Ali v Secretary of State for the Home Department

For the former wording of paragraph 245ZX(h) of the Immigration Rules, time spent studying below-degree-level courses is calculated by reference to the course start and end dates stated in the applicant’s Confirmation of Acceptance for Studies. It is not limited to days on which the student attended classes or performed coursework. A different calculation cannot be used for the beginning or end of a course, since the rule requires a consistent and workable approach. The relevant dates must also be ascertainable when the application is made.

The appellant, a Pakistani national, appealed against the Upper Tribunal’s dismissal of his challenge to the refusal of further Tier 4 (General) Student leave. His first below-degree-level course was stated in the CAS to run from 28 May 2012 to 28 May 2013. The second was stated to run from 26 September 2013 to 30 September 2015. The respondent concluded that granting further leave would exceed the three-year limit in paragraph 245ZX(h).

The appellant argued that the first course should be treated as starting on 4 June 2012, when he actually began studying after illness, or alternatively on 31 May, when he enrolled. The central issue was how time spent studying courses was to be calculated under the rule as it stood on 21 November 2013.

1. Appeal dismissed. The respondent had correctly refused further leave because the periods stated in the CAS, taken together, exceeded the three-year limit in paragraph 245ZX(h) of the Immigration Rules.
2. The rule was to be given a fair and objective reading, adopting the approach described by Vos LJ in Iqbal v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] EWCA Civ 169, paragraph 33. Time spent studying could not sensibly mean only days on which the student attended classes or performed coursework. That interpretation would be unworkable because the information might be unknowable when an application was made. It would also be irrational because permitted residence would depend on how individual course days were used.
3. The same meaning had to govern the whole course period, including its start and end. The appellant could not therefore rely on actual attendance or the date on which coursework began to postpone the course start date. Measuring the course from actual enrolment was also rejected.
4. The points-based system was intended to operate by reference to requirements capable of being established when the application was made, including the start and end dates recorded in the CAS. Applying those dates, the proposed leave would have caused the appellant to exceed three years of below-degree-level study.
5. The later amendment of paragraph 245ZX(h), changing the reference from time spent studying courses to time granted to study courses, did not assist in interpreting the earlier wording. The appeal was dismissed by order.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): appeal from the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) dismissed.
• Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber): rejected the appellant’s argument that actual study began on 4 June 2012 rather than on the course start date stated in the CAS.
• First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber): allowed the appellant’s appeal, treating the second course as a two-year course despite the precise CAS dates.