Applying the determination that the Zambrano principle was not absolute, the Court allows SSHD’s appeal
SSHD v Robinson (Jamaica)  EWCA Civ 85
- Related Member(s):
- Hugh Southey QC
- Related Practice Area(s):
- EU Law, Immigration, Asylum and Free Movement
- Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
This was an appeal by the Secretary of State against an UT decision revoking a deportation order for Robinson, a Jamaican national. The UT found that there were errors of law in the FTT’s decision, set it aside. In doing so, it considered that the principle in MA and SM (Zambrano: EU children outside EU) Iran  Imm. A.R. 1142, whereby a third-country national with dependant children who were EU citizens had a derivative right under TFEU, art 20 to reside in the same Member State, was absolute and therefore it did not need to determine the issue of proportionality.
The instant appeal was stayed pending the determination of Rendon Marin v Administracion del Estado (C-165/14)  Q.B. 495 and Secretary of State for the Home Department v CS (C-304/14)  Q.B. 558, in which it was determined that the Zambrano principle was not absolute.
Singh J giving the leading judgment allowed the appeal and remitted the case to the UT for redetermination on the merits. The Court was not persuaded by submissions on Robinson’s behalf that, “despite what are acknowledged to be errors of law in the light of the recent judgment of the CJEU, those errors were immaterial and that this Court should dismiss this appeal”.
Hugh Southey QC was involved in this case.