Adeem Rasool Mirza v Secretary of State for the Home Department

A qualification which is merely comparable or equivalent in standard to a Bachelor’s degree is not, for the purposes of the Tier 1 (Post-Study Work) rules, a UK recognised degree. The Immigration Rules are construed according to their natural and ordinary meaning, objectively discerned from their language. Policy guidance cannot alter or interpret an unambiguous rule, although a decision may be unlawful if more favourable guidance was not lawfully considered.

A Bachelor’s-level qualification must satisfy the definition in paragraph 6 of the Immigration Rules. It must be awarded by a body authorised to grant degrees, or be a recognised award under section 214(2)(c) of the Education Reform Act 1988.

The appellant, a Pakistani national, applied for leave to remain as a Tier 1 (Post-Study Work) Migrant after completing the ACCA Fundamentals Level qualification. He claimed points on the basis that the qualification was a UK recognised Bachelor’s degree.

The Secretary of State refused the application. The First-tier Tribunal dismissed the appellant’s appeal. He appealed to the Upper Tribunal, relying on guidance and evidence that the ACCA qualification was comparable to British Bachelor’s degree standard.

The central issue was whether the ACCA Fundamentals Level qualification was a qualification recognised by Table 10 to Appendix A of the Immigration Rules.

1. Appeal dismissed. The First-tier Tribunal made no error of law. Its dismissal of the appellant’s appeal therefore stood.

2. The appellant could not obtain the 75 points required under paragraph 245FD and Appendix A of the Immigration Rules unless he had been awarded a qualification within Table 10. The relevant category required a UK recognised Bachelor’s or postgraduate degree, not a qualification merely comparable with one.

3. Applying the construction approach in Mahad v ECO [2009] UKSC 16, the Rules had to be read according to their natural and ordinary meaning. The Secretary of State’s guidance could not be used to interpret the Rules. It did not assist the appellant in any event, because it reflected the same restriction and excluded professional and vocational qualifications unless specifically listed.

4. Under paragraph 6, a UK Bachelor’s degree required a qualification designated at Bachelor’s level and awarded by a body authorised by Royal Charter or legislation to grant degrees, or a recognised award under section 214(2)(c) of the Education Reform Act 1988. There was no evidence that ACCA had degree-awarding powers or that its qualification had been designated as a recognised award. Nor had ACCA itself designated the qualification as a Bachelor’s degree.

5. The ACCA Fundamentals Level qualification was therefore neither a UK recognised degree nor another qualification accepted by Table 10. The appellant was not entitled to points under Appendix A or, consequently, Appendix B.

• Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber): Appeal dismissed. The Tribunal held that the First-tier Tribunal had made no error of law and its dismissal stood.

• First-tier Tribunal: Dismissed the appellant’s appeal against the refusal of leave to remain, concluding that the ACCA qualification was not a UK recognised Bachelor’s-level degree.