Tribunal decisions

The decision

IAC-AH-DP-V1

Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: EA/04674/2016

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Heard at Field House
Decision & Reasons Promulgated
On 19 January 2017
On 9 February 2017

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE KING TD

Between

MR SALAR SAID

Appellant
and

THE Secretary of State FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT

Respondent

Representation:

For the Appellant: In person
For the Respondent: Mr I Jarvis, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

DECISION AND REASONS

1. The appellant is a citizen of Sweden, born on 17 February 1971. He sought a permanent residence card on the basis that he was an EEA national who had resided in the United Kingdom in accordance with the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006 for a period of five years.

2. The respondent refused the application on 12 April 2016. This was on the basis that the appellant had not resided continuously for a period five years according to the Regulations because he did not have the comprehensive sickness insurance cover in the United Kingdom when a student as required by reason of Regulation 4(1)(d)(ii).

3. The appellant sought to appeal against that decision, which appeal came before First-tier Tribunal Judge Robson on 29 June 2016. It was an appeal decided upon the papers.

4. The Judge found that the appellant had worked from 25 September 2008 until October 2010 when he embarked upon a course at Middlesex University lasting until January 2012. He passed his Master of Arts Degree on 7 March 2012.

5. The appellant produced a national insurance card showing entitlement to NHS treatment. On that basis the Judge found that the appellant had the relevant insurance and was a qualified person for the requisite period, whether as a student or a worker or a combination of both. In those circumstances the appeal was allowed.

6. The Secretary of State, however, sought to challenge that decision by way of appeal to the Upper Tribunal on the basis that it was entirely clear from the case of Ahmad [2014] EWCA Civ 988 that having an NHS treatment card conferring an entitlement to treatment on the NHS did not absolve the appellant from complying with the conditions of the Regulations and having the comprehensive insurance as required.

7. In those circumstances the matter came before me for a hearing of that appeal. The appeal was allowed to the extent that the decision of Judge Robson was set aside to be remade upon the correct basis.

8. Thus it is that this hearing has been convened for that purpose. The appellant produces two documents. The first is a letter from the Swedish Board of Studies Report dated 16 June 2011 confirming a loan for the period October 2011 to October 2012 and confirming the issue of a CSN's insurance policy SP100 for twelve months. It was not entirely clear whether that document satisfied the requirements for comprehensive insurance. However the appellant produced a further document from the insurance company in Sweden, confirming that comprehensive health insurance has been provided during the studies at Middlesex University between October 2010 to January 2012. Such ties in with one of the documents, which has been mentioned in the reasons for refusal letter, namely a letter from Middlesex University dated 15 October then confirming full-time status together with submitted certificates.

9. No challenge is made to the documentation

10. In the support of the application the appellant had submitted a number of documents, as identified in the decision of the Secretary of State. The relevant period for consideration being that of 2008 through to 2012 and beyond. I say beyond because there is a letter dated 14 January 2016 from the Arab News Broadcast confirming employment from 1 March 2012. It is significant that no challenge is made in the decision letter as to the issues of employment or as to the genuine nature of the documents as submitted.

11. The refusal is on the very narrow basis that during the period between 2010 and 2012 the appellant, when a student at the Middlesex University, did not have requisite comprehensive sickness insurance cover in the United Kingdom as issued by a Member State other than the United Kingdom.

12. I find that the appellant did in fact have that insurance for the full period of being a student and that it was issued in Sweden, as evidenced by the documentation that has been produced.

13. I find therefore on the balance of probabilities that he was a qualifying person for the requisite five year period under the EEA Regulations and as such he satisfies the requirements necessary to obtain a residence card confirming his permanent residence in the United Kingdom.

14. In those circumstances the appeal is allowed.

No anonymity direction is made.

Signed Date 9 Feb 2017

Upper Tribunal Judge King TD