Options on the Surinder Singh route for British Citizens

[Prettygirl051469]

I was wondering if anyone is clever enough to work through the alternatives and options on the Surinder Singh route for British Citizens as a preferred way to enter the UK with a spouse or partner from any EEA region. In this manner a UK Citizen acquires the same less demanding rights as other EU Citizens for entry into the UK.

[7by7]

It's not that complicated.

The British citizen needs to have been living and working, employed or self employed, in the other EEA state and their non EEA family members living there with them. Living there off independent means, e.g. a pension, or as a student or jobseeker wont qualify.

They can then move back to the UK and their non EEA family members can apply to come with them using the EEA regulations rather than the UK immigration rules.

There is no minimum time they must have been doing this and it does not matter if their only reason for doing so was to use the Surinder Singh route to by pass the UK immigration rules.

Whether or not doing so is worth it depends on the family's circumstances.

For example, if they are living together in Thailand would the cost of moving to another EEA country followed shortly by a move from there to the UK be worth it? Especially as the British partner would have to find work of some kind whilst there.

See EUN2.14 Can family members of British citizens qualify for an EEA family permit? ('Surinder Singh' cases) for more.

(Edited to tidy up punctuation and spelling.)

Edited July 21, 2013 by 7by7

[Prettygirl051469]

Thanks for so much useful information. I know there are many Brits who are unable to return to the UK with their spouse/partner because of the £18600 minimum income threshold. The EEA option provides a work around the income barrier for some. A recent high court judgement is causing the government to review the income threshold policy.

All the same it appears that the siringa route is not open to retiree's.

[theoldgit]

7by7 has suggested this subject be moved from the pinned topic to its own thread, a sensible sugestion and happy to oblige.

[7by7]

All the same it appears that the siringa route is not open to retiree's.

Correct;; the British citizen must have been working whilst living in the other EEA state.

Of course, if that person is retired but can find a job in another EEA state then there is no reason why they could not then use this route to move to the UK.

They would not have to work once in the UK.

[diyer]

The Immigration Minister Mark Harper recently issued this statement:

"The EEA family permit is not a 'loophole'. It reflects the current requirements of EU law and would not apply if someone went abroad to a member state for a short time just in order to circumvent the immigration rules. An application will be refused if it cannot be proved the British citizen was genuinely engaged in employment."

The definition of 'a short time' is still rather ambiguous and left open for personal interpretation by Border Control Officers.

I know of people who successfully exercised their rights after 9 weeks, others were refused after 13 weeks and accused of trying to circumvent the Immigration rules.

7by7 is correct, there is no age limit under which you are forced to retire.

However moving to an EU Country, finding accommodation, work, language problems isn't easy and is fraught with pitfalls.

Some are lucky, others spend a chunk of their savings and can't get work.

About 20,000 non EU spouses use the EU route every year.

A non EU spouse of a British citizen using the UKBA Family Immigration route, has no right to public funds in the UK.

A non EU spouse of an EU citizen using the EU route has full immediate access to public funds.

[diyer]

There is a BBC news article with Video's ref Britons who leave the UK to get their family in.

The Video clips were recently screened on UK TV as a full length documentary.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23029195

[7by7]

A non EU spouse of an EU citizen using the EU route has full immediate access to public funds.

Not quite; they must not become an unreasonable burden upon the state.

How one defines 'unreasonable burden' I don't know; but they cannot enter the UK and immediately live only off state benefits.

[diyer]

A non EU spouse of an EU citizen using the EU route has full immediate access to public funds.

Not quite; they must not become an unreasonable burden upon the state.

How one defines 'unreasonable burden' I don't know; but they cannot enter the UK and immediately live only off state benefits.

Did you watch the video links in the news report link?

Believe me they can and do claim benefits immediately.

Child benefit.

Jobseekers allowance.

Income support.

Disability Allowance.

Housing Benefit

................to name but a few

I actually work alongside caseworkers who complete their claim forms on their behalf, and advise them of their rights.

An EU citizen and his family are entitled to public funds.

Define 'unreasonable burden' when thousands of British citizens claim everything under the sun.

They cannot discriminate against an EU citizen or his family, so if the Government can allow British citizens to claim numerous amounts of public funds, then they can't refuse an EU citizen or his family on the grounds of being an 'unreasonable burden' on the state.

They have the same, if not more rights than a British citizen.

The EU dictates to the UK.

[7by7]

I do not wish to get into a pointless argument; but I did not say that they could not claim any benefits; simply that your statement

A non EU spouse of an EU citizen using the EU route has full immediate access to public funds.

is incorrect.

But don't take my word for it.

From EEA nationals; Rights and responsibilities.

Public funds

You do not need to work while you are living in the UK. But if you do not work, you must be able to support yourself and your family in the UK without becoming an unreasonable burden on public funds.

See also page 20 of this document for the full list of those public funds an EEA national and their family can claim whilst in the UK before they have PR.

Obviously a British national and their family living in another EEA state can claim that state's equivalent to these funds.

Can we now get back to the topic; which is Surinder Singh?

[theoldgit]

This thread is about options using Surinder Singh, not whether the judgement is right or not.

It is a Judgement and incorporated into UKBA instructions, it's not a back door method, whether we like it or not it's the law.

As a result a number of off topic posts have been removed.

[diyer]

The Surinder Singh case brought to light the rights of EU citizens, not British citizens.

He was Indian, married his Indian wife who was already a British citizen in Germany, where they worked for a couple of years.

They returned to the UK to start a business, but divorced that same year.

Surinder Singh was allowed into the UK on a 12 month Visa as the spouse of a British national.

His Visa expired and the UK tried to deport him.

He appealed claiming his rights as an EU citizen.

What was interesting about the following Court case, wasn't the fact that it enforced the rights of an EU citizens right of free movement, it went farther than that and endorsed that a British citizen, who had lived and worked in an EU state should also be classed as an EU citizen when returning to his own member state. (UK)

However I still find the law on what's now known as the 'Surinder Singh Route' rather ambiguous for British citizens.

The Government state 'a short period' but with no definition.

We only have a life span of a short period.

I believe to hold EU residency you must have held residence in an EU state for 6 months or more.

So a short period would maybe be long enough to become a resident of an EU state in order to be qualified as an EU resident for British citizens.

The EU route is a perfectly legal method of entry to the UK for EU nationals, but it's still highly risky for British citizens.

The law just isn't precise enough for me to risk the time and money only to be refused on some Immigration technicality.

It needs more British citizens bringing appeals to the Courts in order to clarify the law for British citizens living and working in the EU.

If it's a legal system to enter the UK without using the Home Immigration rules, it needs clearer definition to make it a viable option.

Edited July 23, 2013 by diyer

[7by7]

Many (Most? All?) of the forums, news reports etc. seem to suggest that the family should be living in the other EEA state for at least three months.

I stand to be corrected, but I understand that in the judgement itself and subsequent amendment to the regulations there is no specified minimum time the British citizen and their non EEA national spouse and/or family member must have lived in another EEA state together, with the British citizen exercising an economic treaty right (i.e. employed or self employed).

Simply that they must be able to prove they have been living there together and the British citizen has been exercising an economic treaty right while they were there.

If so, then it would be very difficult, if not impossible, for the British government to impose a minimum time.

NB; I say British, but this ruling applies to all EEA member states. A German, for example, living and working in the UK with their non EEA national spouse could use Surinder Singh to return to Germany with that spouse.

I agree that it is not a route which is suitable for all, and there are many factors to consider; cost of moving to the other state, prospects of employment whilst there, costs of moving back to the UK, prospects of employment once back in the UK being the most obvious.

But it is an option which may be of benefit to some.

Edited July 23, 2013 by 7by7

[Matthew5]

Sorry to bump an old thread.

Has the Home Office done anything in the past 5 months to tighten the requirements for people applying under the Surinder Singh route?

If not, would working a 3-month contract teaching English somewhere in the EEA enable my Thai wife to apply for a UK visa under EEA regulations rather than the UK immigration rules?

[Matthew5]

^ To clarify, I would be working, my wife would be living with me.

[7by7]

The government have amended the regulations; yes. The amendment came into effect on 1/1/2014.

Under these changes the British family member will need to show that they have transferred 'the centre of their life' to the EEA country where they are now living.

Various criteria will be used by UKVI in assessing this; including, but not limited to, the length of residence in the other EEA state, the degree of integration in the other EEA state and where the British partner's principle residence is, the UK or the other EEA state.

Whether someone in your situation, a temporary three month contract in another EEA state, would meet these new criteria I'm afraid that I cannot say for sure; but I'm doubtful. The government changed the regulation precisely to stop such arrangements.

As you would expect, this move has stirred up much controversy as it appears to go against the principle of the original judgement. I expect that anyone who is refused for failing to meet these new criteria will appeal and the matter will eventually be settled in court; but that's going to take a long time.

[Matthew5]

If the new criteria came into effect 2 weeks ago, it shouldn't be long before we find out how the UKVI are assessing them.

With regards to the criteria you mentioned:

- length of residence - I'd hope to limit this to 3 months, but to show my intention was to stay longer, I'd aim for a 12-month employment contract

- degree of integration - I'd take my wife and daughter, rent accommodation, open bank accounts, and enroll my daughter in an international school

- principal residence - I don't have property in the UK, and have only been there for 6 weeks in the past 10 years. Three months wouldn't be long, but might integrate me more (in the EEA state) than I am in the UK.

I'll be watching closely over the next few months to see how these 'centre of their life' rules are interpreted.

Edited January 15, 2014 by Matthew5