Obie wrote: ↑Fri Jan 05, 2018 11:09 am
Apart from the fact that you are wrong ,
That is an assertion, not a fact.
Obie wrote: ↑Fri Jan 05, 2018 11:09 am
... and there is clear evidence on this forum from EEA national who naturalized as British and their family members who were subsequently refused when they applied for FLR(M),
Once the sponsor had naturalised, the family members no longer had a right of residence as family members that derived from either Directive 2004/38/EC or from the EEA Regulations. (None of the instances seemed to be cases where the McCarthy transition arrangement applied.) The Home Office therefore did not believe that they had any right of residence and were therefore in breach of the immigration rules. (We now know by the Lounes judgement that they did have such a right.) Nowhere have I claimed that such people qualified for leave to remain other than by the human rights exceptions.
Obie wrote: ↑Fri Jan 05, 2018 11:09 am
... the fact remains that OP will be in breach of immigration law if the source of the right to the residence card cease to exist.
Moreover, switching to UK rules (strictly speaking, briefly following both) will rarely make sense. Who we have not heard from is people who tried to switch from so-far successful Surinder Singh to FLR(M) to avoid the tightening EEA Regulations without leaving the country.
Obie wrote: ↑Fri Jan 05, 2018 11:09 am
A person must have leave which was issued for a period of over 6 months inorder to be able to meet the immigration status requirement.
How do you deduce that? Are you sure you are not relying on an obsolete interpretation? What is true is that, with important specific exceptions, any leave held must have been granted for more than 6 months.
Obie wrote: ↑Fri Jan 05, 2018 11:09 am
Since the 9th July 2012 I and my fellow moderators and other contributors have sought to explain this to you, but unfortunately it is not getting through. We can only do our best.
Indeed, it can be very trying to try to persuade someone that things are not as they are, which is what you seem to have been doing. The only attempt at
explanation that I remember was by Vinny - only for him to find that his explanation no longer held, for the immigration rule had changed from the form he quoted. Examples have been cited, but in each case the right of residence appears to have already been lost when the application for FLR(M) was made.
Perhaps you could explain how someone who has only a retained right of residence is "in breach of the immigration laws", as Immigration Rule E-LTRP.2.2 puts it. In the Immigration Rules,
“in breach of immigration laws” means without valid leave where such leave is required, or in breach of the conditions of leave.
I have previously made the mistake of thinking that "settled" had the same meaning as in acts of Parliament, so perhaps there is some such subtlety here that I have missed. Surely a mere holder of a retained right of residence is not "on temporary admission or temporary release"!