Dauhoo Judegment

[room1102]

Hi all

Just wondering. In Dauhoo Judgement, it said the following:

***********************"The Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) in Dauhoo (EEA Regulations – reg 8(2)) [2012] UKUT 79 (IAC) ruled:

“Under the scheme set out in reg 8 (2) of the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006, a person can succeed in establishing that he or she is an “extended family member” in any one of four different ways, each of which requires proving a relevant connection both prior to arrival in the UK and in the UK:

i. prior dependency and present dependency

ii. prior membership of a household and present membership of a household

iii. prior dependency and present membership of a household;

iv. prior membership of a household and present dependency*********

It said if my family member meets one of the four, it can establish them as extended family member. If my brother, sister-in-law and daughter living in the same house with me now (and will be in UK later), do they still need to be financial depending on me before they apply for EEA Family Permit? Please advise.

Thank you;

[Obie]

I believed you have answered your question yourself.

In the scenerio you envisage, they will qualify under point (ii).

That case relates to an application under Regulation 17 (4).

[room1102]

I believed you have answered your question yourself.

In the scenerio you envisage, they will qualify under point (ii).

That case relates to an application under Regulation 17 (4).

Thank you for your reply. If you don't mind I ask, what is Regulation 17(4)? Also, in Dauhoo case, they never mentioned what is the household definition? Is there anywhere to look up the household definition? From what you were saying, they do not need financial depending on me if they are living with me in the same house, right? Thank you.

[vinny]

Regulation 17.

8. Reg 8 also includes within the definition of extended family members relatives on serious health grounds (reg 8(3)); dependent relatives who meet the requirements of the Immigration Rules (reg 8(4)); and partners in a durable relationship (reg 8(5)). But the focus here is on reg 8(2). As the Tribunal has emphasised in a number of cases, e.g. in RK (OFM – membership of household dependency) India [2010] UKUT 421 (IAC) and Moneke (EEA – OFMs) Nigeria [2011] UKUT 00341 (IAC) (at para 11(b)), the requirements of dependency and household membership as found within reg 8(2)(a) and within reg 8(2)(c) are alternates; they are not conjunctive. That is clear from the relevant wording of each: under reg 8(2)(a) a person must show he is “dependent upon or is a member of [the EEA national’s] household”. Under reg 8(2)(c) a person must show he “continues to be dependent upon…or to be a member of his household”. So in the present case, even though rejecting that the appellant had shown present dependency, the FTT judge should have accepted that he had satisfied this provision by virtue of having shown present membership of the EEA principal’s household.

[Obie]

77. There was some tendency in the argument before us to read this requirement as one of being members of the same household; or, as was said on behalf of AK, members of a communal household. That is not what Directive 2004/38 says, nor was that the condition in Regulation 1612/68, which requires the OFM to have been, in relation to the Union citizen, under his roof, not under the same roof. It seems very likely that the assumption is that the household will indeed have been that of the Union citizen, that is, that he was in colloquial terms head of it, the relations were under his roof, and on that basis he can reasonably wish to be accompanied by the members of it when he leaves for another country. If, on the other hand, the liberty extends to what might be called collateral members of the same household, then it is very difficult to see why for instance cousins with a close relationship but not actually living together are excluded; or why, to give a concrete example, it should be crucial to the case of AK that he was living in the same house, rather than the same street, as his cousin