Immigrationboards.com

When will d(UKBA) home office FINALLY decide on the zambrano ruling by d ECJ if Ireland has implemented this law, how long do illegal dads have to wait to have a better future with their families?

koodee1 wrote:When will d(UKBA) home office FINALLY decide on the zambrano ruling by d ECJ if Ireland has implemented this law, how long do illegal dads have to wait to have a better future with their families?

UKBA do not need to 'decide' on the ruling, they just have to make sure the make decisions in accordance with it. They may or may not release guidance on how caseworkers should apply the case.

Have you actually made an application with reference to the ruling? If so, on what form? It seems the UKBA's current position is that applications made on form EEA2 with reference to Zambrano will not be accepted as such applications do not fall within the scope of the EEA Regs on freedom of movement, and therefore an applicant relying on Zambrano doesn't qualify for a residence card. Instead you need to make an applicaiton for leave to remain outside the immigration rules relying on Zambrano, as well as other relevent caselaw such as ZH Tanzania.

See also

Omotunde (best interests - Zambrano applied - Razgar) Nigeria [2011] UKUT 00247(IAC)

1. When applying the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Ruiz Zambrano (European citizenship) [2011] EUECJ Case C-34/09 OJ 2011 C130/2 and that of the Supreme Court in ZH (Tanzania) [2011] UKSC 4; [2011] 2 WLR 148, in relation to the proposed administrative removal or deportation of one or both of his non-national parents, the welfare of a child, particularly a child who is a British citizen, is a primary consideration.

2. National courts must engage with the question whether removal of a particular parent will 'deprive [the child] of the genuine enjoyment of the substance of the rights attaching to the status of European Union citizen'.

3. Where there are strong public interest reasons to expel a non-national parent, any right of residence for the parent is not an absolute one but is subject to the Community Law principle of proportionality. There is no substantial difference between the human rights based assessment of proportionality of any interference considered by Lady Hale in ZH (Tanzania) and the approach required by Community law.

4. In this particular context, the Article 8 assessment questions set out in Razgar [2004] UKHL 27 should be tailored as follows, placing the assessment of necessity where it most appropriately belongs in the final question dependent on the outcome of proportionality and a fair balance, rather than as part of the identification of the legitimate aim:

1. Is there family life enjoyed between the appellant and a minor child that requires respect in the context of immigration decision making?

2. Would deportation of the parent interfere with the enjoyment of that family life?

3. Is such an interference in accordance with the law?

4. Is such an interference in pursuit of a legitimate aim?

5. Is deportation necessary, proportionate and a fair balance between the rights to respect for the family life of the appellant and the child and the particular public interest in question?