Brit College v Secretary of State for the Home Department
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
- THE HON. MR JUSTICE WILLIAM DAVIS
Areas of Law
- Administrative Law
- Education Law
- Immigration Law
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
Brit College sought judicial review of the SSHD's decision to remove it from the register of licensed sponsors due to concerns about student attendance and adherence to immigration regulations. The court reviewed the SSHD's discretionary powers, the College's obligations under the sponsorship scheme, and the adequacy of evidence provided by the College. The court upheld the revocation, deeming it lawful and reasonable, and refused the College's application for judicial review.
Judgment
Mr Justice William Davis:
Introduction
The Claimant, Brit College (“the College”), is an independent educational provider. It was established in 2006. In these proceedings it applies for judicial review of the decision of the Secretary of State for the Home Department (“the SSHD”) to remove it from the register of licensed sponsors. That decision was made on the 21 st May 2014. A pre-action protocol letter was sent by the College to the SSHD on the 25 th June 2014. That letter invited the SSHD immediately to reinstate the College to the register. By a letter dated the 16 th July 2014 the SSHD declined that invitation. The procedural history thereafter was as follows:
Application for permission to apply for judicial review and application for interim relief lodged 28 th July 2014.
Acknowledgment of service and summary grounds of defence filed 12 th August 2014.
Both applications ordered to be considered at an oral hearing, that order being made on the 18 th August 2014.
Application for interim relief refused at an oral hearing on the 8 th October 2014 on which date the application for permission was adjourned to a rolled-up hearing.
The basis of the points based system by which the SSHD exercises immigration control of non-EEA foreign students has been rehearsed in innumerable decisions of this court and the Court of Appeal. The system as it was originally established is set out fully in the judgment of Silber J in R (Westech College) v SSHD [2011] EWHC 1484 (Admin) at paragraphs 4 to 19. I gratefully adopt his description of the system as it was in 2010. At that point licences to institutions such as the College were issued with either an A rating (trusted) or a B rating (sponsor). In 2011 the licensing system was changed. Any institution which was licensed had to achieve the rating of Highly Trusted Sponsor (“HTS”). Existing licence holders were required to apply for such a rating. The decision to remove the College from the register was made in the context of the SSHD’s consideration of whether the College could be given the HTS rating.
The underlying basis of the system – both now and as originally established – is that the sponsor i.e. the educational establishment will fulfil its duties with rigour and care. Whether the student is genuine, whether the student is capable of completing the course of study in respect of which s/he has been given leave to enter, whether the student in fact is undertaking proper study – all of these are