The Court of Appeal’s recent decisions in Warsame v The Secretary of State for the Home Department  EWCA Civ 16 and Secretary of State for the Home Department v Vassallo  EWCA Civ 13 considered the circumstances in which reliance can be placed upon enhanced levels of protection provided within the Citizen’s Directive in relation to expulsion of EEA nationals subject to deportation proceedings.
The central question in Vassallo was whether the Tribunal was correct in law to find that Mr Vassallo had acquired a right of permanent residence. The Court of Appeal having full regard to the Citizen’s Directive, relevant CJEU caselaw and the 2006 EEA Regulations, decided that having regard to the character of the EEA national’s residence in the UK, after a historical accrual of the requisite 5years, and despite Mr Vassalo having resided in the UK for over 50years, no right of permanent residence could be relied upon.
On 6 November 2015, the Upper Tribunal notified their decision in Osoro ( Surinder Singh)  UKUT 593 (IAC). They concluded their decision with observations seeming to cast strong doubt upon the continuing effectiveness of Surinder Singh following the coming into force of the EEA Regulations. Having raised doubt as to the co- existence of Surinder Singh with the Regulations, the Upper Tribunal regrettably did not take it upon themselves to answer the very questions they had unilaterally raised. To top it all , there is an equally strong warning from the Upper Tribunal to legal practitioners and Judges to take care in considering what was actually decided in Surinder Singh. It seems we do not appear to be understanding the ratio decidendi, in that judgement. The Appellant and Sponsor in Osoro however appears to have been legally unassisted and as such the warning to legal practitioners might perhaps have awaited adjudication upon a specific and appropriate case both where an appellant was legally represented and where the raised issues could have been fully ventilated in relation to the questions the Upper Tribunal have regrettably deferred to a future case.
If an adoption order is not recognised as valid in the United Kingdom, on the basis of current caselaw, obtaining an adoption order outside the UK with a view for a settled or EEA national sponsor to apply for entry clearance for the adopted child under either the Immigration Rules or EEA law means that the defect will be fatal to the application. Where such an application fails, it also seems simply not enough to argue family life arguments or the bests of the child in the alternative.