Cassimkhan, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

Under paragraphs 57 and 59 of the Immigration Rules, the requirements for student entry are cumulative. An immigration officer may refuse entry under paragraph 57(iv) where the evidence shows that the applicant does not genuinely intend to leave the United Kingdom at the end of the proposed studies. A reference to the applicant not being a genuine student may record a factual finding supporting that conclusion; it need not constitute a separate legal test. The fact that refusal is not expressed under paragraph 57(vi) does not establish that its requirements were accepted. Financial circumstances may remain relevant to the assessment of the intention to leave. Judicial review will not succeed where there is evidence capable of supporting the immigration officer’s conclusion and the decision is not irrational.

The claimant, a Mauritian citizen, sought judicial review of the Immigration Service’s refusal on 31 January 2003 to grant him leave to enter the United Kingdom as a student. He proposed to study English and then motor mechanics. The refusal stated that he was not a genuine student who intended to leave the United Kingdom after completing his studies.

The claimant argued that the decision failed to address paragraph 57(ii), relied on irrelevant matters, and was irrational because he had satisfied paragraph 57(vi). The central issues were whether the decision was made under the Immigration Rules and whether the conclusion under paragraph 57(iv) was rationally supported.

1. The application was dismissed. The Immigration Rules impose six cumulative requirements for student entry. Under paragraphs 58 and 59, leave may be granted only where the immigration officer is satisfied that each requirement in paragraph 57 is met, and refusal follows if the officer is not so satisfied.
2. The court rejected the argument that the officer had unlawfully applied an undefined separate test of whether the claimant was a genuine student. Read in context, the statement that he was not a genuine student was a factual finding supporting the conclusion that he did not intend to leave the United Kingdom on completion of his studies. That conclusion fell squarely within paragraph 57(iv).
3. The fact that the refusal was not expressed by reference to paragraph 57(ii) did not establish that the officer had failed to consider the relevant requirements. In any event, any additional reference to the claimant not being a genuine student could not assist him because the refusal was independently justified under paragraph 57(iv).
4. The court rejected the contention that absence of refusal under paragraph 57(vi) meant that compliance with that requirement had been accepted. The officer had in fact considered lack of means material. Financial circumstances could bear both on paragraph 57(vi) and on the applicant’s intention to leave under paragraph 57(iv).
5. The conclusion under paragraph 57(iv) was rationally supported by evidence. Relevant matters included the claimant’s limited understanding of his career plans, his inability to explain how United Kingdom qualifications would improve his prospects in Mauritius, his failure to prepare for the proposed studies by taking an English course in Mauritius, and the lack of credibility in his explanation for that failure.