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: , , .

New list of approved English language test providers Extended student visitor visa

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed


 

December 2010
M T W T F S S
« Aug   Jan »
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031  

Blog Stats

  • 51,758 hits

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.