1.7 Actors list

• MO

• JO, PO, BO and BO as well as 4 daughters as well as appellants

• Secretary of State for the Home Department

• First-tier Tribunal

• UTIAC

1.8 Info demand list

• When did MO retain Italian nationality?

• Was the marriage sham marriage? As it appears that all his daughters were not the daughters of his EEA national wife – he had one daughter before the marriage, one when they were married and two after divorce.

• Were the daughters really MO`s daughters?

• When did JO, PO, BO and BO applied for residence card?

• When did Secretary of State for the Home Department refused to give MO`s daughters residence card?

• When did MO`s daughters appealed to First-tier Tribunal?

• When exactly did MO`s daughters provided birth certificates and DNA profiling report?

• When First-tier Tribunal dismissed appeal?

• Why no-one asked MO`s ex-wife to be a witness?

• Why court didn`t referred the case to Italy or cooperated with Italian authorities?

• Why the court didn`t asked preliminary ruling from European Court of Justice?

2. The case purposes

Client(s) target was achieved at the end as UTIAC ruled that they have right to obtain residence card. Hereafter I will write down what they should have done in order to be able to get better solution before.

Client(s) target could have been achieved quickly if they would have responded to the Secretary of State for the Home Department request. They also should have sent letter explaining Nigerian culture – over there it is not surprising that birth certificates are obtained long after the birth and even that birth might be registered on the wrong date – when there are more babies to be registered. Country of Origin Information (COI) would have been helpful to submit in that case. If they would have sent an explaining letter and request for extra time and then submitted birth certificates then the Secretary of State for the Home Department might had decided to issue them a residence card. Measurement: if they would have done so, the Secretary of State for the Home Department would have not had reason to refuse. There is a high possibility to believe that as they did not took issue with the MO`s Italian nationality either in the decision or in the appeal proceedings.

In the First-tier Tribunal they should have had explained their cultural differences as well. They should have offered an additional DNA test if necessary (if MO really was the father then there would not have been nothing to lose). They also should have referred to ECJ decisions relating to that matter! These statements would have made case stronger (more evidence you have on your side, the stronger your case is) and therefore there would have been legally no reason for the First-tier Tribunal to dismiss appeal.

3. The case functional view

3.1 Package diagram

3.2 Use cases

The package “MO`s nationality” is significant in the case as probably his marriage with EEA national was a sham. Purpose of this sham could have been that he wanted to use his EU rights himself someday as well as that his children would have more possibilities in the future - as he married to EEA national when he already had a daughter, meanwhile had another daughter and after a marriage had twins.

“Refusal of residence card” made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department triggered the activities. Refusal might had other reasons than just the one that MO either his daughters responded to the request. It might be that they believed that the marriage was a sham as well and did not believe that the daughters really were his.

As there was refusal and as MO was Italian citizen by himself his daughters had ground to appeal to First-tier Tribunal. In this Tribunal MO and his daughters provided birth certificates and DNA profiling report. The court although did not considered these proof to be sufficient and dismissed the appeal.

As the First-tier Tribunal dismissed the appeal MO and his daughters had grounds to appeal to the UTIAC. The reason for that could also be that as UK had to recognize MO`s Italian nationality and had no grounds to discredit about his previous marriage, MO could use his EU rights more easily as it was said by the court that the decisions made by Italy should be respected. It means he can move to EU as well, marry his mother of children and take her with him, have access to social benefits and so on.