The Court of Appeal, in Secretary of State for the Home Department v Ojo  EWCA Civ 1301 has strictly interpreted Regulation 7(1) of the EEA 2006 Regulations with the result that an adult non – EEA family member previously dependant upon her EEA national mother was unable to continue relying upon EEA law to show that she had acquired a right of permanent residence in the UK since during her period of residence here she had temporarily been economically independent from her mother…
The Home Office have recently been on a downward streak in the Court of Appeal in terms of issues in relation to EEA law and in particular EEA deportations.
Read my post regarding the recent judgments from the Court of Appeal on the issue in the cases of:
- Agho v The Secretary of State for the Home Department  EWCA Civ 1198
- Secretary of State for the Home Department v Straszewski  EWCA Civ 1245
- AA (Nigeria) v Secretary of State for the Home Department  EWCA Civ 1249
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.