Zambrano Settled Status EU settlement scheme Paper Application Form - NEW

[marcidevpal]

The email and No is not Consistent

I don't understand what you mean...

[mubashir1981]

Hi every one,

just read some new guidelines on
https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... accessible

issued on 14th Dec.
me and my wife both have pre settle as zambrano issued in july 2020 b4 this also had deritive res card.
unable to understand if this will effect us when making application for settle status. no any changes since got zambrano.
never had fm status or ever made application for Human rights.

only this doggy statement i found in new guideline.

"Applications to switch from pre-settled to settled status
Where a person with limited leave to enter or remain granted under Appendix EU (known as ‘pre-settled status’ under the EU Settlement Scheme) as a ‘person with a Zambrano right to reside’ makes a valid application under Appendix EU for indefinite leave to enter or remain (known as ‘settled status’ under the scheme) as such a person (or as a ‘person who had a derivative or Zambrano right to reside’), you do not need to revisit the basis on which that limited leave was granted, but need only consider the eligibility and suitability requirements relevant to the period since then. "

any advice?

[marcidevpal]

I think it means everyone granted pre-settled status is treated the same. Previously, only certain Zambrano carers could get pre-settled status. Zambrano carers, as a group, were treated differently to EU citizens. Unlike Zambrano carers, all EU citizens had the same criteria to qualify for pre-settled status. Now that you have been granted pre-settled status, your application for settled status will be evaluated under the same criteria as anyone else who was granted settled status. But, I have not read your link. I just read what you quoted. Someone else may have a different opinion. That is why it is so beneficial to get status under Appendix EU. You are like all the millions of other people. If Zambrano carers qualify for residence under Appendix FM or any of the new Appendices, they could be scapegoated in the future. They will be easy to identify. The easier option is to go for Appendix FM, but one is vulnerable to a knock on the door or letter through the post telling you there is some sort of problem. There is safety in numbers....

[marcidevpal]

CASE OF M.A. v. DENMARK

(Application no. 6697/18)

STRASBOURG - 9 July 2021

https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/

The Danish authorities refused MA residence because

• he had not been in possession of a residence permit for the past 3 years and

• there were no exceptional reasons.

The Danish High Court and the Supreme Court agreed with the Danish authorities.

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) disagreed with the Danish government -

194. Having regard to all the above considerations, the Court is not satisfied, notwithstanding their margin of appreciation, that the authorities of the respondent State, when subjecting the applicant to a three-year waiting period before he could apply for family reunification with his wife, struck a fair balance between, on the one hand, the applicant’s interest in being reunited with his wife in Denmark and, on the other, the interest of the community as a whole to control immigration with a view to protecting the economic well-being of the country, to ensuring the effective integration of those granted protection and to preserving social cohesion (see paragraph 165 above).

195. It follows that there has been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention.

The question for the UK judges is whether, in light of the Home Office's refusal, they strike a fair balance between, on the one hand, the Zambrano carer's interest in being granted permanent residence and, on the other, the interest of the community as a whole to control immigration with regard to the economic well-being, social cohesion, etc.

[Nyamebeye]

Hi every one,

just read some new guidelines on
https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... accessible

issued on 14th Dec.
me and my wife both have pre settle as zambrano issued in july 2020 b4 this also had deritive res card.
unable to understand if this will effect us when making application for settle status. no any changes since got zambrano.
never had fm status or ever made application for Human rights.

only this doggy statement i found in new guideline.

"Applications to switch from pre-settled to settled status
Where a person with limited leave to enter or remain granted under Appendix EU (known as ‘pre-settled status’ under the EU Settlement Scheme) as a ‘person with a Zambrano right to reside’ makes a valid application under Appendix EU for indefinite leave to enter or remain (known as ‘settled status’ under the scheme) as such a person (or as a ‘person who had a derivative or Zambrano right to reside’), you do not need to revisit the basis on which that limited leave was granted, but need only consider the eligibility and suitability requirements relevant to the period since then. "

any advice?

My understanding is that home office caseworkers do not need to ask you to proof again how you got your pre settled status as a Zambrano carer ( how you met the eligibility and suitability at the time). They now only need to consider whether you meet the eligibility and suitability criteria from the period you were granted pre settled to the time of your application for settled status.
For example, if you have been a Zambrano carer since Jan 2018 and was granted pre settled in Jan 2020. You are now due settled status (5 yrs in Jan 2023). They are saying they should only consider your eligibility and suitability from Jan 2020 to date, and not to start all over again from 2018.
Hope this helps.
I will be looking at the whole guidance again later today.

[marcidevpal]

What if the First-tier Tribunal and/or the Upper Tribunal refuse your appeal?

Hopefully, you may have done the following in your appeal:

Appellant's Skeleton Argument....

[A] Case Summary
B] Respondent's arguments
[C] Issues to be considered
[D] Legal Framework
.
.
.
[X] Submissions. (these are your grounds)

1.) The appellant contends the respondent's refusal breaches his commitments under the Withdrawal Agreement.Here you can mention the UK's commitment to

• apply pre-Brexit case law - see Dereci

• take into account post-Brexit case law - see E.K. versus the Netherlands

• ECHR under the Political Declaration

2.) The appellant asserts the respondent's refusal is unlawful with regard to the immigration rules. Here you can mention that

• the President of the Tribunal declared the ruled to be "unlawful"

• the rules are an extension of the Withdrawal Agreement. The Agreement is an international agreement. International agreements always come second to Union law. Union law requires human rights to be considered and for the treaties (TFEU, TEU) and case law by the European Court of Justice to come first.

3.) The appellant argues the refusal violates or at least interferes with, his rights under Article(s) 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Here is the important part for the ECtHR. You want to cite as many relevant cases as possible.

The main point to any country joining the Council of Europe is to agree to follow the rulings of the European Court of Human Rights. When UK judges refuse to do a balancing exercise, when they refuse to acknowledge the rulings by the European Court of Human Rights, the UK is not doing what it agree to do as a "Contracting Party". Each time a UK judge refuses to consider someone's human rights, according to the rules set down by the Council of Europe, the United Kingdom, as a whole, is in breach of the ECHR.

The only remedy is to appeal to the European Court of Human Rights. The UK judges have a right to not consider your human rights. There is, of course, a moral question, but technically, they don't have to. If they don't, and your case is accepted before the European Court of Human Rights, those judges will consider your human rights.

I forgot to mention that in the previous ECtHR case above, something like 17 judges looked at Mr M.A.'s case. All said there was an Article 8 issue to be decided. All but one judge agreed with Mr M.A. that his human rights had been violated.

So, if you are refused in the UK courts, you may want to appeal to the European Court of Human Rights.It is free to apply and the application is not too long. You will have to eventually find a solicitor, although he or she does not have to be based in the UK. (Good luck finding a UK barrister or solicitor!) Your application must be submitted within 4 months. The application must be correct. Many people take several tries before their application is accepted, so use your time wisely.

The key thing is not to give up if the UK judges say no.

[marcidevpal]

Bill of Rights Bill

The UK is a member of the Council of Europe. The Council of Europe created the European Convention on Human Rights. The UK created the Human Rights Act to make sure UK judges followed the European Convention on Human Rights.

If passed, the Bill of Rights Bill will replace the Human Rights Act. This Bill of Rights Bill gives UK judges the power to ignore case law from the European Court of Human Rights. If you feel a UK judge has not considered your human rights, everyone will have to appeal to the European Court of Human Rights.

The situation is similar to today. Because of the Celik v SSHD ruling, UK judges generally refuse to consider human rights on EU Settlement Scheme applications - unless the Home Office gives them permission. Anyone who applies to the EU Settlement Scheme, is refused, and then loses at the First-tier Tribunal and Upper Tribunal will need to apply to the European Court of Human Rights.

[marcidevpal]

Ethics

If the UK judges began to ignore human rights considerations in preparation for the new Bill, that would be unethical. UK judges should continue to consider human rights case law from the European Court of Human Rights unless and until the new law is passed.

On the other hand, even if the new law is passed, that new law effectively undermines the United Kingdom's commitment as a Contracting Member of the Council of Europe. It seems to me, that Parliament can not pass a law that directly goes against its existing obligations under international agreements.

Any country could just sign a treaty, and later create a law that says the opposite of what they agreed. It seems to me, the United Kingdom's reputation is at risk if it continues to refuse to consider the human rights of Zambrano carers (and others) on EUSS applications.

[JB007]

Any country could just sign a treaty, and later create a law that says the opposite of what they agreed.

The ECHR is now nothing like what the UK helped create over 70 years ago.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/sue ... the-point/

ATM, the UK wants to choose what parts they will agree to but it's likely the UK will leave the EHIC at some point: and they are free to do so.

[marcidevpal]

The Council of Europe always intended for the idea of human rights to be flexible and to evolve over time. That is why the jurisprudence of the Courts is so important. Their decisions act as a guide.

If the United Kingdom does not want to live up to their commitments, they should leave. No one is begging them to stay.

The problem is that the United Kingdom wants the respect afforded to countries who are members of the Council of Europe, but do not want to respect the Convention - while complaining about other countries such as Russia. It is hypocrisy at its finest.

Until the UK decides to leave the Council of Europe, the judges should do what the Convention asks them to do. Everyone knows the majority of British people do not agree that the United Kingdom should leave. That is why all of these moves are being done without media attention, transparency and accountability.

At the end of the day, the United Kingdom is no more special than any other country. Repeated attempts to undermine global institutions will only tarnish the UK's image and reputation. But that's just my opinion.

By the way, the one thing that gives me hope is the fact that the UK judge's decisions to not take into account human rights, is being done without the wider public's knowledge. That strongly suggests to me the public would not agree with what is occurring today.

[marcidevpal]

One other point...

The United Kingdom was once the "Sick Man of Europe". In other words, the economy was anemic, unhealthy, the least successful of its contemporaries. It can return to this state. You are probably aware of how much the UK economy has already lost due to Brexit? The thing is, foreign direct investment into the UK used to be not only healthy, but the envy of its European neighbors.

Investors from the West put money into countries that uphold the ECHR, not undermine it. If you compare ECHR (or similar) countries versus the non, you will see that the former receives much more foreign direct investment. That is why it is so important for the British people to have a 'proper' say on leaving the ECHR. They have to live with the decision. And when the money stops flowing into the UK, or even worse, starts leaving, they should know why.

It may all come down to a choice between human rights versus the country's prosperity. That's hilarious because for the average person, that is no choice at all.

[marcidevpal]

What even Conservative MPs say about leaving the ECHR

Jackie Doyle-Price, Tory MP for Thurrock,
also said that cutting ties with the Strasbourg court “will do zilch” following a report that the PM was willing to take the UK out of the ECHR if it interfered with domestic law. “I have been a member of the Conservative Party for 36 years,” Ms Doyle-Price went on in the messages seen by the Politico website. “This group leaves me cold.

“Upholding the law should never be a matter for debate for a Conservative. Our Home Office is crap. If the government wants to have a phone[y] war over the ECHR instead of sorting itself out it can do it without me.”

Bob Neill
went on the record, saying that it would be “unbelievable” for the UK to put itself “in the same company as Russia and Belarus” by leaving the ECHR.

Former Tory justice secretary Sir Robert Buckland
and other senior Tories have spoken out against the mooted withdrawal – warning it would put Britain in the same camp as Russia. Robert Buckland also called it “an undesirable state of affairs.”

Without the ECHR and its counterpart UK law passed in 1998, people in Britain would find their rights to a fair trial – or freedom of religious expression – severely curtailed. It would also plonk the UK in the same category as Russia and Belarus as pariah states.

[marcidevpal]

Home secretary reportedly believes European court of human rights will rule on policy by end of 2023

However, other officials said that even if withdrawal from the ECHR was considered, it would not happen in this parliament.

If eventually seen as needed, it would most likely first be included as a manifesto pledge for the next election.

In either case, anyone who lost in the UK courts who wants to apply to the European Court of Human Rights should do so sooner, rather than later.

[JB007]

Until the UK decides to leave the Council of Europe, the judges should do what the Convention asks them to do. Everyone knows the majority of British people do not agree that the United Kingdom should leave. That is why all of these moves are being done without media attention, transparency and accountability.

It''s all in the media.

And the UK had two votes on Brexit, the vote and then the general election, which the Coservatives based on "Get Brexit Done". Despite what the experts thought, it was a huge majority win for the Conservatives as even Labour stongholds that voted for Brexit, voted for the Conservatives (likely for the first time) in the GE.

By the way, the one thing that gives me hope is the fact that the UK judge's decisions to not take into account human rights, is being done without the wider public's knowledge. That strongly suggests to me the public would not agree with what is occurring today.

They know: the ECHR has been in the papers for years. Brexit seems to have been about not being controlled by the unelected (who can't get voted out by the people) and the EU being out of touch with what europeans want in their own country.

[JB007]

Investors from the West put money into countries that uphold the ECHR, not undermine it.

Ironically, the flag you have chosen for your posts, is the Australian flag. They are not part of the ECHR. Have they lost investment. They changed their laws to stop the boat people being allowed to settle in their country and already had strict immigration laws. They control their country by changing their own laws and if the votors do like what they are doing, they can vote them out. Can you imagine free speech being curbed in Australia as it has been done in EU countries by the ECHR?

Australia has a good human rights record using their own laws

Whereas amazingly, Turkey and Azerbaijan have signed up to the ECHR!


Then there is this-

Europe’s human rights court struggles to lay down the law

Nearly 10,000 judgments covering 46 countries have not been implemented.

https://www.politico.eu/article/human-r ... n-the-law/

[marcidevpal]

The mainstream media have not covered the Upper Tribunal's decision to not follow ECtHR jurisprudence. The media have not covered the Celik v SSHD. Celik is used as a crutch by the Courts to avoid making human rights determinations. It is bad law and an immoral practice. I hope the public learn about what they did one day.

Brexit was not a 'huge majority win'. The UK voted to leave by 52% to 48%. Turnout was 46,501,241 or 72.2%. The vast majority now believe Brexit was a mistake. Boris Johnson was elected on just 43.6% of the popular vote - not even close to a majority.

The British were never controlled by 'the unelected'. EU citizens all have a right to vote in the European Parliament elections. They also directly or indirectly influence EU elections and appointments. The European Parliament, European Council and Council of the EU are composed, respectively, of elected representatives and members of governments from every EU country.

The UK will be the only European country not in the Council of Europe - apart from Russia and Belarus. Australia, New Zealand, the US, Canada, etc, adhere to their international obligations. They don't sign agreements and then legislate against the terms of their agreements. The UK does not want to leave the Council of Europe to make stronger laws. Priti Patel, Dominic Saab and Suella Braverman don't believe in human rights. Leaving the Council of Europe weakens your rights.

I don't really care what the British people decide for their immigration policy. They can decide tomorrow they only want to allow one kangaroo per year. The issue is integrity. If you sign a deal, you should honor the deal. Right now, the UK judges are refusing to consider human rights - in flagrant denial of their responsibilities. That is wrong. To try to cover up the dereliction of duty by the UK judges, the Government hopes to pass further bad legislation to make the Judge's failure to honor ECHR appear lawful. But no one will be fooled. One by one, people will appeal to the ECtHR. The asylum seeker, EU family member, or Zambrano carer will win and thus embarrass the UK. That is where we are headed. (By the way, it is free to file a claim to the ECtHR. If you do not have the money, I believe one can apply for legal aid before the ECtHR to pay the solicitor).

I don't understand what you mean about free speech being curbed in the EU due to the ECHR. ARTICLE 9 covers Freedom of thought, conscience and religion. Article 10 covers Freedom of expression.

Finally, I don't think it is appropriate to refer to people who seek asylum or refuge as 'boat people'. Zambrano carers have a crucial role to play this year. If they appeal to the European Court of Human Rights before the UK leaves, they will prove the UK's laws, behavior and treatment of migrants is irrational and discriminatory.

[marcidevpal]

Misdirection by the United Kingdom

The UK says whatever is politically expedient during negotiations - then goes back on its commitments as soon as they believe they can get away with it.

As one journalist outlines the situation in October 2020

Boris Johnson is prepared to make a major compromise to secure security ties with the EU by pledging in a deal on the future relationship not to rip up the Human Rights Act.

The EU has since the start of the trade and security negotiation said that future cooperation on internal security would be conditional on a written commitment that the ECHR would continue to apply.

EU sources said a compromise was now in play under which the trade and security deal would include a commitment by the government not to “materially alter the spirit” of the Human Rights Act.

Either party would then have the right to suspend or terminate the agreement if there were serious concerns about the protection of fundamental rights and the rule of law.

A UK government spokesman said: “The UK remains committed to the ECHR – we have been clear on that time and time again, including in parliament.

“We agree that cooperation with the EU should be based on our shared values of respect for fundamental rights and for the rule of law. The UK’s approach to these issues in the context of law enforcement is based on precedent for EU-third country agreements in this area.”

The Conservative party’s 2019 election manifesto had also promised a review of the legislation. In a blogpost in 2018, the prime minister’s now chief adviser, Dominic Cummings, had written that the ECHR creates “legal problems all the time”.

But the EU’s chief negotiator, Michel Barnier, had publicly warned that adherence to the ECHR was a red line for Brussels.

What a joke. The EU could not have been any clearer. Yet, here we are, years later, revisiting the same issue again, raised by someone for whom not a single member of the British electorate cast their vote. The public doesn't fully grasp what is going on, in my opinion.

[JB007]

The vast majority now believe Brexit was a mistake.

That myth was proved wrong in the General Election. As I stated above-

And the UK had two votes on Brexit, the vote and then the general election, which the Coservatives based on "Get Brexit Done". Despite what the experts thought, it was a huge majority win for the Conservatives as even Labour stongholds that voted for Brexit, voted for the Conservatives (likely for the first time) in the GE.

They wanted Brexit. And we have to accept that now.



This article shows how massive the second Brexit vote was-

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... rexit-done

Britain’s prime minister, Boris Johnson, secured a crushing victory in the UK’s general election as voters backed his promise to “get Brexit done” and take the country out of the European Union by 31 January next year.

Johnson’s Conservatives captured 364 of the 650 seats in the House of Commons with all bar one seat counted, a comfortable majority of 74 and the party’s best showing in a parliamentary election since Margaret Thatcher triumphed in 1987.

He addressed the nation just after 7am in London, saying Brexit was now the “irrefutable, irresistible, unarguable decision of the British people” and promising those who lent their vote to the Tories in traditional Labour areas: “I will not let you down.”

...

Labour, meanwhile, whose leader, the veteran socialist Jeremy Corbyn, had presented voters a manifesto offering a second Brexit referendum and a radical expansion of the state, was plunged into bitter recriminations after the party won just 203 seats, its worst result in 84 years.

Labour lost seats it had held for long decades in former industrial areas in the Midlands and north of the country England as voters who had overwhelmingly backed Brexit in the June 2016 referendum swung towards the Conservatives.

[marcidevpal]

1.) Again, Boris Johnson did NOT receive a majority of the votes. He won significantly less than 50% of the total valid votes cast. Don't believe me? Google is your friend. Each vote represents one person. Each MP represents a geographical area. You are confusing two separate ideas. Dirt doesn't vote.

2.) A recent opinion poll that showed support for Brexit had fallen to its lowest level yet. Only 32 percent of those surveyed in the poll, by the firm YouGov, said that they thought leaving the European Union was a good idea; 56 percent said it was a mistake.

3.) The British do not owe any Brexiteer anything. Brexiteers vastly overstated the benefits. Many British feel they were 'lied' to. It is well within their power to elect politicians who will seek a closer relationship with the EU in the upcoming elections.

[marcidevpal]

UK Judges

As a member of the Council of Europe, the United Kingdom's Judges are supposed to consider human rights rulings by the European Court of Justice, where relevant. The Withdrawal Agreement and Political Declaration make it clear that the UK should abide by rulings of the European Court of Human Rights.

To take human rights into account, is to perform a 'balancing exercise'. The judges balance the request of the Zambrano carer for a residence permit, against society's best interests.

At the moment, the UK is in need of approximately 330,000 workers across a variety of sectors. You can see the shortage occupation list here - https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... ccupations

Imagine you are a Zambrano carer who is skilled in one of the careers on the shortage occupation list such as healthcare.

Let's also assume you are of good moral character (of course!).

Next, let's say the UK judge does a balancing exercise for you. It is a win-win. You want the residence permit and society wants people with your skills. In a perfect world, your appeal would be granted.

But what is the situation today? The President of the Upper Tribunal has made it almost impossible for any judge to do that balancing exercise. The case of Celik v SSHD makes it clear he does not believe EU Settlement Scheme applications "qualify" for human rights assessments.

So, you are likely refused on your EUSS appeal. But wait, it gets worse.

The UK still needs those workers, particularly in healthcare. So, you know what they do? They travel to countries in the developing world to find people with your exact skills and beg them to come to the UK with all sorts of bonuses.

By the way, this practice by the UK of poaching overseas talent violates UK regulations. Leaders of developing world complained that their countries face 'brain drains' of their talented people. The UK agreed not to take those people, but according to a recent documentary, they travel to these countries anyway.

So what is the current situation? You are here and talented. Rather than give you a residence permit, the UK judges would rather that recruiters travel to your country and pay someone with your exact skills to leave and come to the UK.

And that, dear friends, is why the United Kingdom will lose time and time again before the judges of the European Court of Human Rights (in my opinion).

[JB007]

1.) Again, Boris Johnson did NOT receive a majority of the votes. He won significantly less than 50% of the total valid votes cast. Don't believe me? Google is your friend. Each vote represents one person. Each MP represents a geographical area. You are confusing two separate ideas. Dirt doesn't vote.

2.) A recent opinion poll that showed support for Brexit had fallen to its lowest level yet. Only 32 percent of those surveyed in the poll, by the firm YouGov, said that they thought leaving the European Union was a good idea; 56 percent said it was a mistake.

3.) The British do not owe any Brexiteer anything. Brexiteers vastly overstated the benefits. Many British feel they were 'lied' to. It is well within their power to elect politicians who will seek a closer relationship with the EU in the upcoming elections.

1. Thats not how it works in the UK. It goes by the number of seats won.
e.g.
-Nigel Farage's old party got more votes than the SDP the other year, yet they didn't get a single seat in the House of Commoms and the SDP had dozens of seats in the House of Commons.
-The House of Lords are not voted in and the Liberal Democrates have given themseselves more that 80 Lords to vote, despite having very few to none, MPs voted in to the House of Commons by the people.
- some of the Lords had an interest in keping the UK in the EU as it would affect their massive EU pension if they spoke against the EU.

2. Opinion polls depend on who is being polled and how many. That's why opinion polls get it wrong e.g. Brexit; the landlslide wind for Boris in the General Election with his "Get Brexit done". Labour strongholds voted Conservative to give Boris the exra seats in parliament.

However, the first Brexit vote in 2016 was counted vote for vote, rather than the way the General Election is counted.

3. The evidence shows that the British wanted Brexit as already said (twice), now the third time. Two votes on Brexit and and two wins for Leave. I should imagine the Brits were very happy to source their own Covid jabs instead of being stuck in the EU and waiting for the EU to get organised.

[JB007]

By the way, this practice by the UK of poaching overseas talent violates UK regulations. Leaders of developing world complained that their countries face 'brain drains' of their talented people. The UK agreed not to take those people, but according to a recent documentary, they travel to these countries anyway.

It's obvious that those who have ensured they have in-demand skills, will always get a visa to the country of their choice.

A few years ago, Australia (the flag you have chosen to use on your posts) were looking for hairdressers and certified mechanics on certain makes of cars.

[marcidevpal]

I made a factual statement. My statement is either correct or incorrect. That is how logic works. My statement was as follows, "A majority of the British electorate DID NOT VOTE for Boris Johnson." You can either confirm or deny my statement, but facts don't care about your feelings. If the election were held today, Labour would win by a landslide. By your logic, that means the vast majority of the British public now reject Brexit. The vote was not a vote in favor of Brexit. The vote was to get Brexit "done". It was a put up or shut up vote. 7 years after the vote and three years after leaving, the Tories have not put up. That is why they will lose the next election.

You casually ignore the position of the British people today. It is clear that if a referendum were held today, the British would vote against it. It is clear none of the promised benefits were delivered. Ironically, Brexit has delivered a massive labour shortage of 330,000 vacancies. These vacancies make the case even stronger for Zambrano carers to be granted permanent residence, so that they can help to fill those vacancies.

If the Courts were a crime scene, UK hypocrisy would be the killer. The UK poaches workers from poor(er) countries when they claim they would never do that. These workers were trained on the tax dollars of citizens of third world countries. In a way, the UK is impoverishing already struggling economies. Zambrano carers, if treated fairly, could contribute to the UK economy while sending funds back to their home countries. Instead, they have to pay thousands on Appendix FM fees and be locked out of basic support for their children. What a rotten system.

You refuse to accept the situation on the ground. You offend Zambrano carers by assuming they do not have in-demand skills needed by the British economy. Why do you talk to Zambrano carers when you don't respect them? You also called asylum seekers 'boat people'. I would not trust any of your advice because you do not have people's best interest at heart, and you do you accept evidence that refutes your assertions.

Finally, it is no secret that the British weigh heavy on the self-righteousness scale. And, you know what self-righteous people hate most? Being lied to. Bring on the next general election!

[marcidevpal]

Sir Kier Starmer, Human Rights Barrister

Polling averages extrapolated in the 3 weeks to 16 January place

Labour on 47.3%,
the Conservatives on 26.3%, and
the Liberal Democrats on 9.3%

Let's imagine the UK leaves the Council of Europe and the European Convention on Human Rights before the next election. After the election, Labour wins. Labour's leader, Sir Kier Starmer, was a human rights barrister. He believes passionately in the ECHR. So, it seems he would take the UK back into the Council of Europe once he were elected.

Moreover, British people are moving towards rejoining the EU. The EU relies on the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the ECHR. By default, Britain will agree to follow human rights laws (again).

So, this argument by the Tories about leaving the Council of Europe and ECHR is a non-issue in the long run. UK judges will have their decisions subject to scrutiny by the European Court of Human Rights and/or the European Court of Justice in the long run. There is no getting around it because the UK is a democracy and the British people appear willing to vote for people who believe in human rights. This current situation is only temporary.

On 15 September 2015, Starmer participated in a debate. He said

Withdrawal from the European Convention would damage Britain’s standing in the world and that human rights enforcement would start to “disintegrate” as other countries followed in its lead to walk away. He asked: “What would [withdrawal] say about the UK, the country that is proud of the fact that it crafted the instrument in the first place, that is part of the family of nations that stands up for human rights, and that around the world insists other nations comply with these standards?”

[mubashir1981]

Hi every one,

just read some new guidelines on
https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... accessible

issued on 14th Dec.
me and my wife both have pre settle as zambrano issued in july 2020 b4 this also had deritive res card.
unable to understand if this will effect us when making application for settle status. no any changes since got zambrano.
never had fm status or ever made application for Human rights.

only this doggy statement i found in new guideline.

"Applications to switch from pre-settled to settled status
Where a person with limited leave to enter or remain granted under Appendix EU (known as ‘pre-settled status’ under the EU Settlement Scheme) as a ‘person with a Zambrano right to reside’ makes a valid application under Appendix EU for indefinite leave to enter or remain (known as ‘settled status’ under the scheme) as such a person (or as a ‘person who had a derivative or Zambrano right to reside’), you do not need to revisit the basis on which that limited leave was granted, but need only consider the eligibility and suitability requirements relevant to the period since then. "

any advice?

My understanding is that home office caseworkers do not need to ask you to proof again how you got your pre settled status as a Zambrano carer ( how you met the eligibility and suitability at the time). They now only need to consider whether you meet the eligibility and suitability criteria from the period you were granted pre settled to the time of your application for settled status.
For example, if you have been a Zambrano carer since Jan 2018 and was granted pre settled in Jan 2020. You are now due settled status (5 yrs in Jan 2023). They are saying they should only consider your eligibility and suitability from Jan 2020 to date, and not to start all over again from 2018.
Hope this helps.
I will be looking at the whole guidance again later today.

meting eligibility have certain steps which include why you have not made application under flr fp etc.
last time refused becoz i never made application but i won appeal and got deritive card and pre settle are they gona say again? bcz that is wht elegibility says being zambrano