Eea4 pr refused (After Divorce )

[Ifycamilla]

I need some more advice from senior members on this issue. What will be my chance of winning an appeal. Or should I write a letter explaining the circumstance that made me redirect my mails to my ex boyfriends house while living in a shared rouse with my ex hubby. Please I need help on this. Thanks

[noajthan]

I need some more advice from senior members on this issue. What will be my chance of winning an appeal. Or should I write a letter explaining the circumstance that made me redirect my mails to my ex boyfriends house while living in a shared rouse with my ex hubby. Please I need help on this. Thanks

Hard to say.
Your case is not at all clearcut.

To save your mail you could have redirected it to any friend (or even setup a PO box).
Just writing a letter about it now is probably not enough; it only pits your word against the caseworker's hard-nosed balance of probabilities.

On the other hand, HO appear not to have given you a chance to explain yourself and appear to have disregarded cohabitation.
There may be the basis of an appeal in that.

However you are still trying to defend a marriage that has been terminated. That seems to weaken your case as it puts current circumstances in the frame too.
You can expect to be questioned about all aspects of that marriage, (entry, exit) as well as what seem to be current attempts to reconcile with ex-bf/father of your child.

Even ex-bf's activity in registering the child as a citizen conspires against you.
In one sense, as child lives with you, you could make a case for derivative rights through your son (if/when he becomes British).
But as son has a settled father (possibly with ambitions of his own for the privilege of citizenship) this weakens your position as a carer without whom son would have to leave EU.

Time is not really on you side if you are waiting for son's registration and/or bf's naturalisation.
Suggest hope for the best and appeal; but plan for the worst and put your Plan B in place.

[Ifycamilla]

@ Noajthan. Thanks for your sincere analysis. But then, how can homeoffice be alleging a mooc after 5yrs of marriage and divorce. No visitation and no interview from homeoffice and yet they assume that my marriage with my ex hubby was a moc. But my passport was returned.

[noajthan]

@ Noajthan. Thanks for your sincere analysis. But then, how can homeoffice be alleging a mooc after 5yrs of marriage and divorce. No visitation and no interview from homeoffice and yet they assume that my marriage with my ex hubby was a moc. But my passport was returned.

The HO has complex internal guidance which they follow to reach these decisions;they're based on a 'balance of probabilities'.
So you must have been assesed on a number of factors.

It's not clear really what settled their decision apart from the complex address and exes situation you have referenced.

What does the refusal letter say exactly? (don't post identifying details).

[Richard W]

But then, how can homeoffice be alleging a mooc after 5yrs of marriage and divorce. No visitation and no interview from homeoffice and yet they assume that my marriage with my ex hubby was a moc. But my passport was returned.

To take the last point first, you still don't seem to have answered Noajthan's question:

What does the refusal letter say exactly? (don't post identifying details).

(He posted his reminder as I was editing this post.) An answer may enable us to answer your question better.

In EEA law, the term of 'marriage of convenience' is very wide. It includes the concept of a 'marriage of deception', where one spouse persuades the other that she intends for them to live together, but only intends to stay together for long enough to achieve the desired immigration status. After several years of living together, it is difficult to see how a marriage of deception by a competent deceiver can be distinguished from a failing marriage. An interview would be unlikely to provide any evidence.

The only argument I can see is that a marriage lasting for 5 years is considered enough on the family settlement route to establish that a marriage is genuine; indeed, the 5 years looks more like a test of the family's finances! What you need is evidence that you were working at your marriage, and not just biding your time until you could be reunited with your son's father. I fear your route forward is an expensive appeal with witnesses.

What I offer in this paragraph are my untutored thoughts. Perhaps they are not practicable - no-one else is yet suggesting such a plan. At the very least, I expect other residents of your shared accommodation will have heard you arguing, which is evidence that the relationship of you and your husband was not a sham. I don't know if it would then be worth getting a formal statement from your ex-hsuband that he did not feel you were simply using him to get residence. Evidence of cohabitation would support the claim that your husband was not party to a plan to deceive the Home Office.

[Casa]

'Heresay' from other residents that they overheard arguments, won't be considered as sound evidence for co-habitation or a genuine relationship.