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

Under the Tier 1 (Post-Study Work) provisions, an applicant had to hold a recognised degree, or one of the expressly specified alternative qualifications. A professional qualification did not qualify merely because it was comparable to, or at the level of, a bachelor’s or postgraduate degree. The distinction between a UK recognised body and a UK listed body was material: study at a listed body could count, but the resulting award still had to be a recognised degree. The Policy Guidance repeated and clarified the Immigration Rules. It did not enlarge or relax them. Fairness, proportionality, the skilled nature of the proposed work, and the prestige of a qualification could not justify reading words into clear rules.

Two conjoined judicial review claims concerned refusals of applications for leave to remain under the Tier 1 (Post-Study Work) Migrants route. Each claimant had passed the professional level of the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants qualification. The Secretary of State awarded, or considered awarding, points under some parts of Table 10 in Appendix A, but refused to treat the ACCA qualification as the recognised degree required by the first row.

The claimants argued that the word recognised, the definitions in paragraph 6 of the Immigration Rules, and the Home Office Policy Guidance extended the scheme to qualifications equivalent to a degree. The central issue was whether the ACCA professional level qualification qualified for points under the Rules or the Guidance.

1. Both claims dismissed. The ACCA professional level qualification was not a degree and therefore did not satisfy paragraph (a) of the first row in Table 10 of Appendix A to the Immigration Rules.
2. The reference to a recognised degree was construed in the context of Part IV of the Education Reform Act 1988. Sections 214 to 216 distinguished recognised awards from unrecognised degrees. A qualification awarded by an institution without degree-awarding powers could not qualify as a recognised degree merely because it was comparable in level to a bachelor’s or master’s degree.
3. The distinction between a UK recognised body and a UK listed body did not assist the claimants. A listed body could provide a course leading to a degree awarded by a recognised body, but its own professional qualification was not thereby converted into a recognised degree.
4. The definition of degree level study, which expressly included an equivalent qualification, applied elsewhere in the Rules and did not enlarge Table 10, which contained no equivalent-qualification provision.
5. The Policy Guidance did not resolve any ambiguity in favour of the claimants and did not relax or widen the Rules. Its references to degree level, recognised bodies and professional qualifications confirmed that professional qualifications were excluded unless they were one of the expressly listed qualifications.
6. The earlier and less restrictive schemes, the UK NARIC comparison with a British master’s degree, and arguments based on fairness or proportionality could not alter the clear language of the Rules or justify implying words into them.

The court reached substantially the same conclusion as the Upper Tribunal in Mirza v SSHD [2013] UKUT 00041 (IAC).

First-instance judicial review claims heard together in the Administrative Court. Both claims were dismissed.