Looks impossible to settle back in the UK

[Terpe]

robbo don,t forget there is another route into the u.k called the surringer singh route ,all you need to do is apply for shenghan visa in france or another e.u country stay for 3 months and a new rule has just come out that you don,t even need to work .you then apply for family permit for your wife to exercise your treaty rights job done and the visa is FREE .

The UK regulations make it somewhat longer and more complicated that just staying for 3 months.
There's certainly no new rule that I'm aware of saying there's no need to work.

It's not an easy decision but it is a potential work-around for some.

[tiger31]

The UK regulations make it somewhat longer and more complicated that just staying for 3 months.
There's certainly no new rule that I'm aware of saying there's no don't need to work.

It's not an easy decision but it is a potential work-around for some.

Thats because its only just become active last week terpe .I am in a group that keeps upto date with all new rules and regulations regarding free movement of european citizens its very imformative and is keeping teresa may on her toes thats for sure .you can even bring grand parents in the S.S ROUTE as dependants

[Terpe]

Thats because its only just become active last week terpe .I am in a group that keeps upto date with all new rules and regulations regarding free movement of european citizens its very imformative and is keeping teresa may on her toes thats for sure .you can even bring grand parents in the S.S ROUTE as dependants

Might be that we're all thinking along different lines.

It's not necessary to be employed for an EU citizen to exercise freedom of movement rights
to freely move to EU member countries.
It's not necessary either for the Non-EEA family member in order to secure a Schengen Visa.

The OP could move to France say with his partner without a job or accommodation.

The issue though is how to follow the EEA route (Surinder Singh) to UK.
To gain legal entry to UK they would need to meet the UK regulations.
In principle means employed or self employed to meet treaty rights.

[joebloggs]

Might be that we're all thinking along different lines.

It's not necessary to be employed for an EU citizen to exercise freedom of movement rights
to freely move to EU member countries.
It's not necessary either for the Non-EEA family member in order to secure a Schengen Visa.

The OP could move to France say with his partner without a job or accommodation.

The issue though is how to follow the EEA route (Surinder Singh) to UK.
To gain legal entry to UK they would need to meet the UK regulations.
In principle means employed or self employed to meet treaty rights.

each EU country may have their own interpretation of regulations of the Surinder singh route,

http://www.freemovement.org.uk/surin...gration-route/

what the EU courts have decided.

1. A residence period of three months is required (para 54)

2. Weekend visits and holidays do not count as residence for this purpose (para 59)

3. Any citizen of the Union can potentially benefit from this right, not just workers and the self employed (references to Article 7 of Citizens Directive 2004/38 , e.g. para 56, and to Article 21 of the TFEU, e.g. para 54)

4. During the period of residence family life must have been “created or strengthened” (para 51)

5. Abuse is impermissible (para 58)

but the UK's Gov interpretation is ..

UK Government’s interpretation of Surinder Singh

The UK Government’s official interpretation of the effect of Surinder Singh is set out in the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006 at regulation 9 (as amended):

(1) If the conditions in paragraph (2) are satisfied, these Regulations apply to a person who is the family member of a British citizen as if the British citizen (“P”) were an EEA national.

(2) The conditions are that–

(a) P is residing in an EEA State as a worker or self-employed person or was so residing before returning to the United Kingdom;
(b) if the family member of P is P’s spouse or civil partner, the parties are living together in the EEA State or had entered into the marriage or civil partnership and were living together in the EEA State before the British citizen returned to the United Kingdom; and
(c) the centre of P’s life has transferred to the EEA State where P resided as a worker or self-employed person.

(3) Factors relevant to whether the centre of P’s life has transferred to another EEA State include–

(a) the period of residence in the EEA State as a worker or self-employed person;
(b) the location of P’s principal residence;
(c) the degree of integration of P in the EEA State.

(4) Where these Regulations apply to the family member of P, P is to be treated as holding a valid passport issued by an EEA State for the purpose of the application of regulation 13 to that family member.

Essentially, if the conditions in this paragraph are met then the British citizen will be treated by the UK Government as an EU citizen and can rely on the family reunion rules that apply to EU citizens.

However, it can be seen immediately that the ‘centre of life’ test has no place in the new case of O v The Netherlands. It is clear that the UK will have to amend the regulations, which are incompatible with EU law. That may take many months or even years, and in the meantime Home Office officials and immigration tribunal judges will have to apply O v The Netherlands directly.

Centre of life test

Until guidance is forthcoming from the Home Office addressed to its own officials, it is likely that decisions will apply the legally wrong UK regulations.

[Terpe]

...the new case of O v The Netherlands.

This is the case that causes concern for many now.

The UK government so far refuses to make changes.......means that applicants will need to go through the completely unecessary cost and inconvenience of appeals and have the immigration 'judge' overview any refusal by UKVI