Right of appeal against refusal of a residence card: the conclusion

10 September 2019 by

Field House, where the Upper Tribunal sits

The question of whether non-married partners and wider dependent relatives (e.g. grown-up children) of EEA nationals (known as ‘extended family members’) have a right of appeal against a decision by the Home Secretary to refuse them a residence card under the EEA Regulations has had a fraught recent history.

Now, as a result of the final decision of the Upper Tribunal in Banger (EEA: EFM – Right of Appeal) [2019] UKUT 194(IAC), full appeal rights have been restored to ‘extended family members’ whose applications are refused.

To give you the background in a nutshell, by Regulations promulgated in 2016 the Government took away this right of appeal (though it left it in place for spouses and direct descendents). Given that 50% of immigration appeals (across the board) are now successful, this deprived many individuals of a potentially very important right. For more detail on the background, see our previous articles here and here.

In its final decision, the Upper Tribunal noted that following the decision of the Court of Justice in this case, the Home Secretary had amended the 2016 Regulations to provide ‘extended family members’ with a right of appeal once again, by way of the Immigration (European Area Nationals) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.

As such, future refusal decisions made under the 2016 Regulations will include a right of appeal in the normal way.

In addition, the Upper Tribunal stated that where a person has received a refusal decision made before this change (which states that there is no right of appeal), it is open to them to request a fresh decision from the Secretary of State in order to generate a right of appeal (para 38), or alternatively to invoke the doctrine of direct effect under EU law and apply under rule 20 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) Rules 2014 for an extension of time to provide a notice of appeal to that Tribunal (paras 39-43).

The result is that after a legal battle of several years, an ‘extended family member’ who is refused a residence card should always have a right of appeal to the First-tier Tribunal.

One final thing to note is that despite the fact that by the time of the final hearing the Home Secretary had accepted that the appellant should be granted a residence card, the Upper Tribunal decided to give a fully reasoned decision in light of the lengthy delay by the Home Office in resolving this case, which had led the appellant to suffer “ongoing uncertainty in connection with her immigration status” (para 29).

Jonathan Metzer is a barrister at One Crown Office Row. Although he is an ‘extended family member’ of lead counsel to the appellant in Banger, this post was written without his involvement.

Welcome to the UKHRB


This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.

Subscribe

Categories


Disclaimer


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

Tags


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption ALBA Al Qaeda animal rights anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 Artificial Intelligence Asbestos assisted suicide asylum Australia autism benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery Catholicism Chagos Islanders Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners climate change clinical negligence Coercion common law confidentiality consent conservation constitution contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus costs Court of Protection crime Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation deportation deprivation of liberty Detention disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Family Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage Gaza genetics Germany Google Grenfell Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests international law internet Inuit Iran Iraq Ireland Islam Israel Italy IVF Japan Judaism judicial review jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid Leveson Inquiry LGBTQ Rights liability Libel Liberty Libya Lithuania local authorities marriage mental capacity Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery music Muslim nationality national security NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges Obituary ouster clauses parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury Piracy Plagiarism planning Poland Police Politics pollution press Prisoners Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania Round Up Royals Russia Saudi Arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice sexual offence Sikhism Smoking social media South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing statelessness stop and search Strasbourg Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treaty TTIP Turkey UK Ukraine USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wind farms WomenInLaw YearInReview Zimbabwe
%d bloggers like this: