EEA national self sufficient: UKBA response

[Universal soldier]

The following Jambo-Guru post is the best answer which unfold this dilemma. If EU national have some savings then he/she will be self sufficient and then if non-eu national work then this income/funds can make self sufficient to EEA national.

It's a chicken & egg scenario.

What the HO is saying is that you can't just be self sufficient because of the non EEA work as the non EEA national is allowed to work because you are self sufficient. So you need to have some savings (for example) for the EEA national to be self sufficient, then the non EEA can work and then it is OK to rely in that income to continue to be self sufficient.

[nemerkh]

The dilemma is that there is mention that whether the noneu started working in uk and eu is being supported of noneu and being deemed self suff. Obviosuly i cant find another self suff explaination for this and it shoukd be like that. Again i have to say that on the eea application they ask to provide evidence if EITHER employment if the family member OR the funds that they share. Ultimately funds doesnt transcribe only in savings but also in the earnings if the noneu member that the eu shares.

[neep]

The 'Guidance':
http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/polic ... /eun/eun1/
then, seems misleading in saying:
"An EEA national can qualify as self-sufficient based on the income of their non-EEA family member."

[Universal soldier]

Another question can be here that if non-eu national is supporting its EEA national partner then which option is more better, either the funds (savings) stay in EEA national account or a regular transfer money for EEA national to EEA national account can fulfill the criteria. Does it make no difference since in both scenario the EEA national is self sufficient?

[Obie]

Guys it looks like there are lots of confusion going on in this thread, and I believe that one needs to clarify things.

An EEA national can claim self sufficiency on the basis of their non EEA family member's income. That is perfectly normal.

The technical question is whether the income was derived from unlawful employment.

If an family member has residence card, but their EEA sponsor cease exercising treaty right, then the UKBA is saying, that notwithstanding the Validity of the card, the person did not have a lawful basis for being in the UK , as the family member was not exercising treaty rights, therefore any income derived from this , is unlawful and will not be taken into account as sufficient resource, as the income was derived from unlawful employnent.

If the non EEA national had leave to remain, which confer right to work, then he could claim self sufficiency.

There are many legal argument for and against this preposition, but that is sort of what UKBA is saying.

[Universal soldier]

But how an EEA national ceases its treaty rights of exercise if he/she is self sufficient on the income/funds of non-eu national. For example non-eu national is working or have funds who regularly give money to EU national and EU national keep that money in its account as saving then still EU national is self sufficient and exercising its treaty rights means it non-eu national have legal basis to work. Is not it?

[askmeplz82]

Guys it looks like there are lots of confusion going on in this thread, and I believe that one needs to clarify things.

An EEA national can claim self sufficiency on the basis of their non EEA family member's income. That is perfectly normal.

The technical question is whether the income was derived from unlawful employment.

If an family member has residence card, but their EEA sponsor cease exercising treaty right, then the UKBA is saying, that notwithstanding the Validity of the card, the person did not have a lawful basis for being in the UK , as the family member was not exercising treaty rights, therefore any income derived from this , is unlawful and will not be taken into account as sufficient resource, as the income was derived from unlawful employnent.

If the non EEA national had leave to remain, which confer right to work, then he could claim self sufficiency.

There are many legal argument for and against this preposition, but that is sort of what UKBA is saying.

only way to win this argument is by showing some savings even if its £200/£300 in the EEA national or their Joint account the day for example they buy their comprehensive insurance to exercise treaty right as self sufficient
because that saving came from legal income by non eea national ( when EEA national was exercising treaty right as job seeker, worker or self employed )

Later NON EEA national can work and income will be considered legal under EU law

example:

Miss A worked from Jan 2008 - dec 2009

Mr B working from Jan 2008 - till now

Miss A left job and stay at home ; depend fully on Mr B income

Miss A and B apply for health Insurance January 2010: they already have savings from so any income NON EEA nation earn after this will be legal income according to UKBA

[Universal soldier]

My mind still stick to the 1st reply of Jambo. Becase even non-eu national is supporting its EU national either by working/having funds then if these funds stay in the account of EU national (any saving) then it clearly means that EU is a self sufficient qualified person so it non-eu family member has legal basis. And for self sufficiency there is no set amount as long as family live without benefits.

[Obie]

Provided they dont consider that as abuse of the qualified person requirement and impose a 1 year ban under new rules coming in place in January.

[Universal soldier]

example:

Miss A worked from Jan 2008 - dec 2009

Mr B working from Jan 2008 - till now

Miss A left job and stay at home ; depend fully on Mr B income

Miss A and B apply for health Insurance January 2010: they already have savings from so any income NON EEA nation earn after this will be legal income according to UKBA

i think in this example if some balance/saving stay in EU national account even non-eu national supporting then it will work.

[nemerkh]

I still cant see how this fots on the eea1/2 application. They want the current status. Like in my (noneu) and wifes situation, we have been here for 6 yrs. we are reapplying for eea1/2 5 yrs extension. My wife was self employed and stopped like a year a go then later on we got the CSI and because we failed the PR we r reapplying for eeas now. On the application form and guidance there is no mention of previous employment or self employment. They want your current status and evidence of the sipporting noneu family member ie payslips and employment stuff. Hence this would be a monkey buisness if that's the case.

[sheraz7]

Do not be confused from the UKBA team reply which has actually been taken from Guidance - Bulgarian and Romanian casework - yellow registration certificate - version 3.0 (page 35-37).

For other EEA national refer the following guideline and read carefully the Assessing sufficient resources (page 31-33)

[nemerkh]

Do not be confused from the UKBA team reply which has actually been taken from Guidance - Bulgarian and Romanian casework - yellow registration certificate - version 3.0 (page 35-37).

For other EEA national refer the following guideline and read carefully the Assessing sufficient resources (page 31-33)

Thanks respected guru!! Thats a really nice guidance and it clarifies the resources bit. Obviously after reading it carefully its a pretty straight forward thingy.
However this guidance has no mention of the priciple debate of this thread amd topic. Its the debate of egg/chicken that the eu natiknal should have been working and then supported by te family memeber ie noneu. It was the reply from the home office that is strikingly confusing and worrying. I dunno whether its only for bulg/romas but this really leaves room for the home office to play around and be selective on their judgement.

[Jambo]

Its the debate of egg/chicken that the eu natiknal should have been working and then supported by te family memeber ie noneu.

The EEA national doesn't need to be working. It is just that he needs to have some resources (savings for example) initially. He can't totally rely on the non EEA income from day 1 (if the only reason the non EEA can work is because of the EEA self sufficiency status).
As most people moving to a new country would have some sort of savings, this is more an academic discussion than a real problem.

[askmeplz82]

Its the debate of egg/chicken that the eu natiknal should have been working and then supported by te family memeber ie noneu.

The EEA national doesn't need to be working. It is just that he needs to have some resources (savings for example) initially. He can't totally rely on the non EEA income from day 1 (if the only reason the non EEA can work is because of the EEA self sufficiency status).
As most people moving to a new country would have some sort of savings, this is more an academic discussion than a real problem.

Exactly nemerkh you can easily argue this with UKBA caseworker

the problem we have here is we can never tell how Home office caseworker look at an application

- in one case where EEA national never worked from day 1 and never had even insurance and they are issued PR ( EEA was dependent on NON EU )

- In another case Home office refused EEA national Self sufficient. her case everything was ok but because that person rarely used the Bank account they refused saying account is not active

- another case refused because couple never had joint account ( it's not a requirement even ) although joint Council Tax, joint utility bills and even joint rental agreement

see the problem is caseworker will find so many excuses just to refuse.

[Obie]

Essentially the Home Office is seeking to construct argument based on.

ER and Others (EU national; self-sufficiency ; illegal employment) Ireland [2006] UKAIT 00096

and

W (China) & Anor v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2006] EWCA Civ 1494 (09 November 2006)

MA & Others (EU national; self-sufficiency; lawful employment) Bangladesh [2006] UKAIT 00090

The UKBA may well be justified, but it is to be tested.

It follows from those judgement, that there might be a scope for the view they have taken.

[Universal soldier]

The EEA national doesn't need to be working. It is just that he needs to have some resources (savings for example) initially. He can't totally rely on the non EEA income from day 1 (if the only reason the non EEA can work is because of the EEA self sufficiency status).
As most people moving to a new country would have some sort of savings, this is more an academic discussion than a real problem.

But if the EU national has genuinely access to non-EU national funds then obviously EU national will always have some resources (saving) to show and be self sufficient. Is not it?

[askmeplz82]

The EEA national doesn't need to be working. It is just that he needs to have some resources (savings for example) initially. He can't totally rely on the non EEA income from day 1 (if the only reason the non EEA can work is because of the EEA self sufficiency status).
As most people moving to a new country would have some sort of savings, this is more an academic discussion than a real problem.

But if the EU national has genuinely access to non-EU national funds then obviously EU national will always have some resources (saving) to show and be self sufficient. Is not it?

No one disagree with that. It's just source of funds. If it's from legal income before EEA national become self sufficient then of course it's valid.

- Either NON EU national have enough savings from the past employment when EEA national was exercising treaty right either as working, job seeking or even self employed

- or he/she was on different immigration category that allowed him/her to work


if we look at W(China) and X(China) : they arrived from Holland and worked illegally in the UK so fund was illegal

Chen, who had resources originating in China which made her, and thereby the child, self-sufficient in the UK

[Universal soldier]

The EEA national doesn't need to be working. It is just that he needs to have some resources (savings for example) initially. He can't totally rely on the non EEA income from day 1 (if the only reason the non EEA can work is because of the EEA self sufficiency status).
As most people moving to a new country would have some sort of savings, this is more an academic discussion than a real problem.

But if the EU national has genuinely access to non-EU national funds then obviously EU national will always have some resources (saving) to show and be self sufficient. Is not it?

No one disagree with that. It's just source of funds. If it's from legal income before EEA national become self sufficient then of course it's valid.

how about for example at the time of EEA2 RC the non-eu national was on tier 1 visa which allow working and EU national was self sufficient on the basis of those legal funds from non-EU national employment. Then non-eu national got EEA2 RC and his tier 1 visa expired but carrying on employment with EEA2 RC. But all 5 years spent afterwards that EU national get support from non-eu national employment funds who is now on EEA2 RC. Then in this case initially the EU national was self sufficient on legal funds when non-eu national has legal visa under immigration rules.

[nemerkh]

Well worries are half over. Got my RC for an extended 5 yrs. application sent on 1/11/13.

[Universal soldier]

@Nemerkh
Congratulations! just for information, can you tell us that roughly how much the end balance was which work out your self sufficiency. Give us a little clue about that if you not mind.

[nemerkh]

Well this topic scares self sufficient applicants a bit. We have been here for over 6 yrs initially stayed on eea2 as a family member of a self employed eu citizen. Failed our permanent due to lack of evidence if self employment. S we swiftly got a CSI and applied for another eea2.
In the cover letter we didn't mention anything abt the self employment. So we simply said it as it is. Am fully employed. We got a joint bank account with my eu spouse, we provided axa csi, and told them we would like to extend another 5 yrs via eea2 and we got it.

Now according to the topic in this thread, it says that the eu spouse is supposed to have had some money in their aavings or funds from previous employment. The Gurus were right in a way however looks like my caseworker ignored the past before the self sufficiency status and was happy with our circumstances.

Am still a bit shaken by the UKBA reply on this thread which gives then total control of the decision they ought to make and ill be thinking twice before applying again for the PR. as for now and for eea2 this seems satisfactory. I should say i wasnt expecting this before the new year.

[askmeplz82]

Congrat.. now you can enjoy new year properly

[Raj5]

UKBA will need to be showed the source of the Self-Sufficiency.

If it came from a non- EEA national without a right of residence, that may be considered illegal.

Is there any specific amount which can be considered as having sufficient resources?

[Raj5]

I believe the UKBA team has given the reply based on the Romanian and Bulgarian nationals who and their family members are under restriction for employment purposes.
I do not think doing employment/self employment is always necessary because an EEA national can still become self sufficient even on the savings/accumulated funds of non-EU family members and for that purposes its access for EU national must be demonstrated.

If you are economically self-sufficient:
you need to supply evidence of comprehensive
sickness insurance for yourself and any family members included in your application. You Guidance for Making an EEA Application (Version 08/2013) - Page 3 of 8
also need to supply evidence of funds sufficient to maintain yourself and any family members
included in your application during the time you intend to reside on this basis. These funds can
come from the employment or self-employment of any of your family members legally working
and residing in the UK with you.
Documentary evidence of their employment or funds should
be supplied.

My friend's application for a residence card on the basis of having sufficient resources got refused. He is married to an EU national working legally in the UK and have child from the EU national. They had more than £10,000 in their account and my friend had £20,000 in his separate account. They also had comprehensive sickness insurance.The Home Office refused on the ground that they should have had £35,000 in their account. Hard to understand how the Home Office could arrive at such a figure.