Spouse visa queries - new rules

[transpondia-2011]

Fair enough.

The topic of multipliers was explicitly raised and discussed at a meeting with them on 14 June and later reviewed at a different meeting on 25 June (which I attended). The minutes for the first meeting were never agreed and probably never will be. The minutes for the 2nd meeting have not yet been published. When they are available I can provide the citations. In the meantime, treat it as unconfirmed anecdotal commentary gleaned informally from a random person on the net.

Hope that helps!

[vinny]

transpondia, where are you getting that from? The McCarthy amendments to the regs don't change the effect of reg. 9.

Last Tuesday I attended an all day ILPA course...

"DT 1389 (FULL) Don't fall in love - significant others post 8 July 2012 "

for immigration lawyers which drilled down on all the new rule changes and how they worked. Plus the new Article 8 and DL interpretations. Even though it wasn't in the material, towards the end one of the participants raised the question about Singh, and the instructors explained how it was going to be gone. Then I raised my hand and asked "Did I just hear that Singh is going away?" and they said "Yes, it looks that way".

The instructors of this course were Barry O'Leary and Tim Barnden of Wesley Gryk Solicitors and they both have enormous credibility. Additionally Barry has been meeting regularly with UKBA's policy director since 19 June in order to make sure that all the various changes are adequately communicated to the legal community. So I think overall the sources are trustworthy ALTHOUGH the Singh aspect was not directly covered in the material.

Hope that helps!

Unless the UK opt out of the EEA, how else are they going to circumvent the The Surinder Singh and Eind judgments?

[Kitty]

Unless the UK opt out of the EEA, how else are they going to circumvent the The Surinder Singh and Eind judgments?

That's what I was wondering: would welcome a bit more detail!

The way I read the McCarthy amendments the Regs would force a dual national living elsewhere in the UK to fulfil the "economic activity" requirements (which is potentially unfair). But the family member of a UK national is still to be treated under Reg 9 as the "family member of an EEA national".

[transpondia-2011]

That's what I was wondering: would welcome a bit more detail!

The UK does of course make allowance for the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-370/90 Surinder Singh: if a UK national (or person with dual nationality of the UK and another Member State) exercises residence rights elsewhere in the Union, that person will be covered by the Regulations.

However, despite the apparent overhaul of the Regulations this year to codify the case law of the Court of Justice, the UK authorities have omitted to amend Regulation 9, which covers these ‘Surinder Singh situations’, in order to comply with the Court’s judgment in Case C-291/05.

The effect of Regulation 9 of the Regulations is that a UK national (including a dual national) who has worked or been self-employed in another Member State is treated like an ‘EEA national’ upon return to the UK. This still requires, however, that the UK national be a ‘qualified person’ under the Regulations (see Regulation 6) in order for her family members to enjoy residence rights in the UK.

This contradicts the Eind judgment (Case C-291/05). Regulation 9 also still requires the UK national to have worked or have been self-employed in another Member State; it does not cover those who may have exercised residence rights elsewhere by studying or being self-sufficient. This appears to be outdated; while the Surinder Singh judgment only dealt with workers or the self-employed, that is because at the time of the judgment, legislation on the free movement of students or the self-sufficient had not yet been adopted.

[vinny]

Surely, the Eind judgment is beneficial to Surinder Singh cases as it's less restrictive?