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.
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