DN v Secretary of State for the Home Department

For the reduced two-month maintenance requirement, an applicant's established presence derives from study, not from academic success. Where a previous course ended within four months, “completed” in Appendix C to the Immigration Rules does not require successful completion.

The course must nevertheless meet the applicable duration and timing requirements. An applicant whose previous course lasted less than six months and ended more than four months before the new course must show nine months' maintenance.

The appellant applied on 30 December 2009 for further leave to remain as a Tier 4 Migrant to begin a course at Alpha Meridian Colleges. His fees were paid, but the respondent refused the application because he had not shown the required maintenance at the date of application.

Immigration Judge Doran dismissed the appeal on the basis that the appellant had failed examinations on his earlier course and had therefore not “completed” it for the purposes of Appendix C to the Immigration Rules. The appellant appealed to the Upper Tribunal, which considered whether “completed” required successful completion and whether he qualified for the reduced maintenance requirement.

1. Appeal dismissed. The appellant was required to show £5,400, representing nine months' maintenance, when he applied. His balance of £3,231 was insufficient.
2. The Upper Tribunal held that “completed” should not be read as requiring successful completion. The concept of an established presence studying in the United Kingdom is concerned with the fact of study, rather than whether the student passed examinations or obtained the intended qualification. This reading is supported by the second use of “completed” in paragraph 14 of Appendix C, which concerns a continuing course and plainly cannot require attainment of its final qualification.
3. That error in the First-tier Tribunal's reasoning was immaterial. The appellant's prior course ran from 1 April to 31 August 2009, and so lasted for less than six months. Further, more than four months elapsed before his new course began on 1 February 2010. He therefore did not meet the duration and timing conditions for the reduced maintenance requirement.
4. The additional bank statement showing funds after the application date could not cure the deficiency. The relevant maintenance had to be available when the application was made.

• Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber): appeal dismissed. The First-tier Tribunal's error in treating “completed” as successful completion was not material.
• First-tier Tribunal: Immigration Judge Doran dismissed the appeal on 23 June 2010 against the refusal of the Tier 4 application.