IA125402015 & Ors.

The appellants, a mother and her two children, are citizens of Turkey, born respectively on 20 August 1977, [ ] 2004 and [ ] 2009. They have been given permission to appeal against the decision of First-tier Tribunal Judge Grant, dismissing their appeals against the respondent's decision to refuse their applications for indefinite leave to remain as the dependants of a Turkish EC Association Agreement (ECAA) businessperson, Mr Serdal Satilmis, the first appellant's husband and the father of the children.

Judge Grant found that paragraph 41 was not the relevant provision to apply, as it applied to EEA citizens. She found that paragraph 28 was the relevant provision, but that there was no mandatory requirement in paragraph 28 for permission to be granted, as in the case of EEA family members. She found that it was irrelevant whether or not the modernised guidance applied as there was no requirement within the original Ankara Agreement Rules for the appellants to be granted indefinite leave to remain in line with the sponsor. She dismissed the appeals on that basis and on Article 8 grounds.

The appellants sought permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal on the grounds that the judge had failed properly to engage with the legal arguments before her and had upheld an unlawful decision made by the respondent.

Permission to appeal was initially refused, but was subsequently granted on a renewed application on 9 November 2016 on the basis that it was arguable that the modernised guidance imposed conditions more restrictive than those in place as at the date of the Additional Protocol (Art 41(1)) and was therefore unlawful.

The matter came before me on 25 May 2017, having previously been adjourned to await the outcome of the President's decision in R (on the application of Aydogdu ) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Ankara Agreement - family members - settlement) [2017] UKUT 167 .