Links

FOI Request for definition of ‘centre of life’ for immigration purposes

Read more of this request here: FOI Request for definition of ‘centre of life’ for immigration purposes

From: European Operational Policy Enquiries
Home Office

1 May 2014

Dear Mr Hook,

Thank you for your email of 4th February to the Home Office Freedom of Information team. Please accept my apologies for the considerable delay in responding. This is due to an administrative oversight on our part.

For convenience, I have decided to consider your email as a general enquiry, rather than as a request for information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, since we do not hold any specific guidance on the question you have asked.

I can confirm that the phrase ‘centre of life’ does not occur within the UK’s domestic Immigration Rules and there is no equivalent phrase therein covering the same criteria. The ‘centre of life’ test is specific to regulation 9 of the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006. I previously released guidance to you on how we apply that test (in response to FOI request 30271).

I trust this has clarified matters and I apologise once again for the delay in responding to you.

Kind regards,

P. Grant
European Operational Policy Team
Immigration & Border Policy Directorate
Home Office

FOI Request for definition of 'centre of life' for immigration purposes

Read more of this request here: FOI Request for definition of ‘centre of life’ for immigration purposes

From: European Operational Policy Enquiries
Home Office

1 May 2014

Dear Mr Hook,

Thank you for your email of 4th February to the Home Office Freedom of Information team. Please accept my apologies for the considerable delay in responding. This is due to an administrative oversight on our part.

For convenience, I have decided to consider your email as a general enquiry, rather than as a request for information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, since we do not hold any specific guidance on the question you have asked.

I can confirm that the phrase ‘centre of life’ does not occur within the UK’s domestic Immigration Rules and there is no equivalent phrase therein covering the same criteria. The ‘centre of life’ test is specific to regulation 9 of the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006. I previously released guidance to you on how we apply that test (in response to FOI request 30271).

I trust this has clarified matters and I apologise once again for the delay in responding to you.

Kind regards,

P. Grant
European Operational Policy Team
Immigration & Border Policy Directorate
Home Office

Surinder Singh for Extended Family Members

Read more of this request here: Surinder Singh for Extended Family Members

International and Immigration
0207 035 4848
Policy Group
(switchboard)
Home Office
www.homeoffice.gov.uk
2 Marsham Street
London
SW1P 4DF
Sarah Goode
By email : request-196403-
[email address]

4 March 2014
Dear Sarah,

FOI Request 30645

Thank you for your email of 07 February, in which you ask for the following information:

“Can you please provide myself with information that you hold on assessing Surinder Singh Route
applications from unmarried partners, or any other extended family member that may live as part of my
household such as my 14 year old brother who I have played a role of mother to for the past six years.”

Your request has been handled as a request for information under the Freedom of Information Act
2000.

The provisions set out in regulation 9 of the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006
(as amended), which gives effect to the determination of the Court of Justice of the European Union in
the case of C-370/90 (Surinder Singh) apply only to family members of British citizens.

The relevant definition of „family member‟ is that set out in regulation 7, which is as follows:

(a) his spouse or his civil partner;
(b) direct descendants of his, his spouse or his civil partner who are —
(i)
under 21; or
(ii)
dependants of his, his spouse or his civil partner;
(c)
dependent direct relatives in his ascending line or that of his spouse or his civil
partner;
(d)
a person who is to be treated as the family member of that other person under
paragraph (3).

Persons who do not fal within the definition of „family member‟ as set out above are therefore outside
of the scope of regulation 9 and cannot rely on this provision for a right of residence in the UK.

As this provision is not available to persons who fal within the definition of „extended family members‟
as set out in regulation 8, the Home Office does not hold any information relating to assessing
applications from such persons.


If you are dissatisfied with this response you may request an independent internal review of our
handling of your request by submitting a complaint within two months to the address below, quoting
reference 30645. If you ask for an internal review, it would be helpful if you could say why you are
dissatisfied with the response.

Information Access Team
Home Office
Ground Floor, Seacole Building
2 Marsham Street
London SW1P 4DF
e-mail: [email address]

As part of any internal review the Department’s handling of your information request will be reassessed
by staff who were not involved in providing you with this response. If you remain dissatisfied after this
internal review, you would have a right of complaint to the Information Commissioner as established by
section 50 of the Freedom of Information Act.

Yours sincerely

R Murphy
European Operational Policy Team
Home Office


Surinder Singh for Dual British / Irish Citizens

Read more of this request here: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/surinder_singh_for_dual_british

From: European Operational Policy Enquiries
Home Office

13 January 2014

Dear Mr Singh,

Thank you for your email of 28 December to the Home Office Freedom of Information team regarding the Surinder Singh provisions under European Union law and how they apply to dual British/Irish citizens. Your query has been passed to the European Operational Policy Team for a response. We are treating your request as a general enquiry rather than as a request for specific information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

You have asked for “any guidance, legislation or otherwise which might outline a prevention of a dual Irish/British national from benefiting from the case of Surinder Singh via Ireland”. I have interpreted this to mean whether a dual British/Irish citizen can rely on the judgment in Surinder Singh when moving to the UK after a period of residence in Ireland as a worker or self-employed person. Please let me know if this is incorrect.

The Home Office has not produced any guidance on this specific subject. However, in the case of Shirley McCarthy (case C-434/09), the Court of Justice of the European Union ruled that Directive 2004/38/EC (‘the Free Movement Directive’) is not applicable to a Union citizen who has never exercised his right of free movement, who has always resided in a Member State of which he is a national and who is also a national of another Member State.

You can view a summary of the McCarthy case at the link below:
http://www.eulaws.eu/?p=323

The ruling itself can be found at the following page:
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexU…

The UK interprets this judgment to mean that a dual British/Irish citizen cannot rely on their Irish citizenship to exercise free movement rights in the UK (and so bring in family members under EU law). Similarly, the same person cannot rely on their British citizenship to exercise free movement rights in Ireland. In both situations, the person would be residing in a Member State of which they are a national and in which they enjoy an unconditional right to reside. Consequently, a dual British/Irish citizen moving from Ireland to the UK would not be able to be able to invoke the judgment in Surinder Singh in order to engage family reunification rights, because their residence in Ireland would not have been covered by the Free Movement Directive.

There is, of course, nothing to prevent a British/Irish citizen from exercising their free movement rights in a Member State of which they are not a national and relying on Surinder Singh on their return to the UK (or Ireland, as the case may be).

I hope this has clarified the Home Office’s position.

Your sincerely,

European Operational Policy Team
Operational Policy & Rules Unit
Immigration & Border Policy Directorate
Home Office

Level 5 | Vulcan House (Steel) | 8 Millsands | Sheffield | S3 8NU

 

A Rough Guide to Filming the Police during a Stop and Search

On the 8th August 2013, I submitted a FOI request due to the possibility of being classed as a Terrorist for filming / photographic police officers ETC. – Section 58A of the Terrorism Act 2000 (to date, I’ve still recieved no response).  I noticed that another user on What Do They Know has also submitted a request regarding filming: Filming Constables in a Public Place.

It is from this second request that I have came across the link: A rough guide to filiming the police during a stop and search. A nice useful article, that many people should read and take the advice of. Even more so with the recent Stop and Search by the Home Office of “Immigration Offenders”.

Best interests of the child and the Dublin System (C-648/11)

I just read an interesting Article on the European Law Blog website in regards to yet another Best Interests of the Child decision (Case C-648/11).  Well worth a read… But to sumarise… Its YET ANOTHER declaration that a child’s best interests must be of ‘Primary Consideration’…

‘guided by the primary consideration of the child’s best interests (Article 24(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’))’

As well as other various references…

As highlighted in the case ….

Article 24 of the Charter is based on the New York Convention on the Rights of the Child signed on 20 November 1989 and ratified by all the Member States, Article 3 of which provides that, ‘[i]n all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration’.

 

Best interests of the child and the Dublin System (C-648/11) – See more at: http://europeanlawblog.eu/?p=1877#sthash.UtkXpyWA.dpuf