UTIAC The First Appellant was a research student making proper progress reading for a doctorate. His leave was curtailed before his viva voce examination was arranged. The immigration judge dismissed the appeal under the Immigration Rules and on Article 8 ECHR grounds. There was no challenge to the decision under the Immigration Rules. The immigration judge was right to dismiss the immigration appeal, although it was a significant interference with the appellant’s private and family life to prevent him from completing his doctorate whilst in the United Kingdom, but concluded that it was an entirely proportionate response to a person who totally disregarded his obligations under the Immigration Rules by working for hours excessive of those permitted, over a prolonged period.
The restriction on working hours imposed on students are hard to police and other things being equal a person who chooses to ignore the Rules should not expect to find it easy to persuade the Tribunal that he is entitled to remain on human rights grounds until his degree is finished. Any other result would seriously undermine the requirement that students take only limited employment and it would be unfair to those students who might wish to work longer hours than are allowed.
Pankina v SSHD [2010] EWCA Civ 719 and CDS (PBS: ‘available’: Article 8) Brazil [2010] UKUT 00305 (IAC) do not support the argument that a serious breach of the Immigration Rules can be overlooked. They are examples of how a person guilty of a technical or minor breach of the Rules towards the end of his studies, might, dependent upon the particular circumstances of the case, successfully rely on human rights grounds to be allowed to complete them. They are not cases that provide an easy licence for those that choose not to comply with the Immigration Rules.
Judges:
Goldstein SIJ
Citations:
[2010] UKUT 441 (IAC)
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Immigration, Human Rights
Updated: 19 September 2022; Ref: scu.444074
