with Eind, i will say it is obiter as the issue in Eind was clearly not dealt with in O & B, and no reasonable tribunal will say so.