Page 1 of 1

Retention of rights( applicant not working)

Posted: Wed Apr 04, 2018 2:20 pm
by Kobbie18
Hello all, Am new to this forum so please pardon me for errors. I have submitted a ROR application on 20/2/18 fees taken on 22/03/18 but I haven’t heard any update from my solicitor regarding the application.
Background: I got married to my EEA National wife in August 2014 and and made EEA2 application in October same year. The application was refused by the HO after me and my ex had attended interviews at Liverpool.we appealed but my ex decided not to show up. I was made to stop working as the HO fined my employer for recruiting illegal employer. I contacted the HO that I intended to leave the country voluntarily and I showed them evidence in the form of plane ticket etc. I then had advice from a solicitor that since my marriage lasted for at least three years and my ex still exercising here treaty right( since june 2013) I qualify to make ROR application. I managed to get all the evidence needed including my ex’s German National ID.i got my decree absolute on 2/2/18.
What are my chances please
I am relying on the substantial advise from moderators. Thanks

Re: Retention of rights( applicant not working)

Posted: Wed Apr 04, 2018 9:47 pm
by pola 23
Hi.Did HO issued you 5 years RC and is strange that your EX didn’t show up and now she is willing to provide you every document.

Well personally I think you should be fine but wait for senior moderator advice.Thanks

Re: Retention of rights( applicant not working)

Posted: Wed Apr 04, 2018 11:46 pm
by Obie
Hard to see how this application, hard to see how regulations 2 will not be raised again by Home office, the fact that an appeal right was given but was not pursued. The divorce will not remedy those previous failings.

Re: Retention of rights( applicant not working)

Posted: Thu Apr 05, 2018 2:29 pm
by Kobbie18
I really appreciate the response, but, Obie does it invalidate my application. What if I get the opportunity to go to court with further evidence to counter the HO’s claim of “marriage of convenience”? Thanks a lot