Gumama, R (on the application of) v Entry Clearance Officer, Manila

An application for student entry clearance is an application to enter as a student, not one tied irrevocably to a named institution or course. On reconsideration after a successful appeal, the Entry Clearance Officer must assess the relevant requirements of paragraph 57 of the Immigration Rules, including any alternative institution and course put forward. A change already known to the tribunal cannot be treated as a significant and material change of which the tribunal was unaware. The decision was quashed, but the court could not direct that entry clearance be granted.

The claimant, a Philippine national, applied under paragraph 57 of the Immigration Rules for entry clearance as a student to study at Cambridge College of Learning. Her application was refused, including because the college was said not to be bona fide. The Asylum and Immigration Tribunal allowed her appeal, although the college had closed and no direction to grant entry clearance was made.

The claimant later obtained a place at London City College on a different course. The Entry Clearance Officer reconsidered the original application by reference only to Cambridge College of Learning and re-refused it because that institution was no longer on the relevant register. The claimant sought judicial review. The central issue was whether reconsideration had to take account of the alternative institution and course.

1. Permission to apply for judicial review was granted. The claim against the Secretary of State was dismissed because the appropriate defendant was the Entry Clearance Officer.
2. The claimant’s application was for leave to enter as a student. The identity of the particular institution was not a defining characteristic of either the application or the leave sought. Applying Obed and others v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2008] EWCA Civ 747, student entry clearance did not confine the entrant to one course or institution.
3. Because the appeal had succeeded, the application had to be reconsidered. Since it was already known that Cambridge College of Learning could not be attended, meaningful reconsideration required the ECO to consider further arrangements put forward by the claimant. The ECO had to assess whether London City College was on the relevant register and was a bona fide private educational institution under paragraph 57(i), and whether the proposed course satisfied paragraph 57(ii).
4. The removal of Cambridge College of Learning from the register was not a significant and material change of circumstances of which the tribunal was unaware. The AIT knew of the closure and had informed the parties. The ECO’s decision was erroneous because it treated the application as tied to Cambridge College of Learning and ignored London City College.
5. The re-refusal dated 28 August 2009 was quashed. The court declined to direct the ECO to grant entry clearance. The application was remitted to the ECO for reconsideration by reference to paragraph 57, with London City College considered as the institution relied upon.

The judgment describes a prior appeal to the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal.

• Asylum and Immigration Tribunal: allowed the appeal against refusal of entry clearance. No direction to grant entry clearance was made under section 87(1) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002.
• High Court (Administrative Court): quashed the subsequent re-refusal and directed reconsideration.