Getting the "Big Boys" Involved

Time to bring in Solvit and the Member of Parliment?

At this point, it was five days without a response from UKBA.  I therefore decided to “Flex some muscle” and involve Solvit and my MP.

Subject: Complaint as to UKBA Staff, EEA2 Application, COA, ETC.
From: My @ Email
To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
Date: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 2:05
Mr [My Name]
[Postal Address]
Dear Sirs,
I am writing to you AGAIN in regards to the application of my wife: Mrs [Wife’s Name]
Royal Mail Package: Package (Delivered on 15th Jan 2013) HO Ref: x and Case ID: x
(In case you are going to request further reference numbers, the return barcodes of provided are: x and x)
This is not the first time I have contacted yourself in regards to this matter… Please see below for previous messages.
On 8 March 2011 the European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruled in the Zambrano case C 34/09, that an EU member state may not refuse the non-EU parents of a dependent child who is a citizen of, and resident in, an EU member state the right to live and work in that member state. As you can see from the documentation provided for my wifes EEA2 application, she has two dependant British Citizen children.
I am therefore requesting that further to previous emails to yourself, and additional postal letters this situation be resolved.
My wifes Certificate of Application failed to confirm her right to work within the UK. This is not the case. As evidenced in the case above, my wife already has the right to work in the UK, and UKBA must confirm this right.
EU Legislation states that a Certificate of Application must be processed IMMEDIATELY. I am therefore expecting a fresh COA to be sent to my wife, MRS [MARRIED NAME] (Again, you have proof of her name – our marriage certificate). Your COA gave a couple of examples of when you cannot verify a persons right to work within the UK, however, none of the examples provided apply to my wife.
I note that as EU law states that my wife has a Derivative Right of Residence within the UK, she cannot therefore be deported from the UK. Failure to grant my wife permission to work effectively leaves our children in a state of destitution. We have limited funds to survive, by failing to verify my wifes right to work within the UK this situation is worsened, and could effectively mean our children are foced to leave the UK so as to be able to survive.
I have also sent this email to my local MP, and am hoping that something is done in relation to this. In addition to this, I will be filing a formal complaint with SOLVIT in relation to the manner in which her case is being handled.
In addition to this, I have previously requested the return of the passports included in the application…
Under EU Law, upon request, documents should be returned ASAP (and within your own guidelines within 20 working days). My passport is required for employment and identification purposes (however – I do not legally have to provide a reason as to my need for my passport to be returned!)
I also direct your attention to the message below, in relation to “Richard” at the UKBA reporting centre on Homer Road, Solihull. The attitude of this member of staff (in addition to that of “Reena” – I am unsure as to whether this is the correct spelling of her name).
This member of staff outright told my wife that she would not be permitted entry into Ireland (Republic of). He is not in a position as to 1) Give immigration advice, 2) Dictate as to Irish imigration proceedures.
In fact, I provide the attached emails from the Irish Embassy here in London – neither email even hints at the fact that my wife could be refused entry into Ireland – the reason being Directive 2004/38/EC does not allow for her refusal of entry bar: Article 22 – Public Policy, Public Security and Public Health (none of which apply).
Again, Perhaps it is wise for UKBA to read the actual legislation which it is required to follow as per EU LAW also covering the UK. Particularly Article 23.
Also, dating back previously to this: The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, of 20 November 1989 – which particularly protects the links of a child to their family members.  (This case has the following children: Chloe x, and Charlie x).
Now, Please respond in relation to all of the points raised within this email. I note that neither myself nore my wife have recieved any response to our written communication to yourselves (letters delivered by Royal Mail).
Mr W

(The letters between myself and the Irish Embassy are included in “Emails to the Irish Embassy”)
In the morning, after a nice “sleep” I checked my email (on my mobile – Very convenient I must say)

Subject: RE: Complaint as to UKBA Staff, EEA2 Application, COA, ETC.
From: Korcz Christine (ETID) ([email protected])
To: My Email
Date: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 8:36
Good morning Mr P
In order to take forward a complaint against the UK, I will need to identify which Member State you have previously resided and worked in. As SOLVIT is a network between Member States, it is for the SOLVIT Centre in the Member State where you have previously resided and worked that should pursue a complaint against the UK.
Christine Korcz
Direct line: 020 7215 2833

After a few emails back and forth, I was told that I would need to complain to the Finnish Solvit Team – As it was in Finland where I had previously excersised my right of free movement.
So I fired off the following message:

Subject: Fw: Complaint as to UKBA Staff, EEA2 Application, COA, ETC.
From: My @ Email
To: [email protected];
Date: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 13:11
Dear Sir/Madam,
I am writing to you today in reference to my Wifes EEA2 application lodged with UKBA. I am a UK British Citizen, who has excersised my right to work in Finland, in 2004. I worked at the Espoo Institute of Business during the summer of 2004. I am therefore for the purposes of Directive 2004/38/EC essentially to be treated as the national of an EEA member state (In this case Finland) for the purposes of my return to the UK.
Since return to the UK, I have been an Employed Worker – and “Excersised treaty rights” within the UK. I have made this position clear to UKBA.
My wife ([Married Name] – formerly [Maiden Name]) is a third country national (NON-EEA) from Indonesia. We have two British children together: Chloe X, born 11-09-09 and Charlie X born 21-7-12. Meliana is the Primary Carer for our children. The children being physically and emotionally dependant upon their mother.
As I outline in my post to the UKBA, my local MP and Solvit based in England, on 8 March 2011 the European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruled in the Zambrano case C 34/09, that an EU member state may not refuse the non-EU parents of a dependent child who is a citizen of, and resident in, an EU member state the right to live and work in that member state. The ruling:
On those grounds, the Court (Grand Chamber) hereby rules:
Article 20 TFEU is to be interpreted as meaning that it precludes a Member State from refusing a third country national upon whom his minor children, who are European Union citizens, are dependent, a right of residence in the Member State of residence and nationality of those children, and from refusing to grant a work permit to that third country national, in so far as such decisions deprive those children of the genuine enjoyment of the substance of the rights attaching to the status of European Union citizen.
By UKBA failing to to verify my wifes right to reside and work within the UK they are depriving my children the rights attached to the status of being EU citizens. I had a response from UK Solvit who informed me that my complaint needs to be raised via the Finnish Solvit department, and that they could not raise complaints against the UK themselves. I would therefore appriciate that you could deal with this matter on behalf of myself and my wife.
My wifes name is: Mrs [Married Name] (Maiden name, before marriage, Miss [Maiden Name])
My name is: Mr W
Our address is [Postal]
—– Forwarded Message —– From: My @ Email To:[email protected]” ; [email protected]; “[email protected]” ; “[email protected]Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 2:05 Subject: Complaint as to UKBA Staff, EEA2 Application, COA, ETC.

I found it rather reassuring when I received the following messages within minutes of each other:

Subject: VS: Complaint as to UKBA Staff, EEA2 Application, COA, ETC.
From: [email protected] ([email protected])
To: My @ Email
Date: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 13:44

Dear Mr P,


Thank you for contacting the Finnish SOLVIT centre. We will look at your case and come back to you on this.


Kind regards, Leila Vilhunen SOLVIT Finland Ministry of Employment and the Economy

And then this one:
——- Subject: FW: Complaint as to UKBA Staff, EEA2 Application, COA, ETC. From: EREC ([email protected]) To: My @ Email; Date: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 13:44
Dear Mr P,
Thank you for your email which has been passed to me for a response. I can advise that a full Certificate of Application confirming your wife’s right to take employment has now been issued and sent out from our offices.
Please accept my apologies for this administration oversight.
I have also sent your request below for the passports which were submitted in support of your wife’s application to be returned to you. The submitted documents should be returned to you in the near future.

Thank you for your patience in this matter

Kind Regards,
Paula Scott
Senior Caseworker

This was therefore a little “Mini-Win” on this point…

The Emails to the Home Office Begin

My wife’s application for confirmation of her rights given by the ruling in the Zambrano case arrived at UKBA on the 15th Jan 2013.  We had heard nothing from UKBA since this date about my wife’s application.
We had been very patient up until this point.  Obviously the stresses of the entire case were building up… So after finding this out, I wrote a quick email to the European Department to check on the application….
The emails are as follows:

Subject: My wifes residence card / my passport / my daughters passport…
From: My @ Email
To: [email protected];
Date: Monday, 28 January 2013, 11:09
Dear Sir/Madam,
Your Ref: HO Ref: TXXXX / Port Ref: WMD/xxxxx
I am writing to you in relation to my wifes application under EEA2 for a family permit.
You have my passport, my daughters passport and various other documents with my wifes application. When are these documents due to be returned?
Also, When is the COA due to be issued for my wife?
I am also writing as my wife is expected to attend the West Midlands reporting centre on the first Thursday of each month. Our daughter attends nursery now, so this is not very practicable, as it would mean my child would need to miss her education so as to allow my wife to report.
For my wife to attend the reporting centre she needs to get a train to and from the reporting centre. The train takes an average of 1 or 2 hours each way. Perhaps there is something you would be able to do about this. I see from documentation in relation to reporting that such reporting is only necessary if the subject is a flight risk. This is not the case with my wife. We have a fixed family life.
I also see that a monthly reporting is the most that you can expect from my wife. I know for a fact that many people who are issued with an IS96 are required to report a lot less than this – most commonly 6 month intervals.
i see that you must try to make contact with family members should my wife fail to report. my wife has given UKBA permission to speak to myself on her behalf, yet the West Midlands reporting centre refuses to discuss anything with myself on her behalf. Please explain this?
Also the West Midlands reporting centre state that they can only discuss her case with “her solicitor”. This removes my wifes rights as an individual. In what part of legislation does it state that my wife needs a solicitor to speak on her behalf?
Mr P….


Subject: RE: My wifes residence card / my passport / my daughters passport…
From: Liverpool Euro Passport Returns ([email protected])
To: My @ Email
Date: Monday, 28 January 2013, 15:10

Good Afternoon,

In order that I may locate your application, please provide me with the Royal Mail tracking number of the package submitted.

Thank you

Subject: Re: My wifes residence card / my passport / my daughters passport…
From: My @ Email
To: [email protected];
Date: Tuesday, 29 January 2013, 4:40
Thank you for the response…
I am unsure as to why you require the Royal Mail tracking number… I provided you with the home office reference number…
What would happen if my documents were sent untracked?
All the same: XXXXX = Delivered 15.1.13
Further evidence has been provided in reference to my personal health issues. And authorisation has been granted for this to be confirmed with my doctor. I would be unable to care for my children full time without the help of my wife.  I also included a prescription list with recent medication listed.
Whilst I do currently work, I am finding it particularly difficult to continue in my current role – due to my increasing disability. My severe pains result in me having lots of restless nights, and end up dosing up on high amounts of codeine/ibroufen ETC. I do not wish to need to claim benefits, and my wife would be able to work – with no problems of finding employment should she be granted the right to work.
In addition to the above, my wife provides day to day care for myself. – I would not be able to care for my children on my own. I sleep at irregular times, and would often need to leave our very young (5 month old, and 3 year old) unattended so as to be able to rest.
Can you please confirm reciept of the application, and confirm that my wifes application is valid and whether any further documentation is required…
Subject: Re: My wifes residence card / my passport / my daughters passport…
From: My @ Email
To: [email protected];
Date: Monday, 4 February 2013, 12:07
I wrote to yourselves last week with regards to my passport, my daughters passport and various other documents. You simply need to copy these documents. Holding these documents hinders our rights under Free Movement. And the holding of our documents is not entirely necessary for the application to proceed. You simply need to verify the authenticity ETC.
I also refer to the COA which my wife recieved… I do not see how you cannot confirm my wifes right to work within the UK. Under EU law, you should confirm my wifes right to work, and confirm her derative rights whilst an application is in process.
Attached is a letter my wife sent to yourself on 2-2-13.
I am still awaiting a response to my mail from 28-1-13.
Wayne Pearsall.

Attached to this was this very simple letter, which was also posted on the 2nd Feb 13 upon receipt of a COA which did not confirm my wife’s right to work within the UK: [wifes name] [home address]
2nd Feb 2013

Dear Sir/Madam

RE: Certificate of Application

I am writing to you today in reply to your letter dated 29th Jan 2013 (Certificate of Application).

I am writing to query as to whether you have read my application and confirmed the details on my application form.

I notice from your letter that you have my name on your system incorrect.  My legal name is Mrs [Married Name] – as confirmed by the Marriage Certificate that you were sent along with my application.

I notice that you are unable to confirm my right to work within the UK at this stage.  Further down your letter are a section of three FAQ’s.  I draw your attention to the fact that none of the three sections of your FAQ refer to myself.

My children are BRITISH CITIZENS.  Not EU Citizens “excersising European free movement” as “a self sufficient person”.

You are well aware of my identification.  You hold a copy of my Indonesian passport, along with a copy of my marriage certificate.

Also, My family is not an “extended family” but direct relatives, and I again draw attention to the fact that my family are BRITISH CITIZENS.

Therefore, as per Directive 2004/38/EC you should confirm that I have the right to work within the UK.

Your FAQ’s do not apply to myself.


[signed] Mrs [WIFES NAME]


Subject: RE: My wifes residence card / my passport / my daughters passport…
From: Liverpool Euro Passport Returns ([email protected])
To: My @ Email
Date: Monday, 4 February 2013, 13:45

Good Afternoon,

In order that I may locate your application, Please provide me with the CID reference number.

Thank you



Subject: Re: RE: My wifes residence card / my passport / my daughters passport…
From: My @ Email
To: [email protected];
Date: Monday, 4 February 2013, 14:34
Did you read previous messages. And attaxhed letter. Amaazing that you always require some number to locate case… Last time was royal mail reference….Your Ref: HO Ref: XXXXSent from Yahoo! Mail on Android
Obviously, We received no further response to this… So we began waiting… until (see next post)

The Zambrano / Deriviative Rights Application

We had spoken to an immigration lawyer, and he had confirmed our three possible options:
1) Zambrano, which considering UKBA’s interpretation of the law was “Borderline” as I was a British Citizen.
2) Submit a further FLR(M) application and hope for the best – I NOTE: After reading, the application we need to use is FLR(O) < based on our children and the application being “OUTSIDE OF THE RULES!”
3) To use the Surinder Singh route of the EEA Free Movement Directive 2004/38/EC.  This route basically means: If a British Citizen is living in his home country he cannot rely on the terms of Directive 2004/38/EC as he has not invoked his right to free movement.  However, the case of Surinder Singh ruled that if a person was to work in another EEA Member State then he would be afforded all rights from the Directive upon his return to the country.  And therefore his spouse would be able to return to the country along with him.

As the EEA application was non chargeable we completed the TWO FORMS.
We completed form EEA2, and form DRF1.  In addition to this, my wife attached a letter outlining the needs of our youngest child being a baby etc.

We posted the Zambrano application off, using Special Next Day recorded delivery.

The ruling of Zambrano was that the primary carer of an EU citizen cannot be removed from the member state.  UKBA’s interpretation of this is that if there is another carer in the UK with an equal caring role, then the removal of the third country national would not force the EU citizen (British Citizen) to be removed from the EEA.

When submitting your application ensure to include all of the following:
Proof that the child is indeed British.
Proof of your relationship with the child.
Proof that you are the primary carer for the child.
= See above. This can include:
== Letters from the child’s school.
== Letters from the your doctor.
== Letters from the local SureStart centre.
== Letters from the priest at your local church that you attend on a regular basis.
== Ensure you establish why your removal will also remove the EU citizen from the UK.
= Include all of the possible evidence to show dependency upon yourself.  This includes:
== Emotional Dependency
== Financial Dependency
== Physical Dependency

Things to submit are Photographs of the children and parent together, a detailed letter from any local help services, gp’s etc which know you, or if you are (unlucky/lucky? enough) to have required a local authority to be involved with your case – their input also.

I once again refer you to this FOI response of 9th April 2013 (although further information is awaited):
Particularly Annex A and Annex F

Zambrano Application

So, after months of trying, and no success.  I got a little frustrated.  Knowing about the pending rules for Legal Aid removing support for both family and immigration cases.  I made a post on the following website: Immigration

I was given some info by Obie about Deriviate Residence under “Zambrano“.  I started to Google the term, and came up with no end of information on the “perceived” aspect and scope of Zambrano.

The particular thread that drew my attention was:

Along with the official UKBA website page:

I have made numerous Freedom of Information Requests on the subject, although most FOI requests to UKBA seem to go unanswered.

Here are a few that may be of use if you decide to apply via Zambrano:
Derivative Rights of Residence:

Section 55 of the Act:

Certificate of Application:

Considering United Nations Rights of the Child:

I will post a further thread later on with a detailed list of “Evidence” to submit along with your claim.

Refusal of FLR(m) Application

10th November 2010

We contacted Tyndallwoods Solicitors. Located in the McLaren Building in Birmingham.  (In hindsight I believe that this firm was useless).  We could of taken the refusal to Judicial Review, but they refused to do so.

Anyway, we (on the advice of Tyndallwoods) submitted a Human Rights application for an unmarried partner using form FLR(m).  On research the application should of infact been an FLR(o) on the basis of our child.
Below I quote the response from UKBA:
Your application has been refused for the reasons set out in the enclosed notices. Please ensure that these are passed to your client immediately.
Your application has been considered under the provisions of article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR). Although Article 8 of the ECHR provides the right to respect for private and family life, you should be aware that this does not constitute an absolute right. Article 8(2) permits the contracting state to interfere with the enjoyment of rights under this article provided that certain conditions are satisfied. Not every removal will amount to an “interference” with the right to respect for private and family life and the ECHR does not provide foreign nationals with the right to enter or remain in a particular country.
The operation of Article 8 in this case must be viewed in light of the United Kingdoms right to control the entry of foreign nationals into its territory and the necessity of fair and consistent immigration control as a legitimate public policy aim.
The House of Lords decision in Huang |20()7§ UKHL 11 has been considered.
In the case of Huang at paragraph 20, the House of Lords held that the ultimate question for the immigration appellate authority (and therefore the Secretary of State), when considering the judgment on proportionality in a decision involving a Convention question is: “whether the refusal of leave to enter or remain, in circumstances where the life of the family cannot reasonably be expected to be enjoyed elsewhere, taking full account of all considerations weighing in favour of the refusal, prejudices the family life of the applicant in a manner sufficiently serious to amount to a breach of the fundamental right protected by Article 8”.
The House of Lords decision in R v SSHD, Razgar KZGMJUKHL 27 has been considered.
In the case of Razgar it was not purporting to lay down a legal test but was expressing an expectation that the number of claiinants not covered by the Rules but entitled to succeed under Article 8 Would be a very small minority.

The issue of proportionality is to be assessed on the basis of all the relevant factors, balancing the rights of the individual on the one hand, and the rights of the wider community and the state on the other. However, the case law shows that the threshold for finding that a decision to remove is disproportionate is very high

In Razgar the House of Lords considered the circumstances in which removal in accordance with UK law could be rendered unlawful by reference to Article 8 ECHR.

At paragraph 20, Lord Bingham referred to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal determination in the case of Kacaj at paragraph 25: “although the [Convention] rights may be engaged, legitimate immigration control will almost certainly mean that derogation from the rights will be proper and will not be disproportionate”.

Lord Bingham further observed: “In the present case, the Court of Appeal had no doubt (paragraph 26 of its judgement) that this overstated the position. I respectfully consider the element of overstatements to be small. Decisions taken pursuant to the lawful operation of immigration control will be proportionate in all save a small minority of exceptional cases, identifiable only on a case by case basis”.

The case of Razgar makes it clear, therefore that it is only in an exceptional case that the decision to remove an applicant in the course of the lawful operation of immigration control would be disproportionate.

You have put forward no credible documentary evidence to suggest that your situation is exceptional, most compelling or compassionate. In assessing your case consideration has also been given to the 5 factors below: Do you have a family life in the United Kingdom? It is accepted that you may have established your private and family life in the United Kingdom. You entered the United Kingdom as a visitor on 04 May 2008 with visas valid for 6 months until O4 November 2008. You failed to regularise your stay until now. You established a relationship in full knowledge that you did not have valid leave to so and that the fact that you would have to return to Indonesia at some point. Any relationships developed can still be maintained through modern means of communication.

There are no compelling reasons as to why your unmarried partner and your daughter cannot return with you to Indonesia. It is also noted however, that you continued to established your private and family life while you illegally overstayed, making no effort to regularise your immigration status in the United Kingdom until 20th May 2010.

Given the existence of a family life will removal interfere with that family life? It is asserted that there will be limited interference with your private and family life as you will be returning to Indonesia. It is further affirmed that you are aged 29 and able to

relocate in Indonesia. Any skills you have obtained in the United Kingdom can be used to support yourself in Indonesia.

Is any interference with the family life in accordance with the law? It is considered that any interference to your family life will be limited, proportionate and in accordance with the law.

Is the interference in pursuit of one of the permissible aims set out under Article 8(2)? A person’s rights under Article 8 are quali?ed by the provisions of paragraph 8(2). ‘There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others’.

Is the interference proportionate to the permissible aim? Taking into account the factors addressed above, it is considered that any interference is proportionate because you will be reunited back to Indonesia, your place of birth and any interference is liinited as your relocation to Indonesia will be temporary.

Your case has also been considered in the light of the House of Lords decisions in the cases of Chikwamba [2008] UKHL 40, which addressed the issue of the lawfulness of the Secretary of State’s policy that people relying on Article 8 ECHR should leave the United Kingdom in order to make an entry clearance application, and Beoku-Betts [2008] UKHL 39, which dealt with the issue of whether and to what extent the human rights of third party family members should he considered by the Asylum and Imniigration Tribunal.

It is not considered that you benefit from the cited House of Lords’ judgments. In the case of Chikwamba, the appellant’s husband was a national of Zimbabwe and had been granted refugee status in the United Kingdom. He was therefore unable to accompany his wife back to Zimbabwe.

However, in your case, no evidence has been provided to show that by returning to Indonesia you could not maintain ties with members of your family who continue to reside in the United Kingdom through modern channels of communication. This consideration also takes into account the decision in Beoko-Betts.

In Beoku-Betts the appellant was appealing against removal to a country where there was political civil unrest at the tiine he ?ed, this was accepted. He entered the UK legally and was granted 12 months leave to enter as a student. His older sister was a British Citizen who has been living here since 1993. His father registered as a British Citizen in May 1998. His mother and younger sister were granted indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom in 1998. Members of the family were either in lawful employment or education.  It was accepted by the adjudicator that the appellant resided with his mother and younger sister, therefore accepting a family life. In addition it was accepted that his family could not reasonably be expected to travel with him.

However, in your case, you have remained in the United Kingdom without basis of stay following the expiration of your leave in which you continued to establish your private and family life, while you unlawfully overstayed.

We therefore, conclude that there are significant differences between the speci?cs of the above case and the circumstances of your case. Under section 82 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, there is no right of appeal against a refusal to grant leave to a person who had no leave at the time of their application. In view of the fact you have failed to show that you had valid leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom when you made your application, you are not entitled to appeal against this decision. If you have evidence that you had valid leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom at the time of your application you should submit that evidence immediately.

Your application for leave to remain in the United Kingdom has been refused and you no longer have any known basis of stay here. There is no right of appeal against this refusal.  You must now make arrangements to leave the country. You can contact the UKBA office at Midlands Enforcement Unit, Sandford House, 41 Homer Road, Solihull, B91 3QJ on 0121 713 3229 who can help you with these arrangements. Yours sincerely,

Suma Arnin ICC2

UKBA Loose Confidential Information and Shrug it off!


My wife went to a reporting event on 1st July 2010.  UKBA had already obtained her valid passport.  However, my wife did not have her IS96 letter with her so was told that she would be marked as failing to attend a reporting event, as they could not admit her without identification.
My wife did however have another Indonesian passport with her.  The previous passport to the current one that she had travelled with.  She handed it to the Reporting Centre manager to confirm her identification.
The passport at this point was then retained!
After numerous requests for the return of this document. nothing happened.  Until the following letter was received from UKBA:
UKBA Lost Passport

UKBA Come Knocking

On the evening of 22nd Feb 2010, I returned home late in the evening.  My neighbour came over to myself and informed me that a load of police officers had been at my door at approximately 6pm and were there for about two hours.
I was certain at this point that they must of had the wrong address…  However, about 6AM the following morning (23-2-10), the whole house (and perhaps the whole street) was woken by a bunch of UKBA staff hammering at my door.
Although I was in a bit of a daze to actually realise what had happened I opened the door, at which point one of the guys barged past me almost sending me flying… (I was even at this point still a hefty guy)…
The staff who came to my home were rude, agreesive and your typical bunch of egits…  I went upstairs to my wife, and they attempted to barge their way into our bedroom. – obviously, my wife was in their with our very young child (five months old).  I did at this point warn the guy to go down stairs or I would knock him down the stairs.
At this point my wife was subjected to finger printing ETC.
She was issued with the following documents:
1) IS96 – This stated that my wife was being issued with “Temporary Admission but was still liable to be detained”
2) IS151A – This form outlined that my wife was a person liable to removal.  It outlined in the specific reasons: “You were issued with a visit visa for the UK. You have remained in the UK after the expiry of your visa and have therefore failed to observe a condition of your leave to enter.  You have overstayed within the UK in breach of sec 10 (1(a)) of the Immigration Act 1971.
The IS96 document also noted the following:
a) You are a person who is liable to be detailed
b) X You MUST reside at the address shown above
X You MUST report to an immigration officer at the Midlands Enforcement Unit (address above)        on (date) at (time)        and then (EVERY MONTH)
As we had already been in contact with numerous Immigration Solcitors we immediately got on the telephone to them.

Your guidance resource to applying the 'Surinder Singh Route' to your case.