Immigrationboards.com

Dear members,
A friend of mine had his EEA4 refused on the basis of continuity of residence.
His timeline is following:

EEA2 issued: Jan 2010
Feb 2011-Dec 2011:Moved to US for studies (11 month absence).
August 2012-October 2012: Left UK for a holiday.
Jan 2013-March 2013: Left UK for a holiday.
March 2014- June 2014: Left Uk for a holiday.

EEA4 Applied:Jan 2015 = Refused.

Is the refusal justifiable as there is only one absence for more than 6 months due to study?

Thanks.

But Regulation 3(2)(c) does not seem to be ambiguous .

It appears to provide for one absence of up to 12 months. Further absence will appear to break the continuity of residence.

Also going by the caselaws, he may pray in aid to Babajanov.

Obie wrote:But Regulation 3(2)(c) does not seem to be ambiguous .

It appears to provide for one absence of up to 12 months. Further absence will appear to break the continuity of residence.

Also going by the caselaws, he may pray in aid to Babajanov.

Thanks for reply Obie.

It seems to me that an absence of 11 months was fine but the subsequent absences resulted in refusal.
Do you think that an appeal might work?
Regards.

Possibly.

There is lots of support in Babajanov.

Hi obie

Can you please explain how the absences above broke the continuous residence. The link doesn't state it clear either.

My understanding is that during the continuous 5 year period,a person can be absent for up to 12 months in a year for medical , maternity , school or those special reasons without it breaking the continuous residency. And that any absence less than 6 months doesn't count.


From the OP the guy was out for 11 months in a year for study (which is acceptable)
The guy also had short holidays (2/3months) in different years (which also shouldn't break the terms of continuous residence).
So I am very comfused as to why they refusal was based on continuous residence .

I think clarification will be beneficial to myself and other forum members please.

Many thanks

Annebee wrote:So I am very comfused as to why they refusal was based on continuous residence .

My guess is that the caseworker may have been very confused too and wrongly refused.

On a closer reading of that provision, it appears it preclude further absence of 12 months duration, but it does not appear to me to indicate that absence of 6 months is precluded.

I think an appeal should be lodged ..

The regualtions regarding continuity of residence are quite vague.
It's still not clear whether a person who stays out of the country for a period of upto 12 months is allowed to take subsequent absences of up to 6 months in future without affecting the continuity of residence.