City of London Academy, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

A Tier 4 sponsor must exercise rigorous and continuing vigilance when assessing students, monitoring compliance and assigning Confirmations of Acceptance for Studies. The Secretary of State may suspend or revoke a sponsor licence where reasonable concerns, fairly based on her expertise and evidence, show that the sponsor may not be fulfilling those duties. Proof of direct knowledge of student misconduct, or proof of an actual breach of immigration control, is not required. Academic progression requires a genuine assessment whenever a student starts a new course, including a restart at a different college; the exception for completing an existing course does not apply. The court will not substitute its own assessment for the Secretary of State’s judgment where the decision is reasonably founded.

The claimant, a highly trusted Tier 4 sponsor, sought judicial review of the Secretary of State’s decisions to revoke its sponsor licence. The revocation followed evidence that 116 students had obtained fraudulent English-language certificates, a further 42 certificates were questionable, academic progression had not been adequately assessed, attendance monitoring was deficient, and some students had worked in breach of their conditions.

An earlier suspension decision had been reconsidered after proceedings were issued. The decision of 30 December 2014 maintaining revocation was the primary decision under review. The central issues were whether the evidence established failures by the college and whether the Secretary of State was entitled to revoke the licence without proving that the college knew of, or caused, the students’ cheating.

1. Claim dismissed. The decision to revoke the Tier 4 sponsor licence was lawful. The evidence concerning students who had cheated in English-language examinations was sufficient on its own to justify revocation.
2. The sponsorship system depends on a high degree of trust in the sponsor. That trust carries a heavy responsibility to assess students’ ability and intention to study, monitor attendance and compliance, and identify and report relevant failings. The Secretary of State may act where reasonable suspicion justifies investigation or intervention. She need not wait until an actual breach of immigration control has occurred. The court should respect her expertise and experience where the decision is fairly based on them.
3. The number of fraudulent certificates was significant. The college had failed to identify students whose English was inadequate, and responsibility could not be shifted to the testing organisation. The evidence therefore supported the conclusion that the college was unable or unwilling to monitor its students properly.
4. Academic progression is a judgment requiring robust and cautious assessment. A college need not assess progression where a student continues a part-completed existing course. If a student starts a new course, including a restart after moving from a college whose licence has been revoked, progression must be considered even if the course is at the same level or substantially repeats the previous course.
5. The failures concerning academic progression, students working in breach of their conditions and inadequate monitoring provided additional support. The claim would fail on the fraudulent-certificate ground alone.

First-instance judicial review claim. No appeal or earlier judgment determining the merits is stated in the judgment.