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

Under paragraph 120A of Appendix A to the Immigration Rules, academic progress is measured against the course for which leave was granted, not a different course later undertaken. A proposed course must be above that level, or be same-level study confirmed as complementary. The rule provides no flexibility merely because a course change was understandable. On a second appeal, permission should be refused where no point of principle or other feature warrants Court of Appeal intervention. Family life established during limited student leave, without obstacles to family life in Pakistan, did not provide a viable Article 8 basis.

The applicant had been granted further leave to remain on 14 August 2012 as a Tier 4 student to pursue an ACCA course, treated as NVQ level 7. He instead studied an NVQ level 4 course after his college indicated that the ACCA course would not continue. He later sought leave to progress to NVQ level 5.

The Secretary of State refused the application on 2 September 2013. The First-tier Tribunal dismissed his appeal, and Upper Tribunal Judge Perkins dismissed a further appeal by determination dated 24 June 2014. The applicant renewed his application for permission to appeal. The central issue was whether paragraph 120A of Appendix A to the Immigration Rules referred to the course actually undertaken or the course for which leave had been granted.

Application dismissed. Lord Justice Tomlinson held as follows.

1. Paragraph 120A of Appendix A to the Immigration Rules requires academic progress to be assessed by reference to the course for which the applicant was granted leave. The applicant had been granted leave for an ACCA course at level 7. His subsequent decision to study an NVQ level 4 course did not alter that comparator.
2. The proposed NVQ level 5 course was below level 7. The application therefore fell outside the Rules. The fact that the course change may have resulted from the college’s circumstances, and that the applicant had not acted cynically or irresponsibly, could not create flexibility in the Rules. The approach was consistent with Naeem (Para 120A of Appendix A) [2013] UKUT 465 (IAC), which identified the relevant level as that of the course for which leave had been granted.
3. As this was a second appeal, permission was inappropriate because the application raised no point of principle and disclosed no feature warranting Court of Appeal intervention. The Secretary of State had correctly applied the Rules.
4. The applicant also referred to his family life in the United Kingdom. Article 8 had not been raised in the grounds of appeal. In any event, family life established while the applicant held limited student leave, together with the absence of any identified obstacle to family life being pursued in Pakistan, could not support the application.

The renewed application for permission to appeal was dismissed.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — renewed application for permission to appeal dismissed on 16 June 2015: [2015] EWCA Civ 786.
2. Upper Tribunal (Asylum and Immigration Chamber) — Upper Tribunal Judge Perkins dismissed the appeal by determination dated 24 June 2014.
3. First-tier Tribunal — dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the Secretary of State’s refusal.
4. Secretary of State for the Home Department — refused further leave to remain on 2 September 2013.