- FAQ
- Login
- Register
- Call Workpermit.com for a paid service +44 (0)344-991-9222
Immigration, work visa and work permit discussion board
ESC
Welcome to immigrationboards.com!
Moderators: Casa, archigabe, CR001, push, JAJ, ca.funke, Amber, zimba, vinny, Obie, EUsmileWEallsmile, batleykhan, meself2, geriatrix, John, ChetanOjha
Hi Catalley,Catalley09 wrote: ↑Thu Jun 03, 2021 3:19 pmHello Everyone,
Just a quick question, if our cases for appeal for EEA DRF1 is still with courts by June 30th, what happens then? will they still be required to hear the cases and what about EUSS, will still be able to apply for it since the courts delayed in passing judgement?
please help l have emailed them to expediate my case as l am now worried.
thank you all
Hi Miss-Suz , good to hear from you again. It's not been easy at all but we will not give up. Hope you are okMiss-Suz wrote: ↑Mon Jun 07, 2021 4:07 pmHi everyone,
It has been a long time here. Congrats to Lagosboy and all who received positive outcomes
And Lulubaby I’m proud of you sis, keep fighting the HO, we’ll all get victory soon.
As for me, still waiting.
I don’t know if you all saw this, but last week the Mayor of London was urgent the HO to delay the 30th of June deadline for EUSS application.
That would be great for all of us who are still waiting for their DFR1 appeal decision.
Hi LULUBABY, yes ohh it been ages. I am very well thanks a lot for asking.LULUBABY wrote: ↑Sun Jun 06, 2021 8:14 pmNetqueen, it's been ages. How are you?. How is it going with you?.netqueen wrote: ↑Tue Jun 01, 2021 5:31 pmWow congratulations Lagosbos.Lagosbos wrote: ↑Fri May 14, 2021 11:52 amHello my Zambrano Family, as a follow-up to my appeal. My BRC was delivered this morning with no prior letter from HO. I was still thinking they might challenge the Judge ruling and then my buzzer went and the delivery guy was like i have visa for you. Card expires end of next month so i will be banging a new EUSS application. Thank you all for your profound and to everyone waiting we will all share more good news soonest.
Who was your judge in the FTT? Paragraph 14 of your decision is very interesting will want to know who presided on your case, if it is alright.
In the last month of EUSS hope we are all become successful.
Big congratulations and all the best.
Phewww!, Oh my God, thank you so much Obie for sharing this. This has really given me strength of persistence.Obie wrote: ↑Tue Jun 08, 2021 10:46 pmWell there are something worring that I noticed today about Zambrano cases. Home Office staff are aware that what they are doing is wrong, but they are doing it anyway.
I met a very nice HOPO, and before commencement of proceedings, she stated that she wanted to concede, spoke to his manager about this, but the powers ahead of her will not be permit this.
She accepts that she is aware that Home Office position is inconsistent with the Supreme Court, but nevertheless she has to go against her conviction and oppose the appeal.
I was very troubled by this. It is beggars belief that a government department is acting this way.
Even the Judge was saying he does not understand why Priti Patel is behaving like this. He said she is ignoring court order and law and doing what she can.
To add insult to injury the presenting officers stated that even if I succeed, fees should not be awarded to me. How ridiculous. A government ignoring the law, and when they are brought to court they say their victim must forfeit their right to a refund of their fee.
Such is the state of the UK immigration system these days.
I implore Zambrano appellants or claimant in JR claims to continue to share your experience, as this will give home to other, that some part of the system works, that some tribunal will not put up with this nonsense of a refusal.
They know what they are doing. They are trying everything possible to discourage a lot of people and show that this 'resistance' route we are taking via appeals and JR is not easy but they have failed to realise that those of us taking it are not the faint hearted.Obie wrote: ↑Tue Jun 08, 2021 10:46 pmWell there are something worring that I noticed today about Zambrano cases. Home Office staff are aware that what they are doing is wrong, but they are doing it anyway.
I met a very nice HOPO, and before commencement of proceedings, she stated that she wanted to concede, spoke to his manager about this, but the powers ahead of her will not be permit this.
She accepts that she is aware that Home Office position is inconsistent with the Supreme Court, but nevertheless she has to go against her conviction and oppose the appeal.
I was very troubled by this. It is beggars belief that a government department is acting this way.
Even the Judge was saying he does not understand why Priti Patel is behaving like this. He said she is ignoring court order and law and doing what she can.
To add insult to injury the presenting officers stated that even if I succeed, fees should not be awarded to me. How ridiculous. A government ignoring the law, and when they are brought to court they say their victim must forfeit their right to a refund of their fee.
Such is the state of the UK immigration system these days.
I implore Zambrano appellants or claimant in JR claims to continue to share your experience, as this will give home to other, that some part of the system works, that some tribunal will not put up with this nonsense of a refusal.
Well the JR succeeds. Home Office will be in confusion today.LULUBABY wrote: ↑Sun Jun 06, 2021 8:10 pm(1) The respondent’s application that this matter be transferred to the Administrative Court is refused.
(2) The respondent’s application that proceedings be stayed pending the determination of Xxxxxxx by the Administrative Court is granted.
It is Directed
(3) The respondent, if so advised, is to file and serve supplementary grounds of defence in response to the applicant’s grounds of renewal, no later than 14 days after judgment is handed down in Xxxxxxxxxx
Reasons
1) The respondent does not assert that this Tribunal possesses no jurisdiction to consider issues arising in this matter
2) In the circumstances there is no obligation for the Tribunal to transfer this matter to the Administrative Court.
3) Other than when the High Court is exercising its supervisory jurisdiction, the Upper Tribunal is not bound, as a matter of stare decisis, by decisions of the High Court. Whilst the Tribunal will observe comity, it may in a proper case depart from a decision of the High Court if satisfied that the decision is wrong. As a matter of principle the need for predictability and consistency of outcome are not offended by the Upper Tribunal not being bound by a decision of the High Court: Gilchrist v Revenue and Customs Commissioners [2015] Ch 183, at [85-87], [91], [94-101].
4) In the circumstances, the Tribunal is satisfied that it is not appropriate to transfer this matter to the Administrative Court.
5) The Tribunal has considered the respondent’s request for a stay of proceedings. The respondent has informed the Tribunal that the High Court is expected to hear the substantive application in Xxxxxxxxx. The High Court judgment can properly be expected to be handed down within 4 weeks of hearing. The hearing of this matter is unlikely to be listed within such period of time and consequently it is in the interests of justice that proceedings be stayed for a short period of time to permit the parties to consider their respective positions consequent to the decision of the High Court.
Wow that is one good news for all of us waiting.apollo_alpha wrote: ↑Wed Jun 09, 2021 1:22 pmHi Guys,
Good news for Zambrano carers on the EUSS front.
My barrister represented a client on a judicial review and it was successful.
Please read the judgement here https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ad ... /1535.html
He will be representing my case at the FTt in two weeks time and hopefuly all goes well for me and everyone of us in similar boat.
Obie wrote: ↑Wed Jun 09, 2021 12:28 pmWell the JR succeeds. Home Office will be in confusion today.LULUBABY wrote: ↑Sun Jun 06, 2021 8:10 pm(1) The respondent’s application that this matter be transferred to the Administrative Court is refused.
(2) The respondent’s application that proceedings be stayed pending the determination of Xxxxxxx by the Administrative Court is granted.
It is Directed
(3) The respondent, if so advised, is to file and serve supplementary grounds of defence in response to the applicant’s grounds of renewal, no later than 14 days after judgment is handed down in Xxxxxxxxxx
Reasons
1) The respondent does not assert that this Tribunal possesses no jurisdiction to consider issues arising in this matter
2) In the circumstances there is no obligation for the Tribunal to transfer this matter to the Administrative Court.
3) Other than when the High Court is exercising its supervisory jurisdiction, the Upper Tribunal is not bound, as a matter of stare decisis, by decisions of the High Court. Whilst the Tribunal will observe comity, it may in a proper case depart from a decision of the High Court if satisfied that the decision is wrong. As a matter of principle the need for predictability and consistency of outcome are not offended by the Upper Tribunal not being bound by a decision of the High Court: Gilchrist v Revenue and Customs Commissioners [2015] Ch 183, at [85-87], [91], [94-101].
4) In the circumstances, the Tribunal is satisfied that it is not appropriate to transfer this matter to the Administrative Court.
5) The Tribunal has considered the respondent’s request for a stay of proceedings. The respondent has informed the Tribunal that the High Court is expected to hear the substantive application in Xxxxxxxxx. The High Court judgment can properly be expected to be handed down within 4 weeks of hearing. The hearing of this matter is unlikely to be listed within such period of time and consequently it is in the interests of justice that proceedings be stayed for a short period of time to permit the parties to consider their respective positions consequent to the decision of the High Court.
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ad ... /1535.html
Hi ObieObie wrote: ↑Wed Jun 09, 2021 12:28 pmWell the JR succeeds. Home Office will be in confusion today.LULUBABY wrote: ↑Sun Jun 06, 2021 8:10 pm(1) The respondent’s application that this matter be transferred to the Administrative Court is refused.
(2) The respondent’s application that proceedings be stayed pending the determination of Xxxxxxx by the Administrative Court is granted.
It is Directed
(3) The respondent, if so advised, is to file and serve supplementary grounds of defence in response to the applicant’s grounds of renewal, no later than 14 days after judgment is handed down in Xxxxxxxxxx
Reasons
1) The respondent does not assert that this Tribunal possesses no jurisdiction to consider issues arising in this matter
2) In the circumstances there is no obligation for the Tribunal to transfer this matter to the Administrative Court.
3) Other than when the High Court is exercising its supervisory jurisdiction, the Upper Tribunal is not bound, as a matter of stare decisis, by decisions of the High Court. Whilst the Tribunal will observe comity, it may in a proper case depart from a decision of the High Court if satisfied that the decision is wrong. As a matter of principle the need for predictability and consistency of outcome are not offended by the Upper Tribunal not being bound by a decision of the High Court: Gilchrist v Revenue and Customs Commissioners [2015] Ch 183, at [85-87], [91], [94-101].
4) In the circumstances, the Tribunal is satisfied that it is not appropriate to transfer this matter to the Administrative Court.
5) The Tribunal has considered the respondent’s request for a stay of proceedings. The respondent has informed the Tribunal that the High Court is expected to hear the substantive application in Xxxxxxxxx. The High Court judgment can properly be expected to be handed down within 4 weeks of hearing. The hearing of this matter is unlikely to be listed within such period of time and consequently it is in the interests of justice that proceedings be stayed for a short period of time to permit the parties to consider their respective positions consequent to the decision of the High Court.
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ad ... /1535.html
The last time you were in tears, I am so glad to hear you finally managed to afford a Barrister to represent you. Don't worry, after rain comes sunshine. We shall overcome.gee4 wrote: ↑Wed Jun 09, 2021 4:02 pmHi everyone.
Wanted to let you know about a judgment today that favoured Zambrano. Akinsanya case, HO are now reconsidering there stand. Had my hearing today and now awaiting a decision. But the HOPO initially requested time for them to reconsider my case but couldn’t ascertain if it will be reconsidered to grant so my barrister declined the offer. Fingers crossed good new for us all in Jesus name. Amen
Amen thank you so much. I did most of the work and I represented myself in my first hearing which was adjourned because HO did not provide their bundle. I was advised to get a barrister to represent me because I couldn’t get my words out in my first hearing I was so emotional and sick to my stomach as to why HO has decided to use their power in a very mean way towards Zambrano.LULUBABY wrote: ↑Wed Jun 09, 2021 8:00 pmThe last time you were in tears, I am so glad to hear you finally managed to afford a Barrister to represent you. Don't worry, after rain comes sunshine. We shall overcome.gee4 wrote: ↑Wed Jun 09, 2021 4:02 pmHi everyone.
Wanted to let you know about a judgment today that favoured Zambrano. Akinsanya case, HO are now reconsidering there stand. Had my hearing today and now awaiting a decision. But the HOPO initially requested time for them to reconsider my case but couldn’t ascertain if it will be reconsidered to grant so my barrister declined the offer. Fingers crossed good new for us all in Jesus name. Amen
Everything works for good.....gee4 wrote: ↑Wed Jun 09, 2021 8:07 pmAmen thank you so much. I did most of the work and I represented myself in my first hearing which was adjourned because HO did not provide their bundle. I was advised to get a barrister to represent me because I couldn’t get my words out in my first hearing I was so emotional and sick to my stomach as to why HO has decided to use their power in a very mean way towards Zambrano.LULUBABY wrote: ↑Wed Jun 09, 2021 8:00 pmThe last time you were in tears, I am so glad to hear you finally managed to afford a Barrister to represent you. Don't worry, after rain comes sunshine. We shall overcome.gee4 wrote: ↑Wed Jun 09, 2021 4:02 pmHi everyone.
Wanted to let you know about a judgment today that favoured Zambrano. Akinsanya case, HO are now reconsidering there stand. Had my hearing today and now awaiting a decision. But the HOPO initially requested time for them to reconsider my case but couldn’t ascertain if it will be reconsidered to grant so my barrister declined the offer. Fingers crossed good new for us all in Jesus name. Amen
I’m praying that my decisions comes positive and i can be free from them. It’s very intimidating especially when you have no leave to remain and your life is hanging in their hands. I had to look for money here and there to get a barrister.
ravindra121 wrote: ↑Sun Jun 06, 2021 12:55 pmI have applied for zambrano with british child and left UK on last July 2020 while application under processing. application been refused and didn't even apply for administrative review.
Now I'm in Sri Lanka and my british son who is 6 years old doesnt like to stay here.
My question
is there anyway that I could apply for the same route from outside UK or any other route to come in to the UK with my family. ( I have 2 more children who born in UK, but they not british, Me and my wife are Sri Lankans, 1st child british under stateless route)
Thank you
Hello Ravindra, I was just going through your previous posts and saw this reply to you from Snooky when you stated that you needed to travel. Oh dear, why did you travel?.snooky wrote: ↑Tue May 12, 2020 9:34 pm@ravindra121
Hi according to the Home Office, you do not currently have Leave to Remain in the UK so you can't travel out and come in.
Should you have Leave to Remain, them during your Zambrano EUSS application consideration, you could travel in and out of UK. This is because EUSS actually legality of proof will start from 1 July 2021.
Now for the checks that HO do, actually no one knows which checks HO carries out. But the clue is in their guidance.
1. Eligibility 2. Suitability 3. Evidential Documents, 4. False Representation, 5. Good Character, 6. Dependency and Responsibilities, 7. Public Health, 8. Other Factors.
Your application could be answered within 10 months due to experience and what we have seen over here.
Hope this will help u. But be careful, do not travel as you have no leave to remain
Thanks.vinny wrote: ↑Thu Jun 10, 2021 2:04 pmYou can now get an EU Settlement Scheme application form by email
This give me confidence! Thank you so much Snookysnooky wrote: ↑Thu Jun 10, 2021 10:52 pmHigh Court finds the EU Settlement Scheme rules for Zambrano carers unlawful.
R (Akinsanya) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2021] EWHC 1535 (Admin),
My advise to all who applied for zambrano before 31 December 2020 should reapply and invoke this high court judgement.
If you guys sit thinking HO will be writing to you to ask you guys to resubmit will be a dream which will never come through.
Bear in mind that HO can appeal this to deter people applying. Irrespective of their shenanigans, putting in your reapplication and letting them know of their discrimination towards you from the onset will let you stay in the game past 30 June 2020.
From the unreported cases which ruled HO policy and guidance unlawful to this, you guys now have the power especially those who identified themselves as zambrano before the end of the eea rules.
With me snooky, I saw this loophole in the EEA REG 16 7A long time and used it for so many people. As far as the former HO Secretaries refused to amend it through parliament and left it as it was then any guidance was to be treated null and void.
LTR isn't an exempt stay and thus comes under PSIC . 13(2) of the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996.
HO grammar has killed them like highe seat which killed miss Thomas' cat and also the greedy dog loses its bone.
The court has spoken and spoke very well.
Regards
