Home Office refuses Surinder Singh case because applicant knows law
This just in from the marvellous BritCits:
Furthermore, you have provided a detailed covering letter explaining why you qualify for an EEA Family Permit under Regulation 9. You have quoted case law and the rules concerning how long someone can work in a member state and qualify under Regulation 9. It is clear from this letter that you and your British spouse have gone to extensive lengths to understand fully Regulation 9 of the EEA Regulations which suggests that your reason for living in the France is merely to qualify under the Surinder Singh provision and to circumvent the Settlement procedure.
It is a word for word extract from a refusal of an application to enter the UK in reliance on Regulation 9 of the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006 and the case of Surinder Singh. The really remarkable bit is the conflation of going to extensive lengths to understand fully the law (which is undoubtedly complex) and deliberately seeking to break or evade it. These days, only an immigration official would assume that a taste of the Forbidden Fruit of Knowledge must mean… Guilt.
I’ve written before on this type of refusal (Abuse of EU law and Surinder Singh). Perhaps I should add “knowing the law” to the list of risk factors.
In the Surinder Singh ebook I repeatedly emphasise that knowing your rights and realising your rights are quite different when it comes to immigration officialdom. As the refusal above shows, immigration officers have huge powers, vivid imaginations yet small minds. Whether you are in the right or not, antagonising them risks refusal, detention and high legal costs. Ever since I complimented an Immigration Officer on his uniform, shortly after they were introduced, my wife has insisted on holding the passports and doing the talking when we pass through immigration control…
Purchase Surinder Singh ebook: