Cranford College Ltd, R (on the application of) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department

A sponsor licence may be revoked where the Secretary of State has reasonable grounds to suspect that the sponsor may breach immigration-control requirements or may not be complying with its sponsor duties, provided public law duties are observed. The sponsor bears the practical burden of allaying that suspicion with cogent evidence. A significant number of invalid English-language test results, coupled with poor attendance monitoring and inadequate coursework, may justify revocation. The reviewing court gives appropriate weight to the Secretary of State’s expertise in assessing immigration-control risks. The Secretary of State may continue monitoring a sponsor and reconsider its position when fresh information emerges.

Cranford College challenged the suspension and subsequent revocation of its Tier 2 and Tier 4 sponsor licences. The Secretary of State relied principally on Cranford’s issue of Confirmations of Acceptance for Studies to students whose English-language test results had been declared invalid or questionable, together with inadequate attendance monitoring and inconsistent explanations for student absences.

The claim was commenced after the revocation decision. An interim order treated the licence as suspended pending a rolled-up hearing. The central questions were whether the Secretary of State could continue monitoring the college and whether the evidence provided a lawful basis for revocation.

The application for permission to bring judicial review was refused.

1. The Secretary of State was entitled to revoke a sponsor licence where there were reasonable grounds for suspecting that a breach of immigration control might occur or that the sponsor might not be complying with its duties, subject to compliance with public law obligations. The court had to accord appropriate deference to the expertise and experience of the immigration authorities in detecting such risks.
2. The Secretary of State was entitled to maintain a high index of suspicion. Where a significant number of students had invalid English-language test results and the college had not reported inadequate English, that created reasonable suspicion that it had failed to assess students properly before assigning Confirmations of Acceptance for Studies and had failed to monitor and report them.
3. The practical onus was on Cranford to allay that suspicion with objective evidence. The coursework produced did not do so. Much of it displayed exceptionally poor English, was marked internally, and was not shown to have been independently verified. The evidence therefore reinforced rather than removed the Secretary of State’s concerns.
4. The Secretary of State was also entitled to regard the inconsistent explanations for student absences as a legitimate concern. The decision that Cranford’s attendance monitoring was inadequate and that the college was not worthy of the high degree of trust required of a sponsor was not irrational.
5. The court observed that the Secretary of State could continue monitoring a sponsor after an interim order and could reconsider the position in light of fresh information. It also considered that failure to register students with awarding bodies would fall within the discretionary power of revocation, although that issue was unnecessary to the result.

The claim was commenced in the Administrative Court on 18 July 2014. Mostyn J subsequently made an interim order treating Cranford’s licence as suspended rather than revoked and directed a rolled-up permission hearing. The present court refused permission for judicial review.