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.
I now remake the decision concerning an appeal against the respondent's decision dated 24 October 2016 in which the appellant's application for a residence card was refused. This decision follows my 'error of law decision' dated 6 November 2020, in which I found that the decision of the First-tier Tribunal ('FTT') sent on 23 March 2020, dismissing the appellant's appeal contained an error of law and would be remade in the Upper Tribunal ('UT').
The issue before the FTT was whether or not the appellant was a "family member who has retained a right of residence" for the purposes of regulation 10 of the Immigration (EEA) Regulations 2006 ('the 2006 Regulations'). At the beginning of the resumed hearing before me both representatives agreed that the FTT accepted that all the requirements of regulation 10(5) were met save for regulation 10(5)(c), by reference to regulation 10(6)(b), in particular:
(a) The appellant's ex-husband ('H') is a French and therefore an EEA citizen; they married on 20 September 2008 when H was a "qualified person" because he was working at the time, and the appellant ceased to be a family member of H on the termination of their marriage on 30 December 2010.
(b) The appellant was residing in the UK in accordance with the 2006 Regulations as of 30 December 2010, when she was working as a care assistant.
(c) The appellant is not an EEA national (she is a citizen of Ghana) but she has been a worker in the UK at all material times.
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.