Gisha Varkey Kampaka Kunnel v The Secretary of State for the Home Department

For paragraph 245 HD(g) of the Immigration Rules (HC 395), a course completed through attendance over just more than three months is not a course of study of at least one academic year in duration. The Tribunal did not need to give a precise general definition of an academic year where the course plainly fell on the wrong side of that requirement. A course's potential to take longer for less proficient students did not displace the finding concerning the appellant's actual three-month attendance and completion.

The appellant, an Indian-qualified nurse, had leave as a Tier 4 student. She later applied to vary her leave to that of a Tier 2 migrant. Although she had the required points under the relevant appendices, the application was refused because she had not completed a course of study of at least one academic year during her student leave.

She had completed City University's Overseas Nurses Programme between 23 November 2010 and 1 March 2011. The course could take up to nine months, but her nursing proficiency enabled her to complete it sooner. The First-tier Tribunal dismissed her appeal in a determination promulgated on 19 December 2011. The issue was whether that finding involved an error of law.

1. Appeal dismissed. The First-tier Tribunal made no error of law in finding that the appellant's course did not satisfy paragraph 245 HD(g) of the Immigration Rules (HC 395).
2. The Tribunal accepted that the course could take longer, potentially up to nine months, because it included practical nursing placements after initial class-based learning. It also accepted that the appellant completed it more quickly because of her prior nursing proficiency.
3. Nevertheless, the certified period of attendance was only just over three calendar months. The Upper Tribunal held that, whatever the exact definition of one academic year, a course of that duration plainly did not meet the requirement of a course of study of at least one academic year in duration.
4. The appellate task was confined to deciding whether there were grounds to interfere with the First-tier Tribunal's factual finding. There were none. The First-tier Tribunal's determination was upheld.

• Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber): dismissed the appellant's appeal and upheld the First-tier Tribunal's determination.
• First-tier Tribunal: in a determination promulgated on 19 December 2011, dismissed the appeal against the refusal of the Tier 2 variation application.