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.
            On 23 November 2020 the appellant, a national of Venezuela, made an application under the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2016 for a family permit to enter the United Kingdom as the partner of Ms Louise Cobb. The application was made under regulation 9(2), claiming a derivative right of residence.
            At the hearing before me, I therefore heard evidence from Ms Cobb and considered the written evidence provided. There were some initial difficulties at the hearing collating the documents to be considered, but it was agreed that everyone had access to the same ones, albeit not all in the same order.
            Relevant guidance is given in ZA (Reg 9. EEA Regs; abuse of rights) Afghanistan [2019] UKUT 281 (IAC)
(i) The requirement to have transferred the centre of one's life to the host member state is not a requirement of EU law, nor is it endorsed by the CJEU.
(ii) Where an EU national of one state ("the home member state") has exercised the right of freedom of movement to take up work or self-employment in another EU state ("the host state"), his or her family members have a derivative right to enter the member state if the exercise of Treaty rights in the host state was "genuine" in the sense that it was real, substantive, or effective. It is for an appellant to show that there had been a genuine exercise of Treaty rights.
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.