The court was asked whether the removal of a Tier 4 General (Student) Sponsor Licence issued by UKBA which enabled it to issue a visa letter or confirmation of acceptance of studies to non-EEA students lacked the necessary legislative authority because the system under which the decision was taken was contained in policy guidance, not in the Immigration Rules.
Held: Richards LJ looked at cases exploring the Pankina case, and held that the ratio had been correctly identified by Foskett J in English UK as relating to the substantive criteria for entitlement to leave to enter or remain. The particular issue was whether a substantive criterion laid down in the rules could be qualified by changeable policy guidance. Sedley LJ referred to ‘criteria affecting individuals’ status and entitlements’ saying this was the content of the substantive criteria themselves, not extraneous factors which might affect the ability of an applicant to fulfil the relevant criteria. The substantive criteria governing entitlement to leave to enter or remain as a Tier 4 (General) Student were laid down in the rules and were not supplemented or qualified by guidance. Whether the sponsor held a sponsor licence did have an indirect effect on an applicant’s entitlement, in that it affected his or her ability in practice to meet the criteria. It followed that the criteria for the grant, suspension or withdrawal of a sponsor licence would have that effect. But this was materially different from the substantive criteria and did not affect their content.
Mummery, Richards, Rimer LJJ
 EWCA Civ 51,  WLR(D) 21,  PTSR D21
England and Wales
Cited – Secretary of State for The Home Department v Pankina CA 23-Jun-2010
Each claimant had graduated from a tertiary college and wished to stay on in the UK. They challenged the points based system for assessing elgibility introduced in 2008 after they had commenced their studies. The new rules tightened the criteria for . .
Appeal from – New London College Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department Admn 7-Apr-2011
The respondent had suspended and revoked the licence of the claimant company to enrol non-EEA students on its courses. . .
Appeal from – New London College Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department Admn 19-Oct-2010
The claimant sought interim relief in relation to it’s Tier 4 Sponsor Licence (A rating). The Secretary of State through the UK Border Agency had suspended it, jeopardising the business of the claimant, which involved the provision of education to . .
Cited – Alvi, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 18-Jul-2012
The claimant had entered as a student, and then stayed under a work permit. New rules were brought in, and because his occupation as a physiotherapy assistant was not listed, he was not credited with sufficient points for a permit. The Court of . .
Cited – Manchester College of Accountancy and Management, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department Admn 1-Mar-2013
The college appealed against the revocation of its Tier 4 General (Student) Sponsor Licence.
Held: The challenge failed: ‘the Defendant was entitled on the evidence to conclude that the Claimant was not properly monitoring its students’ . .
Appeal from – New London College Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 17-Jul-2013
The Court was asked as to: ‘the system for licensing educational institutions to sponsor students from outside the European Economic Area under Tier 4 of the current points-based system of immigration control.’ The appellant’s license to sponsor . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 21 March 2021; Ref: scu.450536