Leeds Unique Education Ltd (t/a Leeds Professional College) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

At the permission and interim-relief stage, a sponsor’s low attendance figures do not necessarily establish that students lacked the intention or ability to study when visa documentation was issued. Duties under detailed sponsor guidance must be read consistently with its specified reporting requirements and commencement dates. General introductory statements should not be treated as imposing wider or earlier duties where that would make the detailed provisions contradictory or otiose. A discretionary power to withdraw a licence must not be treated as operating invariably. Where a decision is strongly arguable unlawful and causes serious commercial and immigration-related consequences, interim relief may be granted, provided the regulator remains able to exercise proper supervisory powers.

Leeds Unique Education Ltd and AA Hamilton College Ltd operated colleges recruiting overseas students under the sponsor licensing scheme. The Secretary of State suspended and subsequently revoked each college’s sponsor licence, relying principally on student non-enrolment and low attendance.

Leeds sought permission to challenge the revocation and interim relief. Hamilton sought permission to challenge both suspension and revocation, together with interim relief. The central issues were whether the decisions arguably misinterpreted the sponsor guidance, treated attendance and non-enrolment as conclusive evidence of defective pre-issuing assessments, failed to consider relevant information, and departed from the published policy on discretionary withdrawal.

1. Leeds: Permission to apply for judicial review was granted, and permission was given to amend the claim to add the challenge based on the apparent departure from published policy. The grounds were at least reasonably arguable.
2. The sponsor guidance was strongly arguable to be governed by its detailed provisions. Paragraphs 1, 2 and 10 were introductory and had to inform, rather than contradict, the specific duties in paragraph 280. In particular, the postponement of certain reporting duties until February 2010 would make little sense if the general provisions imposed those duties earlier.
3. The Secretary of State was entitled to require conscientious assessment, before issuing a visa letter or confirmation of acceptance for studies, of a prospective student’s intention and ability to follow the course. However, low attendance or non-enrolment did not necessarily prove that the student lacked that intention or ability at the earlier date. Intervening events could alter intention or ability, and a reasonable assessment system could not identify every later failure.
4. The guidance used missed expected contacts, rather than an 80 per cent attendance threshold, as the relevant reporting benchmark from February 2010. The evidence also made it strongly arguable that the Secretary of State had relied on an attendance requirement which was not operative when the relevant data were collected.
5. The guidance distinguished cases where withdrawal was required, normally required, or discretionary. Treating revocation as invariably following the alleged defaults was an arguable unlawful departure from that calibrated policy.
6. Hamilton: Permission was granted to challenge both suspension and revocation. The limited reasons initially given for suspension were reasonably arguable as unfair, inadequately reasoned and perverse. The later revocation decision was strongly arguable to have misunderstood capacity evidence, the significance of non-enrolment, and the effect of the attendance data.
7. Interim relief was granted in both cases. The balance of convenience favoured relief because licence withdrawal caused substantial business and immigration-related prejudice, while carefully framed orders would preserve the Secretary of State’s regulatory and supervisory powers. The substantive claims were not finally determined.

Not an appeal. The judgment determined applications for permission to apply for judicial review and interim relief.