atrix
2. The material facts are uncontentious. The Appellant is a national of Kenya , aged 29 years. His application for a residence card is dated 15 March 2014. In his application he was required to provide particulars of his EEA national family member. He id entified this person as his uncle, a male British national born in 1975. Section 5 of the application form, entitled “ Surinder Singh C ases”, recognises, by implication, that the decision in “Surinder Singh” provides a specific route to the acquisition of a residence card. In completing this section, the Appellant made the following representations: (a) His British citizen family member (his uncle) had exercised Treaty rights as a worker in another EEA member state, Belgium . (b) The Appellant was the family member of the British citizen (his uncle) during such period. (c) The Appellant did not reside with his uncle during such period. (d) His uncle worked in Belgium between 01 July and 15 November 2013, returning to the United Kingdom on 19 December 2013. 3. At the hearing before us the uncontenti ous factual matrix was amplified somewhat. The Appellant’s uncle explained that the Appellant had been living with him and his family in London since 1996, when he was aged around eight . The Appellant has been a member of his uncle’s household ever since. When the uncle went to Belgium in mid-2013 he was accompanied by his wife. At that time their plan, stimulated mainly by the apparent prospect of long term employment, was to reside there for some considerable time. However, the employment period which materialised was unexpectedly short and, further, some family problems develop ed in London . As a result, they returned to the family home in London in December 2013. Throughout the intervening period the Appellant lived in the family home with other members of the uncle’s family. The uncle added that his spouse has an EEA family permit. 4. Th e “ Surinder Singh ” section of the Form contains the following instruction: “ You must provide evidence to show that you resided in the EEA member state at a time when your family member was exercising Treaty rights in that EEA member state. ” No such evidence was provided. Appended to his application were various materials, including his passport, his birth certificate and the Belgium identity card of his uncle . There was also a species of certification from the Kenya Ministry of Interior describing the relationsh ip between the Appellant and the British citizen as nephew/uncle and representing that they lived together in London . None of this is contentious.