IA/20743/2015

• Status of case: Unreported
• Hearing date: 4 Jul 2016
• Promulgation date: 1 Aug 2016
• Publication date: 29 Nov 2017
• Last updated on: 29 Nov 2017

The decision

IAC-AH-DN-V1

Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: IA/20743/2015


THE IMMIGRATION ACTS


Heard at Field House
Decision & Reasons Promulgated
On 4th July 2016
On 1st August 2016




Before

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE SAINI

Between

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT

Appellant
and

Mr md shah alam
(ANONYMITY DIRECTION NOTE MADe)

Respondent


Representation:

For the Appellant: Mr S Walker, Home Office Presenting Officer
For the Respondent: Mr Z Khan


DECISION AND REASONS

1. For ease of comprehension the parties are referred to by their status before the First-tier Tribunal.
2. The Secretary of State appeals with permission against the decision of First-tier Tribunal Judge Steer allowing the Appellant's appeal against the refusal of his application for leave to remain as a Tier 2 (General) Migrant and to remove him from the UK by way of directions under Section 47 of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006. The First-tier Tribunal promulgated this decision allowing the Appellant's appeal so hence the Respondent's decision on 6th January 2016. The Respondent appealed against that decision and was granted permission to appeal by First-tier Tribunal Judge Andrew. The ground upon which permission to appeal was granted may be summarised as follows:
"It is arguable that the judge may have erred in his finding that the Appellant had completed a supplementary course."
3. I was provided with a Rule 24 reply from the Appellant's solicitor which was taken into account and considered by all parties before submissions began.
Error of Law
4. In submissions before me Mr Walker for the Secretary of State accepted that the First-tier Tribunal had not erred in law. The Appellant's solicitor Mr Khan had produced a copy of the guidance that was complained to have not been applied by the judge which was the Tier 4 policy guidance as it was on or after 6th April 2015 (given that the decision of the Respondent was made on 20th May 2015). That guidance, as accepted by the Respondent, is identical to the November 2015 guidance that was in fact considered by the First-tier Judge except for one sentence which reads "You can undertake supplementary study at any time during the period of leave granted for your main course of study".
5. Aside from that one addition, paragraph 313 of the April 2015 guidance is identical to paragraph 290 of the November 2015 guidance, both paragraphs being headed 'Can I do extra studies whilst in the UK?' The gist of the guidance is that Appellants are allowed to do supplementary courses and they can be in any subject and do not have to relate to the main course of study and that supplementary study must not in any way hinder the progress made by the student on their main course of studies. Consequently, the ground of complaint that the judge wrongly considered the guidance and issue before them, bearing in mind the guidance was said to be different at the time the decision was taken, as opposed to that given to the judge at the date of the hearing, has not been established by the Respondent on appeal.
6. I find that there is no error of law given that the guidance was identical except for one sentence which has no effect at all on the interpretation of whether a student may or may not do supplementary study and what that supplementary study may or may not be. It is also worth noting that the Rule 24 reply from the Appellant's solicitor does mention that Tier 4 Migrants are permitted to undertake supplementary courses of study for which they do not need to take the Respondent's permission and that they do not need to inform their Sponsor of their supplementary study. Indeed, the only restriction is that they should ensure that the supplementary study does not hinder the progress made on their main course of studies.
7. Consequently the guidance being materially the same as it was in April 2015 and as considered by the First-tier Judge and given that there is no bar to performing supplementary study under Section 50 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 given that supplementary study does not require any sponsorship by a registered educational institution, I find that there was no error of law in the First-tier Tribunal's decision.
Notice of Decision

The decision of the First-tier shall stand and is hereby affirmed.

No anonymity direction is made.





Signed Date


Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Saini