360 GSP College Ltd v Secretary of State for the Home Department

A sponsor of overseas students has an independent duty to assess each student’s English ability, intention and ability to follow the proposed course, even where the student relies on a language test approved by the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State may act on a high index of suspicion where there are reasonable grounds to believe that sponsorship duties are being breached or immigration control is threatened. In deciding whether exceptional circumstances justify avoiding revocation, she may consider the number of breaches, the sponsor’s history and the steps taken to remedy the concerns. Errors in the decision letter will not invalidate the decision where an intelligent, well-informed reader can understand the lawful reasons for revocation and the errors are immaterial.

The claimant, a college licensed to sponsor Tier 4 students, challenged the suspension and subsequent revocation of its sponsor licence. The Secretary of State relied on evidence that numerous sponsored students had obtained fraudulent or questionable English-language test results, deficiencies in assessing academic progression and suitability, and continuing sponsorship of some affected students.

The claimant argued that it had reasonably relied on tests approved by the Secretary of State, had conducted its own assessments, and had addressed the concerns. The central issues were whether the Secretary of State acted irrationally, misapplied the sponsor guidance, or relied on material errors in concluding that the claimant remained a serious risk to immigration control.

1. Claim dismissed. The court held that the Secretary of State had lawful grounds to conclude that the claimant’s compliance procedures were insufficient and that it posed a serious risk to immigration control.
2. The claimant owed an independent duty to assess students’ English ability and their intention and ability to follow the proposed course. That duty was not displaced because the Secretary of State had approved the relevant English-language test provider. The Secretary of State was entitled to be highly suspicious where a substantial number of sponsored students had obtained leave by deception and the claimant continued to sponsor 26 of them.
3. The Secretary of State was entitled to take account of the claimant’s failure, in its representations, to indicate that it would take any steps concerning students whose tests had been fraudulently obtained. The guidance made the sponsor’s remedial efforts relevant to whether exceptional circumstances justified avoiding revocation.
4. The Secretary of State had the relevant experience and expertise in deciding whether revocation was appropriate. The principles discussed in Westech College [2011] EWHC (Admin) 1484 supported a relatively light trigger for intervention where there were reasonable grounds to suspect a breach of immigration control, subject to compliance with public law duties. The fragile nature of highly trusted sponsor status was also relevant, as explained in London St Andrews College v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] EWHC 4328 (Admin).
5. The Secretary of State erred to the extent that she treated possession of a certificate from a previous course as invariably necessary before a CAS could be awarded. She was nevertheless entitled to expect relevant evidence to be retained on file after the CAS was awarded.
6. The Secretary of State also erred in relying on the provision concerning students’ failure to comply with conditions of leave, since obtaining leave by deception was not the same as breaching a condition of leave. The claimant had, however, failed to comply with its sponsor duties on other grounds.
7. The decision letter contained flaws, but it was not to be construed like a statute. An intelligent, well-informed reader could understand why the licence was revoked, and the errors did not amount to a material error of law.

First-instance judicial review decision. The judgment records no earlier judicial decision in the same proceedings.