Introduction

Siddiqa v Entry Clearance Officer ([2024] EWCA Civ 248) is a landmark case heard by the England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) on March 14, 2024. The appeal centered on whether the Entry Clearance Officer (ECO) and the Secretary of State for the Home Department violated the Withdrawal Agreement between the United Kingdom and the European Union by improperly handling Ms. Tanjina Siddiqa's application for entry clearance under the EU Settlement Scheme (EUSS) family permit.

Ms. Siddiqa, a Bangladeshi national, sought entry to the UK as an extended family member of her brother, Md Moin Uddin, who had obtained Portuguese citizenship and, consequently, EU citizenship. Her initial application under the EUSS family permit was refused, leading her to later obtain entry as a skilled worker. Ms. Siddiqa contended that had her application been correctly processed under the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2016 (the 2016 Regulations), she might have secured a more favorable status.

Summary of the Judgment

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) and the Upper Tribunal, dismissing Ms. Siddiqa's appeal. The court found that Ms. Siddiqa had indeed applied under the EUSS family permit scheme rather than the EEA family permit scheme outlined in the 2016 Regulations. Consequently, since she did not fulfill the criteria for an EUSS family permit as a close family member, her application was rightfully refused. Additionally, the court determined that provisions of Article 18 of the Withdrawal Agreement did not apply to her case, further reinforcing the refusal.

The judgment emphasized the importance of adhering to the correct application procedures and interpreting immigration regulations in alignment with the Withdrawal Agreement. Ms. Siddiqa's subsequent entry as a skilled worker did not influence the validity of her appeal, rendering it academic.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment referenced several key precedents that shaped the court's decision:

• Rahman v Secretary of State for the Home Department Case C-83/11 [2013]: Clarified the interpretation of "facilitate" within Article 3 of the Citizens' Rights Directive, granting member states broad discretion in implementation.
• Banger v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Case C-89/17) [2019]: Reinforced the obligation of member states to provide advantages to third-country nationals under the Directive, mandating justified and extensive examinations for refusals.
• Celik v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2023] EWCA Civ 921: Addressed the status of extended family members and clarified the limitations of Article 10 regarding durable relationships established post-transition period.
• R(IMA) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2022] EWHC 3274 (Admin): Explored the scope of Article 18, distinguishing between constitutive and declaratory schemes.

These cases collectively underscored the necessity for clear application processes and the limited discretion available to member states in interpreting family member categories.

Legal Reasoning

The court's legal reasoning hinged on the correct interpretation and application of both domestic and EU law provisions related to family permit applications post-Brexit. Key points include:

• Application Scheme: Ms. Siddiqa's application was identified as an EUSS family permit application based on the selected options in the online form and accompanying documentation. There was no evidence suggesting she intended to apply under the EEA family permit scheme.
• Withdrawal Agreement Interpretation: Articles 10(3), 10(5), and 18 were scrutinized to determine their applicability. The court concluded that since Ms. Siddiqa did not apply under the 2016 Regulations for an EEA family permit, Article 18 did not provide her additional protections or rights.
• Procedural Compliance: The refusal was upheld as the ECO followed the prescribed procedures, and Ms. Siddiqa failed to meet the criteria for adjustment under the 2016 Regulations.

Impact

This judgment sets a definitive precedent on the handling of family permit applications in the post-Brexit landscape:

• Reinforces the strict adherence to application categories (EUSS vs. EEA) and the consequences of misapplication.
• Limits the applicability of Article 18 protections to those who correctly apply under the stipulated regulations.
• Clarifies the scope of Articles 10(3) and 10(5), ensuring member states maintain robust examination processes for entry and residence permissions.
• Impacts future cases where applicants might inadvertently select incorrect application pathways, emphasizing the importance of precise compliance with immigration procedures.

Complex Concepts Simplified

The Withdrawal Agreement

The Withdrawal Agreement is an international treaty that outlines the terms of the United Kingdom’s departure from the European Union. It ensures the protection of the rights of EU citizens residing in the UK and UK nationals residing in the EU, especially concerning family reunification and residency rights.

EU Settlement Scheme (EUSS) vs. EEA Family Permit

- EUSS Family Permit: Designed for close family members of EU citizens residing in the UK, allowing them to join their family members under the EUSS.
- EEA Family Permit: Intended for extended family members, such as siblings or aunts/uncles, who may not fall under the "close family member" category. This scheme was governed by the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2016.

Article 18 of the Withdrawal Agreement

Article 18 pertains to the issuance of new residence documents for those eligible under the Withdrawal Agreement. It outlines the procedures and standards for application, emphasizing smooth, transparent, and user-friendly administrative processes.

Citizens' Rights Directive

Directive 2004/38/EC, also known as the Citizens' Rights Directive, establishes the rights of EU citizens and their family members to move and reside freely within the EU. It differentiates between "direct" and "extended" family members, each with specific eligibility criteria for residence permits.

Conclusion

The Siddiqa v Entry Clearance Officer judgment underscores the critical importance of precise adherence to application procedures within the UK's post-Brexit immigration framework. By delineating the boundaries between EUSS and EEA family permit schemes and reinforcing the limitations of Article 18 protections, the court ensures that both applicants and officials navigate the immigration landscape with clarity and legal certainty. This decision not only reaffirms the courts' role in upholding the Withdrawal Agreement but also serves as a cautionary tale for applicants to meticulously follow prescribed application channels to secure their residency rights.