extended family member refusal

[naija99]

My friend's application for EFM has been refused under reg 8 eea 2016.
He is the brother in law of an EEA national who is married to his sister. They all live together in the UK and he is dependent on them in all matters. When he was back in his own country they used to pay his rent and send him money so he was dependent on them back then too.

The home office says that he is refused under reg 8. he has not provided adequate evidence in support as the extended family member of a person exercising treaty rights in the UK. From 1 Feb 2017 the rights of extended family members only applies to relatives of the EEA national and not to relatives of the EEA national's spouse or civil partner. This meants that an extended family member can no longer rely on their relationship to the EEA national's spouse in order to meet the requirements of regulation 8. Instead, they must show that they are related to the EEA national.

Can anyone advise of any way around this? Is this the true position now?

[vinny]

Unfortunately, true.

(2) The condition in this paragraph is that the person is—

(a)a relative of an EEA national; and

From 1 February 2017 the rights of extended family members only applies to relatives of the EEA national and not to relatives of the EEA national’s spouse or civil partner. This means that an extended family member can no longer rely on their relationship to the EEA national’s spouse or civil partner in order to meet the requirements of regulation 8. Instead, they must show that they are related to the EEA national.

[naija99]

Thanks vinny
What a nightmare for non eea extended family membership
What other options do they have? Is the criteria under UK immigration rules much stricter?

[CR001]

Thanks vinny
What a nightmare for non eea extended family membership
What other options do they have? Is the criteria under UK immigration rules much stricter?

You would not be able to sponsor the family member under the UK immigration rules. They would have to find a visa they qualify for themselves.

[Obie]

The Regulation is wrong and problematic, and has been overturned. In as far at it states that the dependent must be related to the EEA national, then that is ,wrong.
Also see

17. This Court has little doubt that Susana would fall within article 3.2(a) if she does not fall within article 2.2(c). The 2006 Regulations have caused confusion by introducing the word “relative” which nowhere appears in article 3.2(a). “Family member” is a wider term than “relative” as it is well capable of including people who are not related by consanguinity or affinity. All that is required is that the person (i) falls within the broad concept of “family member”; (ii) was either a dependant or a member of the household of the Union citizen; and (iii) that dependency or household membership was in the country from which the person has or would come. A child for whom the Union citizen has parental responsibility under the law of the child’s country of origin is clearly capable of being regarded as a family member; Susana was both a dependant and a member of the household of Mr and Mrs M; and this was in Algeria, the country from which she would be coming to this country.

[naija99]

Thanks obie
So how would you advise to proceed if it’s been overturned? Submit a fresh application? Won’t it just be refused again?

[vinny]

See also EA060212018 [2019] UKAITUR EA060212018 (24 May 2019).

[Obie]

See also EA060212018 [2019] UKAITUR EA060212018 (24 May 2019).

One can only hope it will be made a reported case, as it is difficult to cite this at the Tribunal as authority, even though the supreme Court decision is clear that the regulations is plainly wrong.

It is frustrating to argue that the Home Office are wrong. Sensible people know they are wrong, but the first tier tribunal is so timid to listen to logic.

When you tell them the regulations are wrong, some judges will look at you as strange creatures. Some will say it is a bold assertion.

Similar to surinder singh. You spend months and sometimes years arguing that the regulations are wrong, then you see these reported cases vindicating your views. Sometimes one feel like going back to these judges and saying, I told you so.

[naija99]

Thank you vinny and obie for this update.