[2024] UKUT 00101 (IAC)

The Secretary of State’s grounds of appeal are concise. It was contended that the appellants had not on any proper view accrued five years residence as the family members of a qualified EEA national. The sponsor had retained his right of permanent residence after the revocation of his Austrian citizenship but that could not avail his parents, whose access to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union had ended on his loss of EU citizenship. He had immediately ceased on revocation to have the status required to render his parents beneficiaries of the Directive. There had in any event been no removal or expulsion decision and what was said in Chenchooliah was irrelevant.

Judge Saffer considered the grounds to be arguable and granted permission accordingly.

Mr Jafferji provided an initial response to the grounds of appeal under rule 24 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008 on 13 September 2023. The Secretary of State provided a detailed position statement on 31 October 2023. For the hearing before us, however, both parties had produced consolidated written statements of their competing positions. Mr Deller provided a skeleton argument dated 6 November 2023, and Mr Jafferji produced a replacement response dated 13 November 2023.

We indicated at the outset of the hearing that we were content, in the absence of any opposition from either party, to extend time for the filing of the skeleton argument and the replacement rule 24 notice.