Tier 4 rules regarding re-sitting exams and extensions of leave
RS (Pakistan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] EWCA Civ 434
This Court of Appeal case was heard on 18th April 2011 against the decision of the Upper Tribunal decision promulgated on 2nd September 2010. The appeal concerned the interpretation of Paragraph 120 of Appendix A of the Immigration Rules. The appellant had failed his exams in June 2009 and sought leave to remain in the UK in order to re-sit his examinations without having to attend any accredited course of study within that period.
Background to the case
The appellant is a Pakistani citizen who arrived in the UK on 31 December 2004 having gained entry clearance as a student. His leave was valid until 30 April 2006. The appellant was permitted to extend his leave to remain as a student until 31 October 2009. He was a student at BPP Law school and studied graduate diploma from 1 September 2008 to 26 June 2009. He did not pass his examinations and was due to resit them in August 2009. However he fell ill and BPP allowed a concession which enabled him to resit the examinations between 17 May 2010 and 7 June 2010.
On 28 October 2009, the appellant made an application for leave to remain as a Tier 4 (General) Student to re sit his examinations. The SSHD refused in a decision letter dated 24 December 2009 on the basis that pursuant to paragraph 120 (d)(iii) of Appendix A to the Rules the appellant did not satisfy the requirement of a minimum of 15 hours per week of the course he was attending at the time.
The BPP verified by an email dated 21 December 2009 that the appellant had not been attending classes because his course had ended. It also noted that there was a requirement that the appellant had to re sit the examinations between May/ June 2010.
The appellant had no intention of attending any BPP training during 2009-2010 as he did not want to repeat and pay for any accredited course of study.
The appellant appealed against the SSHD decision and the issue came before an immigration judge on 29 March 2010. At the hearing the appellant was unrepresented. He stated that he had been in receipt of private study in preparation for his re sits in May/June 2010 but was not attending any classes.
In a determination dated 7 April 2010, the appeal was dismissed by the Immigration judge on the grounds that he was incapable of meeting the requirements set out in paragraph 120 (d)(iii). In a further appeal it was concluded that paragraph 120 (d)(iii) had the intention only to cover a current course of study rather than any previous course which had without success been undertaken.
The BPP notified to the SSHD that the Appellant had chosen to defer his resits for another year, May/June 2011. There is no clarification as to Appellant’s deferral of the necessary examinations. He was also working 20 hours per week.
Grounds of Appeal
It was argued that foreign students should be encouraged to come to UK and that any interpretation of the rules that would militate against this should be avoided.
The appellant had to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the SSHD, that he was capable and had the intention to pursue a bona fide course of study, that he could show evidence of regular attendance. The appellant was expected to show "intention, ability, attendance and progress". Counsel for the appellant relied on paragraph 69E of the previous rules dealing with re-sits which provided that extensions should be granted for the applicant to take his examinations at the first available opportunity.
Counsel also referred to the current Guidance for Sponsor Applications for Tier 4 of the points based system. Paragraph 258 states that
“Where the student has to do a re-sit or repeat a module of study sponsors must decide based on their knowledge of the student and their assessment of his/her ability to pass the course, whether or not it is appropriate to continue sponsoring him/her".
Counsel submitted that due to the fact that the necessary letter of confirmation /visa given by BPP, they must consider him to be a bona fide candidate.
The second ground of appeal was that where a student was seeking leave to re sit an examination, he should not be expected to demonstrate that he has to repeat his course.
Conclusion
The Court of Appeal held that the appellant was ineligible for an extension of leave as he was not enrolled on a full time course or a course which consisting of a minimum of 15 hours per day. The appellant’s construction of the Rule would permit students to remain in the UK year after year if they chose to defer their examinations The Rules had not been enforced to enable students who fail their exams to remain indefinitely in the UK with the freedom to work, until they chose to take or re sit exams. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
April 2011