The Secretary of State for the Home Department v Have Rexhaj
[2024] EWCA Civ 784
Tanjina Siddiqa v Entry Clearance Officer
14 March 2024
[2024] EWCA Civ 248
Court of Appeal
A woman applied to come to the UK to join her brother who was an EU citizen. She used the wrong application form. The court said she should have used a different form and because she didn't, her application was correctly refused. Even though the rules were difficult, and the transition period from leaving the EU made it extra complicated, she had to follow the rules properly.
Key Facts
- •Tanjina Siddiqa (Ms Siddiqa), a Bangladeshi national, applied for an EU Settlement Scheme (EUSS) family permit to enter the UK on December 7, 2020, to join her brother, an EU citizen.
- •Ms Siddiqa's application was refused because she did not meet the EUSS criteria.
- •Ms Siddiqa argued that the Entry Clearance Officer (ECO) should have treated her application as an application under the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2016 (2016 Regulations), which had different criteria.
- •Ms Siddiqa subsequently obtained a skilled worker visa and entered the UK.
- •The case involved interpretation of the Withdrawal Agreement and the 2016 Regulations.
Legal Principles
The Withdrawal Agreement must be interpreted in good faith, in accordance with the ordinary meaning of its terms, in their context, and in light of its objects and purpose.
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969, Articles 31 and 32
Member states have wide discretion in implementing Article 3(2) of the Citizens' Rights Directive, as long as it amounts to facilitation and there is a judicial remedy.
Rahman v Secretary of State for the Home Department Case C-83/11 [2013] QB 249
Article 18 of the Withdrawal Agreement sets out conditions for issuance of residence documents, including obligations to help applicants prove eligibility and avoid errors, and provides for judicial redress.
Withdrawal Agreement, Article 18
Applicants are expected to make proper applications, and the Secretary of State is not obligated to consider applications other than those made.
R(Behary) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] EWCA Civ 702
Article 10(3) of the Withdrawal Agreement applies to persons whose residence was facilitated before the end of the transition period, even if the decision came after.
Celik v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2023] EWCA Civ 921
Outcomes
The appeal was dismissed.
Ms Siddiqa did not make an application under the 2016 Regulations for an EEA family permit; her application was properly treated under the EUSS scheme and refused; Article 18 of the Withdrawal Agreement did not apply; and articles 10(3) and (5) were not infringed.
Similar Cases
Secretary of State for the Home Department v MD & Ors
[2024] UKUT 64 (IAC)
Secretary of State for the Home Department v Elson Allaraj
[2023] UKUT 277 (IAC)
Halil Celik v Secretary of State for the Home Department
[2023] EWCA Civ 921
Shaun Emambux v Secretary of State for the Home Department
[2024] EWCA Civ 1459