The Court of Appeal dealt with the potential limitations to rights of a durable partner of EU citizens in the case of Secretary of State for the Home Department v Christy [2018] EWCA Civ 2378.
Background
The respondent, Ms Christy, is a US national who established what in EU law parlance is called a “durable relationship” with a UK national, Mr Jones, while they were both living in Poland. Mr Jones exercised his treaty rights by working in a school while Ms Christry had a right of residence under Poland’s domestic immigration rules and further had no need to seek to rely on any rights she might have as the durable partner of an EU citizen.
[textblock color=”#6D4281″]Our expert immigration lawyers have an up-to-date knowledge of all current EEA legislation and can help you to understand all the options available to you before and after. Contact us on 0203 909 8399 or use our online enquiry form to learn more about EEA Permanent Residence.[/textblock]
The main issue on this appeal relates to the conditions under which such a right of facilitation arises. Ms Christy claims that in the circumstances of the present case such a right of facilitation has arisen for her benefit, which the Secretary of State has failed to honour. The appellant Secretary of State contends that no such right of facilitation has arisen. Therefore, it was argued that they did not have to consider her application in this way.
Conclusion
Further to the case of Banger (Unmarried Partner of British National) [2017] UKUT 125 (IAC), the case of Christy confirms Surinder Singh’s applicability to extended family members. In ChristyHome office made an attempt to circumvent Surinder Singh’s applicability on extended family members in the hope of getting around the decision of O and B v Minister voor Immigratie, Integratie en Asiel ; [2014] QB 1163 (“O and B”) and Secretary of State for the Home Department v Banger, (“Banger”).
Upon analysing EU law and relevant judgments, Lord Justice Sales did not allow Home Office’s arguments to stand. This means the decision of Banger still stands, and it is correct to say that EFM’s are entitled to a right of appeal.
Home Office is yet to incorporate the Judgement of Banger in its policy guidance
