Post
by nonspecifics » Fri Aug 26, 2011 8:42 am
Your description of the studying dates also seems a bit mixed up.
But, UKBA expect students to have CSI for 100% of the time. Perhaps on appeal some people could could win if there were gaps in CSI of only a few weeks, on the basis of proportionality, but the longer the period of time with no CSI, then the weaker the case.
Even if you earn £1 Million, they will probably say , no CSI then EEA is not legally a student under the Directive, so not exercising Treaty Rights, so not able to sponsor the non-EEA, so your earnings were unlawfully earned and so your earnings cannot be counted during the time of no CSI.
Is it 4 months with no CSI in your case? So, 4 months of no legally acceptable income either?
However, if you can get the evidence she was working legally while she was studying, then she could be a worker and so the above problem would be solved.
Also, you explained, you have no proof your EEA national sponsor was exercising Treaty Rights at the time of the decree absolute was granted, so back to the problem of proving you case again.
And, as I said the UKBA may consider your marital/ residence history just too convenient for reaching ROR status, so will probably fight the case very much.
But that's only my opinion; I am not UKBA.
Maybe someone with more personal experience can give more advice.