The claimant challenged the removal of its name from the ‘sponsor register’ for foreign students wanting to study here.
Held: Neil Garnham QC J said: ‘It has to be remembered that the primary duty about the response to breaches of a college’s duty is the Defendant’s, and the Court’s role is simply supervisory. It has also to be remembered that the underlying principle behind this scheme is that the UKBA entrusts to colleges the power to grant visa letters on the understanding, and with their agreement, that they will act in a manner that maintains proper immigration control. The capacity for damage to the national interest in the maintenance of proper immigration control is substantial if colleges are not assiduous in meeting their responsibilities. In those circumstances, it seems to me that the Defendants are entitled to maintain a fairly high index of suspicion as they go about overseeing colleges and a light trigger in deciding when and with what level of firmness they should act.’
Judges:
Neil Garnham QC J
Citations:
[2010] EWHC 2561 (Admin), [2010] ELR 809, [2011] ACD 31
Links:
Cited by:
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’ . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Education, Licensing, Human Rights
Updated: 25 August 2022; Ref: scu.425333