Irish slapped on the wrist for delays in applications under EEA regs

IRISH DELAYS

Since UK's anti-family agenda, more Brits have been exercising their treaty rights to live in another EEA member state, where, free of UK hindrance, they can enjoy the joys of living with loved ones.  Ireland has been a popular destination, not least due to proximity, culture and importantly, language, aiding job prospects.

With this popularity has come excessive delays in processing family permits and residence cards, as a number of you will know from personal experience, and with the delays has come censure from the courts.

A family has won the right to have their application decided in 6 weeks, and this is going to have implications for all applying for  c-visas / family permits.  Indeed, some may have already seen an improvement in the time taken to process applications.

In recent news.....

Several news stories of interest in recent times:

25th November 2016 saw Ministry of Justice announce the 500% rise in immigration fees brought into force from October are to be scrapped; those who paid the fees already will be reimbursed. This doesn't mean no further increases are on the cards but a small victory for the moment at least.   
____

Our favourite politician (TM) has had her desire to lord it over Brexit shot down by the court.  As the last 6 years have shown though, she is not averse to wasting taxpayers money appealing court decisions just cos they go against her.

Thus the Supreme Court is to hear the case on whether TM alone can lead UK out of the EU without parliamentary approval, between 5-8th December.  The Scottish and Welsh governments will be joining the claimants in opposing the Brexit minister.

You can go to the court in person or watch the hearing live online. Baffling that it's Brexiteers proclaiming sovereignty as a reason for exit who are so pro-TM as dictator, and anti parliament sovereignty.
____

Another story of a family torn apart by the Home Office; yes, the applicant apparently overstayed an earlier UK visa, but to refuse her spouse visa on the premise of insufficient evidence of a genuine relationship is insane, when the couple were have been married for over six years, and have two kids - marriage and birth certificates provided.

For the amount applications cost, you'd think caseworkers would be required to at least look through the paperwork properly rather than put families through the costly appeals taking years, lost forever.
____

So, Trump is now President-elect.  The maps showing the areas of USA supporting Trump and areas where the population does not have a passport are not exactly dissimilar.  Perhaps this whole Brexit-Trump-world-is-going-crazy thing is a result of ignorance and fear of the unknown, rather than simply silly/evil people? Meh, draw your own conclusions.

General update on MM and ADR

It's been a quiet few weeks for the crux of what BritCits is about - fair family immigration rules for British citizens and our family.  There is still no update on #MMcase, and ADR we await the hearing at the Court of Appeal in May 2017.

The silence from the Supreme Court on MM seems even more deafening now, when cases heard after the one of interest to us have already had judgments handed down; indeed, one heard in June is having its judgment next week.  And we were there in February! 

However, with no choice, we continue to be patient and hope - the fingers-toes-everything-crossed variety of hope - that the judgment will bring relief to the thousands of families who have paid a huge price for the UK government's anti-migrant agenda.

ADR as a reminder is to be heard on two days between 3rd-5th May 2017 at the Court of Appeal (the court more superior than High Court, but not quite as high up as Supreme Court). Whether the hearing is to start on the 3rd or the 4th will be determined closer to the time.

Some of you have ADR appeals being heard at tribunal.  The case note to share with your legal rep is here.  This may help with the article 8 aspects of your case.  If your hearing is at the Upper Tribunal please get in touch with us as there may be a way to link up the cases to strengthen our argument.

We are also still fundraising for the case (the appeal permission comes up our having move money to pay the HO) - fundraising and donations welcome here.

Rohit - Featured Family

“My parents are dependent on me.  While I can tend to their financial needs from afar, families are about more than just sending money.”

Rohit is a British citizen who came to the UK from India in 2007 on a company sponsored visa to support IT projects and finance processes for a UK based company. Since then he has contributed to UK’s economy by paying hundreds of thousands in income taxes, helping grow several businesses with his contribution as an individual.  With professional success has also come a personal dream to have a similarly rewarding family life.

Currently working as an IT Project Manager/Business Analyst for UK’s leading pharmaceutical company, Rohit supports critical IT projects for the greater good of patients.

His wife is a Slovakian national, who also works full time.  The couple own their 4 bedroom house in London, and don’t see any challenges in financially supporting their family currently in India, once they move to the UK.  The family there consists of Rohit’s parents, aged 63 and 72 years, and his sister, also dependent on Rohit.

The family made use of EEA regulations (on the basis of Rohit’s wife being an EU citizen) and applied for a UK family permit for the mum, dad and sister. 

However, despite application of EEA regulations being reasonably straightforward, especially when the sponsor is a non-British EEA citizen, the application was refused.

Rohit hugging his wife, his parents are seated, and his sister in the striped top, on a visit to India

Rohit is certain the caseworker did not even read the applications or supporting documentation based on the reasons for refusal; the impression is the caeworker was going to refuse no matter what. 

The reasons for refusal are bizarre; evidence of money transfers was provided going as far back as 8 years (coinciding with the period Rohit has been in the UK) yet the letter indicates wanting to see evidence of dependency for 19 years!  Rohit’s parents and sister’s only source of income is that which they receive from Rohit, but because the funds for 8 years have been transferred to a joint account, the Home Office claims that perhaps Rohit was transferring the funds on a monthly basis to India for his own use there, without explaining how Rohit could have been withdrawing funds from a bank or ATM in India, whilst being physically present in the UK!

The application made referred to Rohit’s parents health deteriorating; his father had a heart attack in 2013 with ongoing difficulties with arthritis and his eyesight, whilst his mum suffers from continuous cervical pain, high blood pressure and asthma. 

Receipts for the medical treatment were also provided to further show the dependency on Rohit of his parents.  However, this was also considered a reason for refusal by way of Home Office saying that clearly because the medical treatment had been sought and received, it indicated this treatment was available in India and thus the parents did not need to be in the UK!  The mind boggles as under EEA regulations, where financial dependency exists, especially at the level in this case, poor health is not a requirement!

 Bittersweet goodbye as Rohit is on his way back to the UK

Rohit wants his parents and sister with him so as to be able to look after them personally; to provide much needed emotional support which may well alleviate some of the physical symptoms.  He also hopes that with a baby due in October 2015, his family has a chance to be a complete unit, with the grandparents playing a part in the baby’s upbringing.

If his family were not able to be in the UK, the only option for Rohit would be to leave the UK for a country which does respect family life.  Accepting the change in home, jobs, salary is unlikely to be easy.  UK would also lose two taxpaying talented individuals, along with their contribution to society.

Despite the refusal, Rohit is aware he can more easily avail of EEA regulations, but is astounded by the reverse discrimination for British citizens compared with the more family-friendly EEA regulations – and that too something the Home Office is not applying lawfully (he is in the process of appealing).

All Rohit wants, is for the UK government to allow his family to live together so he can fulfil the responsiblities he is not currently able to. All the UK government should be doing is abiding by the regulations and laws it has signed up to - something it actively chooses to thumb its nose at.

Update: Rohit is now the proud father of a beautiful baby girl.  He cannot wait for his daughter to grow up knowing her aunt and grandparents.

BC newsletter - 24th October 2016

The most recent newsletter from 24th October 2016 is now online, covering:

• Judgement Day! Update on MM. What do we want the judgement to be? What will it be? Recent judgements as a possible guide.
• Featured family - Fiona and Nate.

Past issues available here.

If you'd like to receive the newsletters directly into your inbox, please sign up here.

Fiona. Nate & William - Featured Family

“They said it is not unreasonable that my British son leave the UK.”

Fiona is a British citizen.  Her husband, Nate, is from USA.  Their son, William is a British citizen.  The family believe living in the UK rather than USA is in the best interest of their son.  This decision is their right to make, as parents and a family where two of three members is British.

The Home Office is trying to deport Nate.  In doing so, the family not unreasonably deems the department to be in violation of Article 8 (respect for private and family life) and s55 (best interest of the child), jeopardising the rights of British citizens Fiona and William.

Nate has a job offer paying over £18,600.  However he is not allowed to work, nor would his income count towards the income threshold anyway.  Fiona works 70 hours a week to make ends meet.

Fiona and Nate met when he came to the UK on a work visa.  They fell in love and got married in 2008.  Before his work permit expired, Nat applied for and was granted a spouse visa to 2011.

In 2010 the family relocated to USA where Fiona was given a green card for two years.  Once their son was born in 2011, the family decided it would be in their son's best interest to be raised in UK.  So Fiona and William returned here in August 2012, joined by Nate a month or so later as he finished his work obligations in USA.

Nate entered the UK as a tourist to ensure the family could celebrate William’s birthday in October together.  He had his return flight to USA booked for a few days later.  However, they soon found out the immigration rules had changed.  They realised if as they had intended, Nate returned to the USA and applied for a spouse visa, they would be refused.

A solicitor advised them to apply whilst Nate was still in the UK, on grounds of the best interest of their son.  Advice they took.

However, whilst waiting for the decision from the Home Office, they were issued a letter by the Home Office requesting a meeting in Portsmouth.  The purpose of the meeting was to determine if Nate had entered the UK illegally – whether he had been deceitful and to discuss his intentions.  At the centre in Portsmouth, Nate was escorted to a room where he was told he was under caution and questioned.

The officer carrying out the meeting told him normally these kind of meetings would be conducted at a police station – whether this is genuine or an attempt to intimidate Nate, the family doesn’t know. 

The officer concluded that Nate had not been deceitful and that he had entered the UK legally. 

Two weeks later, they received a response on their application.  It had been refused for several reasons which they listed as:

·      Fiona did not meet the financial requirements

·      Nate was in the UK as a tourist

·      Nate and Fiona’s relationship is subsiding therefore he doesn’t have sole parental responsibility

·      It would not be unreasonable for William to return to the USA to be with his dad.  Fiona could return with them if she so choose.

·      Nate had failed to obtain the correct entry level clearance prior to travelling to the UK, especially given his experience with other applications on previous stays in the UK.

The refusal letter also stated Nate should be removed from the UK and returned to the USA.  There doesn’t appear to be any consideration to the best interest of the child – the British child.  The family has filed an appeal with the First Tier Tribunal and are awaiting a decision on whether their appeal will be allowed.

BC Newsletter - 16th October 2016

The most recent newsletter from 16th October 2016 is now online, covering:

• A brief update on cases in court including MM, ADR and triggering of Article 50
• Brexit - Irish research paper and single market
• Immigration fees go up!
• Family of the Week - Steve and Yuriko

Past issues available here.

If you'd like to receive the newsletters directly into your inbox, please sign up here.