Hi Antje
Given the facts of you case I think he may encounter some problems. If he has been here and for most of the time on IS then it appears that the"transtional protection is being applied here, that is, coming through 1.5.04, he was in receipt of benefit and until that benefit or other benefits cease to be paid, he will be protected. So if he lives and then wants to come back, as you say, he will probably fall foul of R2R. You could look and see if he has a right of permamnt residence. I doubt it, but give it a go. Have look at reg 15 of the IEEA regs 2006. para 1(a) requires 5 years residency under these regs. These regs means - in accordance to sch 4, para 6 of the 2006 regs, lawful residence (not lawful presence) under IEEA 2000 regs. That in turn means, being a qualified person, e.g worker, student, self employed, provider/receiver of service etc. People are not static, so he could have been any one of them at any time. If he is not and has been on IS via the transtional protection, it will not work.see The Court of Appeal in Ismail v Barnet <2006> EWCA Civ 383, and, the High Court in Mohamed v Harrow <2005> EWHC 3194.
Othe way is to look at para 1(c). That is some one who used to be a worker or self employed, but no longer is for several reasons. You can find out who these guys are under reg 5 of the IEEA Regs 2006.
|