Immigrationboards.com

Well this case makes a very sad reading.

It shows how Home Office feels they are above the law. But finally justice has been served, even though Mr Santos has had to wait for a good period of over 4 years.

No human being nevermind a person with a right of residence, deserve to be treated in the most appalling manner in which Mr Santos was treated, and one will hope that UKVI will learn from this case.

However i will not bank on it.

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2016/609.html

Mr Santos was punished in this most deploring manner, because he dared to exercise his right under Diatta, and because his wife decided to abandon him.

It is good to know that British Justice system in regards to immigrant still exist. Sometimes i thought it was dead.

Do you think the HO will appeal Obie? They say they are considering it.

Casa wrote:Do you think the HO will appeal Obie? They say they are considering it.

How do you know they are considering it.

Mrs Justice Lang refused them permission already.

They will be making a fool of themselves if they dear file an appellant notices.

They just put a dent in Zain Malick record after his success with ETS.

I was reduced to tears when I read what Mr Santos went through. Mrs Justice Lang is one of the most conservative judges at the High Court.

They will have a tough time appealing against her.

£136,000 awarded in damages. It amazes me that HO can make blunders of such huge proportions

It has to be looked from the context that Mr Santos is a man of good character, and not a foreign criminal.

He was detained unlawfullyfor a period of close to 6 months, and in one of the immigration prisons he was locked up for 23 hours and refused the right to have shower.

Almost 5 attempts were made at unlawfully removing him, in the last one, he was saved by a God sent pilot to whom he explained his plight. He refused to fly him and told them to remove the handcuffs of him.

He was a sue chef and at the cutting edge of his career. His health took a turn for the worst after detention. He was denied the right to work for 2 years after being released.

He lost his relationship with his child, who engaged in substances abuse in Brazil to support himself as dad could not send remittance.

Home office lied to court and tribunal to continue keeping him in detention.
I think in my opinion,the award was wholly inadequate in the light of the judge's findings.

You have basically hijacked this thread with matters and view that is specifically designed for another thread.

If you wish to discuss EU referendum, then you know the section to go to.

Obie wrote:It has to be looked from the context that Mr Santos is a man of good character, and not a foreign criminal.

Your are overlooking nearly 7 years of overstay from 2003 to 2010.

Also, his failed marriage is likely to become a marriage of convenience later this year if the UK remains in the EU - the second promised clarification reads

The concept of marriage of convenience - which is not protected under Union law – also covers a marriage which is maintained for the purpose of enjoying a right of residence by a family member who is not a national of a Member State.

I've no idea what the transitional arrangements will be, but he could then have trouble acquiring a retained right of residence. He'd better apply for permanent residence PDQ if he hasn't already.

You are simply writing nonsense that is baseless in law and has no meaning in legal terms so it is not worth answering.

We live in a land rule by law not on proposed law that will never see the light of day.

If you express a view based on the law of the land, then I may indulge you.

The overstaying has no basis in regards to the applicable law.

Obie wrote:The overstaying has no basis in regards to the applicable law.

So we shouldn't put much faith in the judgement then, given that it starts out (my italics):

2.The Claimant, whose date of birth is 28 November 1970, is a national of Brazil. He arrived in the UK on 3 November 2002 with entry clearance as a visitor. He remained in the UK unlawfully after the expiry of his visa.
3.In November 2008 the Claimant met his future spouse, Claudia Oliveira Batista, who is a Portuguese national. She had been residing and working in the UK since 2007/2008. They began living together in May 2009. They became engaged in November 2009 and married on 30 April 2010, by way of a proxy marriage that took place in Brazil. They celebrated their wedding in the UK. Their relationship broke down in October 2010, and she moved out of their home in November 2010.

Well what can I say? When a bunch of averagely educated civil servants are put in a position of power like working for the HO, they surely will abuse their positions. The problem is some of these caseworkers appear to be an ordinary GCSE holders, it is intellectually wrong to demand of them the same level of competency as will be required of a graduate. Their inability to read to compression, the text of the law will cause many more of this type of judgment being handed down.

It does not matter what anyone thinks about unlawful residence, what is good for the goose is also good for the gander. If it is the law that unlawful residence has no meaning in decision making within the Reg why should the Court ignore the law and be sentimental to the disadvantage of the claimant?

Some of you will rather prefer these UK courts which already are not accountable and fair as what a proper Court should be to act quite like a kangaroo Court.

If anyone is a man or woman of conscience, they should know that when it comes to the law, it is not about their sentiments, it is about the law, and if anyone has a problem with an honest interpretation of the law, they may consider relocating to North Korea, as many views now expressed on this board are something you would expect to be coming out of North Korea which if what is being written in the press about that State is true reflection of the conditions there.

Obie wrote:You are simply writing nonsense that is baseless in law and has no meaning in legal terms so it is not worth answering.

We live in a land rule by law not on proposed law that will never see the light of day.

I had put the problems down to slavish applications of departmental guidelines and the mistaken assumption that the original application has been withdrawn. Perhaps the real, hidden reason was that the Home Office regard the Diatta judgement as wrong; they (along with the Netherlands and Germany) opposed it in 1985, and have been promised its reversal as a result of Cameron's negotiations. You regard these promises as fraudulent. I actually suspected that Santos suffered because his near 7-year overstay before the marriage had incurred the Home Office's ill will.

I'm not so sure of the robustness of the rule of law, especially when it comes to EEA regulations. Right to work and right to rent checks don't sit so well with the 5 to 6 month wait some people seem to have before they can demonstrate such rights. Last month, we had a judge making disparaging remarks about the Home Office and the rule of law because of arbitrariness in the enforcement of carrier's liability; carrier's liability makes some rights of the EEA route contingent on being able to reach the border. The rule of law makes some inroads, into Home Office rules, but it's an uphill struggle.

The Home Office now seems to have learnt how to deal with the British courts - abolishing and limiting the right of appeal, codifying human rights considerations, and now Cameron's deal is claimed to be about to overturn ECJ rulings.

EDIT: Changed my mind for fear of being banned.

Wanderer wrote:EDIT: Changed my mind for fear of being banned.

It is good that you have changed your mind and withdrew your post. To be honest with your Sir, you know nothing pertaining to this area of law, and rather than causing unnecessary annoyance, it is better if your views are kept to yourself Sir. I didn't intend to be rude to your Sir.

lurli wrote:Well what can I say? When a bunch of averagely educated civil servants are put in a position of power like working for the HO, they surely will abuse their positions. The problem is some of these caseworkers appear to be an ordinary GCSE holders, it is intellectually wrong to demand of them the same level of competency as will be required of a graduate. Their inability to read to compression, the text of the law will cause many more of this type of judgment being handed down.

It does not matter what anyone thinks about unlawful residence, what is good for the goose is also good for the gander. If it is the law that unlawful residence has no meaning in decision making within the Reg why should the Court ignore the law and be sentimental to the disadvantage of the claimant?

Some of you will rather prefer these UK courts which already are not accountable and fair as what a proper Court should be to act quite like a kangaroo Court.

If anyone is a man or woman of conscience, they should know that when it comes to the law, it is not about their sentiments, it is about the law, and if anyone has a problem with an honest interpretation of the law, they may consider relocating to North Korea, as many views now expressed on this board are something you would expect to be coming out of North Korea which if what is being written in the press about that State is true reflection of the conditions there.

You may have some point there.

Home Office must train their staff to apply their own laws and policy, not just EU law.

The lack of formal education at advance stages is evidence in the decision making process.


Diatta is settled law, people need to appreciate this.

Mr Santos won because the action of Home Office was inconsistent with their own policy.

In some of Home office correspondence with Mr Santos Rep, they acknowledge the application of Diatta principle to Mr Santos, just that when it came to application, they ignored it.

I need to make clear that this thread is purely for discussion regarding the EEA Regulation and how individuals can potentially claim relief if their eu rights is violated.

There is a special forum that is designed for people to express their views on EU referendum.

The EEA Route Application , and court ruling on damages for breaches of EU law , has to stay here.

Any issue Re referendum can be discussed in the other thread .

lurli wrote:

Wanderer wrote:EDIT: Changed my mind for fear of being banned.

It is good that you have changed your mind and withdrew your post. To be honest with your Sir, you know nothing pertaining to this area of law, and rather than causing unnecessary annoyance, it is better if your views are kept to yourself Sir. I didn't intend to be rude to your Sir.

You think so Brainiac?