Exercising Eea Right To Move Back To The Uk

[melvinmelvin]

Just some thoughts on this:

Further up in the thread there were references to EU directive(s) and the implementation of those in the UK legislation.

I am not sure but I would think that the directive(s) in question is a EC (and not EU) directive.

I'd guess that it would be one of the rather old directives in the package establishing the inner market or common market if you like.

I.e. free flow of goods, services, capital and people between the member states.

(Could be looked up in the celex database, see upper right hand corner on the first page.)

Anyway, EC or EU is not important.

Consider the purpose of this directive, ie the legislator's intention with this instrument.

My understanding is that the main purpose is to ensure that all non-UK EEA citizens get equal and fair rights

re entering and residing in the UK and enjoying her "facilities". And likewise for UK citizens when going to

non-UK member states.

The purpose is not to make life simpler for UK citizens in the UK.

In particular it is not the purpose of this directive to make it simpler, or even possible, for a UK citizen to bring

non-EEA family into the UK. Even if the UK citizen has such in another EEA country.

If the UK chooses to "make life difficult" for UK citizens re bringing non-EEA family into the UK it would (probably) not be obvious

that that would constitute a breach of the stipulations (or spirit) in the directive.

It sounds a bit far fetched to me for a UK citizen to call upon provisions in EEA regulations (which in this case would be primarily aimed

at ensuring rights for non-UK EEA citizens) in order to make it easier and/or cheaper to bring non-EEA family to the UK.

just my tuppence . . . . . . . .

[AngryParent]

Just some thoughts on this:

Further up in the thread there were references to EU directive(s) and the implementation of those in the UK legislation.

I am not sure but I would think that the directive(s) in question is a EC (and not EU) directive.

I'd guess that it would be one of the rather old directives in the package establishing the inner market or common market if you like.

I.e. free flow of goods, services, capital and people between the member states.

(Could be looked up in the celex database, see upper right hand corner on the first page.)

Anyway, EC or EU is not important.

Consider the purpose of this directive, ie the legislator's intention with this instrument.

My understanding is that the main purpose is to ensure that all non-UK EEA citizens get equal and fair rights

re entering and residing in the UK and enjoying her "facilities". And likewise for UK citizens when going to

non-UK member states.

The purpose is not to make life simpler for UK citizens in the UK.

In particular it is not the purpose of this directive to make it simpler, or even possible, for a UK citizen to bring

non-EEA family into the UK. Even if the UK citizen has such in another EEA country.

If the UK chooses to "make life difficult" for UK citizens re bringing non-EEA family into the UK it would (probably) not be obvious

that that would constitute a breach of the stipulations (or spirit) in the directive.

It sounds a bit far fetched to me for a UK citizen to call upon provisions in EEA regulations (which in this case would be primarily aimed

at ensuring rights for non-UK EEA citizens) in order to make it easier and/or cheaper to bring non-EEA family to the UK.

just my tuppence . . . . . . . .

Valid and logical tuppence!

Something I learnt a long time back regarding the law in the UK - in the system EU law is first and UK law is second. In the same system UK law is first and ECHR law is second. EEA law is EU law and as such comes above any and all UK immigration laws and a million other UK laws.

Thus, to answer your question, unless the EU changes this law, the UK has no power to obstruct or prevent its implementation. The only option is for the UK to withdraw from the EU if they do not want this law, or a new EU law is passed with member state requirements to do this i.e. it is not easy and not something that takes place in 24 hours, 6 months or a few years - this goes against the entire structure of the EU - free trade and movement!

In the raw sense, the EU is the business unity of the European counties. The ECHR is the Human rights commitment of these EU countries. Business comes first (not my priority) but that is how the law works. Human rights law comes after business in implementation - but there is still the implementation that does ensure ECHR law is maintained.

[AngryParent]

Just some thoughts on this:

Further up in the thread there were references to EU directive(s) and the implementation of those in the UK legislation.

I am not sure but I would think that the directive(s) in question is a EC (and not EU) directive.

I'd guess that it would be one of the rather old directives in the package establishing the inner market or common market if you like.

I.e. free flow of goods, services, capital and people between the member states.

(Could be looked up in the celex database, see upper right hand corner on the first page.)

Anyway, EC or EU is not important.

Consider the purpose of this directive, ie the legislator's intention with this instrument.

My understanding is that the main purpose is to ensure that all non-UK EEA citizens get equal and fair rights

re entering and residing in the UK and enjoying her "facilities". And likewise for UK citizens when going to

non-UK member states.

The purpose is not to make life simpler for UK citizens in the UK.

In particular it is not the purpose of this directive to make it simpler, or even possible, for a UK citizen to bring

non-EEA family into the UK. Even if the UK citizen has such in another EEA country.

If the UK chooses to "make life difficult" for UK citizens re bringing non-EEA family into the UK it would (probably) not be obvious

that that would constitute a breach of the stipulations (or spirit) in the directive.

It sounds a bit far fetched to me for a UK citizen to call upon provisions in EEA regulations (which in this case would be primarily aimed

at ensuring rights for non-UK EEA citizens) in order to make it easier and/or cheaper to bring non-EEA family to the UK.

just my tuppence . . . . . . . .

Now that I have said the intro to teh EU and ECHR....

"Consider the purpose of this directive, ie the legislator's intention with this instrument.

My understanding is that the main purpose is to ensure that all non-UK EEA citizens get equal and fair rights

re entering and residing in the UK and enjoying her "facilities". And likewise for UK citizens when going to

non-UK member states." Correct!

"The purpose is not to make life simpler for UK citizens in the UK.

In particular it is not the purpose of this directive to make it simpler, or even possible, for a UK citizen to bring

non-EEA family into the UK. Even if the UK citizen has such in another EEA country." Correct 90%. Thus S. Singh judgement ensured that it is open to all and not one side of the fence advantaged or disadvanteged. Before this, there were irregularities.

"If the UK chooses to "make life difficult" for UK citizens re bringing non-EEA family into the UK it would (probably) not be obvious

that that would constitute a breach of the stipulations (or spirit) in the directive."100% correct.

"It sounds a bit far fetched to me for a UK citizen to call upon provisions in EEA regulations (which in this case would be primarily aimed

at ensuring rights for non-UK EEA citizens) in order to make it easier and/or cheaper to bring non-EEA family to the UK." You have a running score of about 90%... Think about this last bit from all perspectives and financial positions of UK citizens! The break of dawn is soon!

Notice above I have mixed S. Singh and EU law. This is the shinning star of being part of a noble and just community, Business law can be checked/restricted by Human Rights Law. Something we ignore or forget when we are outside the protection circle.

[7by7]

Angry Parent,

It seems that, like your two topics on Thai nationality, you have asked the question when you think you already know the answer!

It also seems that, like those two topics, you are cherry picking quotes from official publications, regulations, directives etc. that substantiate your argument and ignoring those that don't.

Yes, a UK national and their non EEA family members can use the EEA regulations to move to another EEA state if the UK national is, or intends to be, exercising an economic treaty right in that country. However, as previously explained, they will need some finances or income as their eligibility for state funds in that state will be extremely limited. If job seeking their time there will also be limited if they don't find one; and as Eff1n2ret has said, other EEA states tend to be more rigorous in enforcing this than the UK.

Yes, the Surinder Singh judgement does mean that an EEA national who has been employed or self employed in an EEA state other than his own whose non EEA family has been living there with him can use the EEA regulations to return to his home state with his family. But only if he has been actually working; job seeking, studying and living on independent means don't qualify for this.

Whilst your suggestion is legally possible, the practicalities of doing so are beyond most. Most UK sponsors of spouse or partner visas are living and working in the UK. They would have to quit their job, move to another EEA state and find work there.

Persons, such as yourself, who are currently living outside the EEA wouldn't have this problem, of course. However, there is also the cost element. First, the cost of moving from Thailand, or wherever, to one EEA state and setting up home there;followed by the cost of moving from that EEA state to his home one; in your case the UK. Whilst, obviously, one such move and it's costs will be unavoidable, the cost of the second will almost certainly be more than the cost of a settlement visa and then ILR.

You seem to think that obtaining a UK settlement visa for your spouse is extremely difficult. It isn't. The success rate of over 90% plus numerous posts in this, and other, forums shows that. You seem to be basing your opinion on just one case reported here, but in that case the refusal was not because the applicant didn't qualify but because they, or rather their sponsor, failed to show that they did!

Your statement that the sponsor would have to return to the UK at least three months in advance and find employment of some kind is utter nonsense. Funds for maintenance can come from the income and/or savings of the applicant, the sponsor, a third party or any combination of these. Also, the employment prospects of both applicant and sponsor can, and if necessary will, be taken into account.

As previously explained, there are disadvantages to following the EEA route instead of the UK immigration one.

However, it is your life and your decision. If you do decide to try this, let us know how you get on.

BTW, the European Convention on Human Rights and the European Court of Justice are not entities of the EU or the EEA. Although all EEA states are, I believe, signatories to the one and members of the other.

[AngryParent]

Thank you for the above.

You claim I am cherry picking and ignoring facts. If so, then my "theory" is flawed. I personally do not want to go to a third party EU country and be stuck there and unable to go to the UK (if I do use this route). So, please tell me what I am ignoring in a list format. I will try to adress them and if unable, I will accept the flaws. However, so far, I cannot see anything that is a flaw in the theory. I also admitted that it is not for all esp. not for those with stable jobs in the UK (post 18).

You bring up the jobseeker issue as if I have ignored this or am wrong. As post #23 by Eff1n2ret posted, jobseeking is a vaild when using this EEA route - to enter a third party EU state and also to enter the UK. He also addresses the financial requirement as being nill - as I posted before. However, one must have been a worker or self-employed in the third party EU state (as a form of proof to show that one is exercising EEA treaty rights) before returning to the UK (which I have said all along). Please check, http://www.bia.homeo...pdf?view=Binary page 2 states that jobseeking is OK for treaty rights!

I do agree that the ECHR and the ECJ (which is not the court that hears human rights cases - the ECJ does something different and I have never mentioned the ECJ in my posts) are not really EU entities nor have I said so (yes?). All EU states are members of the Council of Europe and the ECHR was brought in by the Council of Europe and thus one could argue that it is a EU entity in a sense (but that is another matter).

[AngryParent]

Slight change to the above. I replied based on my previous posts in this thread - where I did not mention the ECJ. Thus, my reply above was 99.99% focused on what I have been posting on i.e. the ECHR and the EU. However, to address 7b7's comments - The ECJ is a EU entity 100%! It is the court that deals with all these EU (non ECHR cases, but from my knowledge also does dabble a bit in ECHR matters). It is the court that was responsible for the Surinder Singh Judgement.

[7by7]

The ECJ is a EU entity 100%! It is the court that deals with all these EU (non ECHR cases, but from my knowledge also does dabble a bit in ECHR matters). It is the court that was responsible for the Surinder Singh Judgement.

You are correct, the ECJ is an EU entity; I should have said the European Court of Human Rights.

On that subject, one cannot argue that the Council of Europe is an EU entity! The Council of Europe has 47 members; the EU 27. The European Convention on Human Rights and the European Court of Human rights are institutions of the Council of Europe.

BTW.

You will see that I have edited your preceding two posts. Please refrain quoting previous posts in full every time you post; particularly when it results in several nested quotes.

If you do not want or need to quote another post, either use use the "Fast Reply" box at the foot of the page or the "Add Reply" button immediately above that box.

If you do want to quote an earlier post, then please only quote the relevent part rather than all of it by deleting the parts which aren't relevent.

This will make your posts easier to read and is good 'netiquette'. See Forum Netiquette Please read before posting.

[7by7]

You bring up the jobseeker issue as if I have ignored this or am wrong. As post #23 by Eff1n2ret posted, jobseeking is a vaild when using this EEA route - to enter a third party EU state and also to enter the UK

As the Entry Clearance Guidance I linked to before says

Applications for EEA family permits must meet the following criteria:

The British citizen is residing in an EEA Member State as a worker or self-employed person or was doing so before returning to the UK.

Their emphasis, not mine.

Don't believe them; how about reading the judgement itself? Says the same.

You are also ignoring the not inconsiderable costs involved in first moving to another EEA state and then, after a period, moving back to the UK. Costs which will be far in excess of the cost of a settlement visa and then ILR.

You are also ignoring the considerable disadvantages faced by the non EEA national spouse regarding the wait for PR and then citizenship as opposed to a Spouse who entered via the immigration rules.

I still contend that presenting oneself at any EEA embassy and asking for their equivalent of an EEA family permit for one's non EEA spouse when one has no job, no income, no savings and no means of financial support will only result in a refusal.

If a British citizen wants to live and work in another EEA state with their non EEA national spouse or partner; fine, their choice. If they should then want to move back to the UK; fine, their choice. But to present the Surinder Singh judgement as a viable way of bypassing the UK immigration rules on spouse settlement, a loophole if you will, is in my honest opinion ridiculous.

[Eff1n2ret]

In the interests of clarity, I would point out that my previous post referring to jobseekers being "qualified persons" under EEA Regulations was relevant to their status in the UK. As 7by7 points out, for a Non-EEA spouse to successfully apply under 'Surinder Singh', the UK sponsor would have to have been a worker or self-employed in another EEA state.

Once in the UK, the likelihood of the Family Member ever being removed is remote. Even if the Family Permit expired, the subject can not be arrested as an overstayer because there is no offence as he/she has not had "leave to remain" under the Immigration Rules. If the UK sponsor failed to "exercise Treaty Rights" by going straight onto benefits and not seeking work, his status as a UK citizen would protect him from any action by UKBA, who would find it difficult to remove his spouse separately. Of course, UKBA do sometimes refuse to issue Residence Cards, which obviously makes it difficult for the individual to get work, but actually enforcing a removal is another matter.

I once looked into the details of administrative removal under 19 (3) of the 2006 Regulations, and the main points were:- i) claiming benefits does not per se mean that a person has ceased to be a "qualified person" under the Regs - ii)part-time work, even if claiming benefits, is sufficient to qualify as a "worker" - iii) if someone is on benefits but genuinely seeking work they can be classed as a "jobseeker" - iv) if someone has been out of work for 6 months and demonstrably has no intention or realistic prospect of getting a job they "have ceased to be a qualified person" and become liable to administrative removal under Para 19(3) - but this is not enforced by UKBA, as I found to my frustration at the time.

I have been looking on the websites of the French and German embassies for enlightenment as to their procedures for applying for the equivalent of an EEA Family Permit, but there doesn't seem to be one. It looks as if the applicant has to fulfil the requirements for a 3-month Schengen visa, and then apply for a Residence Card after entry. Therefore, this would appear to support 7by7's contention that an applicant or their sponsor have to show some evidence of support and accommodation in making the inital application. If anyone knows different, please let us know.

[AngryParent]

You bring up the jobseeker issue as if I have ignored this or am wrong. As post #23 by Eff1n2ret posted, jobseeking is a vaild when using this EEA route - to enter a third party EU state and also to enter the UK

As the Entry Clearance Guidance I linked to before says

Applications for EEA family permits must meet the following criteria:

The British citizen is residing in an EEA Member State as a worker or self-employed person or was doing so before returning to the UK.

Their emphasis, not mine.

Don't believe them; how about reading the judgement itself? Says the same.

You are also ignoring the not inconsiderable costs involved in first moving to another EEA state and then, after a period, moving back to the UK. Costs which will be far in excess of the cost of a settlement visa and then ILR.

You are also ignoring the considerable disadvantages faced by the non EEA national spouse regarding the wait for PR and then citizenship as opposed to a Spouse who entered via the immigration rules.

I still contend that presenting oneself at any EEA embassy and asking for their equivalent of an EEA family permit for one's non EEA spouse when one has no job, no income, no savings and no means of financial support will only result in a refusal.

If a British citizen wants to live and work in another EEA state with their non EEA national spouse or partner; fine, their choice. If they should then want to move back to the UK; fine, their choice. But to present the Surinder Singh judgement as a viable way of bypassing the UK immigration rules on spouse settlement, a loophole if you will, is in my honest opinion ridiculous.

You accused me of cherry picking quotes! LOL! Did my own post not say that? Pasted here for you:

"You bring up the jobseeker issue as if I have ignored this or am wrong. As post #23 by Eff1n2ret posted, jobseeking is a vaild when using this EEA route - to enter a third party EU state and also to enter the UK. He also addresses the financial requirement as being nill - as I posted before. However, one must have been a worker or self-employed in the third party EU state (as a form of proof to show that one is exercising EEA treaty rights) before returning to the UK (which I have said all along). Please check, http://www.bia.homeo...pdf?view=Binary page 2 states that jobseeking is OK for treaty rights!

"

I will repeat myself. Going to the UK - I can be a jobseeker (for the UK) and enter with my non-EU family. Going to Spain I can be a jobseeker (for Spain) and enter with my non-EU family. However, to return home (UK) with my non-EU family, I will first need to go to Spain (or another EU country), either as a jobseeker or employed in advance, but some time during my stay in Spain I must become a worker or self-employed and then I can apply for the family permit for the non-EU family!

Agreed? If yes, then this is not a flaw with my "theory" as I mentioned this before.

Regarding your point about considerable costs involved in this. Maybe yes or maybe no, do not forget that one must be at some time employed - such salary could even negate the extra expeneses.

As Eff1n2ret said, entering the EEA route gives permenant right to stay without it being called that. And as I mentioned before, this route is not for all, it is for those who are not stable in the UK and/or for those who might not be eligible for the spouse visa.

By going the EEA route entry is certain and after being in the UK, ones family might become stable and then, there is nothing stopping leaving the UK for a month and returning on an ILE!

You may contend that entry will be refused, but with all respect, you are wrong. This concept goes against EEA free movement. I have posted the Polish criteria for entry before - employed, self-employed or intending to become such.

Let me put it this way, when you apply for the equivalent of a family permit or entry visa etc. What will somebody who wants entry say?

1. Hi, I have no money, don't want a job, want benefits, and want to bring my non-EU family with me. Entry permit please!

or

2. Hi, I want to exercise my EEA treaty rights by entering your country, with my non-EU family, and I intend to work in your country. Which legally they cannot refuse.

Really it is not riduculous, just a round about way for those who may be refused spouse settlement. It is not a replacement for spouse settlement at all, it is a viable alternative.

P.S. You mentioned multiquote etc and how my posts are against netiquitte. Well, if your server did not keep telling me 'error cannot post have exceeded the number of quotes', I would be more than happy to do trim. I spent 5 minutes typing this reply and entering many [...quote] and [.../quote] and got the error message. I then had to spend another 5 minutes copying and pasting what I wrote into this message. Sorry

[AngryParent]

I have been looking on the websites of the French and German embassies for enlightenment as to their procedures for applying for the equivalent of an EEA Family Permit, but there doesn't seem to be one. It looks as if the applicant has to fulfil the requirements for a 3-month Schengen visa, and then apply for a Residence Card after entry. Therefore, this would appear to support 7by7's contention that an applicant or their sponsor have to show some evidence of support and accommodation in making the inital application. If anyone knows different, please let us know.

I recently contacted an EU embassy regarding how to enter. And you are correct, one needs to apply for the 3 month short stay visa. And within 45 days of arrival must internally apply for the long stay visa as processing is only done in the country. However, this does not mean they can refuse entry whilst exercising EEA treaty rights.

I had a look around and noticed that many people had been through similar visa application requirements but was pleasantly surprised to find that although application forms may have certain boxes to fill (it is not compulsary to fill all of them esp. financial boxes and refusal is not possible if the boxes are not completed).

Refusal is only possible under public policy, public security or public health if exercising EEA rights to enter the third party EU country.

The reason why the family permit is not in use in other countries might be because it goes against the law and is currently being challenged in the court (as it is in effect not free movement this way).

[Eff1n2ret]

I had a look around and noticed that many people had been through similar visa application requirements but was pleasantly surprised to find that although application forms may have certain boxes to fill (it is not compulsary to fill all of them esp. financial boxes and refusal is not possible if the boxes are not completed).

Refusal is only possible under public policy, public security or public health if exercising EEA rights to enter the third party EU country.

So are you saying that a would-be Thai Family Member going for the first time with their UK spouse to, say, Germany, fills in the Schengen Visit Visa form, and the ECO then says, "Ah, the sponsor is exercising his Treaty Rights, so no fee and I'll just issue it straight away." - or how does it work? It's clear that once in the country, there are well-established procedures for prolonging residence, but the initial procedure is less clear-cut than that of the UK. It seems to me that the Family Permit procedure fulfils the European Directive exactly, and I don't understand why you say it's against the law, neither am I aware that it is being challenged. There was a challenge to the concept that dual UK/EEA nationals who have never lived outside the UK can't use their EEA nationality to sponsor family members under EEA Rules, but UKBA won that one, they just don't appear to have implemented the result yet.

[7by7]

You are correct, I did miss you saying that one had to have been working in another EEA state in order to exercise Surinder Singh rights; which you had previously denied. Apologies for that.

You are correct that an EEA national does not have to provide evidence of their finances; I have never said they do. But we are talking about their non EEA national family.

The reason why the EEA family permit is not in use in other EEA countries is because it is the UK's way of doing it. As Eff1n2ret said, other states have their own procedures; he gave the example of the Schengen states.

You say the EEA family permit is being challenged in the courts. Where? Who by? Do you have a link to the case?

Again I say, you have presented this as the solution to anyone who has, or is likely to have, their spouses UK settlement visa refused. It may be suitable for some, I have never said otherwise, but it is not the wonderful, simple solution you think it is. I have tried to explain why; but like in your gaining Thai nationality topic, you cannot accept that you have not considered all the factors.

[AngryParent]

I had a look around and noticed that many people had been through similar visa application requirements but was pleasantly surprised to find that although application forms may have certain boxes to fill (it is not compulsary to fill all of them esp. financial boxes and refusal is not possible if the boxes are not completed).

Refusal is only possible under public policy, public security or public health if exercising EEA rights to enter the third party EU country.

So are you saying that a would-be Thai Family Member going for the first time with their UK spouse to, say, Germany, fills in the Schengen Visit Visa form, and the ECO then says, "Ah, the sponsor is exercising his Treaty Rights, so no fee and I'll just issue it straight away." - or how does it work? It's clear that once in the country, there are well-established procedures for prolonging residence, but the initial procedure is less clear-cut than that of the UK. It seems to me that the Family Permit procedure fulfils the European Directive exactly, and I don't understand why you say it's against the law, neither am I aware that it is being challenged. There was a challenge to the concept that dual UK/EEA nationals who have never lived outside the UK can't use their EEA nationality to sponsor family members under EEA Rules, but UKBA won that one, they just don't appear to have implemented the result yet.

You are right, it is not that clear and each country seems to do it differently.

I wish I could find the link that posted that such family permit was illegal and being challenged (as it somehow) reduced free movement - I think I read it in some Spanish immigration/expat forum.

I will now say what Ireland wants regarding non-irish spouses of Irish people. Lots of documents regarding banks, jobs etc. But for non-eu family members of eu citizens all that is required is to submit a letter (probably to see if exercising eea treaty rights is being claimed or not) and proof of relationship. http://www.inis.gov.ie/en/INIS/Pages/Join%20Family#Information_about_visa_application_and_immigration_procedures? Surely, if entry could be refused on money etc, they would ask for such proof?

Then look at the eu website and look at the example of the Spanish case. http://ec.europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/travel/entry-exit/non-eu-family/index_en.htm Where it claims a marriage certificate with an EU citizen is enough to get a visa.

[samran]

Ah, so glad it wasn't just me...

[AngryParent]

You are correct, I did miss you saying that one had to have been working in another EEA state in order to exercise Surinder Singh rights; which you had previously denied. Apologies for that.

You are correct that an EEA national does not have to provide evidence of their finances; I have never said they do. But we are talking about their non EEA national family.

The reason why the EEA family permit is not in use in other EEA countries is because it is the UK's way of doing it. As Eff1n2ret said, other states have their own procedures; he gave the example of the Schengen states.

You say the EEA family permit is being challenged in the courts. Where? Who by? Do you have a link to the case?

Again I say, you have presented this as the solution to anyone who has, or is likely to have, their spouses UK settlement visa refused. It may be suitable for some, I have never said otherwise, but it is not the wonderful, simple solution you think it is. I have tried to explain why; but like in your gaining Thai nationality topic, you cannot accept that you have not considered all the factors.

Thank you for accepting that I had mentioned work! Also, you will find that you are wrong that I had previously denied it! I have been consistent (as far as I am aware) - maybe you interpreted me saying jobseeking is valid for entry to the third party nation as me saying 100% throughout the process jobseeking is OK?

You then state that I have not considered all the facts. You stated your opposing views and I did consider them and came to the conclusion that for some people, this is the wonderful and simple solution and for others it is not a solution at all! I have been consistent in this since you provided the case scenario. To claim I did not consider is totally false, as I responded to those points.

As for the Thai citizenship topic, I considered the provided facts and rationally weighed it up that changing my entire life (to something that I view as going downwards) to get something that the highly respected Arkady mentioned may never come (as he said some wait forever) and only 6 people get it per year. I refuse to accept that by making an unneccesary trip to Bangkok Special Branch things would be different as I did contact them and posted the response, Chief Justice also confirmed that I was correct, the Thai legal document from Special Branch also confirmed what I said. Thus, you also falsely accuse me of something. I explained such in my closing post in that thread. At most, you can say, I made a different choice than what you would do. Please be fair!

[AngryParent]

I had a look around and noticed that many people had been through similar visa application requirements but was pleasantly surprised to find that although application forms may have certain boxes to fill (it is not compulsary to fill all of them esp. financial boxes and refusal is not possible if the boxes are not completed).

Refusal is only possible under public policy, public security or public health if exercising EEA rights to enter the third party EU country.

So are you saying that a would-be Thai Family Member going for the first time with their UK spouse to, say, Germany, fills in the Schengen Visit Visa form, and the ECO then says, "Ah, the sponsor is exercising his Treaty Rights, so no fee and I'll just issue it straight away." - or how does it work? It's clear that once in the country, there are well-established procedures for prolonging residence, but the initial procedure is less clear-cut than that of the UK. It seems to me that the Family Permit procedure fulfils the European Directive exactly, and I don't understand why you say it's against the law, neither am I aware that it is being challenged. There was a challenge to the concept that dual UK/EEA nationals who have never lived outside the UK can't use their EEA nationality to sponsor family members under EEA Rules, but UKBA won that one, they just don't appear to have implemented the result yet.

OK, I am a bit tired so please take this post in a relaxed manner.

I still have not found that link about the legal challenge to the UK family permit. However, I will try to think why this is/could be illegal (without having read the legal challenge case details). The EC Directive 2004/38/EC mentions such a document but it is called a residence card. The UK does have a residence card. By asking for an additional family permit before entry could be illegal as it seems to want to take the place of this card in many ways.

Also, the fact that if one gets to the border, by just producing evidence of marriage and spouse's EU citizenship entry should be granted. Thus, in a sense such an elaborate prior system might be an inconsistency?

And following my previous post with the links, yes, I do state that "Ah, the sponsor is exercising his Treaty Rights, so no fee and I'll just issue it straight away." should work. However, as the Eureopean Union website states, some EU nations are in breach and/or try it on by initially refusing or requesting unnecessary documents etc (but when confronted with the law they issue the visa) - that is the practical side.

I wonder if this Schengen visa is a form of trying it on - when really one is exercising treaty rights and as such, the family is also allowed to work. Schengen visa is not for employment. By entering on a Schengen, could this be a declaration that one is not exercising treaty rights? Hmm... something to think about! Looks like I was correct http://www.englishforum.ch/permits-visas-government/105482-non-eu-wife-entering-schengen-visa-refused-permit-bern-commune-help-needed-pls.html

[RabC]

Get in quick before the French (and most of UK) get their way and UK is out of the EU.....................

[Chivas]

I followed a similar thread up last week after claims were made in similar vein. Firstly thank you for the guys that responded to PM's, but after talking further with immigration advisors, the chances of success are less than 5% even if squeaky clean and by the book.

The "advisors" refused attempts to take my money because the chances were so low. The law may well be correct but there are multiple pitfalls, compared to whats quoted in this thread-I wish there wasn't !!

For advisors after initial consultation to refuse monies, speaks volumes.

[AngryParent]

I followed a similar thread up last week after claims were made in similar vein. Firstly thank you for the guys that responded to PM's, but after talking further with immigration advisors, the chances of success are less than 5% even if squeaky clean and by the book.

The "advisors" refused attempts to take my money because the chances were so low. The law may well be correct but there are multiple pitfalls, compared to whats quoted in this thread-I wish there wasn't !!

For advisors after initial consultation to refuse monies, speaks volumes.

Can you elaborate a bit? I am in the dark about your experience.

[Chivas]

I followed a similar thread up last week after claims were made in similar vein. Firstly thank you for the guys that responded to PM's, but after talking further with immigration advisors, the chances of success are less than 5% even if squeaky clean and by the book.

The "advisors" refused attempts to take my money because the chances were so low. The law may well be correct but there are multiple pitfalls, compared to whats quoted in this thread-I wish there wasn't !!

For advisors after initial consultation to refuse monies, speaks volumes.

Can you elaborate a bit? I am in the dark about your experience.

Sure-I can't go too deep out of fairness to myself, as I chose to send PM,s to Immigration Advisors on this forum amongst others who kindly responded.

From what I understand the "law' as quoted is perfectly correct but the reality of application to acceptance is 10 times more difficult than requirements suggest...

Add in I am not exactly squeaky clean, than there was virtually no chance of success in my case. I was also advised that even if totally squeaky clean you would jump through hoops...

[7by7]

AngryParent, you said

I wish I could find the link that posted that such family permit was illegal and being challenged (as it somehow) reduced free movement - I think I read it in some Spanish immigration/expat forum.

Are you really saying that the EEA family permit system of the UK is illegal?

Do you also believe that the system used by the Schengen states is illegal?

What about the other EEA states; are their systems illegal too?

Are you really saying that every single EEA country has this wrong and that you are right?

All because you think you read on some Spanish website that the UK's EEA family permit system is being challenged!

Even if someone has decided to challenge the legality of the family permit system does not mean that it is illegal. If such a challenge is being made, it is for the courts to decide, not you.

I do believe that you are correct and that an EEA national can turn up at immigration in another EEA state with his non EEA national family members without obtaining that states appropriate entry clearance first; for example an EEA family permit for the UK. However, their passage through that country's immigration will be considerably eased if they have obtained said entry clearance. As is said in your link!

I'm not sure about other EEA states, but in the UK a residence card is not compulsory; although it is recommended.

Finally, read your Irish information again, you must have missed the bit about finances and health insurance rather than ignored it, because you don't cherry pick.

[bifftastic]

Can I just ask, for clarification purposes, does the non EEA spouse have to be already resident in the EU state that the EEA national is moving from in order for this permit to apply? Or can the non EEA spouse arrive from outside of the EEA with no previous immigration/settlement visa whatsoever?

What I mean is, wouldn't it be seen as trying to circumvent immigration law if the non EEA person moved directly from Thailand (in this example)?

I thought that this permit was for people from outside the EEA who had already gone through the immigration/settlement process in one EEA state and then wanted to move to another EEA state with their EEA national spouse/family.

[AngryParent]

AngryParent, you said

I wish I could find the link that posted that such family permit was illegal and being challenged (as it somehow) reduced free movement - I think I read it in some Spanish immigration/expat forum.

Are you really saying that the EEA family permit system of the UK is illegal?

Do you also believe that the system used by the Schengen states is illegal?

What about the other EEA states; are their systems illegal too?

Are you really saying that every single EEA country has this wrong and that you are right?

All because you think you read on some Spanish website that the UK's EEA family permit system is being challenged!

Even if someone has decided to challenge the legality of the family permit system does not mean that it is illegal. If such a challenge is being made, it is for the courts to decide, not you.

I do believe that you are correct and that an EEA national can turn up at immigration in another EEA state with his non EEA national family members without obtaining that states appropriate entry clearance first; for example an EEA family permit for the UK. However, their passage through that country's immigration will be considerably eased if they have obtained said entry clearance. As is said in your link!

I'm not sure about other EEA states, but in the UK a residence card is not compulsory; although it is recommended.

Finally, read your Irish information again, you must have missed the bit about finances and health insurance rather than ignored it, because you don't cherry pick.

Am I saying the UK family permit is illegal. Yes, no, maybe etc. I am just trying to explain why such a challenge might have been made i.e. speculating.

Do I believe the Schengen visas and all EU states have got it wrong and I am right (when I never made such sweeping claim). NO, the EU countries have a right to have a visa system for non-eu members. What I am saying is that by offering a Schengen to someone (non-EU family members) who wants entry under exercising EEA treaty rights and not VISIT there may be some problems and/or it might be the wrong visa. http://www.dutchemba...index.php?i=261 Here they state that when not travelling with the EEA family member - regular Schengen applies i.e. when not exercising EEA treaty rights. Thus, there is another system.

As for how far fetched it may sound, yes, one can turn up at a border without a visa, and providing I can prove I am an EU citizen and that the person is a family member, a visa MUST be issued on the spot. Source the European Union website (not some silly website in the EU - this is the EU) I provided yesterday.

"

Arriving at the border without an entry visa

It is always best for your non-EU family members to be well informed in advance and have all the necessary documents before starting their journey. However, should they arrive at the border without an entry visa, the border authorities should give them the opportunity to prove by any means that they are your family members. If they manage to prove it, they should be issued with an entry visa on the spot.

"

No cherry picking with the Irish website, please read the appropriate section ie what I have pasted below.

"

Spouse/Child/Partner- Qualifying Family Members who wish to ACCOMPANY EU Citizen to Ireland – Reside

If you are the non EEA spouse

or

child (under 21 years),

or

the child of the non EEA spouse,

or

the non-EEA partner of an EU Citizen, in a long-term relationship that has existed for at least 2 years,

or

a civil partner who has contracted a registered partnership, or is a party to a class of legal relationship specified in the Civil Partnership (Recognition of Registered Foreign Relationships) Order 2010 as entitled to be recognized as a civil partnership,

and

you wish to ACCOMPANY the EU Citizen to Ireland the following documents are required:

• Fully complete the online application form, and submit your signed summary application form, and photographs.
• In addition to the signed summary application form, please also submit a signed letter of application

1. outlining your reason for coming to Ireland,
2. giving details of any members of your family who are currently in Ireland, or any other EU State.
   

• Passport
• In the case of a married couple, Marriage Certificate – evidence (apostilled document) that marriage has been registered in applicant's country of origin/residence
• In the case of civil partners, documentary evidence that will attest to the existence and durability of the relationship

1. In the case of a registered or recognised civil partnership please submit Registration Certificate of partnership.
2. In the case of unregistered partners please submit evidence of common ownership of property, joint tenancy of property, on-going correspondence addressed to both partners at the same address, financial dependence/interdependence, joint bank accounts or any other relevant documentation

• Birth Certificate (long form) for children under 21 years, parental consent, national Identity card (signed if required).

The applicant should, if intending to reside in Ireland beyond 90 days, make an application for a Residence Card of a family member of an EU Citizen to the EU Treaty Right Section, 13-14 Burgh Quay, Dublin 2.

"

So, all correct and valid so far?

[7by7]

As for how far fetched it may sound, yes, one can turn up at a border without a visa, and providing I can prove I am an EU citizen and that the person is a family member, a visa MUST be issued on the spot. Source the European Union website (not some silly website in the EU - this is the EU) I provided yesterday

I know. I linked to that website when I said that obtaining prior entry clearance would save a lot of time and effort at immigration.

You really should research thoroughly. Much of what you say is true, but further research of the relevant official websites will show you that there is a lot more to it than you seem to think.

Even if an EEA state does not require evidence of finances at any stage, remember that as I tried to explain to you earlier, the public funds which an EEA national and their Non EEA family members can claim in an EEA state other than their own is extremely limited. If they did not have sufficient resources of their own they would not survive for very long!

Am I saying the UK family permit is illegal. Yes, no, maybe etc. I am just trying to explain why such a challenge might have been made i.e. speculating.

Backtracking a bit here, aren't you!

I really can't be bothered with this anymore. You have a little bit of information and are extrapolating from that without checking all the relevant facts. You say that you are a teacher; I hope for your students sake that your lesson preparation is not as sloppy!

[7by7]

Can I just ask, for clarification purposes, does the non EEA spouse have to be already resident in the EU state that the EEA national is moving from in order for this permit to apply? Or can the non EEA spouse arrive from outside of the EEA with no previous immigration/settlement visa whatsoever?

What I mean is, wouldn't it be seen as trying to circumvent immigration law if the non EEA person moved directly from Thailand (in this example)?

I thought that this permit was for people from outside the EEA who had already gone through the immigration/settlement process in one EEA state and then wanted to move to another EEA state with their EEA national spouse/family.

There is much confusing information and misinformation in this thread, agreed. Most of it from one source!

EEA nationals have the right under EEA freedom of movement treaties to exercise certain 'economic treaty rights' in all other EEA countries. They also have the right to have their non EEA national family members live there with them.

These family members can either accompany the EEA national when he moves to the other state, or join him at a later date.

If the EEA national is living in or moving to the state of which he is a citizen then the EEA freedom of movement regulations do not apply and their non EEA national family members need to obtain the appropriate visa under that state's immigration law. Unless he has dual EEA nationalities, in which case he can use his other nationality to apply under the EEA regulations for his family.

However, if an EEA national has been working in an EEA state other than his own and his non EEA family members have been living there with him and he now wishes to return to his home country then the Surinder Singh judgement means that he can use the EEA regulations rather than his home country's immigration law to obtain entry clearance for them. Note that he must have been working, other economic treaty rights, such as living off independent means, are not covered by this judgement.

Hope that's clear.

N.B.

For clarity I have used the male pronoun throughout the above, but the gender of the EEA national is, of course, irrelevant.

[ludditeman]

Thanks to Mr. Angry and 7by7 for their informative posts.

From the last two posts it appears that going to Ireland with the Thai wife will be relatively easy without Visa charges, and staying also easy, especially if working.

It also appears that if you were to enter Ireland and work for a while, then you could move back to England at a later stage without Visa fees.

Nice to see all the details together at last.

I was fairly sure it would work.

[AngryParent]

As for how far fetched it may sound, yes, one can turn up at a border without a visa, and providing I can prove I am an EU citizen and that the person is a family member, a visa MUST be issued on the spot. Source the European Union website (not some silly website in the EU - this is the EU) I provided yesterday

I know. I linked to that website when I said that obtaining prior entry clearance would save a lot of time and effort at immigration.

You really should research thoroughly. Much of what you say is true, but further research of the relevant official websites will show you that there is a lot more to it than you seem to think.

Even if an EEA state does not require evidence of finances at any stage, remember that as I tried to explain to you earlier, the public funds which an EEA national and their Non EEA family members can claim in an EEA state other than their own is extremely limited. If they did not have sufficient resources of their own they would not survive for very long!

Am I saying the UK family permit is illegal. Yes, no, maybe etc. I am just trying to explain why such a challenge might have been made i.e. speculating.

Backtracking a bit here, aren't you!

I really can't be bothered with this anymore. You have a little bit of information and are extrapolating from that without checking all the relevant facts. You say that you are a teacher; I hope for your students sake that your lesson preparation is not as sloppy!

Sorry, my mistake above about the visa at the border (glad to see you agreed with me) - I am so used to you disagreeing with me (that I thought you were disagreeing with my entry at the border statement). Please, highlight stuff where you are being positive!

As for remaining alive in a state without money - hey, this topic is mainly about entry and remaining (not about survival). However, I really cannot see how the UK citizen (with spouse on EEA ) would be less entitled to benefits than a UK citizen (with UK visa for spouse) - both in the UK. Unless, you are talking about claiming in the third party EU state (not really valid as one hopes to leave there and go back to the UK). Feel free to disprove this.

Please check your facts before accusing me for the nth time of something I have not done (in this instance I am supposed to be backtracking):

"However, I will try to think why this is/could be illegal (without having read the legal challenge case details). The EC Directive 2004/38/EC mentions such a document but it is called a residence card. The UK does have a residence card. By asking for an additional family permit before entry could be illegal as it seems to want to take the place of this card in many ways. " If this is not sepculating i.e. 'i will try to think', then one of us needs a new dictionary.

Also, in your reply to the bifftastic, you claim I misinform - that is 100% wrong! You claim the thread can be confusing, I agree!

Anyway, something to look forward to in a week or so, I utilized their service (the EU website does offer a service for EU citizens and it is free) to get clarification if the Schengen or other short term visas actually go against claiming EEA treaty rights. Will post the reply - should be interesting.

[AngryParent]

Thanks to Mr. Angry and 7by7 for their informative posts.

From the last two posts it appears that going to Ireland with the Thai wife will be relatively easy without Visa charges, and staying also easy, especially if working.

It also appears that if you were to enter Ireland and work for a while, then you could move back to England at a later stage without Visa fees.

Nice to see all the details together at last.

I was fairly sure it would work.

One happy customer!!!

Don't forget to use the letter to Irish immigration and specify exercising EEA treaty rights!!!

Good to see my valid information helps!

[AngryParent]

Thanks to Mr. Angry and 7by7 for their informative posts.

From the last two posts it appears that going to Ireland with the Thai wife will be relatively easy without Visa charges, and staying also easy, especially if working.

It also appears that if you were to enter Ireland and work for a while, then you could move back to England at a later stage without Visa fees.

Nice to see all the details together at last.

I was fairly sure it would work.

Let me know what kind of jobs Ireland has that are easy/quick to get (for English Speakers) - might join you in Ireland!