Updates, commentary, training and advice on immigration and asylum law

Facebook Twitter Linkedin Rss
Hubs / EU Free Movement / New policies, processes and fo ...

New policies, processes and forms for EU nationals show hardening Home Office position

THANKS FOR READING

Older content is locked

Already a member sign in here

A great deal of time and effort goes into producing the information on Free Movement, become a member of Free Movement to get unlimited access to all articles, and much, much more

UNLOCK ACCESS

TAKE FREE MOVEMENT FURTHER

By becoming a member of Free Movement, you not only support the hard-work that goes into maintaining the website, but get access to premium features;

  • Single login for personal use
  • FREE downloads of Free Movement ebooks
  • Access to all Free Movement blog content
  • Access to all our online training materials
  • Access to our busy forums
  • Downloadable CPD certificates
UNLOCK ACCESS

A raft of new Home Office policies and forms for EU and EEA nationals was released in early February, along with significant changes to the online application process. These changes accompany the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2016, which took effect for all applications from 1 February 2017.

I have been holding off writing up these changes to await expected new versions of the EEA(PR) and EEA(FM) forms but at the time of writing there was still no sign of these.

Hardening position on EU spouses and others

The hardening of position by the Home Office is over the status of EU nationals who live in the UK but do not have an EU right of residence or permanent residence. This includes many EU national spouses of British citizens. Why the Home Office is choosing now of all times to make such people unwelcome and even criminalize them is a complete mystery. It is cruel, unnecessary and almost certainly unlawful.

The latest version of the internal guidance to Home Office officials, European Economic Area (EEA) and Swiss nationals: free movement rights, published on 1 February 2017, says that such people are resident in breach of immigration laws:

Colette, a Belgian citizen, came to the UK for a holiday in August 2003 but then remained without permission or entitlement under community law. Any residence in the UK after her entitlement under community law came to an end was residence in breach of the immigration laws.

The position seems to be that an EU national has no right to be in the UK after three months of entry unless the EU national becomes a “qualified person” by working, being self employed or being self sufficient or a student in possession of comprehensive sickness insurance. Such as many spouses of British citizen who have not worked or been self employed for a continuous period of five years.

According to the new hardline Home Office guidance, such a person will be barred from naturalisation as a British citizen on good character grounds and logically would also be committing a criminal offence and be liable to up to 6 months in prison.

I suspect that the tougher approach is aimed at A8 and A2 nationals who are thought to be street homeless. There has been a dramatic increase in detentions and removals of this group, and some reports of others being caught up in the same scheme.

I really do not think the Home Office has thought through the logic and effect of its position on this, though. A very wide net has been cast and there is considerable bycatch. It seems unlikely that this approach would in fact be adopted against the spouse of a British citizen, but that just goes to show how legally weak and discriminatory the Home Office position really is.

Articles 20 and 21 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union provide that “Every citizen of the Union shall have the right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States…” Article 5 of Directive 2004/38/EC provides for an explicit right of admission in EU law. The “right of residence” is an additional right to acquire permanent residence, claim benefits and be accompanied by family members. Unless there are public interest reasons for excluding a person, such as because they claim benefits or commit crimes, an EU national can obviously be lawfully present in the territory of another Member State even without a formal right of residence.

If that isn’t an enforceable EU law right then I don’t know what is.

However, the Home Office hardening of position is evident elsewhere as well. In the latest regulations, the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2016, the Home Office has adopted a new power to curtail the right of entry and physical presence in the UK of EU nationals. Accompanying new guidance on misuse of rights and verification of EEA rights of residence includes a whole section on EEA nationals “who may be engaging in conduct intended to circumvent the requirement to be a qualified person.”

Updated guidance

[ebook 28672]

The full list of updated guidance as at 22 February 2017 was as follows:

The new guidance on process and procedure confirms that EU law applications made on or after 1 February 2017 must now be made on the long and complex forms provided by the Home Office or by using the online application process.

You can see the emphasis here in these updates on removals, deportation, misuse and verification. Meanwhile, virtually nothing has been done to make the process simpler, easier or clearer or to clarify ambiguities in a way that helps anyone. Indeed, the Home Office recently confirmed to the author in a Freedom of Information request that there is no additional guidance on what does or does not count as “comprehensive” sickness insurance.

Updated forms

The updated forms are as follows:

At the time of writing there was still no update to the main forms, the EEA(PR) and the EEA (QP), although the online application process for these application types had been noticeably improved (see below).

Updated online process

[application]

The online application process for a residence or permanent residence document has been updated in two important ways:

  1. Family members can now be included in the online process for applying for residence and permanent residence documents

  2. A full list of all absences from the UK does not now have to be included in the online application process.

  3. Periods of employment can be proven with just P60s and these will be treated as proving the continuous residence requirement as well, reducing the need to submit reams and reams of paperwork.

Instead of asking for every single trip abroad the equivalent question is now:

Time outside the UK

Have you spent more than 6 months outside the UK in total in any one year since you arrived in the UK?

Yes / No

To calculate time out of the UK, do not include the day you left the UK or returned to the UK. For example, if you were absent from the UK between 1 January 2014 and 31 January 2014, this means you were out of the UK for 29 days (2 January to 30 January inclusive).

Include single trips lasting over 6 months and multiple trips if these added up to more than 6 months in any one year

If relying on a period of employment, the process now asks, after details for the employer and salary have been entered:

Evidence of employment with a UK employer

If the employment details that you have provided cover your continuous 5-year qualifying period, can you provide P60 tax certificates from your UK employer(s) for this whole period?

Yes / No / Not applicable

Your ‘qualifying period’ can be any continuous five-year period where you’ve been in the UK and exercising your Treaty rights (in this case, working). If you can provide P60 tax certificates, this will save you from having to provide other evidence of living in the UK, such as utility bills or bank statements.

These changes to the application process are welcome developments, particularly for those relying on periods of employment. Items 3 and 4 in my list of eight improvements the Home Office can and should make right now to the process have been implemented, at least online. It is to be hoped that the simplification will also be extended to a new paper version of the EEA(PR).

SHARE
Facebook-f Twitter Linkedin Envelope
Relevant articles chosen for you
Solicitor who failed to lodge client’s immigration application struck off
Genuine visitor: relevant and irrelevant considerations
Appeals and the Immigration Bill
EU children can be lawfully resident in the UK without exercising treaty rights
Colin Yeo

Colin Yeo

Immigration and asylum barrister, blogger, writer and consultant at Garden Court Chambers in London and founder of the Free Movement immigration law website.
View All Posts By Colin Yeo

Comments

3 Responses

  1. “Include single trips lasting over 6 months and multiple trips if these added up to more than 6 months in any one year” – does this mean any period of 365 consecutive days, or any calendar year? The Legal or Civil (or Christian) year has 365 or 366 days, but the Muslim calendar has 354 or 355 days with the New Year drifting through the seasons, and there are several significant other calendars. Perhaps the interpretation of this wording is already defined elsewhere, if not it should be made more future-proof and less likely to challenge.

    When I filled EEA(PR) for my wife last year I listed 175 trips outside UK over 50 years giving exact dates. In two cases I am working on now I decided to contrive the dates of 38 trips to closely accord with the clients’ memory (as they had no records) and then explain what had been done in a covering letter. Without this stratagem it would have been impossible to complete the online form – which requires a day-of-month for each departure and arrival.

    Fortunately when I retrieved the cases today online for editing I found that the entire list of visits had now been dropped, much to my relief, and replaced by the new question. I also note that only the month and year of employment start and stop are now needed, not the precise dates.

    Several of my clients are retired and, at first, I thought that we could use the easy-to-prove five years’ self-sufficiency route to PR as they were more than ten years away from their retirement. Then I discovered the issue of non-acceptance of the NHS (despite a 2006 Directive to several countries.
    This is one of your ‘eight points’ and I hope that it too can be resolved while
    we still have a voice. Some of these clients have British children and British grandchildren, they would like a path to becoming British too

    I’m sure that Free Movement must take much of the credit for persuading the Home Office to see common sense – keep up the good work!

  2. These four new free e-book application guides could not have been
    more timely, just after the Home Office have made significant changes
    and probably just before further increases in applications as the word
    spreads.

    The date of publication, February 24, is auspicious as it was the start of a short period before the start of the Roman new year, Kalends of March (March 1st), when the unfinished administrative business of the previoue year (ending December 31) was being tidied up. Pope Gregory XIII published his Papal Bull (entitled Inter Gravissimus …) concerning calendar reform on that day in 1582, and that date remained the intercalary day (betweeen calendar years) for the new Gregorian calendar. In leap years there were two days A.D.VI.Kal.Mar (six days, counting inclusively, before the Kalends of March), which is why a leap year is called ‘bissextile’ e.g.
    in the Book of Common Prayer. Many countries still maintain day 55,
    February 24, as the leap day – so, for example, the Feast of Saint Matthias is moved from February 24 to 25 in a leap year. Generally it remained unchanged because ‘no-one knew who, apart from the Pope, was competent to move it’, or nobody was brave enough to try. In 1982 I proposed to the Editors of the Swedish and Finnish Almanacs that from year 2000 they move Skottdagen (Swedish) Karkauspäivä (Finnish) to February 29, and this was done.

    I like the covers of the guides, but the Student cover highlights a little irritation in the use of the EU flag in your documentation. All twelve stars (‘mullets’) should have the uppermost point pointing directly upward. Sometimes we see the points radiating from the centre, this is wrong. If the lowermost point is pointing directly down the flag is being flown upside down, but even fewer notice this than with the Union Flag.