Immigrationboards.com

Guys you may be interested to know that the CJEU has finally answered the 6 Questions that were referred for Preliminary Ruling in the case of Rahman and ors. I am not entirely happy about the vagueness of the ruling and i believe it opens the possibility for more challenges and possibly more reference for preliminary ruling. It is nevertheless a start as it more or less demolished some part of the UK national legislation. Question 3-4 and 6 seems very interesting indeed. In the light of the view shared in Question 6, it is questionable whether Regulation 8(2)(c) will continue to be lawful or whether further reference will have to be made on it. The requirement that the EEA national and the non-EEA should have resided in the same state before coming to the UK seems to have been slashed down. I await the UK courts view on this case.

The judgement in Czop confirm from the earlier case of Accession state national that residence accured before their state accede to the EU counts towards PR, provided it was in accordance with Article 7 of 2004/38EC.
However dissappointly, it was confirmed that family member of A2 state nationals who ate in primary education dont benefit from the provision of Regulations 1612/68.


Analysis of Rahman Judgement

Analysis 2

Some good news for OFM.

Aladeselu & Ors v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2013] EWCA

For a change, the Secretary of State lost her appeal.

Obie wrote:Some good news for OFM.

Aladeselu & Ors v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2013] EWCA

For a change, the Secretary of State lost her appeal.

Its a promising piece, thanks Obie.

Another dissappointed judgement on Regulation 8(2).

Soares v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2013] EWCA Civ 575 (21 May 2013)

This judgement gave no consideration to Metock.

hallo guys i want to now this case whete his saying specially paragraph 19 and 33 i need help for that please
whet i did undertant that dependency dont have to be in past : Reyes v Secretary of State for the Home Department (EEA Regs: dependency) [2013] UKUT 00314 (19 June 2013)

do you mean 19 and 23?

in 19 he is explaining that the previous judge dismissed the appeal, despite the relationship to the case

on 23 he is explaining what grounds the appealant is also depending on here...

I must admit that i like:

The appellant sought to rely on the case of Jia v Migrationsverket (Case C-1/05) [2007] QB 545 and the statement in paragraph 35 of the judgment that:

"According to the case law of the Court of Justice the status of 'dependent' family member is the result of a factual situation characterised by the fact that material support for that family member is provided by the community national who has exercised his right of free movement or by his spouse…"

such phrase was inserted into the wifes letter - afterall, the immigration rules states that a person is considered the dependant of another if they are that persons spouse ...

Further Judgement on OFM, please see Oboh

Hi obie have you seen this new case from court of appeal whet do you think about it (http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2014/1741.html). Aa(algeria)vs sshd bailli 16/12/2014 please tell me if this case is appeal able

Of cause it is appeal able with Permission from the Supreme Court.

Not sure if the appellant there wishes to proceed to the Supreme Court.

Thanks obie for reply to me have you read that judgement whet do you think about it let me now please

Hi Guys - does this means that for Romania & Bulgaria accession card holder before 2014. Does their time counts toward 5 years Continuous qualifying period? what about their NoN EEA family member towards that who hold Residence card as family member of EEA that time does it count as well(for 5years visa granted I mean) what about the kids born at that period or before- kids are EEA nationals.