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.
First-tier Tribunal No: EA/08953/2021; EA/08958/2021; EA/08963/2021; EA/09001/2021; EA/09007/2021; EA/09010/2021
                  The applications were refused on the basis that the Appellants could not satisfy the definition of family members under the EUSS. It is the Appellants' case that they intended to make applications under the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2016 ("the EEA Regulations").
                  Judge Ficklin found that the Appellants could not satisfy the immigration rules relating to the EUSS and did not fall within the Withdrawal Agreement between the UK and the EU ("the Withdrawal Agreement"). He did however observe that it was "a matter for the Upper Tribunal whether the Withdrawal Agreement obligates the Respondent to do anything" (where an applicant has made a wrong application) ([26] of the Decision). He therefore dismissed the appeals.
                  Permission to appeal was initially refused by First-tier Tribunal Judge J M Dixon on 27 June 2022 in the following terms so far as relevant:
"..3. The decision does not contain any arguable errors of law. At paragraphs 23 and 26 the judge considers whether it was appropriate to consider the position under the EEA Regulations, including by reference to SZ, and found that it was not. There is no arguable error in the judge's approach."
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.