EK (Ankara Agreement – 1972 Rules – construction) Turkey [2010] UKUT 425 (IAC)
12 December, 2010 at 1:33 am Leave a comment
(1) There is nothing in the 1972 Immigration Rules (HC 510) that provides that a person who cannot come within one of the categories of the Rules is to be refused an extension of stay for that reason alone. Accordingly, it was open to the Home Office to grant an extension of stay as a businesswoman to someone who had entered as an au pair. The finding in OT (Turkey) [2010] UKUT 330 (IAC) that HC 510 prohibited switching to business status by anyone other than a visitor is not considered correct.
(2) HC 510, para 28 does not require a person who had been given leave as a businessman to demonstrate as a pre-condition for the exercise of discretion that in each or any year in which they had been given leave in that capacity they had complied with particular requirements of para 21. Those requirements are directly relevant only to the first application for permission to remain and the first extension of stay.
(3) There is no precise code in HC 510 distinguishing between maintenance and accommodation and precluding third party contributions to living expenses.
To read further click here
Entry filed under: Uncategorized. Tags: Agreement, Ankara, Ek.
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed