Last week I covered the important case of Rehman (EEA Regulations 2016 – specified evidence)  UKUT 195 (IAC) for the Free Movement blog. The case concerned the Home Office’s attempt, through the Immigration (EEA) Regulations 2016, to implement a mandatory application process, with mandatory documents, for EEA applications. The Tribunal held that, although EU law allows administrative procedures to be put in place to ensure consistency, they cannot go beyond what is strictly necessary to establish the relevant right of residence under EU law.
This is a significant decision for anyone who qualifies for an EEA residence card but whose application for one is refused by the Home Office due to failure to provide a particular document. Such decisions should now be overturned on appeal. In practice, it will be easier to avoid an appeal by providing the documents requested by the Home Office. In immigration cases how the Home Office implement the law and what case workers think is required is often more important in practice than what the courts have held the law actually requires. However the decision provides a safeguard for anyone who is unable to comply with the Home Office’s requirements.
Elena Goodall via Google - 28/12/1928 December 2019
David Meighan via google - 08/12/1908 December 2019
Thomas Hampson via Google - 14/10/1914 October 2019
RT @GranitePr: #AberdeenHoustonGateway w/c 4th May #Digital #Podcast #Webinars #Onlinediscussion🤠🏴 🇺🇸
Speakers #JeffreyBlair @GHPart…
about 11 minutes ago
@KeeganSmith_Law Brilliant Kick 🏉 happy 16th Donald 🥳
about 24 hours ago