- FAQ
- Login
- Register
- Call Workpermit.com for a paid service +44 (0)344-991-9222
ESC
Welcome to immigrationboards.com!
Moderators: Casa, John, ChetanOjha, archigabe, CR001, push, JAJ, ca.funke, Amber, zimba, vinny, Obie, EUsmileWEallsmile, batleykhan, meself2, geriatrix
Hi ObieObie wrote:I need not answer your question as you have identified the flaws in your approach.
Your in law is a person of independent means. She is not dependent on you. She therefore cannot qualify as a family.
She may qualify as extended family member, but issuance of EEA family permit will be discretionary. In amy event, it is not even clearly or explicitly provided for in the EEA Regulations.
This may work, if you can get her to the UK she can apply on the basis of living under the same roof as opposed to pure financial dependency, read Pedro -catcherintherye wrote:
Someone else was suggesting getting the EEA Spanish residence card for her when we are in Spain, then applying for UK residency after coming to the UK on a holiday. i.e. missing our the EEA family member thing. I am guessing that either she wouldn't be granted the Spanish residence card on the basis that she is not dependent or the UK residency card would not be granted as she is not fully dependent and you cant just 'port' an EEA residence card.
el patron wrote:This may work, if you can get her to the UK she can apply on the basis of living under the same roof as opposed to pure financial dependency, read Pedro -catcherintherye wrote:
Someone else was suggesting getting the EEA Spanish residence card for her when we are in Spain, then applying for UK residency after coming to the UK on a holiday. i.e. missing our the EEA family member thing. I am guessing that either she wouldn't be granted the Spanish residence card on the basis that she is not dependent or the UK residency card would not be granted as she is not fully dependent and you cant just 'port' an EEA residence card.
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2009/1358.html
'At 69. Article 2(2) does not specify when the dependency has to have arisen. Neither does it require that the relative must be dependent in the country of origin. Article 3(2)(a), on the other hand, requires actual dependency at a particular time and place. That difference, as I have said, is reflected by Article 8(5)(d) as compared with 8(5)(e). It cannot be an accident of drafting. It contemplates, as it seems to me, that where in an Article 2(2)(d) case reliance is placed on dependency, it can be proved by a document from the host state without input from the state of origin. Taking Article 2(2)(d) together with Article 8(5)(d), suggests that dependency in the state of origin need not be proved for family members. It is sufficient if, as is alleged here, the dependency arises in the host state. Such an interpretation reflects the policy of the Directive to strengthen and simplify the realisation of realistic free movement rights of Union citizens compatibly with their family rights. On the one hand, close family members of Union citizens can move freely with Union citizens who might otherwise be inhibited from exercising their rights of free movement. On the other, Member States are merely obliged, as Miss Mountfield put it, to give open-minded consideration to those extended family members who have demonstrable need. Such an interpretation, as well as being in accordance with the language of the Citizens' Directive, is consistent with the approach of the European Court of Justice in Metock [84-9]. '