Zambrano Settled Status EU settlement scheme Paper Application Form - NEW

[apollo_alpha]

I thought l would start this thread for Zambrano carers i.e. Parent of British citizen. Given that the thread created by Topsibelle has been locked by Admin. I have written to Admin to reopen the thread, so pending when the thread reopens or if it doesn't get reopened, we can continue to post our comments about EU Settlement Scheme for Zambrano Carers here.

[Fustrated2019]

Thank you for starting this new thread . Hopefully it doesn’t get infected again by rude and condescending comments

[mubashir1981]

I received letter from MP that she have referred my case to phso. Does anybody know if phso could make HO to conclude application as it is 8 month's now.

[netqueen]

I received letter from MP that she have referred my case to phso. Does anybody know if phso could make HO to conclude application as it is 8 month's now.

Hi mubashir1981,

How did your court case go ? I thought i read that you were due a hearing on the 30th of last month. Crossing my fingers that you succeeded.

[mubashir1981]

I received letter from MP that she have referred my case to phso. Does anybody know if phso could make HO to conclude application as it is 8 month's now.

Hi mubashir1981,

How did your court case go ? I thought i read that you were due a hearing on the 30th of last month. Crossing my fingers that you succeeded.

Its on paper hearing yea court confirm.me decision will made due course.

[apollo_alpha]

Hello All,

There's been a new guidance on the EUSS as can be seen below.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... 4.0ext.pdf

In the section on Zambrano, it mentioned "A person with, or who had, a derivative or Zambrano right to
reside" and it further went to define "A ‘person who had a derivative or Zambrano right to reside’ is defined in Annex 1 to Appendix EU" as who both:

• was a person with a derivative right to reside or, as the case may be, a person
with a Zambrano right to reside, immediately before they became, as the case
may be, a relevant EEA citizen, a family member of a relevant EEA citizen, a
person with a derivative right to reside, a person with a Zambrano right to
reside or a family member of a qualifying British citizen
• has since remained, to the date of application, in any (or any combination) of
those categories or as a family member who has retained the right of residence
by virtue of a relationship with a relevant EEA citizen or with a qualifying British
citizen

My question is now that UK is out of the EU, are Zambrano Carers classed as people who had Zambrano right to reside or are they still classed as a person with Zambrano right to reside?

I think the right answer to this question will go a long way to unlock the loophole in the definition of person who had a derivative or Zambrano right to reside and definition of person with a Zambrano right to reside.

The reason is that the definition of the later did not exclude people with existing leave under another part of the immigration rules from qualifying for the EUSS while the former definition excludes people with existing leave under another part of the immigration rules.

Please can the gurus look at this two definitions and let us know if we have a loophole here to work with especially for those with existing 2.5years leave to remain.

Many thanks

[apollo_alpha]

I think i have swithced the wrong way in my question...

My question is now that UK is out of the EU, are Zambrano Carers classed as people who had Zambrano right to reside or are they still classed as a person with Zambrano right to reside?

I think the right answer to this question will go a long way to unlock the loophole in the definition of person who had a derivative or Zambrano right to reside and definition of person with a Zambrano right to reside.

The reason is that the definition of the later exclude peoples with existing leave under another part of the immigration rules from qualifying for the EU Settlement Scheme while the former definition does not exclude people with existing leave under another part of the immigration rules.

[Ngoo]

Hello everyone!!!

Good to see you here. Hope you are all doing well

[snooky]

Good Morning

Hope all is well and thanks for this new thread.

I am happy to see all of you again

[snooky]

I received letter from MP that she have referred my case to phso. Does anybody know if phso could make HO to conclude application as it is 8 month's now.

Yes mubashire, they are the final whistle deciders in this field. Even they can ask for a compensation claim against the HO to reimburse your loss

How is your appeal going?

[snooky]

@Members

The U.K. government published a statement of changes to the Immigration Rules on 12 March 2020, and this comes into force on 6 April 2020.

The main advantage of this new law is that "INDEFINITE LEAVE To REMAIN issued under EUSS" validity of spending up to 5 years outside the country (UK) has now been cemented in the Withdrawal Agreement - (Appendix EU now explicitly states that paragraphs 18 and 19A will not apply to those granted settled status under the Settlement Scheme.)

The good news is they have legally differentiated between ILR under domestic UK immigration and SETTLED STATUS (ILR) exit scheme and moreover their 2 years and 5 years time spent outside.

Read more

Third party solicitor weblink removed by moderator. Please only post office weblinks from UKVI!

[snooky]

I think i have swithced the wrong way in my question...

My question is now that UK is out of the EU, are Zambrano Carers classed as people who had Zambrano right to reside or are they still classed as a person with Zambrano right to reside?

I think the right answer to this question will go a long way to unlock the loophole in the definition of person who had a derivative or Zambrano right to reside and definition of person with a Zambrano right to reside.

The reason is that the definition of the later exclude peoples with existing leave under another part of the immigration rules from qualifying for the EU Settlement Scheme while the former definition does not exclude people with existing leave under another part of the immigration rules.

I have discussed this before.

Under the Withdrawal Agreement, Part 1 of Appendix EU, it has made provision for people who HAD, HAVE BEEN, WERE, ARE, WOULD BE, and during the relevant period.

So Rule 11, condition 3
Rule 12, condition 1, 4
These are laid down under EU12 and EU13

Appendix EU: EU, other EEA and Swiss citizens and family members

[apollo_alpha]

I think i have swithced the wrong way in my question...

My question is now that UK is out of the EU, are Zambrano Carers classed as people who had Zambrano right to reside or are they still classed as a person with Zambrano right to reside?

I think the right answer to this question will go a long way to unlock the loophole in the definition of person who had a derivative or Zambrano right to reside and definition of person with a Zambrano right to reside.

The reason is that the definition of the later exclude peoples with existing leave under another part of the immigration rules from qualifying for the EU Settlement Scheme while the former definition does not exclude people with existing leave under another part of the immigration rules.

I have discussed this before.

Under the Withdrawal Agreement, Part 1 of Appendix EU, it has made provision for people who HAD, HAVE BEEN, WERE, ARE, WOULD BE, and during the relevant period.

So Rule 11, condition 3
Rule 12, condition 1, 4
These are laid down under EU12 and EU13

Appendix EU: EU, other EEA and Swiss citizens and family members

Hi Snooky,

So now that the UK is out of the EU, are Zambrano carers and people with derivative right to reside classed as a person who had right to reside?

[snooky]

@apollo_alpha

Officially, UK is out of EU since 31 December 2019 but technically they are still in the EU due to the withdrawal Agreement's transition period which also technically will finish on 30 June 2021.

Now to your question?

Hi Snooky,

So now that the UK is out of the EU, are Zambrano carers and people with derivative right to reside classed as a person who had right to reside?

ANSWER

Yes, because UK will have to adhere to the EU rules until we finally closed the door in June 30, 2021.

Your right under eea or would be right under eu can still be made under Regulation 2020 aka Regulations 16.

Zambrano Carers and Derivative Rights Holders can meet this Reside regulations by

1. Retain Right
2. Continuous Period
3. Senneh vs SSWP

New Zambrano applicants can get It under EEA or EUSS irrespective of HO interpretation of Patel vs. SSHD & Others.

[snooky]

@ Members

This was the question answered by the Upper Tribunal in R (Bajracharya) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (para. 34 – variation – validity) [2019] UKUT 417 (IAC).

Within the old post, I made mention of how vocabulary can change immigration decisions at the courts.

The above case has made it clear that words are very important in law so HO can play with people life to suit their own understanding.

[Ngoo]

I thought l would start this thread for Zambrano carers i.e. Parent of British citizen. Given that the thread created by Topsibelle has been locked by Admin. I have written to Admin to reopen the thread, so pending when the thread reopens or if it doesn't get reopened, we can continue to post our comments about EU Settlement Scheme for Zambrano Carers here.

@apollo_alpha,thanks for this new thread. @Snooky, good to have you here.

[snooky]

I thought l would start this thread for Zambrano carers i.e. Parent of British citizen. Given that the thread created by Topsibelle has been locked by Admin. I have written to Admin to reopen the thread, so pending when the thread reopens or if it doesn't get reopened, we can continue to post our comments about EU Settlement Scheme for Zambrano Carers here.

@apollo_alpha,thanks for this new thread. @Snooky, good to have you here.

Ngoo

Am happy to hear from you and you and all Members keeping safe from covid19

[apollo_alpha]

@ Members

This was the question answered by the Upper Tribunal in R (Bajracharya) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (para. 34 – variation – validity) [2019] UKUT 417 (IAC).

Within the old post, I made mention of how vocabulary can change immigration decisions at the courts.

The above case has made it clear that words are very important in law so HO can play with people life to suit their own understanding.

So would it be advisable for people with 2.5years LTR who were refused EUSS to re-apply so that they can take advantage of the loophole inherent in the definition of Zambrano carers who had right to reside?

[snooky]

@ Members

This was the question answered by the Upper Tribunal in R (Bajracharya) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (para. 34 – variation – validity) [2019] UKUT 417 (IAC).

Within the old post, I made mention of how vocabulary can change immigration decisions at the courts.

The above case has made it clear that words are very important in law so HO can play with people life to suit their own understanding.

So would it be advisable for people with 2.5years LTR who were refused EU Settlement Scheme to re-apply so that they can take advantage of the loophole inherent in the definition of Zambrano carers who had right to reside?

You should be able to reapply. Once you have had Zambrano right to reside before, HO shouldn't refuse it. If they do, it becomes not in accordance to the law. You can challenge the decision through the courts. If you haven't had derivative before and you want come into LTR 2.5 and got refused, challenge that discriminative decision because HO guidance ain't laws. Moreover too, there is no law out of the EEA laws which stops anyone to switch and/or to do domestic uk immigration first before you can do Zambrano.

HO is at odds with the EU Regulations and their policies are ambiguous and not fit for purpose.

Once you meet the requirements under the laws, HO shouldn't put impediments to eliminate you be substitution.

[help2imm]

Hi All,

Do not know if jumped into wrong topic though seems like could get useful information.

The scenario is Applicant with no prior ltr applied via drf1 as a carer of a British born infant (grand daughter) at end of February 2020 with child arrangement order (having shared parental responsibility with child father as mother is deceased). Upon checking here everyone stating needs to call HO to get application form though the one applicant filled was drf1 form on HO website also a paper application as well.

First and foremost question if drf1 application is valid or not...

Thanks in Advance.

[snooky]

Hi All,

Do not know if jumped into wrong topic though seems like could get useful information.

The scenario is Applicant with no prior ltr applied via drf1 as a carer of a British born infant (grand daughter) at end of February 2020 with child arrangement order (having shared parental responsibility with child father as mother is deceased). Upon checking here everyone stating needs to call HO to get application form though the one applicant filled was drf1 form on HO website also a paper application as well.

First and foremost question if drf1 application is valid or not...

Thanks in Advance.

Your Drf1 under Regulations 2020 aka Regulations 16 is right and valid under EEA.

You can phone the settlement scheme people after covid19 to request for a form under EUSS for Zambrano Dr.

My advice will be wait for the Drf1 to go through before because HO isn't issuing euss status for would be Zambrano unless you have been issued under EEA before

[help2imm]

Hi All,

Do not know if jumped into wrong topic though seems like could get useful information.

The scenario is Applicant with no prior ltr applied via drf1 as a carer of a British born infant (grand daughter) at end of February 2020 with child arrangement order (having shared parental responsibility with child father as mother is deceased). Upon checking here everyone stating needs to call HO to get application form though the one applicant filled was drf1 form on HO website also a paper application as well.

First and foremost question if drf1 application is valid or not...

Thanks in Advance.

Your Drf1 under Regulations 2020 aka Regulations 16 is right and valid under EEA.

You can phone the settlement scheme people after covid19 to request for a form under EU Settlement Scheme for Zambrano Dr.

My advice will be wait for the Drf1 to go through before because HO isn't issuing EU Settlement Scheme status for would be Zambrano unless you have been issued under EEA before

Dear Snooky,

Thanks for the valuable response.

Now anxious to know what are the chances of drf1 application in context of your response that would be Zambrano are not being issued status under EUSS. Would not drf1 be decided under the same set of rules and regulations as would be Zambrano under EUSS?

Thank you in advance.

[snooky]

Hi All,

Do not know if jumped into wrong topic though seems like could get useful information.

The scenario is Applicant with no prior ltr applied via drf1 as a carer of a British born infant (grand daughter) at end of February 2020 with child arrangement order (having shared parental responsibility with child father as mother is deceased). Upon checking here everyone stating needs to call HO to get application form though the one applicant filled was drf1 form on HO website also a paper application as well.

First and foremost question if drf1 application is valid or not...

Thanks in Advance.

Your Drf1 under Regulations 2020 aka Regulations 16 is right and valid under EEA.

You can phone the settlement scheme people after covid19 to request for a form under EU Settlement Scheme for Zambrano Dr.

My advice will be wait for the Drf1 to go through before because HO isn't issuing EU Settlement Scheme status for would be Zambrano unless you have been issued under EEA before

Dear Snooky,

Thanks for the valuable response.

Now anxious to know what are the chances of drf1 application in context of your response that would be Zambrano are not being issued status under EU Settlement Scheme. Would not drf1 be decided under the same set of rules and regulations as would be Zambrano under EU Settlement Scheme?

Thank you in advance.

Good question

First of all, let me start by explaining some dirty legal loopholes that HO have used under Article 15 of the WA. Appendix EU immigration. (CITIZENS RIGHT)

When HO adopted the most of the EU rules into the new appendix eu immigration, there was minor changes and omissions which they have fought with their blood to close the EEA route within the settlement scheme.

The settlement scheme itself though alot of controversies, is more generous than domestic immigration pathway.

The good news is that HO is still under obligation to Issue BRC and to confirm people's right under EU Article 20 of TFEU.

The courts are also adhering to all the case laws and maintaining dignity to uphold the EU law as we are still technically in. We call it implementation period.

Now to your question, HO has misrepresented the case of Patel vs SSHD since it resulted in 2017 and its final ruling at the supreme court on 16 December 2019 whereas HO lost and still not changing the policy guidelines to reflect the supreme courts ruling.

Though minor changes have been made to the Zambrano guidance by the HO sin February this year, it is still not reflecting the courts interpretation of Zambrano.

This minor change inserted to the guidance not was that, at the end of decision about an application made under EUSS Zambrano, if the applicant has less than 28 days left or with no leave then the Caseworker should proceed to grant as failure will compel the union minor child to leave the member state.

This has not taken out the barriers that has hinders peoples choice of making application under EEA by choice. Money is the reason HO is misbahaving this way.

By doing Zambrano under EEA, you actually stand the chance of winning derivative right under regulation 2020(in past R 16).

Why I I says so is that, EUSS is not under EU's jurisdiction and for that matter its implementation is solely a promise by the British government to secure the rights of EU citizens and their families including TCNs. All things in WA have been agreed during the bargain chip period.

With EEA Zambrano, it is still under the jurisdiction of EU so HO would have to respect its rulings and implementation. Breaching it can result to court.

Remember what we have seen most since CA ruling on Patel vs SSHD in May 2019, HO have refused every Zambrano to close the door for people to qualify for EUSS Zambrano. (HO under estimated the People who will qualify for it until hundreds of thousands saw the loopholes in free ILR and applied under the WA euss)

Most all most all refusals unde Zambrano EEA that went to FTT was allowed on basis of HO decision to refused

1. Not compatible with Article 20 of TFEU
2. Not in compliance with Zambrano C34/09
3. Not within Article 7 of the regulations
4. Breach of section 55
5. Against UNCRC 3
6. Misrepresentation of Regulations 2020 aka Reg 16
7. Failure to follow Case laws under Patel
8. Disregard to already assessed Derivative Holders
9. HO high fees exclude people to domestically regularized

So in a null shell, HO has left Zambrano Derivative applications to the courts to decide and when you are allowed through appeal process, then you can be lawfully gain the EUSS Zambrano Dr either SETTLED OR PRESETTLED Status.

Most of us have to go court after HO refused our in time application for renewal under Zambrano EEA last year and put our EUSS application in limbo. This is after we have done 5 years already and have assessed as Zambrano Carers

After successfully going to courts for reinstatement then that we had our settled status thereafter.

[help2imm]

Hi All,

Do not know if jumped into wrong topic though seems like could get useful information.

The scenario is Applicant with no prior ltr applied via drf1 as a carer of a British born infant (grand daughter) at end of February 2020 with child arrangement order (having shared parental responsibility with child father as mother is deceased). Upon checking here everyone stating needs to call HO to get application form though the one applicant filled was drf1 form on HO website also a paper application as well.

First and foremost question if drf1 application is valid or not...

Thanks in Advance.

Your Drf1 under Regulations 2020 aka Regulations 16 is right and valid under EEA.

You can phone the settlement scheme people after covid19 to request for a form under EU Settlement Scheme for Zambrano Dr.

My advice will be wait for the Drf1 to go through before because HO isn't issuing EU Settlement Scheme status for would be Zambrano unless you have been issued under EEA before

Dear Snooky,

Thanks for the valuable response.

Now anxious to know what are the chances of drf1 application in context of your response that would be Zambrano are not being issued status under EU Settlement Scheme. Would not drf1 be decided under the same set of rules and regulations as would be Zambrano under EU Settlement Scheme?

Thank you in advance.

Good question

First of all, let me start by explaining some dirty legal loopholes that HO have used under Article 15 of the WA. Appendix EU immigration. (CITIZENS RIGHT)

When HO adopted the most of the EU rules into the new appendix eu immigration, there was minor changes and omissions which they have fought with their blood to close the EEA route within the settlement scheme.

The settlement scheme itself though alot of controversies, is more generous than domestic immigration pathway.

The good news is that HO is still under obligation to Issue BRC and to confirm people's right under EU Article 20 of TFEU.

The courts are also adhering to all the case laws and maintaining dignity to uphold the EU law as we are still technically in. We call it implementation period.

Now to your question, HO has misrepresented the case of Patel vs SSHD since it resulted in 2017 and its final ruling at the supreme court on 16 December 2019 whereas HO lost and still not changing the policy guidelines to reflect the supreme courts ruling.

Though minor changes have been made to the Zambrano guidance by the HO sin February this year, it is still not reflecting the courts interpretation of Zambrano.

This minor change inserted to the guidance not was that, at the end of decision about an application made under EU Settlement Scheme Zambrano, if the applicant has less than 28 days left or with no leave then the Caseworker should proceed to grant as failure will compel the union minor child to leave the member state.

This has not taken out the barriers that has hinders peoples choice of making application under EEA by choice. Money is the reason HO is misbahaving this way.

By doing Zambrano under EEA, you actually stand the chance of winning derivative right under regulation 2020(in past R 16).

Why I I says so is that, EU Settlement Scheme is not under EU's jurisdiction and for that matter its implementation is solely a promise by the British government to secure the rights of EU citizens and their families including TCNs. All things in WA have been agreed during the bargain chip period.

With EEA Zambrano, it is still under the jurisdiction of EU so HO would have to respect its rulings and implementation. Breaching it can result to court.

Remember what we have seen most since CA ruling on Patel vs SSHD in May 2019, HO have refused every Zambrano to close the door for people to qualify for EU Settlement Scheme Zambrano. (HO under estimated the People who will qualify for it until hundreds of thousands saw the loopholes in free ILR and applied under the WA EU Settlement Scheme)

Most all most all refusals unde Zambrano EEA that went to FTT was allowed on basis of HO decision to refused

1. Not compatible with Article 20 of TFEU
2. Not in compliance with Zambrano C34/09
3. Not within Article 7 of the regulations
4. Breach of section 55
5. Against UNCRC 3
6. Misrepresentation of Regulations 2020 aka Reg 16
7. Failure to follow Case laws under Patel
8. Disregard to already assessed Derivative Holders
9. HO high fees exclude people to domestically regularized

So in a null shell, HO has left Zambrano Derivative applications to the courts to decide and when you are allowed through appeal process, then you can be lawfully gain the EU Settlement Scheme Zambrano Dr either SETTLED OR PRESETTLED Status.

Most of us have to go court after HO refused our in time application for renewal under Zambrano EEA last year and put our EU Settlement Scheme application in limbo. This is after we have done 5 years already and have assessed as Zambrano Carers

After successfully going to courts for reinstatement then that we had our settled status thereafter.

Thank you very much for detailed response.Really appreciate the valuable advice of yours.
Does it mean HO refusal for sure followed by appeal in FTT would stand a chance in this case.
Even after having DR Zambarno under EEA through FTT, would not we be in same boat applying for DR under EUSS with valid leave to remain refused by giving excuse to apply under domestic law (flr(fp)) and applying under EUSS is a compulsion to a avoid DR Status under Eea becoming invalid after 2020

Thanks in advance

[Prettymum]

I received letter from MP that she have referred my case to phso. Does anybody know if phso could make HO to conclude application as it is 8 month's now.

Don't worry mubashir your good news is on it's way.