“Sponsor Rating 249 Under the guidance in place before5 September 2011 , it was possible for some sponsors to be B-rated. This was either because we had concerns about their ability to meet all of their sponsor duties or because they had interim accreditation from one of the previously approved accreditation bodies… 250 If you are B-rated and your action plan is due for a review, we will carry out that review based on the guidance that was in place when you were given your action plan. 251 If you have not met all of the conditions of your action plan by the review date set, your licence will be revoked. If you have met all of the conditions your licence will be re-rated to an A-rating. Assigning Confirmation of Acceptance for Studies 382 You may only assign a CAS under Tier 4 if you are satisfied that a student both intends and is able to follow the course of study concerned. Sponsorship Duties 453 As a sponsor you have a number of duties that you must meet so that you can keep your licence and achieve or maintain highly trusted sponsor status. You will have to show that you are able to meet them before we will give you a sponsor licence. Record-keeping Duties 460 You must keep all of the documents listed in Appendix D. You can store them as paper copies or electronically. We do not tell you how to store the documents, but you must be able to make them available to us when we ask. Reporting Duties 461 Unless stated otherwise, you must report the following information to us within ten working days using the sponsor management system. It tells us about students who do not attend, do not comply with our requirements, or disappear. We use the information to take enforcement action against them where necessary. Students who do not enrol 463 You must tell us if a student you have assigned a CAS to does not enrol on their course within the enrolment period. You must report this no later than ten working days the enrolment period has ended. You must include any reason the student gives for not enrolling for example if they: • miss their flight; • have decided not to come to the UK; • have decided to take up a course with a different sponsor; or • have had their application for permission to come to, or stay in the UK refused. Student contact stops 467 If you are A-rated and a student misses ten consecutive expected contacts without you reasonably giving them permission, you must tell us within ten working days of the tenth missed contact. (Highly trusted sponsors can also choose to report after the student has missed ten consecutive expected contacts but this is not mandatory). Significant change in circumstances 476 You must tell us within ten working days: • anything that suggests that a sponsored student is breaching the conditions of their permission to stay in the UK. Compliance checks 488 We will visit you before we decide your sponsor licence application and we will check your current monitoring arrangements. We will make further checks after we have granted your licence. This is to ensure the information you provided on your application form is accurate and that you are able or continuing to do what is required of a licensed sponsor. We will check that: • the information given about you is accurate and complete; • you are able to offer courses of study which meet the current requirement; • you are genuine and are trading or operating lawfully in the UK; • you have the appropriate planning permission or local planning authority consent to operate your type or class of organisation at your trading address; • there are no reasons to believe that you as a prospective or existing sponsor are a threat to immigration control; • you will be able to comply or are already complying with your sponsor duties. 491 The compliance officer will gather material to support the information you gave on your sponsor application. This is to confirm that the information you gave was full and accurate, and that you are meeting (or will be able to meet) your duties and responsibilities as a licensed sponsor. They may wish to speak to people involved in recruiting or enrolling students and to sponsored students. They will not discuss the outcome of the assessment during the visit. Suspending a Licence 504 We will immediately suspend your licence while we make further enquiries if we have reason to believe that you are breaching your sponsorship duties and/or are a threat to immigration control (for example, signing CASs to students who do not enrol, or fail to complete their course) to the extent that we may have to revoke your licence. 507 If after an investigation, we decide not to revoke your licence we will lift the suspension and reinstate your entry on the register of sponsors on our website. Process we will follow if we suspend your licence 514 We start from one of two positions. • If we are satisfied that we have enough evidence to suspend your licence without the need for further investigation, we will write to you giving detailed reasons for suspending your licence. • If we have evidence that warrants your licence being suspended pending a full investigation, we will write to you giving our initial reasons for the suspension and informing you that an investigation will take place. It may not be possible at that point to say how long the investigation will take, but we will update you on our progress at regular intervals. During this period, you can make any written statements you think are necessary to respond, including sending in evidence. Any statement or evidence you send to us during this period will be taken into account during the investigation. When we have finished our investigation, we will write to you again, giving detailed reasons for suspending your licence. 515 When we write to you giving detailed reasons for suspending your licence, you will then have 28 calendar days from the date of that written notification, to respond to us in writing. We may extend this period at your request if we are satisfied that there are exceptional circumstances. You may make any written statements you think are necessary to respond, including sending in evidence. However, we will not hold an oral hearing. 516 If any new evidence comes to light during that 28-day period, we will write to you again, giving you another 28 days to respond in writing on the new evidence. 517 When we receive a response from you, we will consider it and may request information from any relevant compliance officer, other law enforcement agencies, government departments, agencies, local authorities, the police, foreign governments and/or other body. We will notify you of our decision within 28 calendar days of receiving your response. 518 If we do not receive a response from you within the time allowed, we will proceed with whatever action we believe to be appropriate and will notify you of our decision in writing. Appropriate action may be to reinstate or revoke your licence. If we reinstate your licence we may reduce the number of CASs you are allowed to assign. Revoking a licence 522 Additionally, if you are a B-rated sponsor and subject to an action plan under the guidance in place before5 September 2011 , we will immediately revoke your licence in the following circumstances; ... • You have been B-rated and you have not complied with your current action plan within the specified target date for completing it. 523 We will consider revoking your licence for the following reasons. … • You fail to comply with any of your duties • You fail to keep any of the documents specified in Appendix D of this guidance • We find that students that you have sponsored have not complied with the conditions of their permission to stay in the UK.”
“2. … When applying for a Tier 4 Sponsor licence, an educational institution agrees to comply with their duties. Those duties are outlined in the Policy Guide for Tier 4 Sponsors, along with a separate Appendix D which lists the relevant documents they are expected to keep for each sponsored migrant. The Policy Guide is comprehensive and designed to ensure that a sponsor follows recommended best practice and meets their obligations in order to minimise the risk to immigration control. 3. The principal basis for an educational provider to have a role in maintaining the integrity of immigration control is through the duties imposed via a licence to issue Confirmation of Acceptance for Studies (previously visa letters). Sponsors attain a ‘rating’ at the time of their initial licensing. These ratings are ‘B-rated’ which means a sponsor is only partially compliant with their duties and must adhere to a time-sensitive action plan to attain a higher rating. A ‘Trusted’ status is for a sponsor who is fully compliant with their duties, have no areas for improvement and are using the processes and procedures necessary to minimise the risk to immigration control. ‘Highly Trusted Sponsor’ status is a rating given to Tier 4 Sponsors upon application and is a mandatory requirement from5 April 2012 . The sponsor must demonstrate that they meet specific criteria such as lower rates of student visa refusals, low ‘drop out’ rates and processes to minimise the risk to immigration control. Only those sponsors who demonstrate they meet this very high threshold are awarded Highly Trusted status.”
“It has to be remembered that the primary duty about the response to breaches of a college’s duty is the Defendant’s, and the Court’s role is simply supervisory. It has also to be remembered that the underlying principle behind this scheme is that the UKBA entrusts to colleges the power to grant visa letters on the understanding, and with their agreement, that they will act in a manner that maintains proper immigration control. The capacity for damage to the national interest in the maintenance of proper immigration control is substantial if colleges are not assiduous in meeting their responsibilities. In those circumstances, it seems to me that the Defendants are entitled to maintain a fairly high index of suspicion as they go about overseeing colleges and a light trigger in deciding when and with what level of firmness they should act.”
“… As issues were identified in the following HR areas: • Monitoring Immigration Status and Preventing Illegal Employment • Migrant Tracking and Monitoring Additionally you have been awarded this rating as per paragraph 29 of Tier 4 of the Points Based System Guidance for Sponsors. All new sponsors with only Stage 2 accreditation will be B-rated until they have attained Stage 3 accreditation. This is a transitional rating and Manchester College of Accountancy and Management will be expected to improve their performance sufficiently within a relatively short period so as to warrant being upgraded to an A-rating. Failure to improve may result in the sponsor licence being withdrawn. This B-rating is conditional on the organisation fully complying with the requirements of a time limited action plan… … If a Sponsor fails to comply with an action plan, we may withdraw its licence.”
“You must now ensure that you become an A-rated sponsor following a visit to your premises to assess your compliance against the action plan otherwise your sponsor licence will be revoked.”
“In addition to the above, our officers spoke to a Mrs Hudson-Sitar, a former Student Welfare Officer at the college. She informed us that during her time at the college she had seen evidence of attendance records being altered: Kashif Raza and Kashif Rehman were detained by the UK Border Agency in Plymouth. These students had attendance below 80% in December 2010 but then showed attendance of 100%. Ms Hudson-Sitar states that when she queried this she was informed their records had been taken home by a member of staff and falsified.”
“On14/12/2011 VO [Visiting Officer] interviewed Mrs Emma Hudson-Sitar who was Student Welfare Officer at the college between August 2010 and August 2011. She stated that class attendance registers were routinely falsified in line with instructions issued by Mohammad Abaidullah. VO asked how the records were falsified and he was told that tutors were instructed by Mohammad Abaidullah to only mark those students who were present during the lessons and not to include an absence mark next to those students who were not there. She said that once collected in by the college administrators these blank marks would be amended prior to the date of being entered into the CMS database. … Mrs Hudson-Sitar provided photocopies of class registers from the college that she had said had been taken after being completed by the lecturers prior to any amendments by Abaidullah or Baig. …”
“142. MANCAM [the Claimant] asserts that Mrs Sitar has presented stolen and subsequently tampered with records from the College to show that one copy of the same attendance register had fewer students marked as being present than the other. 143. MANCAM can only assume what could possibly have happened and cannot be certain about it. MANCAM believes that while producing College records for UKBA, Mrs Sitar tampered with copies of the College attendance register to misguide the UKBA. From the two versions of the attendance registers, it is evident that the tampered with copy (page 593) could only be created in more than one step as it shows the date ‘27/6’ in different handwriting from what is recorded in the College’s original attendance record (page 592). 144. It appears that at first, Mrs Sitar copied the ‘completed and only tutor signed’ original attendance register, before submitting the original register to the Attendance Registrar (Dr Tahir Baig) who believed it to be true, countersigned the page and updated the electronic records accordingly. On a copied register, Mrs Sitar then altered the date and attendance of a couple of students who were marked present ‘P’ on the original register. It is believed that she then added the same date of ‘27/6’ on the register in her own handwriting and produced it to UKBA along with a copy of the original attendance register for the same date. The date entered on her altered register is in handwriting that is different from Dr Tahir Baig’s handwriting. 145. The Claimant is unable to offer any other plausible explanation for the same date of ‘27/6’ appearing in two different sets of handwriting on the two registers produced by Mrs Sitar to UKBA. It is easy to match her writing of the digits on the tampered with register with some other entries for similar digits, such as those made by Mrs Sitar in her witness statement (page 369). 146. Quite understandably, any attempt at tampering with the register by MANCAM, as is wrongly alleged by Mrs Sitar, would not require MANCAM to have two different sets of handwriting for the date on the two documents. The rest of the documents are in the same handwriting.”
“It is unfair for the UKBA to base its revocation decision partly or wholly on baseless allegations of individuals who have a history of grievances with the College and who have personal interests in undermining the reputation of the College. UKBA failed to corroborate their serious allegations with other current/ex-employees that were better placed to give unbiased opinions. Furthermore, none of the allegations made have been substantiated with supporting evidence.”
“3. On24th June 2011 , myself, Ms Adele Farnworth and Mrs Hudson-Sitar were told by the Management that we were going to be made redundant and were given one month’s notice before termination of our job. … Around the same time, I with Mrs Farnworth and Mrs Hudson-Sitar went into a student common room… While discussing our redundancy I witnessed Mrs Hudson-Sitar loudly stating that it was not fair at all that she was being made redundant. She believed College was making profits and instead of increasing salary we were being terminated from our work. Ms Adele Farnworth also shared her belief. They both were angry at the college management over this decision. Mrs Hudson-Sitar talked about her financial difficulties in paying mortgage and kids’ care if she were made jobless. 5. I witnessed Mrs Hudson-Sitar making threats against College management. She had stated that she will make sure the college is closed and no-one else in the college will have job. It appeared, as if she was trying to find the ways by which the reputation of the college could be undermined. She had also stated that she would go to a solicitor the next day. 6. I have been informed by the College management that Ms Adele Farnworth and Mrs Hudson-Sitar have made some very serious allegations against the MANCAM and its management. I am disappointed with their allegation; however, I am not surprised as I had anticipated this since I had attended the above said meeting with them.”
“15. The evidence that I uncovered during the visit relating to the accuracy of the recording of students’ attendance corroborated some allegations that I had received during a meeting with two former members of staff at the college, Mrs Emma Hudson-Sitar and Ms Adele Farnsworth. 16. I was contacted by e-mail by Mrs Hudson-Sitar on2 December 2011 and arranged to meet her14 December 2011 in Manchester. It is quite common for individuals connected to colleagues in the North … or with information regarding college activity to contact me directly; as the UKBA regional head for the education sector I am widely known across the community. Mrs Hudson-Sitar was accompanied by Ms Farnsworth to the meeting… 17. At the meeting they made numerous allegations relating to the running of the college and handed me copies of attendance records that they had in their possession. Both ladies subsequently completed witness statements detailing these allegations. Mrs Hudson-Sitar claimed that the attendance records demonstrated that the records of student attendance were routinely falsified and she explained that this was done by tutors not marking students absent when they did not attend and the blank record then being completed at a later stage. 18. I analysed the attendance records supplied and some of the records did corroborate this allegation; there were copies of registers that appeared to have been completed by the tutor only and contemporaneous copies of the same register apparently countersigned by the college administration staff. However without copies obtained directly from the college I was unable to confirm that the registers were genuine or did indeed provide evidence of abuse of the immigration system. 19. During the course of the compliance visit of26 March 2012 I obtained control copies of each of the registers provided by Mrs Hudson-Sitar from the college management team. I was able to compare the college registers to the copies provided by Mrs Hudson-Sitar and I included this analysis on the visit report. My detailed analysis of the registers in my possession along with my conversation with Ms Singh, my review of the attendance records of Muhammad Basir Abbasi and conversation with his class tutor led me to conclude that there was evidence that attendance/absence records were being falsified at the college.”
“Whilst reviewing the records provided VO identified some instances [where] two copies existed of the same register; these were the version said to have been completed and signed by the class tutor and the subsequent version countersigned by the Administrator and ‘SMS-Admin input’. VO found evidence that some ‘blank’ attendance marks had been altered to show that students had been present after the tutor had signed the register but before it had been entered onto the CMS database. VO also found evidence that student absences marked ‘A’ by the tutor had been amended to ‘LA’ for late arrival after the tutor had signed off the register prior to entry onto the CMS database. The records provided by Mrs Hudson-Sitar and the comparison with the control copy provided by the college26/03/2012 are listed below: Graduate Diploma in Business Management (BM) Level 6 Year 3 Group 123/05/2011 -26/06/2011 Includes two copies of register for27/06/2011 : one signed only by the tutor – this shows two students as being absent for the a.m. and p.m. sessions – Satya PAL26/12/1976 PAK and Zahoor TASSADAQ15/10/1988 PAK: the copy of the … in e-mail correspondence Mr Peter Kendal, until23/03/2012 the college Principal, relayed to the VO numerous occasions upon which he had carried out classroom observations. He cited the example of conducting one such assessment on the Business Computing (Diploma Yr1) class week commencing26/09/2011 and there only being seven students in attendance – the electronic attendance record for this class has all eighteen students in attendance.”
“On14 February 2012 we suspended your sponsor licence due to a number of concerns identified during an Action Plan visit on19 October 2011 and follow up visit on1 December 2011 . … Students who had failed to enrol at the college 4. During the visits our officer noted that you had failed to report 272 students who had missed their enrolment date by many months. In response to this you have stated that the students concerned were all assigned Confirmation of Acceptance for Studies (CAS) prior to April 2011. You have also confirmed that 200 of these students commenced their studies at the college in January 2012. We are concerned that this figure does not account for the other 72 students identified during the visit. We are also concerned that posts overseas have only confirmed that 224 students had delays due to interviews conducted in August and September 2011. Of these 130 students were granted visas, an additional 94 were refused. … 5. You have been unable to account for the total number of students identified in our suspension letter. You have also failed to report the 94 students who were refused visas as a failure to enrol. These students should have been reported a number of weeks ago if their course start date had been extended to January 2012 as claimed. We remain concerned that you are not reporting students promptly and that you do not keep track of the students you assign CAS to. This contravenes paragraph 463 of the Tier 4 Policy Guidance…”
“The college agrees that prior to September 2011 it did not report those students who’s overseas visa applications were refused. However, this was due to the fact that as per the UKBA Sponsoring Guidance, October 2010, in force at that time, this reporting was not mandatory. … Since implementation of the Sponsor Guidance, September 2011 version, the College has been complying with the mandatory reporting requirements except for with regards to those students whose visa applications were refused. This was a one off unintentional oversight in appreciating relevant changes in the new policy. This error is acknowledged and Claimant undertakes that this would not occur again.”
“…Information about students’ non-attendance, non-compliance or disappearance will be used to take enforcement action against them: • if a sponsored student does not enrol on his/her course within the enrolment period, the report must be provided within ten working days and must include any reason given by the student for his/her non-enrolment (for example a missed flight).”
“There is evidence that you do not have up to date contact details for your migrant students. The contact addresses shown to our visiting officers from your student records include addresses (for example) from Glasgow, Birmingham, Newcastle and London. Evidence is required that these [addresses] have been checked and verified with proof of addresses sought from the individual students where appropriate. You must have the history of migrants’ contact details (United Kingdom residential address, telephone number, mobile telephone number). This must be up to date.”
“Due to some of my family matters I was unable to join my classes for this session when last date is 23 January, very soon I will be able to continue my study so please grant me extension until next coming session if it is possible for me??”