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

Immigration Rules must be construed sensibly according to the natural meaning of their language, rather than with the strictness applicable to statutes. Whether several modules constitute a qualifying course of study is a fact-sensitive question. Relevant considerations include their sequence, relationship, provider, institution and intended educational outcome. Sequential and related modules may constitute one course leading to a degree-level qualification even where they confer separate qualifications, may be taken separately, and do not impose formal progression requirements.

The claimant, a Brazilian national, sought an extension of leave to remain as a student. She was studying three British Computer Society modules, accredited at levels 4, 5 and 6, through the same institution. The Secretary of State considered them to be three separate courses and refused the application because only the final module was at degree level.

The claimant sought judicial review. The issue was whether her studies fell within paragraphs 60(i)(b) and 6 of the applicable Immigration Rules as a course of study leading to a recognised qualification at level 6 or above.

1. Construction of the Rules. The Immigration Rules are policy guidance and are to be construed sensibly according to the natural meaning of the language employed. They are not read with all the strictness applicable to a statute or statutory instrument.
2. Meaning of a qualifying course. No fixed principle determines whether a course falls within the Rules. The question generally depends on an assessment of the facts against a sensible reading of the Rules. Separate modules can constitute one course where they are sequential, related, undertaken with the same provider and institution, and intended to lead to the relevant educational outcome.
3. Application. The claimant had undertaken three sequential and related modules in the correct sequence, with the British Computer Society at the London Institute of Technology and English. Although progression was not formally mandatory and the modules produced separate qualifications, the arrangement was plainly intended to progress towards a level 6 qualification. It therefore constituted a course of study leading to a degree-level qualification.
4. The Secretary of State’s contrary interpretation was wrong. The decision was quashed and reconsideration by the Secretary of State was ordered.

First-instance judicial review. The court quashed the Secretary of State’s decision and ordered reconsideration.