Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
The Appellant�s application was refused by the Secretary of State by Notice of Refusal dated 7 th April 2014. The Secretary of State noted that in order to qualify for retained right of residence following divorce from an EEA national the Appellant needed to meet the requirements of Regulation 10(5) of the Immigration (EEA) Regulations 2006. The Appellant needed to provide:-
� Evidence that the Appellant�s EEA former spouse was exercising free movement rights in the United Kingdom at the time of divorce.
� Evidence that the Appellant�s marriage had lasted for at least three years and that he and his former spouse resided in the United Kingdom for at least one year during their marriage.
� Evidence that the Appellant was currently in employment, self-employment or economically self-sufficient as if he were an EEA national himself.
In addition as the Appellant�s application was for permanent residence it was necessary for him to demonstrate that he had resided in accordance with the Regulations for a continuous five year period, which would mean that his EEA national former spouse continuously exercised free movement rights up to the point of divorce and that he had been employed, self-employed or self-sufficient since his divorce. In order to meet the requirement of Regulation 15(1)(f) collectively that evidence must cover a continuous five year period.
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.