Mohamad Aslam Mohamed Amsar v The Secretary of State for the Home Department

The Isle of Man is not part of the United Kingdom for European Union free movement law. Under Protocol 3 to the Treaty of Accession 1972 and Article 355(5)(c) TFEU, the EU Treaties apply there only to the limited extent needed to implement the Protocol. That does not extend the EU rules on free movement of persons or workers to entry into or employment on the Island.

A statutory right to enter or remain in the Isle of Man, conditional on an enforceable EU right exercised in the United Kingdom, is ancillary. It does not itself amount to exercising EU free movement rights on the Island. The Protocol's equal-treatment obligation and its nationality provisions do not provide a route to such rights.

The appellant, a Sri Lankan citizen, relied on his former Latvian wife's employment on the Isle of Man to claim a retained right of residence in the United Kingdom after their divorce. The relevant question was whether she had been exercising EU free movement rights when the divorce proceedings began.

The First-tier Tribunal found that she was employed and resident on the Isle of Man, but was not a qualified person under the Immigration (EEA) Regulations 2006. It therefore held that the appellant had not retained a right of residence under regulation 10(5). He appealed on the basis that EU law treated the Isle of Man as part of the United Kingdom, or that the contrary result was discriminatory.

1. Appeal dismissed. The First-tier Tribunal made no error of law. Its finding that the former wife was employed in the Isle of Man at the material time was determinative.

2. The Isle of Man and the Channel Islands are not part of the United Kingdom. Article 355(5)(c) TFEU provides that the Treaties apply to the Isle of Man only as necessary to implement Protocol 3 to the Treaty of Accession 1972. Article 1 of that Protocol concerns customs and specified agricultural trade. It does not apply EU free movement rights to persons entering or working in the Isle of Man.

3. Spain v United Kingdom [2007] 1 C.M.L.R.3 did not assist the appellant. Gibraltar was materially different because it was a European territory to which the Treaty applied under Article 355(3); Article 355(5) expressly governed and limited the position of the Isle of Man.

4. Article 10 of the Immigration (Isle of Man) Order 2008, read with its Schedule 4 modification of section 7 of the Immigration Act 1988, gave an ancillary Island right to a person already entitled to enter or remain in the United Kingdom by virtue of an enforceable EU right. It neither extended nor recognised the exercise of EU free movement rights in the Isle of Man.

5. The discrimination argument failed. Article 6 of Protocol 3 identified those Manxmen with a sufficient connection to the United Kingdom to be treated as British citizens for nationality purposes. Article 4 required equal treatment in defined EU-law situations, but, as Department of Health and Social Security v Barr and another showed, it did not import the otherwise inapplicable free-movement rules into the Isle of Man.

6. Accordingly, the former wife was not exercising EU free movement rights and was not a qualified person under the 2006 Regulations. The appellant did not retain a right of residence.

• Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber): dismissed the appeal and upheld the First-tier Tribunal's conclusion that the appellant did not meet regulation 10(5) of the Immigration (EEA) Regulations 2006.

• First-tier Tribunal: found that the former wife worked in the Isle of Man and was not a qualified person at the material time. Its decision is not separately cited in the judgment.