Prabhjot Kaur & Anor, R (on the application of) v Birmingham City University

A licensed student sponsor may withdraw sponsorship where false financial documents have been provided in support of a student’s application. A finding that the student personally committed or was complicit in fraud is not required. Sponsors are subject to stringent duties to protect the integrity of immigration control and must report fraudulent activity.

Where sponsorship has been withdrawn because fraudulent documents were provided to the sponsor, the Secretary of State may cancel permission to enter under paragraph 9.7.1 of the Immigration Rules, whether or not the documents were provided with the applicant’s knowledge. A procedural fairness challenge will not be arguable where further representations could not materially affect the decision.

The claimants, Indian nationals enrolled or intending to enrol at Birmingham City University, challenged the University’s decisions of 21 September 2023 withdrawing sponsorship after false ICICI bank statements had been provided in support of their applications. Their permission to enter was subsequently cancelled by the Secretary of State.

Permission was refused on the papers. On renewal, the claimants alleged fraud, bad faith, irrationality, procedural unfairness and breach of Article 8. They also sought to challenge the Secretary of State’s cancellation decisions. The central issues were whether sponsorship could be withdrawn without a finding that the claimants were complicit in fraud, and whether the decisions disclosed an arguable public law error.

1. Permission refused. The false ICICI bank statements supplied in support of both applications were genuine false instruments. The University was entitled to reach that conclusion on the evidence, including information from ICICI and the striking similarities between the statements.
2. A sponsor’s power and duty to protect the immigration system do not depend on proving that the student personally committed or was complicit in fraud. The University withdrew sponsorship because fraudulent documents had been provided in support of the applications. That decision was reasonable and consistent with the Immigration Rules and Student Sponsor Guidance. The fraud ground was therefore not arguable.
3. The University was subject to stringent sponsor duties, including vigilance, reporting and, where necessary, expulsion of students who failed to meet the requirements. Those duties reflected the high degree of trust placed in licensed sponsors: London St Andrews College v SSHD [2018] EWCA Civ 2496.
4. The allegation of bad faith or improper motive had no arguable basis. The University had reported the fraudulent activity as it was obliged to do, and its report was factual. The speculative requests for disclosure did not establish any breach of the duty of candour.
5. The Secretary of State was entitled to cancel permission to enter. Paragraph 9.7.1 of the Immigration Rules permits refusal where false documents are provided to the Secretary of State or a third party, whether or not the applicant knew of them. The principle was consistent with Adedoyin v Home Secretary [2010] EWCA Civ 773; [2011] 1 WLR 564.
6. The procedural fairness ground was not arguable. The claimants had been warned not to travel and had opportunities to explain their position. In any event, further representations could not have materially altered the fact that fraudulent documents had been provided. The Article 8 ground was also unarguable.
7. The claimants had failed to comply with their duty of candour by not properly explaining their links to the email addresses and persons connected with the applications. Had any ground been arguable, that breach would likely have justified refusing permission.

This was a renewed application for permission to bring a claim for judicial review. Permission had previously been refused on the papers by Andrew Burns KC, sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court, on 12 February 2024. The renewed application was refused by the Administrative Court.