The Secretary of State for the Home Department v Almas Qureshi

A pending Tier 4 student application may be varied under section 3C(5) of the Immigration Act 1971. The statute does not limit the number of variations, provided each is notified before the Secretary of State decides the application.

Where a valid variation substitutes a new educational institution, the relevant date for assessing maintenance funds under paragraph 1A(c) of Appendix C is the date of the most recent variation. A rule requiring funds to exist at the date of application retains that fixed historical requirement, but the application as varied supplies the relevant date.

Miss Qureshi applied in time for further leave as a Tier 4 student to study at Empire College London. Before the Secretary of State decided the application, she notified the Home Office that she intended instead to study at Birmingham City University and supplied a new CAS. She later supplied updated bank statements.

The Secretary of State refused the application because the maintenance funds were assessed by reference to the original application date. The First-tier Tribunal allowed Miss Qureshi's appeal, treating the later correspondence as creating a fresh relevant date. The Secretary of State appealed to the Upper Tribunal.

The central issues were whether a pending Tier 4 application could be varied more than once and, if so, which date governed the 28-day maintenance-funds requirement in Appendix C.

1. Appeal dismissed. The First-tier Tribunal made no material error of law. Its decision allowing Miss Qureshi's appeal stood.

2. Section 3C(5) of the Immigration Act 1971 permits variation of the single in-time application which extends leave under section 3C. It does not restrict the number of variations. The essential limit is temporal: notice of a variation must be given before the Secretary of State's decision, because there is then no pending application left to vary.

3. The changes sought remained for the same purpose, namely further leave to pursue studies. They were therefore not caught by paragraph 34E of the Immigration Rules, which concerns a variation to a different purpose requiring a specified application form.

4. Appendix C required the applicant to show funds at the date of application and for the preceding specified 28-day period. That fixed-date requirement was unaffected by the approach discussed in AQ (Pakistan) v SSHD [2011] EWCA Civ 833, which concerned a different rule and issue.

5. Where a pending Tier 4 application is varied to substitute a new college, paragraph 1A(c) of Appendix C is applied by reference to the most recent variation. The letter of 15 December 2010 was itself a variation. The appellant could then refine it on 12 January 2011 by providing bank statements. That later date was the effective date for assessing funds.

6. There was no dispute that the required £6,950 had been held for the relevant preceding 28 days. The Secretary of State's appeal was accordingly dismissed.

• Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber): dismissed the Secretary of State's appeal and upheld the First-tier Tribunal's decision.
• First-tier Tribunal: Immigration Judge J Macdonald allowed Miss Qureshi's appeal against refusal of leave to remain as a Tier 4 student.