Babu, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Home Department

A student’s immigration leave may be curtailed where the educational institution withdraws sponsorship and the student is no longer studying there. The claimant’s personal responsibility for losing student status is immaterial to that consequence. A standard period of 60 days to secure a new sponsor will generally be respected, and the court will not extend or interfere with it except in the most exceptional circumstances. A claimant who wishes to rely on a different basis for remaining in the United Kingdom must make the appropriate fresh application. Judicial review is not a vehicle for granting such relief on grounds of sympathy.

The claimant entered the United Kingdom as a student and held leave extended to 30 April 2014. After he complained that his college was not providing courses, the college withdrew sponsorship and notified the UK Border Agency. His leave was curtailed to 23 June 2012, giving him the standard 60-day period to find a new sponsor.

The claimant commenced judicial review proceedings shortly before that period expired. Permission was refused on the papers by Blake J on 20 September 2012, and the claimant renewed his application for an oral hearing. The central issues were whether the curtailment was lawful and whether the court should intervene to extend the time allowed to secure a new sponsor.

1. Application refused. The claimant was no longer a student at the college and therefore no longer satisfied the basis on which he had permission to remain as a student. The curtailment of his leave was lawful.
2. The court treated the claimant as potentially innocent in the dispute with the college. That did not alter the legal position. Whether the loss of student status resulted from the claimant’s conduct or the college’s conduct, he required a sponsor in order to remain in the United Kingdom as a student.
3. The claimant had been given the standard 60 days to find a new college or sponsor. The court would not, save in the most exceptional circumstances, interfere with or extend that period. The fact that judicial review proceedings had given him substantially longer did not assist him, particularly as he still had no sponsor.
4. The claimant’s other complaints, including matters concerning a separate judgment obtained by the college, did not arise in the judicial review. Any challenge to that judgment had to be pursued through the applicable appeal process.
5. If the claimant had another basis for remaining in the United Kingdom, he could make a fresh application in the usual way. The court would not determine that question within these proceedings or exercise sympathy as a substitute for the appropriate immigration application. The complaints were wholly unfounded and unarguable. Permission to apply for judicial review was refused.
6. The order for costs was confirmed at £250.

• High Court (Administrative Court): Blake J refused permission on the papers on 20 September 2012. On renewal, the Deputy High Court Judge refused permission to apply for judicial review and confirmed costs of £250.