JA (Revocation of Registration - Secretary of State's Policy) India
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Mr Justice Irwin |
| Judgment Date | 25 January 2011 |
| Neutral Citation | [2011] UKUT 52 (IAC) |
| Court | Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) |
| Date | 25 January 2011 |
[2011] UKUT 52 (IAC)
Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber)
THE IMMIGRATION ACTS
The Hon. Mr Justice Irwin
Senior Immigration Judge Gill
For the Appellant: Mr. E Tufan, Home Office Presenting Officer
For the Respondent: Mr. A Miah, Counsel, instructed by Law & Lawyers Solicitors
JA (revocation of registration — Secretary of State's policy) India
In cases where an educational provider has its licence withdrawn during the period between a student's application for extension of leave as a Tier 4 (General) Student Migrant and the Secretary of State's decision on the application, it is the Secretary of State's practice (as set out in applicable guidance) to limit a student's existing leave to 60 days, if the student has extant leave of six months or more and if the student was not involved in the reasons why the education provider had its licence withdrawn. The guidance states that the leave of a student who has less than six months will not be limited. This guidance does not give rise to any legitimate expectation that the Secretary of State will grant a period of 60 days' leave to any student whose original leave had expired by the date of the decision, so as to afford him an opportunity to register with an alternative education provider. It is not irrational or unreasonable for the Secretary of State to distinguish between students who lodge their applications for extension of their leave many months in advance of the expiry of their leave and those who do not.
This case is an appeal by the Secretary of State from a decision of Immigration Judge Dawson sitting in the First-tier Tribunal, a determination promulgated on 7 September 2010. Permission to appeal was granted by SIJ McGeachy on 29 September 2010.
Before proceeding to deal with the substance of the appeal we wish to point out that directions were made by SIJ McGeachy on 9 December 2010, these included the following:
“It is considered that, if the Upper Tribunal decides to set aside the decision of the First-tier Tribunal, the Upper Tribunal will be able to re-make the decision without any further hearing, if it is able to hear submissions from the representatives of both parties.
The respondent must serve on the Tribunal a witness statement dealing with all the relevant issues in the appeal together with the skeleton argument in support and an indexed and paginated bundle of documents on which she wishes to rely. The appellant must also serve a skeleton argument together with an indexed and paginated bundle of any documents on which she [sic] wishes to rely at the hearing.”
These directions were not complied with. Neither side provided a paginated bundle, the respondent to this appeal did not serve a witness statement dealing with the relevant issues and neither side served a skeleton argument setting out the issues. This position is unsatisfactory. Cases such as this which involve considerations of law of potential complexity are poorly served in the absence of developed skeleton arguments. Both sides in this case are to blame. It is quite unacceptable for directions to be ignored in this way. We direct that this portion of this judgment is drawn to the attention of the senior partner of the claimant's solicitors, Messrs Law & Lawyers, 349 High Street North, London E12 6PQ and to the senior lawyer in charge of the file on behalf of the Secretary of State. We would like a written explanation within fourteen days of this decision as to why the directions were not complied with. It seems clear from submissions made in the course of the hearing that in each case the advocate present was not at fault and the difficulty lies with those responsible for the conduct of the file.
The facts of the case are reasonably well set out in the determination and reasons given by the Immigration Judge. Mr Antony is an Indian national born on 25 March 1985. He was granted entry clearance to come to the United Kingdom as a student whilst in Madras on 13 April 2007 which was valid until 31 July 2008. He was subsequently granted an extension of leave from 5 August 2008 until 31 August 2009. On 26 August 2009 Mr Antony was a student studying at the London Institute of Technical Education. On 31 August 2009 his leave to remain was due to expire. On 26 August 2009 Mr. Antony made an application for further leave to remain in the United Kingdom as a Tier 4 (General) Student Migrant in order to study at the London Institute of Technical Education.
In October 2009, Mr. Antony switched to studying with the London School of Business and Computing because the London Institute of Technical Education was not successful in its registration under the points-based scheme. There exists on the file a letter of 17 December 2009 notifying the Secretary of State of this change. However, in February 2010, the London School of Business and Computing was suspended as an approved education provider. Although we have no precise detail, the Immigration Judge found, in an unchallenged conclusion, that the licence was subsequently revoked.
The Immigration Judge continues the narrative in this way:
“[Mr. Antony] then started searching for a new college offering courses that suited him but encountered difficulties without approval from the Home Office. He has however been successful and on 17 May 2010 began a course of studies with Overseas Nurses Training Organisation Ltd based in Leeds. They had provided a visa letter dated 22 July 2010 by way of confirmation of [Mr. Antony's] enrolment on an NVQ level 4 in health and social care programme which is to run until 21 May 2012. [Mr. Antony] has been informed by the college that unless his appeal is successful, he will not be able to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Thakur (PBS Decision - Common Law Fairness) Bangladesh
...a licensed college. Submissions 7 Mr Bramble adopted his grounds and relied on the Tribunal determination in JA (Revocation of Registration – Secretary of State's policy) India [2011] UKUT 52 (IAC) arguing that the policy could not apply to the appellant as he did not have existing leave wh......
-
Patel (Revocation of Sponsoring Licence - Fairness) India
...than three decisions of the Upper Tribunal namely MM and SA (Pankina: near–miss) Pakistan [2010] UKUT 481 (IAC); JA (Revocation of registration - Secretary of State's policy) India [2011] UKUT 52 (IAC); and Patel (Tier 4 – No sixty day extension) India [2011] UKUT 187 (IAC). The law is n......
-
Joxin Kizhakudan v Secretary of State for Home Department
...by the guidance (referring to another recent decision of the upper tribunal which had also decided that point: JA (Revocation of Registration – Secretary of State's policy) India [2011] UKUT 52 (IAC)). 21 However, in Thakur the upper tribunal nevertheless decided the appeal against the Secr......
-
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and asylum chamber), 2011-06-06, [2011] UKUT 211 (IAC) (Patel (revocation of sponsor licence – fairness))
...MM and SA (Pankina: near–miss) Pakistan [2010] UKUT 481 (IAC); JA (Revocation of registration - Secretary of State’s policy) India [2011] UKUT 52 (IAC); and Patel (Tier 4 – No sixty day extension) India [2011] UKUT 187 (IAC). The law is now certain on what the respondent’s policy Neverthele......