EEA Family permit refused HELP plz

[AmenaNL]

Dear all,

I am a Dutch national living in the UK since 2006. I got recently (July 2015) married in Afghanistan, and I applied for an EEA family permit 3 weeks ago on the basis that my husband would travel with me to the UK. I am employed at a GP surgery as an receptionist/administrator for 15 hours a week.

Unfortunately, our application was refused on the following basis: ''you state that your sponsor is employed by**********(GP surgery) since 2013. these documents outline that your spouse is paid £422.50 per month, which amounts to an aprox weekly income of £105.62. This is significantly below the current HMRC primary earnings threshold (PET), which is the point at which employees must pay class 1 national insurance contributions. This currently stands at £155 per week. you have not provided any other documents to demonstrate any additional employment income for your sponsor. This leads me to question whether this employment is genuine and effective, and not marginal and ancillary. I am therefore not satisfied that your EEA national sponsor is considered a worker in line with the EEA regulations. In light of this you have failed to provide evidence that your EEA national family member is a qualified person in accordance with regulation 6 .

I submitted the following documents
6 months bank statements, My job contract, all my payslips, A letter from the doctor that I work for (administrator), tenancy agreement, telephone convers ation record between me and my husband, pictures, both of our passports, TB certificate etc.

can anyone help me what I should do, shall I appeal or re-apply? But if I reapply what else can I submit other than that I have submitted already?


Your help is much appreciated

[Obie]

That is a violation of EU law, because the person is working part time and hence receiving low wage, cannot lead to the conclusion that the employment is marginal or ancillary.

You could appeal and reapply, and she could also use same day service to apply for registration certificate, as this may speed things up.

[Petaltop]

This is significantly below the current HMRC primary earnings threshold (PET), which is the point at which employees must pay class 1 national insurance contributions. This currently stands at £155 per week. you have not provided any other documents to demonstrate any additional employment income for your sponsor. This leads me to question whether this employment is genuine and effective, and not marginal and ancillary. I am therefore not satisfied that your EEA national sponsor is considered a worker in line with the EEA regulations.

Over the last few years the UK changed what makes a EU qualified person in the UK: worker, jobseeker, student, self sufficient. For those who claim they are an EU "worker" this was changed to a set amount each week, which presently stands at only £155 per week.

When in 2010 they brought in that students and self sufficients must have CSIs, many claimed that was against EU law but 5 years on that still stands.

How are you managing to live on so little money? If you have been claiming UK benefits then UKVI will inform the relevant benefit offices.

In 2006 the UK didn't keep records of which foreign borns were claiming from the UK, but they started doing that from 2011. MAC recently reported to the goverment that based on that information of recording the country they were born in since 2011, over 17% of claimants of the welfare payment Tax Credits (for those who don't work enough to keep themselves or their families) are foreign born.

[Casa]

I assume the issue would also be how you would support your husband on such a low income?

[noajthan]

I assume the issue would also be how you would support your husband on such a low income?

Casa, once in UK the dependent family member would have a right to work (would he not?), so long as sponsor is exercising treaty rights.

[Casa]

Of course. Depending on whether he is able to find work...or how long it would take him to do so.

[noajthan]

Dear all,

I am a Dutch national living in the UK since 2006. I got recently (July 2015) married in Afghanistan, and I applied for an EEA family permit 3 weeks ago on the basis that my husband would travel with me to the UK. I am employed at a GP surgery as an receptionist/administrator for 15 hours a week.

Unfortunately, our application was refused on the following basis: ''you state that your sponsor is employed by**********(GP surgery) since 2013. these documents outline that your spouse is paid £422.50 per month, which amounts to an aprox weekly income of £105.62. This is significantly below the current HMRC primary earnings threshold (PET), which is the point at which employees must pay class 1 national insurance contributions. This currently stands at £155 per week. you have not provided any other documents to demonstrate any additional employment income for your sponsor. This leads me to question whether this employment is genuine and effective, and not marginal and ancillary.

...

can anyone help me what I should do, shall I appeal or re-apply? But if I reapply what else can I submit other than that I have submitted already?

Your help is much appreciated

I was unaware there is an income requirement apparently being imposed on EEA nationals who are exercising treaty rights as workers.

However, you can apply equally legitimately on the basis of exercising your treaty rights as a self-sufficient person.

To do so you must demonstrate you are not a burden on the state (eg not claiming benefits) and you must also hold CSI (a comprehensive health insurance policy).

The following HO guidance may help as it includes a section about self-sufficient qualified persons:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... s_v3_0.pdf
- see page 23+

This approach may help you obtain the necessary FP for your spouse.
Good luck.

[Obie]

I stand by my opinion that the ECO was wrong, to refuse an EEA Family permit, because of an HMRC policy , which has no basis in law.

Cases like Kempf and Levin, where the courts have clearly stated that the Term worker is a community law term and cannot be defined by national.

In Barry, the UK Court of Appeal went as far as to say that a person who worked for only 2 weeks at the Wimbledon Tennis competition has the status as a worker.

It is important to note that in case of Levin, Mrs Levin was a British woman who had gone to Netherlands, the Opposite of the OP's case.

The principle the court adopted, was the one, a British Advocate General by the name of Sir Gordon Slynn , put forward.

Therefore many of these ECJ principle that the ECJ adopted, had UK involvement one way or the order.