Vreemdelingenrecht.com - het weblog

  Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: EA/01773/2019 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS     Heard at Bradford On 28 th January 2020 Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 4 th February 2020           Before   UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE BRUCE   Between   RM (anonymity direction made) Appellant   And   Secretary of State for the Home Department   21.   The concern expressed by the First-tier Tribunal was that A would simply prefer the care he needs to be provided by his brother. Reference is made to his evidence that he did not have a good experience of care provided by Bradford before his brother's arrival: carers did not arrive as scheduled, he was uncomfortable with female carers etc. I note however that the "relevant care package" that the Tribunal believed would be available ...

  Before   UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE PITT     Between   Mr Raja [K] (ANONYMITY DIRECTION NOT MADE) Appellant and   THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT   20.          The First-tier Tribunal states in paragraph 56: "I find this is not a case of considering what level of care can reasonably be provided by the state, nor is it case of considering what level of care is acceptable to the brother or of benefit to the brother. The brother is known to the local authority and the mental health services and there is no documentary evidence before me to suggest that the brother has been formally discharged from the mental health services and that he has previously had a carer's assessment. I find that there is simply no evidence that the brother would not receive adequate care in the UK, if the appellant were to leave the UK." The judge continues in paragrap...

  ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2021:60 Instantie Rechtbank Den Haag Datum uitspraak 06-01-2021 Datum publicatie 11-01-2021 Zaaknummer 20-4895       Bestreden besluit 2. Verweerder heeft de aanvraag van eiseres afgewezen, omdat er geen sprake is van een meer dan gebruikelijke emotionele afhankelijkheidsrelatie tussen haar en referent en er dus geen sprake is van gezinsleven als bedoeld in artikel 8 van het Verdrag tot bescherming van de rechten van de mens en de fundamentele vrijheden (EVRM). Verder heeft verweerder gesteld dat eiseres en referent geen rechten kunnen ontlenen aan de Gezinsherenigingsrichtlijn 1 , omdat sprake is van een aanvraag in het kader van artikel 8 van het EVRM. Een meer dan gebruikelijke afhankelijkheidsrelatie 3. Eiseres voert aan dat verweerder ten onrechte stelt dat er geen sprake is van een meer dan gebruikelijke afhank...