EU Citizens Directive and 2006 Regulations Strictly Applied: Temporary Break in Economy Dependency Upon EEA National Renders Right to Permanent Residence Unattainable

The Court of Appeal,  in Secretary of State for the Home Department v Ojo [2015] 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…

Continue reading

Home Office Attempt to Subvert the EEA Legislative Scheme Fails: EEA Permanent Residence Not Lost By Reason of Criminality or Imprisonment

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 [2015] EWCA Civ 1198
  • Secretary of State for the Home Department v Straszewski [2015] EWCA Civ 1245
  • AA (Nigeria) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] EWCA Civ 1249

Continue reading

Upper Tribunal Warning to Legal Practitioners On Wider Applicability Of Surinder Singh Principles:With Doubt Cast On Co- Existence With Citizen’s Directive/ 2006 EEA Regulations

On 6 November 2015, the  Upper Tribunal notified their decision in Osoro ( Surinder Singh) [2015] 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.

Continue reading