Neutral Citation No:  NIQB 27
Judgment: approved by the Court for handing down
(subject to editorial corrections)*
The impugned decision
"You have applied for a residence card as the unmarried partner of an EEA or Swiss national …. you have not provided adequate evidence that you are the partner of an EEA or Swiss national and that you have a durable relationship with them …. You claim to have been residing together since June 2013. You have also provided the passport of ["MR"], however you have not provided a birth certificate to prove your relationship to her, there is no evidence of cohabitation, there is no evidence of joint finances/commitments/responsibilities and we would expect to receive evidence showing joint finances and commitments since you began living together such as utility bills or bank statements, council tax bills or statements covering this time."
This is followed by the notable statement:
"No further consideration has been given to the other evidence that you have supplied in support of your application."
"VV" is the person asserted to be the Applicant's partner. It is further asserted that they are the parents of a child now aged almost two years born in Northern Ireland.
"This application is made on the basis that my client and his EEA national spouse are unmarried partners and that our client is an extended family member under Regulation 8 …..
Our client's partner is a 'qualified person' by virtue of her Latvian nationality and her employment. She is a worker as defined by Regulation 4 of the 2006 Regulations … Their relationship began almost three years ago ….
They have been living together on a full time basis since June/July 2014 ….
My client and his partner have had a child of their own. Their daughter [MR] was born on …… [DATE] ……
Enclosed is a copy of that child's Irish passport. My client and his partner have plans to marry and they are currently in the process of arranging this."
(a) The document purporting to be the completed pro-forma has incoherent internal pagination, a demonstrably series of missing internal pages (for example pages 22 – 26, 30 – 41 and 77 – 88) and is variously and inconsistently described as "EEA (FM) – Version 06/16" and "EEA (FM) – Version 03/17". While there may be an acceptable explanation for this, none was provided with the bundle.
(b) It is not possible to match the documents listed in the aforementioned solicitor's letter of 22 May 2017 with those provided in the Secretary of State's bundle.
While this represents a thoroughly hopeless attempt to comply with the Court's directions it may also invite an inference adverse to the Secretary of State (infra).
The Applicant's grounds
Consideration and conclusions
This judicial review was, belatedly, conceded by the Secretary of State. While the concession should have been made much sooner, as the terms of the Court's judgment indicate, this was a commendable choice.