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 appeals with permission against the decision of First-tier Tribunal Judge S Gillespie promulgated on 8 February 2018, dismissing her appeal against the decision made on 15 December 2014 to refuse to issue her with a derivative residence card as a primary carer of a British citizen resident in the United Kingdom, pursuant to the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006.
The appellant did not attend the hearing, nor did anyone attend on her behalf. No explanation for this has been given and, having satisfied myself that due notice of the time date and venue of the appeal had been properly given, I was satisfied that I could proceed to determine the appeal in the absence of the appellant and that to do so would be in the interests of justice, bearing in mind the overriding objective.
As the date of this decision in this case is prior to 6 April 2015, by operation of Schedule 4, paragraph 3 of the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006, the 2006 Regulations are preserved for the operation of this appeal.
The appellant is a citizen of Zimbabwe who has been resident in the United Kingdom since 2003. She has a son who is a British citizen as his father, WP, is a British citizen. The couple were in a relationship which broke down after the birth of the child. It is the appellant's case that she is the primary carer of the child; that the child's father has had no contact with him since 2013; and that in consequence, as he is either unable or unwilling to look after the child, the child will be compelled to leave the United Kingdom were she removed.
The respondent's case as set out in the refusal letter dated 15 December 2014 is that as the child's father is a British citizen, he equally shares responsibility for the son's care and that he had not shown, absent proof that the father was no longer living in the United Kingdom, that he could not assume the care responsibility for the child were the appellant forced to leave the United Kingdom as accordingly, she did not meet the requirements of Regulation 15(4A) (c) of the EEA Regulations.
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.