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 applications were refused on 16 May 2022 on the basis that, at the time of the decision, the EEA citizen sponsor, that is Mr Sarfo, did not have settled or pre-settled status under the EU Settlement Scheme and thus was not a relevant EEA citizen under that Appendix.
             The appeals were brought under the Immigration (Citizens' Rights Appeals) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 ("Citizens Rights Regulations").
             The appellants sought permission to appeal against that decision. Permission was granted by Upper Tribunal Judge Owens.
             It is we think sensible to set out the law in some detail in this case. It is governed by Appendix EU-FP. Broadly, there are three requirements which have to be satisfied. First, there are suitability requirements: the applications must be valid. Second, applicants, in this case the appellants, have to meet the eligibility criteria. It is not in dispute in this case that valid applications were made or that the suitability criteria are met. The third requirement is eligibility.
             The key issue here is whether Mr Sarfo, was a "relevant EEA citizen". "Relevant EEA national" is defined as follows:
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.