Zuhaib Khan, R (on the application of) v Coventry University

A student sponsor may rationally adopt a cautious approach where uncertain whether Home Office guidance requires withdrawal of sponsorship. Reporting non-enrolment and withdrawing sponsorship are distinct decisions. A sponsor must nevertheless remain willing to reconsider or enquire about rescission when circumstances materially change, particularly where fees have been paid, the student remains genuine and there is no apparent immigration risk. Refusing even to consider those matters may amount to fettering discretion, failure to take relevant considerations into account, or irrationality. The withdrawal of sponsorship may engage Article 8 private-life rights, but can be proportionate where it serves legitimate compliance objectives. The court may declare a later failure unlawful without ordering restoration of sponsorship where the student’s immigration and academic position remains uncertain.

The claimant, a Pakistani national sponsored by Coventry University, missed the university’s enrolment and fee-payment arrangements after one of two payments was misallocated by its payment agent. The university reported his non-enrolment to the Home Office, withdrew sponsorship and declined to restore it after the outstanding fee arrived. His visa was subsequently curtailed.

Permission was refused on contractual grounds concerning the enrolment deadline, but granted on challenges alleging irrationality, unlawful failure to reconsider or rescind sponsorship, and disproportionate interference with Article 8 rights. The central issue was whether the university acted unlawfully by maintaining the withdrawal after the payment problem had been cured and before the claimant’s leave was curtailed.

1. Grounds 2 and 3. The enrolment period ended on 7 July, even though the payment deadline was extended to 15 July. The university was required by paragraph 7.5(c) of the Student Sponsor Guidance Document 2: Sponsorship Duties to report non-enrolment within 10 working days. Reporting on 18 July was therefore rational. Withdrawal of sponsorship was a distinct decision. In view of the Home Office’s light trigger, the fragile nature of sponsor status and the risk to the university’s licence, the university was also rationally entitled to withdraw sponsorship as a cautious compliance measure.
2. Ground 5. Withdrawal of sponsorship interfered with the claimant’s Article 8 private life because it imperilled his ability to remain in the United Kingdom and continue his course. The decision pursued the legitimate aim of compliance with sponsorship duties, was rationally connected to that aim and struck a fair balance under the approach in Bank Mellat v HM Treasury (No. 2) [2014] AC 774 (SC). The ground was dismissed.
3. Ground 4. A public authority must not shut its ears to a request to depart from a policy or reconsider a decision. The claimant’s requests to resume studies in September plainly amounted to requests for deferral and restoration of sponsorship. The university failed to consider those requests, failed to consider rescission after the full fees were paid, and failed even to enquire of the Home Office whether rescission or a revised enrolment date was possible. That was fettering of discretion, irrationality or failure to take relevant considerations into account.
4. The university’s later evidence supplied retrospective and contradictory justifications. It did not establish that the outcome would highly likely have been the same for the purposes of section 31(2A) of the Senior Courts Act 1981.
5. The claim was not academic, but mandatory relief requiring a new CAS was refused because the claimant was not certain to satisfy the academic progression requirements. The court declared the failure to rescind the withdrawal of sponsorship unlawful.