VVT v THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT

Where an applicant bears the burden of proving compliance with substantive immigration requirements, the respondent bears the burden of proving a general ground for refusal. The civil standard remains the balance of probabilities. Allegations carrying serious consequences require evidence of sufficient strength and quality and critical, anxious and heightened scrutiny.

Under Immigration Rules paragraph 322(1A), refusal follows where false documents or representations are submitted in relation to an application. Where the evidence establishes that an institution never offered the asserted course or qualification, a claim to have completed it is false. A finding that the applicant knew the claim and supporting documents were false also justifies a finding of deception.

The appellant, an Indian national, appealed against the refusal of his application for leave to remain as a Tier 1 (Post-Study Work) Migrant. He relied on documents said to show that he had completed a postgraduate diploma in information technology at London College of Professional Studies (LCPS).

The respondent refused the application under paragraph 322(1A) of the Immigration Rules, alleging that the LCPS documents were false, and also maintained that the appellant failed to obtain the required points under paragraph 245Z. The appellant denied deception and contended that the college had issued genuine documents.

The Tribunal heard evidence from the appellant and from the former proprietor of LCPS. The central issues were whether LCPS had operated the asserted course, whether the documents were false, and whether the appellant had used deception.

1. Appeal dismissed. The respondent proved, on the balance of probabilities, the general ground for refusal under paragraph 322(1A) of the Immigration Rules.

2. The appellant bore the burden of proving that he met the substantive requirements for Tier 1 leave. The respondent bore the burden of proving the general ground for refusal. Applying NA and Others (Cambridge College of Learning) [2009] UKAIT 00031, and having regard to Re B (Children) [2008] UKHL 35, the Tribunal held that the applicable standard was the single civil standard of the balance of probabilities. Because a Part 9 refusal could have serious consequences, the respondent's evidence required critical, anxious and heightened scrutiny.

3. That scrutiny was satisfied. The Tribunal accepted the former proprietor's evidence, supported by the college's records and graduation programme. It found that, before December 2008, LCPS neither taught non-accredited courses nor awarded or issued postgraduate diplomas in its own right. Genuine student identification numbers had six digits; a seven-digit number was not genuine, although a six-digit number alone did not establish that a student was genuine.

4. The asserted PgDip IT was never run by LCPS. The appellant's enrolment letter, completion letter and diploma were false. Since no person could have completed the claimed course, the appellant necessarily knew that his claim amounted to a false representation. He also knew that the documents purporting to support it were false. The Tribunal therefore found deliberate deception.

5. It was unnecessary to determine paragraph 245Z once refusal under paragraph 322(1A) was established. In any event, the appellant had not proved the required attributes and English-language points, and therefore could not satisfy paragraph 245Z.

• Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber): appeal from the Secretary of State's refusal of the Tier 1 (Post-Study Work) application dismissed.