OA205832013 & Ors.

The matter came before me on the above date and I discussed with the representatives why permission had been given. Miss Kullar referred me to the decision of ZN (Afghanistan) FC and others (Appellants) c Entry Clearance Offcier (Karachi) (Respondent) and one other action [2010] UKSC 21 but I referred both representatives to the European case of Staatssecretaris van Justitie v Kahveci and Inan Cases C-7/10 and C-9/10 CJEU First Chamber .

I stood the matter down for the representatives to review the case law and on their return Mr Richards accepted that the European case appeared to address the issue and I was referred to paragraphs 52-55 and 82 of that decision. The Court made clear that Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 must be interpreted as meaning that a family member of a Turkish worker duly registered as belonging to the labour force of a member state could still invoke that provision once the worker had acquired the nationality of the member state while retaining his Turkish nationality.

It follows that Judge of the First-tier Tribunal Mather's approach was erroneous. She accepted that the sponsor and first-named appellant were in a genuine relationship and there was clear evidence on the file that the sponsor was working as required and able to support and accommodate the appellants.

I therefore find there was an error in law and I allow the appellants' appeals and set aside Judge of the First-tier Tribunal Mather's decision.

The First-tier Tribunal did not make an anonymity direction and I see no reason to make an order at this stage.

There was an error in law and I set aside the decision. I have remade the decision and allow the appeal under HC 509.