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

Immigration Rules are construed according to the natural and ordinary meaning of their words. A UK recognised bachelor’s or postgraduate degree means an actual degree awarded by a degree-awarding institution, not a professional qualification merely equivalent in level. Published guidance cannot enlarge a clear rule, although it may assist an applicant where genuine ambiguity exists. The requirement that UK NARIC assess whether a qualification meets the recognised degree standard is lawful. A points-based calculator need not be exhaustive, and guidance may provide machinery for obtaining an assessment, including any fee. Restricting the post-study route to actual degree holders was a legitimate policy choice and did not irrationally or disproportionately interfere with Article 8 rights.

Two linked appeals concerned qualifications under the points-based immigration system. Raza Shahid Syed and Kamran Ahmed challenged the refusal of leave to remain as Tier 1 (Post-Study Work) Migrants because their Association of Chartered Certified Accountants qualifications were treated as professional qualifications rather than UK recognised degrees. Holman J dismissed their judicial review claims: [2013] EWHC 984 (Admin).

Malik Sohail Kamran and Samina Gul challenged decisions concerning a Postgraduate Diploma in Management Studies and the role of UK NARIC under the Tier 1 (General) route. Their appeals had been dismissed in the tribunal process. The central issues were whether professional or equivalent qualifications satisfied the relevant degree requirements and whether UK NARIC’s role and the supporting guidance were lawful.

The Court of Appeal granted permission to appeal in the Syed and Ahmed cases and dismissed all the appeals.

1. Construction of the rules. The court applied the approach in Mahad v Entry Clearance Officer [2009] UKSC 16, [2010] 1 WLR 48. The rules are administrative policy statements and are construed sensibly according to the natural and ordinary meaning of their language. Policy assumptions cannot replace the words used. Guidance may assist an applicant where there is genuine ambiguity, but cannot make the rules more restrictive.
2. ACCA qualifications. The phrase a UK recognised bachelor or postgraduate degree in Table 10 required an actual degree awarded by a degree-awarding institution. The word recognised did not introduce a test of equivalence by UK NARIC. The definition of a UK Bachelors degree, the reference to recognised awards in the Education Reform Act 1988, the contrasting wording of other rules, and the guidance all supported that construction. ACCA professional qualifications therefore did not qualify.
3. Policy and Article 8. Limiting the post-study route to graduates holding actual degrees was a legitimate policy choice. Professional qualification holders could pursue the relevant profession through another immigration route. The distinction was neither irrational nor ultra vires, and the Article 8 argument disclosed no disproportionate interference.
4. UK NARIC. Under paragraph 5 of Appendix A, points were available only if UK NARIC deemed the qualification to meet or exceed the recognised standard of a UK degree. The role was not shown to be unlawfully delegated. The points-based calculator was not a complete list, and an applicant could request an individual assessment. The guidance could lawfully explain that procedure and any fee did not invalidate it. The substantive requirement remained in the rules, consistently with R (Alvi) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] UKSC 33, [2012] 1 WLR 2208.
5. Earlier successful applications under different schemes did not establish that the Diploma was equivalent to a UK degree. The appeals of Kamran and Gul consequently also failed.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Permission granted in the Syed and Ahmed appeals; all appeals dismissed.
• High Court, Administrative Court: Holman J dismissed the judicial review claims brought by Syed and Ahmed: [2013] EWHC 984 (Admin).
• Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber): The tribunal appeals concerning Kamran and Gul followed the dismissal of the underlying appeals concerning the Tier 1 (General) application and dependant application.