TS (Pakistan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

Where a student seeks to extend leave, the Immigration Rules require a valid Confirmation of Acceptance for Studies from a licensed institution. If the sponsoring institution’s licence has been revoked and no replacement Confirmation is produced, the requirements are not met and refusal of further leave is inevitable. Where refusal of leave and removal directions are made simultaneously contrary to the relevant statutory provisions, the removal directions are unlawful even though the refusal of leave is correct. An appellate tribunal may correct that distinction and need not uphold an appeal at large merely because one part of the decision was defective.

The appellant, a Pakistani national who entered the United Kingdom as a student, sought an extension of his leave. The Secretary of State refused the application under paragraph 245ZX(c) and (d) of the Immigration Rules and set removal directions on the same day.

The First-tier Tribunal found that refusal of further leave was correct but treated the simultaneously issued removal directions as unlawful. It apparently allowed the appeal at large. The Upper Tribunal overturned that determination. This was a renewed application for permission to bring a second appeal to the Court of Appeal.

1. Renewed application dismissed. The application for permission to appeal was entirely hopeless and was dismissed.
2. The refusal of further student leave was correct and inevitable. The Confirmation of Acceptance for Studies relied upon had been assigned by Universal Professional and Vocational College, whose licence had been revoked by the Home Office. The appellant produced no Confirmation from another institution. Without a valid Confirmation, he could not satisfy the Immigration Rules.
3. The First-tier Tribunal correctly recognised that the removal directions were unlawful because the refusal of leave and the directions had been made simultaneously, contrary to the relevant statutory provisions. That defect did not make the refusal of further leave unlawful.
4. The Upper Tribunal had done no more and no less than correct the First-tier Tribunal’s error in apparently allowing the appeal at large, thereby overturning both the proper refusal of leave and the defective removal directions. There was no important point of principle or practice, or other compelling reason, warranting a second appeal.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Longmore LJ refused permission on the papers on 3 November 2014. On renewal, Laws LJ dismissed the application in [2015] EWCA Civ 698.
• Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber): Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge McWilliam, in a decision promulgated on 23 April 2013, overturned the First-tier Tribunal’s determination.
• First-tier Tribunal: On 11 February 2013, it found that refusal of further leave was correct but treated the simultaneously issued removal directions as unlawful and apparently allowed the appeal at large.