Introduction

The case AG & Ors (EEA-jobseeker-self-sufficient person-proof) Germany ([2007] UKAIT 75) was heard by the United Kingdom Asylum and Immigration Tribunal on August 3, 2007. The appellants, comprising a German citizen and his family members from Sierra Leone and Nigeria, sought registration and residence cards under European Community (now European Union) law. Their appeals were initially dismissed by Immigration Judge Saffer, leading to a reconsideration of the decision.

The crux of the appeal revolved around the interpretation of key terms under the EEA Regulations, specifically whether the first appellant qualified as a "worker" or a "self-sufficient person." The appellants contended that the Immigration Judge had erred in law by incorrectly interpreting these definitions, thereby unjustly denying their residence rights in the UK.

Summary of the Judgment

Upon reconsideration, the tribunal acknowledged that the Immigration Judge had indeed committed errors in law. Specifically, the judge incorrectly excluded the first appellant from being classified as a "worker" merely because he had not been employed in the UK, and wrongly inferred that he relied on social assistance, deeming him not "self-sufficient."

However, despite these legal missteps, the tribunal concluded that the errors were not material. The evidence presented did not substantiate the appellants' claims of being jobseekers with genuine employment prospects or of being self-sufficient based on their combined resources. Consequently, the original decision to refuse the registration and residence documentation stood.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively referenced European Court of Justice (ECJ) cases to delineate the definitions and requirements for being classified as a "worker" or "jobseeker" under EEA law. Notable cases include:

• Antonissen [Case C-292/89]: Established that "worker" encompasses both employed individuals and genuine jobseekers who have the intention to engage in employment upon entering the host Member State.
• Collins [Case C-138/02]: Reinforced that jobseekers fall under the definition of "worker" provided they meet specific criteria.
• Martinez Sala [Case C-85/96]: Clarified that self-sufficiency cannot be established through unlawful income sources.
• Chen [Case C-413/99]: Highlighted that the right of residence for family members is derivative and contingent upon the EEA national's ability to support them without burdening the host state.

Legal Reasoning

The tribunal delved into the interpretations of the relevant EEA Regulations, particularly focusing on:

• Regulation 6(4): Defined a "jobseeker" as someone who enters the UK with the intention to seek employment, can provide evidence of job-seeking efforts, and has a genuine chance of being employed.
• Regulation 4(1)(c): Outlined the criteria for a "self-sufficient person," emphasizing that resources must be sufficient to avoid being a burden on the UK’s social assistance system.
• Interpretation of the ECJ's stance that "worker" includes genuine jobseekers but requires clear evidence of intention and opportunity for employment at the time of entry.

The Immigration Judge had erred by not recognizing the applicant's jobseeker status and by incorrectly assuming reliance on social assistance. However, the tribunal found that, even with these errors, the appellant failed to meet the necessary criteria based on the available evidence.

Impact

This judgment underscores the stringent requirements for EEA nationals seeking residence under the "worker" or "self-sufficient person" categories. It emphasizes the necessity for applicants to:

• Enter the host Member State with a clear intention to seek employment if claiming to be a jobseeker.
• Provide concrete evidence of active and genuine job-seeking efforts.
• Demonstrate sufficient combined resources to ensure self-sufficiency without relying on public assistance.

Future cases will likely refer to this judgment when assessing the validity of claims related to employment-seeking intentions and the sufficiency of resources, thereby potentially influencing immigration policies and applicant strategies.

Complex Concepts Simplified

'Worker'

Under EEA Regulations, a "worker" isn't solely someone who is currently employed. It also includes individuals who are genuinely seeking employment with the intention and feasible opportunity to engage in work within the host Member State.

'Jobseeker'

A jobseeker is defined as an individual who enters a host Member State specifically to seek employment, actively pursues job opportunities, and has a realistic chance of securing employment. Importantly, this classification requires the intention to work at the time of entry, not one that is adopted later.

'Self-Sufficient Person'

This refers to individuals who possess sufficient financial resources to support themselves and their family members without needing to rely on the host country's social assistance systems. This includes having enough savings or income from employment, combined with comprehensive health insurance coverage.

Burden of Proof

The responsibility lies with the applicant to provide evidence supporting their claim to be a worker or a self-sufficient person. Failing to provide adequate proof can lead to the denial of residence rights, regardless of the judge's interpretation.

Conclusion

The case of AG & Ors [2007] UKAIT 75 serves as a pivotal reference point in understanding the application of EEA Regulations concerning the definitions of "worker" and "self-sufficient person." It highlights the critical importance of:

• Entering a host Member State with a clear and genuine intention to seek employment.
• Providing substantive evidence of job-seeking activities and the likelihood of employment.
• Demonstrating sufficient financial resources to ensure self-sufficiency.

While legal interpretations can vary, the tribunal’s adherence to established ECJ precedents ensures consistency and fairness in immigration decisions. Applicants and legal practitioners must heed these stringent criteria to successfully navigate EEA-related immigration processes.

Ultimately, the judgment reinforces the necessity for thorough preparation and evidence submission in immigration appeals, ensuring that appellants meet the rigorous standards set by EEA law.