Han, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
- MR JUSTICE CRANSTON
Areas of Law
- Immigration Law
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The claimant challenged the Secretary of State's denial of her Tier 4 migrant extension. The OSSC filed her application late, and she lacked required funds due to a rent payment. The court ruled the document format claim under Paragraph 245AA invalid, dismissed the application of evidential flexibility policy for substantive errors, and found no legitimate expectation was established. The case underscores rigid adherence to Immigration Rules.
J U D G M E N T
MR JUSTICE CRANSTON: The claimant is a national of China who challenges by means of judicial review a decision of the Secretary of State to refuse her application for an extension of her leave as a Tier 4 general migrant. It is a very unfortunate case in which the claimant has been badly let down by the agents she employed -- the Overseas Student Service Centre Limited (the "OSSC") -- a company which provides services in relation to the completion of migrant applications like this. As a result of what happened in this case, they have apologised to the claimant and they have refunded her application fee. That, however, is no consolation at all for what occurred.
The background is that on 10 September 2011 the claimant was granted leave to enter the United Kingdom as a Tier 4 general student migrant. That leave continued until 13 September 2012. The claimant was undertaking a BA in Business and Management at the University of Northampton. She graduated in June 2012. She wanted to continue her studies in this country and was admitted to study a MSc in Events Management at Bournemouth University at the beginning of September 2012.
On Friday 7 September 2012 she entered into a contract with OSSC to make her application to extend her leave to remain as a Tier 4 general student migrant so she could undertake the Bournemouth course. She signed the application on Wednesday 12 September. The OSSC signed it on the 13 September and lodged the application the following day, Friday 14 September. That was one day late. On the 18 September the Secretary of State wrote to the OSSC in standard format acknowledging the receipt of her application. The letter stated:
"If there is any problem with the validity of the application such as missing documentation or omissions on the form, the caseworker will write to you as soon as possible to advise what action you need to take to rectify the problem."
The claimant had a bank account with Lloyds Bank in Bournemouth. On 9 September it had issued a statement about her account to be included with her application. That showed that over the summer of 2012, there had been several payments into her account so that on 3 September the balance was £7,539.62. However, there was a payment out on 4 September of £4,400, leaving a balance of £3,139.62. We now know that that payment out was for rent in advance for an assured short-hold tenancy in Bournemouth. There were no further movements on the account that week.
On 28 Dec