Immigrationboards.com

Akturk, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] EWHC 297 (Admin) (08 February 2017) wrote:71. In my view, it is clear that the position of the claimant, or of someone in his position, since the abolition of the right of appeal and its replacement by administrative review, is markedly less favourable than it was before. The appeal was to an independent judicial body with a further avenue of appeal. Administrative review is performed by an official within the Home Office. On an appeal, oral evidence for and on behalf the applicant could be, and routinely was, heard. The tribunal could substitute its own discretion for that of the Secretary of State, whereas administrative review is limited to considering whether the original decision was incorrect.

72. The practical effect of these considerations is borne out by data produced in this case. In answer to a freedom of information request, the Secretary of State produced data with a letter dated 8 March 2016 and now at pages 98 to 106 of the bundle. That data has not been the subject of expert statistical analysis by a statistician, but analysis performed by the claimant's solicitor, Mr Aytac, and described in his witness statement of 18 October 2016, appears to indicate an average success rate on appeals by applicants such as this claimant of at least 40 per cent, or, on his figures, higher. By contrast, the success rate on administrative review in a period since April 2015 was apparently 2 out of 311 decisions or less than one per cent (the figure of 0.006 per cent in Mr Aytac's second statement is not arithmetically correct).

73. In a response by the Home Office to the Independent Chief Inspector's report into administrative review processes between September and December 2015, the Home Office described at page 2 (now at bundle page 171) that they had re-reviewed 273 previously decided cases and identified an additional 87 cases where the original decision should have been overturned but was not. That appears to indicate that in about 30 per cent of the re-reviewed cases the decision-maker on administrative review had failed to identify an error and overturn the decision when, on the Home Office's own account, he should have done so. Of course, the position of the Home Office is no doubt that, as a result of the Chief Inspector's report and that re-review, they have improved, or will improve, the system of administrative review so that the "success rate" on administrative review will itself increase.

Turkish ECAA business guidance wrote:The Home Office will no longer accept applications for Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR) under the Turkish European Communities Association Agreement (ECAA) Business Persons category.

Caroline Nokes wrote:A new settlement route for Turkish business persons will be introduced in the latter half of 2018. While the requirements of such a category are to be determined, this will be a charged route in line with others who are seeking to settle in the UK. We will announce the requirements in due course.
Case law of the Upper Tribunal has confirmed that there is no settlement route for Turkish business persons under the Ankara Agreement. The Home Office continues to comply with the Agreement in terms of assessing entry clearance to the UK and leave to remain for those Turkish nationals who wish to establish a business here.