Immigrationboards.com

Please help: had refusal from home office for residence card for non-eu dependant parent using surinder Singh on grounds that dependency not proved. We submitted money transfer receipts from eu country to non eu relatives country and UK bank statements showing monthly payments to money senders. We thought this was sufficient. Since coming to UK my mum has been fully dependant on us and has no financial evidence of bills etc or proof of address etc....we pay all her living costs as a part of ours and all bills are in my spouse name.
HO says we didn't prove she living with sponsor (me) as no nhs/bank/HMRC/bills provided of joint habitation. We do now have NHS letters/ HMRC national insurance application cover letter. They asked to receive submit with evidence of dependency in UK and pre UK entry. What can we do? Many thanks. ...

Which country did she join you in for SS route? How long did she live with you in the member state before coming to the UK? What documents do you have to prove her dependency and living with you from the member state?

She never joined me in Italy. Came to UK in may 2015. I returned from Italy in September and we submitted eea1 fm in October. I only submitted my bank statements showing payments to money transfer agents in UK to non eu country pre surinder singh route. I did include western union receipts for Italy to UK work after she came here in may 2015. I assumed as she lived with us we didn't need more. But they say we didn't prove she lived with me or that I paid bills.

CR001 wrote:Which country did she join you in for SS route? How long did she live with you in the member state before coming to the UK? What documents do you have to prove her dependency and living with you from the member state?

She never lived with me there but I sent her money, receipts which I submitted. I also spoke to her daily on what's app which I guess I could get history of.

umtaaha wrote:She never lived with me there but I sent her money, receipts which I submitted. I also spoke to her daily on what's app which I guess I could get history of.

You may have misunderstood the key points you have to fulfill to succeed with the Surinder Singh route.

You are likely to fail if your dependent did not actually join you and live with you in, in your case, Italy.

HO will likely argue that, even if there is financial dependency, the family member can quite easily remain in their country and you can simply continue the support that you provide from a distance.

noajthan wrote:

umtaaha wrote:She never lived with me there but I sent her money, receipts which I submitted. I also spoke to her daily on what's app which I guess I could get history of.

You may have misunderstood the key points you have to fulfill to succeed with the Surinder Singh route.

You are likely to fail if your dependent did not actually join you and live with you in, in your case, Italy.

HO will likely argue that, even if there is financial dependency, the family member can quite easily remain in their country and you can simply continue the support that you provide from a distance.

Regulation 9 does not indicate that family members other than spouse need to have reside in another member state.

It does not appear the UKVI refused on that basis though.

How far Pedro can be engaged in Surinder Singh cases is yet to be seen..

Obie wrote:

noajthan wrote:

umtaaha wrote:She never lived with me there but I sent her money, receipts which I submitted. I also spoke to her daily on what's app which I guess I could get history of.

You may have misunderstood the key points you have to fulfill to succeed with the Surinder Singh route.

You are likely to fail if your dependent did not actually join you and live with you in, in your case, Italy.

HO will likely argue that, even if there is financial dependency, the family member can quite easily remain in their country and you can simply continue the support that you provide from a distance.

Regulation 9 does not indicate that family members other than spouse need to have reside in another member state.

It does not appear the UKVI refused on that basis though.

How far Pedro can be engaged in Surinder Singh cases is yet to be seen..

UK visas simply said evidence of dependency insufficient. As far as regulation 9 pertaining to dependent parents. ..I thought this was not necessary..... Pedro? Is this a test case connected to eea1 fm dependent parent?

Obie wrote:[Regulation 9 does not indicate that family members other than spouse need to have reside in another member state.

It does not appear the UKVI refused on that basis though.

How far Pedro can be engaged in Surinder Singh cases is yet to be seen..

Noted. I think I was confusing the case with the situation for extended family members.

As the court stated in Jia, the mere declaration that someone is dependent will not be sufficient proof that the person is dependent.

The burden of proof is on the applicant (parent) to show they need the material support of the Union Citizen or his/her spouse to meet their essential needs.
But for a parent (direct family member) there is no need to prove a long history of dependency, its about showing dependency as a matter of fact in the here and now.