Uk citizen with Thai with FLR wife wanting to move to Europe

[duncsmove]

Hi folks we are considering a move to Europe to start a business my wife & stepdaughter have flr visa and have been in the UK for over 3 years ...can we settle in Europe & how do we go about it ?

[7by7]

As a British citizen you are also an EEA national and so have the same rights under the Apply for an EEA family permit is the UK's way of dealing with such applications. Although the actual process will be different in other member states, the rules and requirements are, as said, the same.

If the country you are considering is not an EEA member, or Switzerland, then none of the above applies and you and your family will need to apply for the necessary visas for that country.

Lastly, if your wife and step daughter are no longer resident in the UK when their FLR expires then they will need the appropriate entry clearance to enter the UK again.

However, if you have been exercising a treaty right in another EEA state and they have been living their with you then they can apply to enter the UK, either as visitors or to live, under the EEA regulations via the Surinder Singh route; provided they are travelling with or to join you.

[fbf]

Something to watch out for but there's a *possibility* the freedom of movement for non-EU might be at risk as part of Britain's EU negotiations (not to mention the exit referendum itself).

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/feb/16/immigration-loophole-for-foreign-born-spouses-could-close-under-draft-eu-rules

Sorry to muddy the waters but the above (with much speculation) was only published two hours ago and I'm writing this on the train pre-coffee.

[duncsmove]

As a British citizen you are also an EEA national and so have the same rights under the Apply for an EEA family permit is the UK's way of dealing with such applications. Although the actual process will be different in other member states, the rules and requirements are, as said, the same.

If the country you are considering is not an EEA member, or Switzerland, then none of the above applies and you and your family will need to apply for the necessary visas for that country.

Lastly, if your wife and step daughter are no longer resident in the UK when their FLR expires then they will need the appropriate entry clearance to enter the UK again.

However, if you have been exercising a treaty right in another EEA state and they have been living their with you then they can apply to enter the UK, either as visitors or to live, under the EEA regulations via the Surinder Singh route; provided they are travelling with or to join you.

[duncsmove]

Hi so if I understand correctly, we should contact the embassy of which ever country, to confirm entry requirements etc then do we enter with the Thai nationals on a shengen visa ?

[tebee]

You apply for a short term schengen visa as family of an EEA national for them, which is free. Within 3 months of your arrival there, they need to apply for their permanent residence cards in the country you move to.

[7by7]

Assuming the country you are considering moving to is a Schengen state; which all EEA countries, apart from the UK and Republic of Ireland, either are already or applying to join.

But Schengen or not, as said your wife and step daughter apply for the appropriate entry visa and then , within three months of taking up residence, apply for a residence card.

To correct tebee on one point, this will be temporary residence; they can't apply for permanent residence until they have lived there for 5 years.

[tebee]

They should get 5 year card under article 10 straight off, after 5 years they can get an card under article 20 which is usually issued for 10 years. The main difference between these is the latter is not dependent on the EU citizen for their residence rights.

[Richard W]

They should get 5 year card under article 10 straight off, after 5 years they can get an card under article 20 which is usually issued for 10 years. The main difference between these is the latter is not dependent on the EU citizen for their residence rights.

The other difference is that the 5-year residence card + the EEA national serves as a visa for EEA countries, whereas a foreign permanent residence card may not be accepted as a visa by non-Schengen countries. Last time I looked, the regulations of the UK and the Irish Republic didn't accept them! There was a petition to change the directive so that permanent residence cards should be accepted throughout the EEA, but it was dismissed as unnecessary because Schengen rules already treated them the same.

[beano2274]

which country are you going to?

Example in German you must all register at the Einwohnemeldeamt first then your wife and kids apply for a Residence Permit, you must prove that you have work, and are registered, the card costs a few Euros.

[tebee]

They should get 5 year card under article 10 straight off, after 5 years they can get an card under article 20 which is usually issued for 10 years. The main difference between these is the latter is not dependent on the EU citizen for their residence rights.

The other difference is that the 5-year residence card + the EEA national serves as a visa for EEA countries, whereas a foreign permanent residence card may not be accepted as a visa by non-Schengen countries. Last time I looked, the regulations of the UK and the Irish Republic didn't accept them! There was a petition to change the directive so that permanent residence cards should be accepted throughout the EEA, but it was dismissed as unnecessary because Schengen rules already treated them the same.

Actually the UK accepts both article 10 and article 20 ( permanent residence) cards

See https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/entering-the-uk-as-the-holder-of-an-article-10-residence-card/entering-the-uk-as-the-holder-of-an-article-10-residence-card

An Article 10 residence card should feature the wording “Residence Card of a Family Member of a Union Citizen”.

Another document, “Permanent Residence Card of a Family Member of a Union Citizen” issued under Article 20 of the Directive is also acceptable.

[Richard W]

Actually the UK accepts both article 10 and article 20 ( permanent residence) cards

See https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/entering-the-uk-as-the-holder-of-an-article-10-residence-card/entering-the-uk-as-the-holder-of-an-article-10-residence-card

It's good to know that common sense has been allowed to show its face officially. However, the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006, at least with amendments up to June 2015, still don't allow foreign permanent residence cards. (The 'permanent residence card' in Regulation 11(2)(b ) is a British permanent residence card.)

[tebee]

I think mr singh's wife had an article 20 card and they let her in eventually......

[beano2274]

My wife has an article 10 card, this allows here to travel to the UK with me.

The validity of the card is not 5 years as some people say, the validity is up to 5 years but dependent on the validity of the passport, for example my wife holds a Thai passport, the Residence Card from Germany is valid for 4 years and 4 months, the date her passport expires.

[Richard W]

My wife has an article 10 card, this allows here to travel to the UK with me.

The validity of the card is not 5 years as some people say, the validity is up to 5 years but dependent on the validity of the passport, for example my wife holds a Thai passport, the Residence Card from Germany is valid for 4 years and 4 months, the date her passport expires.

Presumably she'll soon be losing her free movement right as a non-EEA member of the family of an EEA national. I'm presuming she didn't have previous lawful residence in the EU when you married. Are you expecting her status to be grandfathered when she ceases to qualify for that status later this year?

[tebee]

That's interesting, my wife current French card doesn't expire until August 2019 but her 5 year Thai passport expires March 2017. It was issued for exactly 5 year from the day she applied for it.

It also does not differentiate as to whether it's issued under article 10 or article 20

[beano2274]

That's interesting, my wife current French card doesn't expire until August 2019 but her 5 year Thai passport expires March 2017. It was issued for exactly 5 year from the day she applied for it.

It also does not differentiate as to whether it's issued under article 10 or article 20

Germans are a bit different!!

[beano2274]

My wife has an article 10 card, this allows here to travel to the UK with me.

The validity of the card is not 5 years as some people say, the validity is up to 5 years but dependent on the validity of the passport, for example my wife holds a Thai passport, the Residence Card from Germany is valid for 4 years and 4 months, the date her passport expires.

Presumably she'll soon be losing her free movement right as a non-EEA member of the family of an EEA national. I'm presuming she didn't have previous lawful residence in the EU when you married. Are you expecting her status to be grandfathered when she ceases to qualify for that status later this year?

The new legislation says about those who abused the rules, well I see no abuse here, I work in Germany, and she has been here for nearly 3 years, the document you provided a link for says they expect people to work or live in another European country for 3 months but best 12 months.

"Couples who have attempted to use the loophole will have to leave any jobs or homes in Britain and set up home in another EU country, most usually Ireland, for at least three months, but more often six to 12 months. “We usually say to people the longer the better,” Mehta said. “We actually advise people to make as much of a go of it in that country as they can, to build a life.”

[Richard W]

The new legislation says about those who abused the rules, well I see no abuse here, I work in Germany, and she has been here for nearly 3 years, the document you provided a link for says they expect people to work or live in another European country for 3 months but best 12 months.

"Couples who have attempted to use the loophole will have to leave any jobs or homes in Britain and set up home in another EU country, most usually Ireland, for at least three months, but more often six to 12 months. “We usually say to people the longer the better,” Mehta said. “We actually advise people to make as much of a go of it in that country as they can, to build a life.”

I haven't referred to that recently (if at all), though it does seem familiar. I was referring to a proposed change of rules. The most chilling paragraph in the change is:

The Commission intends to adopt a proposal to complement Directive 2004/38 on free movement of Union citizens in order to exclude, from the scope of free movement rights, third country nationals who had no prior lawful residence in a Member State before marrying a Union citizen or who marry a Union citizen only after the Union citizen has established residence in the host Member State.

I think both our marriages fall foul of the red text; yours may also fall foul of the green text. My wife and I are not exercising the right of freedom of movement, but you may have to transfer to the purely German settlement route. I hope the red 'before marrying a Union citizen' is simply an error that will be rectified, but I haven't seen any evidence that such an error has been acknowledged.

To say that the proposed legislation only affects those who abused the rules is very dubious. You seem to have 'abused' the rules simply by moving your wife from Thailand to Germany under EU rather than German provisions.

Speaking of abuse, there's a suggestion that 'primary purpose' has returned in spades:

The concept of marriage of convenience - which is not protected under Union law – also covers a marriage which is maintained for the purpose of enjoying a right of residence by a family member who is not a national of a Member State.

You could possibly fall foul of that if one reason you married your wife rather than just shacking up together or you merely visiting her as a lover was that you wanted her to be able to reside with you.

Now, as Duncsmove has been able to satisfy the UK requirements, it's probable that his biggest European problem outside Denmark would be the language test. A lesser problem is that there may be immigration requirements that only make sense for a home citizen or someone already resident.

[beano2274]

The new legislation says about those who abused the rules, well I see no abuse here, I work in Germany, and she has been here for nearly 3 years, the document you provided a link for says they expect people to work or live in another European country for 3 months but best 12 months.

"Couples who have attempted to use the loophole will have to leave any jobs or homes in Britain and set up home in another EU country, most usually Ireland, for at least three months, but more often six to 12 months. “We usually say to people the longer the better,” Mehta said. “We actually advise people to make as much of a go of it in that country as they can, to build a life.”

I haven't referred to that recently (if at all), though it does seem familiar. I was referring to a proposed change of rules. The most chilling paragraph in the change is:

The Commission intends to adopt a proposal to complement Directive 2004/38 on free movement of Union citizens in order to exclude, from the scope of free movement rights, third country nationals who had no prior lawful residence in a Member State before marrying a Union citizen or who marry a Union citizen only after the Union citizen has established residence in the host Member State.

I think both our marriages fall foul of the red text; yours may also fall foul of the green text. My wife and I are not exercising the right of freedom of movement, but you may have to transfer to the purely German settlement route. I hope the red 'before marrying a Union citizen' is simply an error that will be rectified, but I haven't seen any evidence that such an error has been acknowledged.

To say that the proposed legislation only affects those who abused the rules is very dubious. You seem to have 'abused' the rules simply by moving your wife from Thailand to Germany under EU rather than German provisions.

Speaking of abuse, there's a suggestion that 'primary purpose' has returned in spades:

The concept of marriage of convenience - which is not protected under Union law – also covers a marriage which is maintained for the purpose of enjoying a right of residence by a family member who is not a national of a Member State.

You could possibly fall foul of that if one reason you married your wife rather than just shacking up together or you merely visiting her as a lover was that you wanted her to be able to reside with you.

Now, as Duncsmove has been able to satisfy the UK requirements, it's probable that his biggest European problem outside Denmark would be the language test. A lesser problem is that there may be immigration requirements that only make sense for a home citizen or someone already resident.

Funny but we lived together as Man and wife in Thailand for more than 3 years, so the last paragraph does not apply.

I do not think that they will remove the status of people who have already qualified under the old rules, the new rules would be implemented for future movement of EU citizens.

About moving my wife here, I am having an argument with another member about this, as he informed me that I can also move my mother in law here under the EU way and not the German National Visa way.

[beano2274]

This paragraph is quite a good one from the declaration:

As regards situations of abuse in the context of entry and residence of non-EU family members of mobile Union citizens the Commission will clarify that:
• Member States can address specific cases of abuse of free movement rights by Union citizens returning to their Member State of nationality with a non-EU family member where residence in the host Member State has not been sufficiently genuine to create or strengthen family life and had the purpose of evading the application of national immigration rules.

Again does not apply to me, my wife is here, we both speak German, and are trying for a child here, for the second time.

[Richard W]

I do not think that they will remove the status of people who have already qualified under the old rules, the new rules would be implemented for future movement of EU citizens.

The UK followed that policy when it was discovered that dual nationals started out disqualified in both countries rather than privileged in both. As a result, the UK issues (permanent) residences cards to people who are not entitled to them! However, in many cases the error could have been fixed by the British dual nationals renouncing British nationality, which was probably not considered a desirable outcome.

I would not be surprised if the EU directive contained no transitional provisions, but instead left it to national governments to decide. It will cause chaos if there are no proper transition arrangements. I can just imagine the Home Office gleefully prosecuting small employers for ignoring the fact that some residence cards had just become invalid.

[Richard W]

This paragraph is quite a good one from the declaration:

As regards situations of abuse in the context of entry and residence of non-EU family members of mobile Union citizens the Commission will clarify that:

• Member States can address specific cases of abuse of free movement rights by Union citizens returning to their Member State of nationality with a non-EU family member where residence in the host Member State has not been sufficiently genuine to create or strengthen family life and had the purpose of evading the application of national immigration rules.

I wonder if this is addressing the 'Belgian route', whereby the family home is in Belgium or Sweden and the Dutch or Danish spouse commutes to his home country for work. Weekly commuting could be argued to weaken family life!

[beano2274]

This paragraph is quite a good one from the declaration:

As regards situations of abuse in the context of entry and residence of non-EU family members of mobile Union citizens the Commission will clarify that:

• Member States can address specific cases of abuse of free movement rights by Union citizens returning to their Member State of nationality with a non-EU family member where residence in the host Member State has not been sufficiently genuine to create or strengthen family life and had the purpose of evading the application of national immigration rules.

I wonder if this is addressing the 'Belgian route', whereby the family home is in Belgium or Sweden and the Dutch or Danish spouse commutes to his home country for work. Weekly commuting could be argued to weaken family life!

you could well be right here.

[meatboy]

i thought you had to be a british citizen and have ILR before you can settle elswhere.and to get it you had to be in the uk.for 3yrs.with no breaks.

[Richard W]

i thought you had to be a british citizen and have ILR before you can settle elswhere.and to get it you had to be in the uk.for 3yrs.with no breaks.

One idea if EU free movement is that an EU citizen and his family can work anywhere in the EU. One problem is that if they move around a lot, they are unlikely to be able to obtain local citizenship anywhere, because they haven't been there long enough. Obtaining local citizenship is a matter of local law. If the EU citizen stops working (e.g. if he dies), I believe his non-EEA family members are stuck where he was last economically active, but there may be relevant EU laws of limited scope (excluding, for example, the UK and Denmark) that allow cumulative residence in the EU states to provide a degree of mobility.

Now, I'm not sure what manner of non-EEA family members the law makers have in mind. The way the proposed restrictions are worded will often prevent those who came in from outside moving around as part of an EU citizen's family. Perhaps the idea is that non-EEA spouses should arrive in the EU as non-EEA children. For example, the eldest child of a Danish-born Dane and a Thai settled in the UK might end up being just Thai, while the youngest child might end up as British (and also Thai) because the parents were 'settled' by the time it was born. (Their eldest child could be bought British citizenship, and there are mechanisms to enable the two children to remain Danish rather than losing Danish nationality at the age of 22.)

Given the current uncertainties, I strongly recommend that Duncsmove not give up his family's prospect of British citizenship until he knows that they can acquire and keep the rights of non-EEA members of an EEA national's family.

[meatboy]

i thought you had to be a british citizen and have ILR before you can settle elswhere.and to get it you had to be in the uk.for 3yrs.with no breaks.

One idea if EU free movement is that an EU citizen and his family can work anywhere in the EU. One problem is that if they move around a lot, they are unlikely to be able to obtain local citizenship anywhere, because they haven't been there long enough. Obtaining local citizenship is a matter of local law. If the EU citizen stops working (e.g. if he dies), I believe his non-EEA family members are stuck where he was last economically active, but there may be relevant EU laws of limited scope (excluding, for example, the UK and Denmark) that allow cumulative residence in the EU states to provide a degree of mobility.

Now, I'm not sure what manner of non-EEA family members the law makers have in mind. The way the proposed restrictions are worded will often prevent those who came in from outside moving around as part of an EU citizen's family. Perhaps the idea is that non-EEA spouses should arrive in the EU as non-EEA children. For example, the eldest child of a Danish-born Dane and a Thai settled in the UK might end up being just Thai, while the youngest child might end up as British (and also Thai) because the parents were 'settled' by the time it was born. (Their eldest child could be bought British citizenship, and there are mechanisms to enable the two children to remain Danish rather than losing Danish nationality at the age of 22.)

Given the current uncertainties, I strongly recommend that Duncsmove not give up his family's prospect of British citizenship until he knows that they can acquire and keep the rights of non-EEA members of an EEA national's family.

how would she manage if she only has a thai passport,i know before my wife got british citizenship and a passport she had to have a visa everywhere we went,mind you that was 26yrs.ago.

[tebee]

how would she manage if she only has a thai passport,i know before my wife got british citizenship and a passport she had to have a visa everywhere we went,mind you that was 26yrs.ago.

This is pretty well what we will go back to with this proposal

[Richard W]

how would she manage if she only has a thai passport,i know before my wife got british citizenship and a passport she had to have a visa everywhere we went,mind you that was 26yrs.ago.

Under the current system, the residence card will be her visa. The only issue is when it has to be validated by also presenting the EEA national whose family member she is.

The one aspect I don't understand is how a non-EEA family member living in the state of the EEA national is supposed to go and shop in a supermarket across the internal international border. When the borders are down it doesn't matter. Perhaps I've missed a detail of continental national identity cards for foreigners. Under the proposed new system, this problem will always arise for someone who immigrated to the EEA as a spouse.

[tebee]

Indeed - if the proposal is as stated, the only way for the spouse to get free movement rights would seem to be for the prospective spouse to be already living legally in a different EEA country to the EEA citizen who then moves there, marries him/her and then utilizes their own free movement rights in that country. It makes it almost impossible to get an article 10 card without doing things that are deliberately designed to evade immigration law which was what it was supposed to be stopping.

In the much more likely scenario of someone marrying their wife before they move to another country there seems no way for the spouse to ever get free movement rights apart from possibly becoming a naturalized citizen.

I still think the proposal is too vague and ill-considered to make it into law as-is, but we need to be prepared.

I can't see then changing the status of existing card holders as that would be very unfair and probably unconstitutional, though I suspect the UK may try.