subject: UKBA revocation of a Tier 4 licence justified [print this page] UKBA revocation of a Tier 4 licence justified
San Michael College Ltd, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] EWHC 642 (Admin) (18 March 2011)
This High Court appeal was heard on 18th March 2011. The claimant was San Michael College who's Tier 4 sponsorship licence had been suspended by the defendant Secretary of State for the Home Department (herein after referred to as the SSHD). The College, based in Birmingham, catered for overseas students. They held a sponsorship licence since 25th November 2008 until the SSHD suspended it in a decision dated 18th February 2010. On 14th June, the suspension was lifted and the College was reinstated as a B rated sponsor. The SSHD provided the College with an action plan advising the College that they needed to improve in migrant tracking and monitoring and record keeping. The action plan set a target date for 14th July 2010. The College did not have any students from 14th June until September 2010 due to the holiday season.
The SSHD subsequently inspected the College in August and found that the College had not been fully compliant with the action plan. They suspended their licence finally revoking it on 15th October 2010. The College initiated judicial review proceedings to challenge the suspension and revocation of the licence.
Permission to apply for judicial review was granted and the College's licence was reinstated pending the outcome by way of interim relief.
The court considered the guidance and requirements issued to sponsors including what to do once licensed under Tier 4. The relevant guidance in this case was that which was promulgated in October 2009.
The revocation of the Tier 4 licence
7 allegations had been made against the College including delays in reporting, tracking of work placements and inconsistencies in record keeping. The College's legal advisor put arguments forward however, these were rejected. The SSHD also rejected arguments of overseas fraud not attributable to the College. The SSHD argued that suspension and revocation was justified on the basis of the following:
Failure to provide accurate figures as to the amount of visa letters issued
A large number of those issued the visa letters did not actually attend the College
Failure to implement the action plan which was an opportunity for the College to meet the requirements
Submissions
The court considered the following issues:
Historic failures: The claimant argued that the SSHD should not consider previous failures pre dating the June 2010. The court did not accept this and held that stated that the fact that the matters took place prior to June 2010 did not preclude the SSHD from considering them.
Failure to substantiate allegations of fraud by the UKBA/SSHD: The claimants sought to rely on evidence of fraud overseas (in India, Beijing and Manila). The SSHD argued that there was no allegation of fraud but rather, an allegation of serious inadequacies in record keeping. The Court accepted that the College had issued a large number of visa letters to undeclared applicants and that, whilst a few may have forged them themselves, the idea that a large number of the letters was forged was fanciful'. The court accepted that the SSHD was entitled to conclude failings in the College's record keeping.
Reference to 80% attendance: the UKBA clarified that they needed to be notified where the student missed ten consecutive expected contacts. The SSHD argued that the College did not have robust procedures in place' to ensure compliance in this respect.
Conclusion
The Court held that the claimant's arguments were not well founded and that the SSHD's decision was justified. The application for judicial review was therefore refused.
At Ergen & Sharif, we provide a comprehensive service to prospective and existing students as well as sponsors. Simply contact us on 0207 569 3035 or alternatively email us at info@ergensharif.co.uk.
