EEA(PR) refused-Eind ignored, retroactively applying Dec 2016 changes

[greatscott]

Hello

Anyone got contact details, preferably phone contact details. Need to find out what the problem is as its well over 6 months now for what should be a simple application.

Anyone else got advice- what would the right way be to go about contacting these people.

Thanks

[Obie]

Surinder Singh applications are taking ridiculously long this days, and you will receive a letter in the 7th month asking to fill a senseless questionnaire.

It has happened in 2 cases i am involved with.

The whole process, just like brexit, is in a mess.

[greatscott]

thanks Obie. Have booked an appointment with our member of parliament in 2 weeks to ask him to look into this. At this rate they will succeed in adding an extra year before wife can apply for naturalisation.

No excuse. They are the government, they should follow EU laws until Brexit, not make things up as they go along. If the government can bend and break the law to suit themselves, then surely we can all break and bend the law to suit ourselves.

[thsths]

No excuse. They are the government, they should follow EU laws until Brexit, not make things up as they go along. If the government can bend and break the law to suit themselves, then surely we can all break and bend the law to suit ourselves.

I agree: law is a two way street. But they never have properly conformed to the law, not since the move to Liverpool (and probably not before then, either). Brexit makes it worse, but it is not the fundamental reason.

Talking to your MP is a good start. You could also complain to the European Commission. That is unlikely to help you personally, but it means the problems will get noticed, and considered in the Brexit negotiations.

[Obie]

Needless to say, the fact that i mention what they do, does not in any way mean i support, agree with or believe it is consistent with the rule of law.

[greatscott]

I received this reply:

Thank you for your email correspondence of July where you have raised a complaint about the delay in processing your application.
I have assessed the circumstances relating to the matter you have complained about. With this work now complete, I have based my response on my findings.
I am unable to uphold your complaint and I hope my reply helps you to understand the reasons why.
You have said that you submitted an application for Permanent Residence (PR) certificate on January 2017, 6 months has now passed and you are still waiting for a decision to be made on your application.
I am sorry for the delay in you receiving a decision on your application and that you have not received an update on your case. although we aim to make a decision on applications within six months this is not always possible if further documentation is required from the customer and/or further enquiries are needed before a decision can be made on your case. You will be notified of the outcome as soon as a decision has been reached.
If you need your passport back in order to travel urgently and unexpectedly, you will need to submit a return of documents request form at: https://www.gov.uk/visa-documents-returned.
I apologise for any inconvenience caused.
You can request a review of our response within one month of the date on this letter by writing to us at: complaintsreview@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk. Please ensure that you provide us with specific details setting out why you believe a review is required. This will enable us to provide you with a full response.

My questions:
1. The only request for info we received was that 4-page questionnaire introduced after Nov 2016 that ignores Eind case law, asking us whether we were qualified persons since 2012! Contrary to EU law.
2. This whole PRC is a UK requirement, also contrary to EU regs
There seems to be nothing else of substance which explains the delay.

Should I request a review of their response based on the fact that everything they are doing goes against eu law to which they are bound until brexit.

[greatscott]

We have been waiting over 9 months for EEA(PR) Surinder Singh route. RC has expired.

We have complained to our local MP who is ineffective (Greenwich Labour MP). We have also sent letters of complaint which we have escalated for further review after we received a reply saying we have nothing to complain about!

9 months delay in spouse applying for naturalisation cannot be acceptable.

Perhaps we are being racially profiled?

Can anyone here advise us on next steps?
Does anyone have the name of a good lawyer?

[secret.simon]

We have complained to our local MP who is ineffective (Greenwich Labour MP).

Remember that MPs do not direct or run the Home Office. They ask questions, even awkward questions, but they cannot tell the Home Office what to do. Also see this similar post.

9 months delay in spouse applying for naturalisation cannot be acceptable.

It is unusual for an EEA(FM) PR application to take this long. You could take the Home Office to court under EEA Regulation 19(2) and possibly win some damages.

Perhaps we are being racially profiled?

Have you considered that it is just likely that the Home Office EEA staff have been deluged with applications under the EEA route in preparation for Brexit? That coupled with budget cuts and redundancies have meant slower response times.

I am of an Asian background and I have had no issues with the Home Office even when I went to the PSC (in-person visa centres) and got my citizenship approved within two months, even though I had an unpronounceable long name.

[CR001]

@ secret.simon - do you think that HO might be looking into the rule changes around the SS route that came into effect last year and hence possibly causing a delay for this user?

Ahhh, just read the users other topic on the delay, which I will merge now and OP already advised there are delays by Obie.

eea-route-applications/eea-pr-submitted ... l#p1513935

[secret.simon]

do you think that HO might be looking into the rule changes around the SS route that came into effect last year and hence possibly causing a delay for this user?

It is possible that the Home Office may look into whether the OP had genuinely moved the center of his life abroad or whether he was trying to frustrate the UK Immigration Rules, given that he had exercised treaty rights in another EEA member-state for only five months before moving back.

It is possible that something in his family's previous immigration history (such as having applied under the UK Immigration Rules and failed) may cause a greater degree of attention to be drawn to the application.

[greatscott]

Anything is possible but...
1. No issues on centre of life. RC card was issued based on exactly the same information they are looking at now!
2. Theres no previous family immigration history, so circumventing doesn't apply.
3. We have not been asked for any additional documents. Just 9 months of silence except for letter for biometrics which was done immediately, followed by 4-page 'standard' questionairre, which was returned within a day.

Can anyone advise good lawyers, private message ok too thanks.

[secret.simon]

Can anyone advise good lawyers, private message ok too thanks.

Careful there. We are not allowed to recommend lawyers or other professionals on these forums. A brazen request for PMs for such recommendations may lead the moderators to lock down your PM functionality.

1. No issues on centre of life. RC card was issued based on exactly the same information they are looking at now!

Under the EEA regulations, each application is treated as a new application. So, the PR application will be treated under the current interpretation, even if your spouse got an RC under a more liberal interpretation in 2012.

2. Theres no previous family immigration history, so circumventing doesn't apply.

Why then were treaty rights exercised for just five months? That does look like an attempt at circumventing UK Immigration Rules.

3. We have not been asked for any additional documents. Just 9 months of silence except for letter for biometrics which was done immediately, followed by 4-page 'standard' questionairre, which was returned within a day.

As CR001 has suggested above, your application may be being reviewed in light of the new EEA Regulations 2016, which considerably tightens the interpretation of the SS route.

[greatscott]

Thank you for the update. No 'brazen' attempt, did not know it is against the rules, no problem.

Item 2. Treaty rights were exercised for 6 months. Back in 2012 that was considered more than adequate. Regardless, our RC was issued so how can this be a point of contention.

Fact is HO are changing EU rules before brexit, so they are breaking the law, does this not matter?

I understand the remaining comments. The government is acting illegally.

[secret.simon]

HO are changing EU rules before brexit

They are reinterpreting EU law.

The government is acting illegally.

Sue them in court. That is the only way to test the legal strength of the government's case.

[greatscott]

They are reinterpreting EU law

No they are not, they are breaking the law. Lets not kid ourselves. And imposing it retroactively is as dishonest as it gets.

[greatscott]

Reinterpreting the law, really! I feel sorry for the brexit negotiators....I mean, let's all wander off and reinterpret the law!!

What a state of utter dishonesty.

[greatscott]

What about if you are a student who started uni studies in an EU state while parents were exercising treaty right there? Then, after joining their parents in the UK (Surinder Singh route) the student returns to the EU state every semester to complete their degree for 3 more years, in line with case law Baumbast (EJC) and Reg. 492/2011 (UK). The student continues to live with the parents in the UK.

Those absence should not count against the 5 year rule. True or false?

[secret.simon]

What about if you are a student who started uni studies in an EU state while parents were exercising treaty right there? Then, after joining their parents in the UK (Surinder Singh route) the student returns to the EU state every semester to complete their degree for 3 more years, in line with case law Baumbast (EJC) and Reg. 492/2011 (UK). The student continues to live with the parents in the UK.

Those absence should not count against the 5 year rule. True or false?

I am not sure what the Baumbast case or Regulations 492/2011 (which are EU Regulations and not UK Regulations) have anything to do with your query, which is itself unrelated to the OP's query and hence should be spun off into a separate thread.

The Baumbast case broadly states that a student who started studies in an EU State while one of their parents was exercising treaty rights can continue the course even when the EEA Citizen parent moves away from that EEA state. That has nothing to do with Directive 2004/38/EC or the (UK) EEA Regulations, which define the acquisition of PR. An absence from the UK, even while exercising an EU right, is still an absence.

Let me give a parallel example. Let us suppose a Spanish citizen moved to the UK with a non-EEA citizen spouse and exercised treaty rights. Then the Spanish citizen moved to another EEA member-state (with freedom of movement and exercising treaty rights in that other EEA member-state) while leaving his non-EEA citizen spouse in the UK. The non-EEA spouse's right to reside in the UK would expire at the end of six months from the time the Spanish citizen ceased exercising treaty rights in the UK (which is when the Spanish citizen's continuity of residence ceased). That is the case even when the Spanish citizen spouse is exercising treaty rights elsewhere (outside the UK) in the EU, in pursuit of EU law and EU rights.

Even under EU law, residency rights are still national and it is absences from the member-state that are counted, even if the relevant person is legally resident under EU law in another EEA member-state. The PR that is acquired under EU law is PR for that specific member-state. If the PR holder moves to another member-state, s/he starts from zero.

Likewise, the Regulations listed by you merely states that children of other EEA member-states should have access to the same educational resources as children of the nationals of that state. It states nothing about absences from another EEA member-state.

[secret.simon]

CR001, can you move the preceding three posts (greatscott's and my own) either into a separate thread or append them to greatscott's other threads?

[CR001]

CR001, can you move the preceding three posts (greatscott's and my own) either into a separate thread or append them to greatscott's other threads?

Done and merged and heading edited.

[greatscott]

Not sure what the problem is. That thread is called ABSENCES FROM THE UK.....My question is directly related to the topic. How can the question I asked be in any way related to "EEA(PR) submitted 9 Months Ago Still Waiting" ? And how does putting "plus absense" at the end in any way simplify things??

[greatscott]

What about if you are a student who started uni studies in an EU state while parents were exercising treaty right there? Then, after joining their parents in the UK (Surinder Singh route) the student returns to the EU state every semester to complete their degree for 3 more years, in line with case law Baumbast (EJC) and Reg. 492/2011 (UK). The student continues to live with the parents in the UK.

Those absence should not count against the 5 year rule. True or false?

I am not sure what the Baumbast case or Regulations 492/2011 (which are EU Regulations and not UK Regulations) have anything to do with your query, which is itself unrelated to the OP's query and hence should be spun off into a separate thread.

The Baumbast case broadly states that a student who started studies in an EU State while one of their parents was exercising treaty rights can continue the course even when the EEA Citizen parent moves away from that EEA state. That has nothing to do with Directive 2004/38/EC or the (UK) EEA Regulations, which define the acquisition of PR. An absence from the UK, even while exercising an EU right, is still an absence.

Let me give a parallel example. Let us suppose a Spanish citizen moved to the UK with a non-EEA citizen spouse and exercised treaty rights. Then the Spanish citizen moved to another EEA member-state (with freedom of movement and exercising treaty rights in that other EEA member-state) while leaving his non-EEA citizen spouse in the UK. The non-EEA spouse's right to reside in the UK would expire at the end of six months from the time the Spanish citizen ceased exercising treaty rights in the UK (which is when the Spanish citizen's continuity of residence ceased). That is the case even when the Spanish citizen spouse is exercising treaty rights elsewhere (outside the UK) in the EU, in pursuit of EU law and EU rights.

Even under EU law, residency rights are still national and it is absences from the member-state that are counted, even if the relevant person is legally resident under EU law in another EEA member-state. The PR that is acquired under EU law is PR for that specific member-state. If the PR holder moves to another member-state, s/he starts from zero.

Likewise, the Regulations listed by you merely states that children of other EEA member-states should have access to the same educational resources as children of the nationals of that state. It states nothing about absences from another EEA member-state.

I would like to ask Obie for his advice since he advised me on this 5 or so years ago. Perhaps you don't understand the question. No-one moved to another state, they just went to study there to complete their studies (returning after each semester to their 'home'), which I believe in our context would be ok.

Obie, you there?

[greatscott]

by Obie » Sun Jan 29, 2012 11:50 pm

Well i believe Regulation 492/2011 might be in play, provided this dependant is your direct descendant, is going to the memberstate in which you were a migrant worker, where he studied when you were a migrant worker or self-enployed person,to complete his or her studies.

I cant see that affecting Surinder Singh. provided this dependant continues to maintainvties with UK

[greatscott]

Obie, if you are around, would appreciate your thoughts. I don't hold you to any comments you have made. All I am interested in is to be able to make an informed decision on what our next step could be. Thanks.

Obie, if you are around, would appreciate your thoughts. I don't hold you to any comments you have made, especially back in 2012! All I am interested in is to be able to make an informed decision on what our next step could be. Thanks.

[greatscott]

Post by secret.simon » Fri Sep 08, 2017 6:47 pm

greatscott wrote: ↑Fri Sep 08, 2017 5:56 pm
Can we therefore assume absence over 6 months in a year for students is therefore acceptable?
Please keep your questions in your thread, as your child's specific circumstances (being the child of a person returning under SS, but with studies in the other EEA member state) need to be taken into account.

EU law allows one absence of a year for an important reason such as study, among others.

Obie is this true? Allows only one absence so that a student can return to complete year 2, then is not allowed to finish their degree??