4

My wife (Filipino) and I (British) are planning to move to the UK after living in Spain for the last four years. We are applying for an EEA Family Permit, more commonly known as the 'Surinder Singh' route.

It's required that all presented documents be translated into English. However, does this include information on the documents that couldn't possibly be important for the application? For example, if we are providing a bank statement as proof of address then it doesn't make much sense to me that we should translate all of the individual transaction items on the statement as the purpose of the document is only to prove our address. The same goes for stuff like utility bills. As long as they can clearly see that the document is a bank statement and see our address then I think that should be sufficient, but I am wondering if they might be stiff about it and demand that every single word of each document be translated whether it's relevant to the application or not.

In addition, is it necessary that my wife's residence card in Spain be translated? The cards follow a standard format and the information is clear. It seems wasteful to have it translated just to translate words like 'Name' and 'Date of birth'.

Does anybody with any experience of these applications know whether it's sufficient to only have the 'important' parts of each document translated and leave trivial stuff like card transactions on a bank statement or water usage info on a utility bill untranslated?

7
  • 1
    This is a great question. They really shouldn't need everything translated, but I fear that they may be picky about it. I would try to minimize the amount of evidence I presented if I were you. They shouldn't need utility bills or bank statements. – phoog Aug 29 '20 at 16:58
  • It seems you need a certified translation. Are you planning to translate them yourself and somehow have them certified afterwards? I have only needed that service a couple of times but in my experience professional translators typically charge by the page. – Relaxed Aug 29 '20 at 18:44
  • @phoog I think your advice is spot on but the guidance (which I hadn't checked in quite some time) is more demanding than ever, mentioning things like “proof that you've […] integrated there - for example proof of speaking the language, having children born or living there, or involvement in your local community” and does list bank statements as one way to prove the British citizen sponsor worked in another EU country. All that does seem a lot less relevant after four years of residence (compared to a few months). – Relaxed Aug 29 '20 at 18:51
  • 1
    @phoog Sorry, what I had in mind is the informal advice for the public on the gov.uk website, not the full guidance document. If the actual guidance has been updated, it might just be an oversight. – Relaxed Aug 30 '20 at 17:06
  • 2
    @Relaxed aha, that makes sense. I don't think the "integrated" test is legal, and I think the formal guidance reflects that. The obvious intent of EU law is that someone who moved to another EU country ought to be able to return to the country of nationality with family members even if they never spoke to anyone. One has the right to be a hermit, after all, or just antisocial. Or suppose someone who hates everything about some country is sent there by their employer. But of course AdamLazaruso's primary concern will be to get the application accepted, not to stand on legal principle. – phoog Aug 30 '20 at 17:13

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.