- BY Colin Yeo
10-year lawful residence rule requires 10 years’ lawful residence, says tribunal
THANKS FOR READING
Older content is locked
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
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
If there is no ten years continuous, lawful residence for the purposes of para 276B(i)(a) of the Immigration Rules, an applicant cannot rely on para 276B(v) to argue that any period of overstaying (for the purposes of 276B(i)(a)) should be disregarded. Para 276B(v) involves a freestanding and additional requirement over and above 276B(i)(a).
Hard to understand why this one has been reported as it is clarification no-one else needed. R (Ahmed) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (para 276B – ten years lawful residence) [2019] UKUT 10 (IAC) also includes the novel argument that if permission is granted in an application for judicial review of a clearly unfounded certificate, that is determinative of the case because the grant of permission must mean the case is arguable.
SHARE
