Nahid Ahmed, R (on the application of) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department

Leave extended by section 3C of the Immigration Act 1971 remains an extension of the same leave originally granted. A Tier 4 student who makes an in-time application for further leave in the same capacity therefore continues to hold leave granted as a Tier 4 student during the statutory extension.

Accordingly, for paragraph 245ZX(ha) of the Immigration Rules, section 3C leave counts towards the five-year limit on leave for study at degree level or above. This construction accords with the natural meaning of the Rules, their wider scheme, and the provisions permitting study while an in-time application or related appeal remains unresolved.

The applicant, a Bangladeshi national, sought judicial review of decisions refusing him further leave as a Tier 4 student for a degree-level course. The refusal rested solely on the five-year limit in paragraph 245ZX(ha) of the Immigration Rules.

His prior leave had been extended under section 3C of the Immigration Act 1971 while an earlier application and appeal were pending. The parties agreed that the proposed further leave exceeded five years if that statutory extension counted, but not otherwise. The central issue was whether section 3C leave was leave granted as a Tier 4 student for the purpose of the Rule.

1. The judicial-review application was refused. The Secretary of State had correctly treated the applicant's section 3C leave as counting towards the five-year limit in paragraph 245ZX(ha) of the Immigration Rules.

2. Section 3C of the Immigration Act 1971 extends existing leave; it does not create a new and different species of leave. Where a person holding Tier 4 leave makes an in-time application for further leave in that same capacity, the statutory extension remains leave granted to that person as a Tier 4 student.

3. The Tribunal applied the reasoning in QI (Pakistan) v SSHD [2011] EWCA Civ 614. The Court of Appeal had held that extended leave remained the existing leave, rather than new leave. The Tribunal also relied on R (Mehmood & Ali) v SSHD [2015] EWCA Civ 744, which described section 3C leave as a statutory continuation of the same leave.

4. The wider scheme of the Rules supported that result. Paragraph 245ZY specifically permits qualifying study while an in-time application, appeal, or administrative review remains unresolved. It would be incoherent to permit study in that period but disregard the extended leave when calculating leave granted for study.

5. There was no relevant unfairness. The five-year limit was clear in both the Rule and published policy, and the policy did not add a requirement absent from the Rules. The additional leave sought would have caused the applicant to exceed the permitted maximum.

• Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber): First-instance judicial review of the Secretary of State's refusal of 8 June 2016, maintained on administrative review on 13 July 2016. The application was refused.
• Earlier immigration proceedings: An appeal against a previous refusal of student leave was allowed on 27 August 2015. The resulting leave expired on 11 May 2016.