Updates, commentary, training and advice on immigration and asylum law
Useful case for partners of refugees seeking entry
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
In the fine case of Fetle (Partners: two year requirement)  UKUT 00267 (IAC) the Upper Tribunal holds that the requirement in paragraph 352AA for partners of refugees seeking entry clearance for living together in a relationship akin to either a marriage or a civil partnership which has subsisted for two years or more is not the same as the two year cohabitation requirement in the main spouse and partner rules in Appendix FM. The official headnote reads:
In contrast to the requirement of para GEN 1.2(iv) of Appendix FM, a requirement (such as in paragraph 352AA of the Immigration Rules) that “parties have been living together in a relationship akin to either a marriage or a civil partnership which has subsisted for two years or more” does not require two years cohabitation, but two years subsistence of the relationship. Whether the relationship still subsists, as required by the tense of that requirement and as may be separately required, is a different issue.
We find a nice bit of common sense at paragraph 9:
There may, we remind ourselves, be a number of reasons why a couple, whether married or unmarried, do not in fact live together: the demands of employment maybe such a reason; so may a need to flee the country. Such factors do not necessarily destroy a relationship, which may continue to subsist despite the separation.
This is not sufficient to save the particular appellant, however. Despite this interpretation being more liberal than that contended for by the Home Office, the appeal is dismissed on the facts.