and remaking the decision
43. As noted earlier in our decision, the Respondent has conceded that the judge erred in law. In our judgment that concession was correctly made. The judge wrongly sought proof from the Appellant that he was “exercising Treaty rights” and that he was a “qualified person”, and failed to appreciate that time accrued with a retained right of residence counted towards the five years necessary for the acquisition of a permanent right of residence. 44. We therefore set the judge’s decision aside. 45. Based on the evidence adduced before the First-tier Tribunal, the Respondent has also conceded that the Appellant has acquired a permanent right of residence in this country. Again, we agree with this concession. 46. Accordingly, we go on to remake the decision and conclude that the Respondent’s decision of 12 December 2018 breaches the Appellant’s rights under EU law.
- Introduction
- Relevant background
- matters
- section 82(1)
- under section 82(1)
- Appeals under the 2002 Act
- shall have no right of appeal under
- or section 82(1) of the 2002 Act. Any existing appeal under those sections of those Acts or under the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993, the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 or the 1999 Act shall be treated as abandoned
- Appeals brought under the 2000 Regulations
- Munday (EEA decision: grounds of appeal)
- ppeals brought
- under the 2016 Regulations
- under those Regulations
- and remaking the decision
- Anonymity
- We remake the decision by allowing the appeal.