Can someone read this handwritten note by ECO

[eiz]

Hi,
We have applied for EEA family permit. The application was refused, which is another issue, but we found this handwritten note among the returned documents which seems to be written by or to the ECO.
Can someone tell us what the circled words are?

[CR001]

1. "note"

2. "Cat" or "Cate" i.e. Category

[Casa]

What is the nationality of the sponsor

[eiz]

The EEA sponsor is German.

I would like to post more information about this EEA Family Permit application to get some advice as I believe there has been a descrimination agains the applicants during the application process and in the refusal notes.
Shall I start a new post regarding that, as the subject of this post is different?

[Casa]

The EEA sponsor is German.

I would like to post more information about his Family Permit application to get some advice as I believe there has been a descrimination agains the applicants during the application process and in the refusal notes.
Shall I start a new post regarding that, as the subject of this post is different?

It seems that whoever wrote the note doesn't believe she is. Continue to post in this thread please.

[eiz]

It seems that whoever wrote the note doesn't believe she is.

Why do you think so? also, do you think this note was written by the ECO or to the ECO?

I will post soon some details about the whole case...

[Casa]

It seems that whoever wrote the note doesn't believe she is.

Why do you think so? also, do you think this note was written by the ECO or to the ECO?

I will post soon some details about the whole case...

I don't know who wrote the note but the words 'as the sponsor is no EEA national' suggests that this is in question.

[eiz]

the words 'as the sponsor is no EEA national'

Are you sure the word in green circle is "no"? we did not read it like this. We thought it is "an" or "a"

[Casa]

Not 100%, but it looks like it.

[eiz]

Regarding the whole issue, not sure actually where to start, but I will try initially to write a brief summary, then I can send more details if required.

The applicants are the EEA national’s parents-in-law. According to regulation 7(c) of the Regulations 2006, they are considered Direct Family Members as they are dependent family members of the EEA national in her spouse’s ascending line.

They applied twice for the EEA FP, but in both times their applications were refused!

In the first applications, the ECO considered them extended family members. He examined and refused their applications under regulation 8!

In the second applications, the ECO considered their applications under regulation 6, which is even more irrelevant to to the applicants.

Moreover, in the second applications the ECO has just copied and pasted the same refusal points which the first ECO made although the applicants have addressed all these points in their applications and provided additional information, supporting documents and evidences to address those points.

In fact, one of the points, which the second ECO has blindly copied and pasted literally from the first ECO’s points, was about how long the applicants were planning to stay in the UK and what they will do after that. But this information was not mentioned like this at all in the second applications! Can the ECO take some information from the first application and state in the refusal letter that the applicants has stated so and so although they have not stated that at all in the second application? So this is a complete falsification!

In fact, we believe that the second ECO has completely ignored all the information mentioned in the second applications, as well as he ignored all the supporting documents and evidences which were submitted by the applicants to address any points raised in the refusal letter of their first applications.

There are much more details which I can mention regarding this case (including the refusal of the submission officer at the VAC to include some of the other supporting documents which the applicants wanted to submit with the applications)

We believe that the EEA national and her family members have been discriminated against. We are trying to complain about this, but that is a very long process, and we do not have much time as the family members want to join their EEA sponsor as soon as possible.

I appreciate if someone can advice us about a short or a faster way to deal with this issue. We are vey confident that if our case is taken to the court, the decision will definitely be on our side. But the issue now is time.

[CR001]

What are the exact words of the refusal?

What evidence of dependency on the EU sponsor did the applicants provide?

What nationality are the applicants?

[eiz]

What are the exact words of the refusal?

In the first application, there were two refusal statements, one as a point which is:
“I therefore refuse your EEA family permit application because I am not satisfied that you meet all the requirements of regulation 12 of the immigration (EEA) Regulations 2006”

And one as a very final statement, looked like a concluding statement:
“I therefore refuse your EEA family permit application because I am not satisfied that you meet all the requirements of regulation 8 of the immigration (EEA) Regulations 2006”

However, the applications should have been considered under regulation 7 and only paragraph 1 of regulation 12.

In the second application, the refusal statements was:

“I therefore refuse your EEA family permit application because I am not satisfied that you meet all the requirements of regulation 6 of the immigration (EEA) Regulations 2006”

Not sure how the applicants are supposed to meet regulation 6 although they are not even EEA nationals?!!!
In fact, family permit cannot be issued for someone who meets regulation 6, because regulation 6 is to prove exercising treaty rights of EEA nationals!!!

Before the the refusal statements of the second application, the ECO stated “The information provided in your visa application and supporting documents does not address the above discrepancy. Taking this into consideration ultimately lead me to doubt the credibility of your application as a whole.”

He might be referring to an alleged discrepancy which the first ECO had pointed, but the applicants have explained in the information provided in the second application form and the supporting documents that there is no such discrepancy and that the first ECO had misquoted the applicants statements. But the second ECO has ignored all that information and all the supporting documents and evidences sent in the second applications which clearly prove that there is no such discrepancy.

I am willing to send to you the whole refusal letters in a PM if you want.

What evidence of dependency on the EU sponsor did the applicants provide?

The applicants provided evidences that their EEA national sponsor have been sending regular money to them (by providing transfer receipts and bank statements of the sponsor referencing those money transfer payments).

As well as, the applicants provided that they do not have any other sponsor who is supporting them financially in their home country.

Also, the applicants explained that the sponsor has helped them build a house in their country. (Which the first ECO misquoted to try to indicate an alleged discrepancy, and the second ECO just copied that misquotation!)

What nationality are the applicants?

Syrian. Which could be the reason of this intentional discrimination against them!

[CR001]

You don't have PM function access. I am not asking for the last paragraphs of the refusal, I am asking for the specific paragraphs listing the reasons of what they based the decision on (taking out all personal information).

[eiz]

This is the refusal letter of the second application. You can click on the link under each image to see it larger.


https://prnt.sc/fag4gc


https://prnt.sc/fag4v3

I would like to point out the following regarding the refusal letter:

• The first point is not true! The applicants did not mention any of that in the second application! The ECO has just copied that point from the refusal letter of the first application, which was also misquoted by the way. So the ECO is falsifying this statement! Nevertheless, I believe there is no minimum period required to stay in the UK to be eligible to apply for an EEA family permit!
• The second point is also an exact copy and paste from the refusal letter of the first application. This is a void point, because the applicants are one of those listed in regulation 7.
• Regarding the third point:
  - Not sure what the ECO means by saying that they are not satisfied that this money pays for essential needs…etc. There is no practical way to prove how this money is being spent, or how much the living cost is. The applicants provided evidences that they do not have any other source of financial support in their country, other than from their EEA national sponsor.
  - The ECO has misquoted and twisted the applicants statement regarding building a house, to try to fake a contradiction which does not exist. The applicants mentioned clearly, in more than one place, that the sponsor has helped them to build a house and that they are currently living in that house!
  - The applicants do not need Schengen visa to travel to Slovenia if they are accompanying their EEA national sponsor. However, this is subject to the Slovenian and EU law and has nothing to do with the EEA family permit application!
  - The applicants has provided a certifying documents issued by the authority in Slovenia that their daughter is registered as unemployed. i.e. she does not have the means to support them financially!

So you can tell from the above that the ECO has completely, and seems to be intentionally, ignored all the Information, supporting documents and evidences provided by the applicants in the second applications and that he/she falsified statements just to refuse the applications.

How could a discrimination be more obvious than in this refusal letter?

[CR001]

All very confusing.

What exactly was their purpose for applying for a EEA Family Permit?

[eiz]

The application is not confusing at all. It is straight forward.

The applicants are applying to join their EEA national sponsor and her family (i.e. their son and grandchildren), as the ECO acknowledged that, as you can see, in the first line of the first page of the refusal letter.

The applicants had mentioned in the first application how long they might be staying in the UK and where they might go after that. However, we believe that this information, how long they might stay in the UK and where they might go after that, is irrelevant to the application and does not invalidate the applicants' elligibility for EEA family permits to join their EEA national sponsor.

Nevertheless, the applicants removed that additional information, i.e. how long they might stay in the UK and where they might go after that, in the second applications, to remove any potential confusion.

So the applications should be straight forward that the applicants are applying for EEA family permits to join their EEA national sponsor. They should have automatic right to get that EEA family permit and to join their EEA national sponsor as they are her direct family members, as per regulation 7 paragraph (c), and paragraph (a) of regulation 12, of the Regulations 2006.

So it should be straight forward and just a matter of formality that they get the EEA family permits.

But the ECO wants to create this confusion and consider their applications under wrong regulations, and come up with all these alleged and falsified contradictions and discrepancies because simply they do no want to issue the EEA Family Permit to the applicants.

[CR001]

I will then leave others to comment as you seem to be misconstruing my comment.

If they declared they were only visiting in one application and not in the other, this casts doubts on them. UKVI always cross checks previous application information.

Good luck.

[eiz]

I really appreciate your comments and advice CR001. I did not mean to "misconstruing" them at all. Not sure why you thought that. I'm sorry if I said something which might imply that.

If my tone is a bit harsh, it is directed towards the ECO and his discrimination.

I hope you continue posting your comments on this.

Where is the problem if they used the word "visit" in the first application and did not use it in the second one?

According to the EEA regulations, and the UK Visas and Immigration website, they can apply for EEA family permit whether for a short or a long stay.

Does really using the word "visit" invalidate this eligibility?

And how does that explain the ECO action of considering the applications under regulation 8, as in the first applications, and regulation 6, as in the second applications?