City of London Academy, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] EWHC 749 (Admin)

Case No CO/3320/2014

[2015] EWHC 749 (Admin)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION

ADMINISTRATIVE COURT

Venue Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, London, WC2A 2LL

Date Tuesday 31 st March 2015

Before

The Honourable Mrs Justice McGowan

Between

R (on the application ofClaimant

CITY OF LONDON ACADEMY)Claimant

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENTDefendant

(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of

WordWave International Limited

A Merrill Communications Company

165 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2DY

Tel No: 020 7404 1400, Fax No: 020 7831 8838

Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)

Michael Biggs (instructed by Khans Solicitors) for Claimant

Rory Dunlop (instructed by Treasury Solicitors) for Defendant

Hearing Hearing dates: 06/02/2015

Judgment

Mrs Justice McGowan :

[1]This is a claim by City of London Academy, (“the college”) for Judicial Review of the Secretary of State’s (“SSHD”) decisions of 29 September 2014 and 30 December 2014, to revoke its Tier 4 licence. Leave was granted by Mostyn J on 6 November 2014. There was some disagreement over the form of an earlier order following a hearing for interim relief before Mostyn J on 29 July 2014. That followed the first decision of the SSHD of 2 July 2014 to suspend the Tier 4 licence. Any disagreement has been superseded by the decision to revoke.

[2]This case was originally listed before me on 25 and 26 November 2014 for hearing with a similar but distinct application made in the case of R (London St Andrew’s College) v SSHD (CO/3256/2014). It was listed that way for reasons of expediency because there are some areas of principle in common. It is important to record that both cases are entirely separate and fact specific. During that hearing the SSHD offered to reconsider her position in relation to this college in light of some new evidence that had become apparent very close to the hearing date.

[3]This case was adjourned for the SSHD to provide a new decision, which she did on 30 December 2014.

[4]That new decision is the primary focus of this judicial review. I heard argument on 6 February 2015.

[5]Despite the common legal and regulatory background the two cases are different; have been argued on different submissions and have, in large measure, turned on evidence relating to different concerns by the SSHD and responses provided by the colleges. The judgment in the St Andrew’s College case is reported as R (London St Andrew’s College) v SSHD

[2014] EWCA 4328

(Admin).

[6]These cases have been brought on with some speed. This is principally to achieve certainty for those legitimate students who have invested great time, effort and considerable funds in attending these colleges and who now find themselves at risk of losing their college places and in some cases their immigration status. The National Union of Students wrote to the court through solicitors acting on their behalf, Bindmans LLP, on 21 November 2014 and 26 November 2014. They do not ask to be joined nor do they seek to intervene but they have outlined the position of the students concerned. Their position has been considered throughout these proceedings. Their fate cannot, however, determine the questions of public law highlighted here.

Factual Background

[7]The college was established in May 2009 and was granted a Tier 4 licence on 5 November 2009. It provides courses accredited by Edexcel, ASIC, ATHE and NCC, all well known agencies or providers. In addition it has had the approval of QAA, an independent watchdog, for two years. The Defendant granted the Claimant status as a “Highly Trusted Sponsor” (“HTS”) on 16 April 2012, she refused to renew that status on 17 April 2013 but it was re-established on 16 July 2013.

[8]Such a college has the right to grant a number of Confirmations of Acceptance for Studies (“CAS”). With that right comes the responsibility to check that such a CAS is being granted on the basis that a student has complied, and will continue to comply with all legitimate requirements imposed by the college and the immigration rules.

[9]Students from overseas who seek permission to come to the UK to study have, in certain circumstances, to prove an ability to speak and understand the English language. They are required to sit and pass the Test of English for International Communication (“TOEIC”) or similar test. That test and certification was provided by Educational Testing Service (“ETS”). As a result of widespread concerns about the probity of that organisation the Defendant suspended the use of ETS. Conduct had been exposed in a Panorama programme which showed that some invigilators at ETS had connived with students to cheat in the examinations, often by allowing another person to sit the examination on behalf of the named student, sometimes by dictating answers to the examinee.

[10]TOEIC certificates granted as a result of direct evidence of cheating were withdrawn, as were any questionable certificates.

[11]The Defendant carried out a visit to the college on 4 June 2014 and as a result of matters coming to light reached a decision to suspend the Claimant’s Tier 4 sponsor licence which was notified to the college by letter dated 24 June 2014. That decision was based on the following alleged findings: i) 110 of the CAS’s which the Claimant had granted were based on TOEIC certificates which had been withdrawn by ETS as invalid because they were obtained by cheating. This caused the Defendant to question whether the Claimant had satisfied itself of its students’ intentions and ability to study before assigning CAS’s to them. ii) There was also evidence that: a) the Claimant had failed to assess students adequately before assigning them a CAS; b) the Claimant had failed to assess certain students’ academic progression adequately before sponsoring them; c) students were not monitored adequately; and d) attendance was not accurately recorded.

[12]The Defendant completed further investigations and on 4 July 2014 gave detailed reasons in a letter maintaining her decision to suspend the Tier 4 licence granted to the Claimant. She set out her reasons as follows: i) The Claimant had issued at least 110 CAS’s to students who had apparently cheated in their ETS examinations. This called into question whether the Claimant was robustly assessing the ability and intention of its students before awarding CAS’s. ii) On the Defendant’s visit, the Claimant was unable to explain how it could calculate the attendance percentage of its students, even though their policy was to report any student whose attendance falls below 80%. iii) The Claimant had not kept evidence that its students’ courses represented academic progression. iv) The Claimant assigned CAS’s to three students who had not completed their previous course, suggesting that the Claimant was not scrutinising the ability and intention of its students to complete courses before assigning them CAS’s. v) The Claimant had failed to report the Defendant’s decision to refuse leave to one of its employees. vi) The Claimant, at the visit, was unable to provide evidence that three of its employees had a salary at the requisite level.

[13]The claim for Judicial Review was issued on 16 July 2014 challenging the decisions of 24 June and 4 July. On 21 July 2014 Ouseley J made an order for an interim relief hearing, which was held on 29 July 2014 before Mostyn J. A dispute about the terms of the order arose but in light of the decision of 29 September 2014 to revoke the suspended licence that need not be resolved.

[14]In that period the Defendant notified the Claimant that 6 further instances of fraudulently obtained ETS certificates had been discovered, bringing the total to 116. She also raised 42 others which had been described as “questionable” by ETS in the course of their own enquiry.

[15]Further problems arose when the college required those students who held certificates which had been withdrawn by ETS to re-sit the test in English language through another institution. 36 of those asked refused, possibly because their immigration documents were with the Defendant in pending applications, and their sponsorship was withdrawn.

[16]All matters were reviewed and consolidated into the Defendant’s decision to revoke the Claimant’s licence contained in her letter of 29 September 2014 as follows: i) The Claimant had issued 116 CAS’s to students who had apparently cheated in their ETS examinations and a further 42 whose results were questionable. ii) At the time of the visit on 4 June 2014, the Claimant was unable to explain how it would calculate the attendance percentage of its students, even though its stated policy was to report any student whose attendance falls below 80%. iii) The Claimant’s explanation, as to why it had certified academic progression in the CAS’s highlighted by the Defendant, was a generic ‘cut and paste’ paragraph. iv) The Claimant had failed in relation to certain Tier 2 duties.

[17]Both parties rely on a considerable amount of evidence, a good deal of which has emerged during the course of proceedings, although the issues have been distilled in the course of oral argument. At the hearing before Mostyn J on 6 November 2014 he had identified the grant of CAS’s to students who had apparently obtained fraudulent TOEIC language certificates as the most significant of the alleged failings on the part of the college. He would not have maintained revocation of the licence even on the combined effect of all the other failings. The certificates obtained by cheating are undoubtedly the single most important issue in this case and would justify the Defendant’s decision without more. The other complaints are of course part of the overall picture and, if established, provide support for the Defendant’s general contention that this is a college which is not being run in a manner that complies with the high standards required by virtue of its highly trusted status.

Issues

[18]By a letter dated 30 December 2014 the Defendant maintained her decision to revoke and summarises her reasoning in her skeleton argument for this hearing as follows: i) That 116 CAS’s had been assigned to students who had obtained their English language certificates by cheating and that 42 further CAS’s had been assigned on the basis of questionable certificates. The Defendant contends that this shows that the Claimant does not or cannot properly comply with its duties as a sponsor. It is said that this demonstrates a failing to assess the ability and or willingness of potential students to pursue the studies for which leave to enter or remain had been granted. ii) The Defendant contends that the Claimant has failed properly to assess and evaluate academic progression and that there are examples where the college has granted a CAS without adequate checks to satisfy itself that the course proposed would, in fact, amount to academic progression. iii) Further the Defendant contends that the employed working pattern of some of the students was clearly outside the terms of their conditions of leave and occupied their time to an extent which prevented the students from completing their studies.

[19]The Defendant maintains her primary position that the fact that so many students, holding fraudulent certificates, were sponsored by the Claimant is compelling evidence of the college’s inability or wilful failure to comply with its duties. She argues that this ground alone is sufficient to justify her decision to revoke the licence. She further relies on the subsidiary grounds to support her contention that the college demonstrates a lack of rigour in its supervision of students and a reluctance to report their failings. She illustrates this complaint by examples of students working in breach of conditions and no or inadequate consideration of the question of academic progression.

[20]The Claimant raises the primary issue, in its skeleton argument, that the Defendant has acted unlawfully in reaching her decision to revoke on the issue of the assignment by the Claimant of CAS’s to students who had cheated to obtain their English language certificates. A CAS is a virtual document, like a database record, which supports a potential student’s application for approval to enter and / or to remain in the UK for the purposes of study.

Legal Framework

[21]The development of the system of the grant of Tier 4 sponsor licences is set out in detail in the judgment of Lord Justice Richards in R (New London College Ltd) v SSHD

[2012] EWCA Civ 51

from paragraph 4 onwards and need not be repeated here. The current system, in granting a Tier 4 licence or HTS, can only function because the SSHD imposes a high degree of trust in this kind of institution to fulfil its responsibility in implementing and policing immigration policy in respect of the students to whom it assigns a CAS.

[22]It is now settled law that both the SSHD and the students who attend such colleges can expect the highest level of vigilance on the part of the college to ensure that standards are attained and maintained.

[23]There is no statutory regulation of Tier 4 sponsors. The power to grant and supervise such licences is given to the Defendant as part of her general powers in relation to immigration and is an incidental power under the Immigration Act 1971, R (on the application of New London College Ltd) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

[2013] UKSC 51

[24]The Defendant publishes guidance for Tier 2 and 4 sponsors which changes from time to time. The requirements imposed on the holder of such a licence with HTS are not in issue.

[25]The July 2014 Tier 4 guidance for sponsors entitled ‘Document 3: Sponsors Duties and Compliance’ (“the Document 3 guidance”) provides an overview of sponsor duties and their purpose:

“Why do I have sponsor duties? 1. As a licensed sponsor you will benefit directly from migration and we expect you to play your part in ensuring that the system is not abused. This means that you must fulfil certain duties. Some duties apply to all sponsors under the points-based system; others are specific to sponsors who are licensed under certain tiers or categories. You must meet these duties to ensure that immigration controls remain effective. These duties aim to: a) prevent you abusing our process for assessing you; b) quickly find and address any patterns of student behaviour that may cause concern; c) address weak processes which can cause those patterns; and d) monitor your and your students’ compliance with immigration rules. 2. You must be able to show that you are able to meet these sponsor duties so that you can gain and keep your licence and achieve or maintain HTS status.”

Paragraph 13 of the Document 3 guidance adds:

“13. In addition to your duties as a Tier 4 sponsor, you are expected to contribute to supporting immigration control. In particular, you must take reasonable steps to ensure that every student at your institution has permission to be in the UK. Failure to do this may lead to the revocation of your licence.”

Paragraphs 92 and 99 of the Document 3 guidance provide:

“92. The introduction of this policy does not in any way change your ongoing responsibilities as a Tier 4 sponsor. We expect you to continue to thoroughly assess each student’s intention and ability to undertake their course of study with you before you assign a CAS to them. Complying with the law 99. To ensure that you are complying with our immigration laws, you must only assign a CAS to a student whom you believe will: a) meet the requirements of the Tier 4 category under which you assign the CAS; and b) comply with the conditions of their permission to stay in the UK.”

These duties aim to: Failure to do this may lead to the revocation of your licence.”

Complying with the law

[26]Paragraphs 100-107 of the Tier 4 guidance to sponsors entitled “Document 2: assigning ‘confirmation of acceptance for studies and sponsoring students” (“the Document 2 guidance”) provides as follows:

“100. Since 4 July 2011, if you assign a CAS to a Tier 4 (General) student to take a course in the UK after they have finished another course in the UK under Tier 4 (General) or as a student prior to the introduction of the Points Based System, it must represent academic progression from the previous course. This applies whether the student is applying from overseas or in the UK. … 102. To show academic progression the student’s new course should normally be above the level of the previous course for which we gave them permission to stay in the UK as a student. For example, if a student’s previous course was at QCF or NQF6 (and equivalents) we expect their next course to be at least at level QCF or NQF7. 103. However, academic progression may involve further study at the same level. In these cases, you must confirm that the new course complements the previous course. For example, a student may be moving from a taught master’s degree to an MBA or research-based master’s degree, or taking a course to develop a deeper specialisation in a particular field. If the course is at the same level we may request an explanation to confirm why the student has been approved by you for this course. 104. In exceptional circumstances only, the further study may be at a lower level but we expect these cases to be rare. Again, you must justify this on the CAS. We will closely monitor the situation. 105. If the student is taking a further course in the UK you must confirm that this is academic progression in the ‘evidence provided’ box on the CAS unless the new course is an obvious step up in academic level. For example the student is moving to a degree level course after finishing an A-level course. When the course is at the same level or a lower level you must justify this as progression. When we visit you, we may also ask you to show why it is academic progression and how you assessed it. ... 107. If you are required to confirm the student’s academic progression on the CAS, and you do not, we will refuse the student’s application. We will also take action against you if: a) you cannot show how you assessed the progression, or we are concerned about how you assessed it; or b) we find, after you have assigned a CAS stating that there is academic progression, that there is no academic progression.”

[27]Paragraph 160 of the Document 3 guidance covers when the Defendant will revoke a sponsor’s licence. A table is provided at §160, which includes the following:

“k. You have offered places to Tier 4 (General) students and the main course of study does not lead to an approved qualification for our purposes.” ‘Approved qualification’ is defined in §38 of the Document 2 guidance as follows: “a) Covered by a formal legal agreement between a UK-recognised body and another education provider or awarding body. b) Validated by Royal Charter c) Awarded by a body that is on the list of recognised bodies produced by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills; Or d) An overseas qualification that UK Naric can assess as valid and equivalent to level 3 or above on the NQF; Or e) Recognised by one or more recognised bodies through a formal articulation agreement with the awarding body; Or f) In England, Wales and Northern Ireland on the Register of Regulated Qualifications (http://register.ofqual.gov. uk/) at QCF or NQF level 3 or above; Or g) In Scotland, accredited at level 6 or above in the Scottish Credit and Qualifications Framework (SCQF) by the Scottish Qualifications Authority”

Paragraphs 162-163 of the Document 3 guidance identify situations when the Defendant will consider revoking a sponsor’s licence. A table is provided at §162, which includes the following:

“d. You fail to comply with any of your duties. ... g) We find that students that you have sponsored have not complied with the conditions of their permission to stay in the UK. … i. You assign a CAS stating that the course represents progression but you cannot show how you assessed the progression, or we are concerned about how you have assessed it as authentic; or we find, after you have assigned a CAS stating that there is academic progression, that there is no academic progression.” 24. Paragraph 163 adds the following: “163. We may not always revoke your licence in the circumstances set out in the table above. Whilst we cannot precisely define the exceptional circumstances in which we will not, this decision will be based on such factors as the number of breaches, previous history and the efforts you have made to address these issues. However, we may immediately suspend it and may withdraw any CAS that you have assigned but which have not yet been used to support an application for leave to come to or stay in the UK. We will look for evidence that you were either not responsible for what happened or, if you were, you took prompt and effective action to remedy the situation when it came to light. For example if one of your employees was wholly responsible for what has happened and that person was dismissed when it came to light.”

Argument Cheating

Argument

[28]The Claimant contends that the existence of the dubious test certificates does not, without more, demonstrate a failing on the part of the college because, of themselves, they do not prove cheating. Further, even if they do, it has not been proved that the college was or should have been aware that such cheating was taking place. In general terms the Claimant argues that it is not enough for the SSHD to demonstrate concern, she must be able to demonstrate satisfaction that a breach of duty has occurred. Anything less, it is argued, would lead to a lack of certainty and would be open to abuse. It would place an intolerably high burden on such a sponsor and would in effect, create strict liability. The Defendant argues that the burden placed on an institution such as the Claimant college, is, of necessity, a very heavy one. If the Defendant has concerns which are not answered on enquiry then she is entitled to take action to suspend or revoke. In essence the Defendant contends that the description “Highly Trusted” conveys precisely where the responsibility lies. Although the guidance and the regulations have changed numbering and titles the principles set out by Silber J in R (on the application of Westech College) v SSHD

[2011] EWHC 1484

Admin at paragraph 14 et seq remain good, “As is set out in paragraph 1 of the Guidance………… a fundamental principle of the sponsorship system requires the UKBA to trust the sponsor to a very substantial extent. The reason is that those who are sponsors are entrusted with enabling a student to come to and remain in the UK for the purpose of studying first by providing evidence that he or she will study for an approved qualification……..; second by pledging that it will accept the duties of sponsoring the student;…………third by ensuring that proper records are kept……………; and fourth by reporting to UKBA if any student does not turn up for his or her course or is absent without permission for a significant period or if he or she does not comply with the appropriate obligations…………... This information is required for UKBA to take enforcement action against defaulting students. In essence, the Secretary of State and UKBA entrust to sponsors such as the claimant the vital function of monitoring compliance of it students with immigration law. A significant reason why the trust imposed on the sponsor is considerable is the wish and determination of many students to act in breach of their leave conditions by seeking work or using the permit granted by the sponsor as a ruse to enter this country and then to disappear as is shown by the Report which I quoted in paragraph 12 above. In return for this trust imposed in the sponsor, UKBA has to monitor the performance of the sponsor with great care as any failures by the sponsor could lead to interference with immigration control if, for example, the sponsored student disappeared or started to work illegally. Indeed in this connection and bearing in mind the risk of migrants seeking to avoid immigration control, it is only right that first UKBA should have stringent powers to suspend a sponsor or prevent it from taking more students or terminating their sponsorship if it became concerned that a sponsor was not complying with its obligations and second that UKBA has to be sensitive to any factors which might suggest the possibility of any breaches of immigration control having occurred or being about to occur because of lapses or omissions committed by a sponsor. In my view, there is no need for UKBA to wait until there has been breach of immigration control caused by the acts or omission of a sponsor before suspending or revoking the sponsorship, but it can, and indeed should, take such steps if it has reasonable grounds for suspecting that a breach of immigration control might occur, provided of course that UKBA complies with its public law duties. There is therefore a clear need in some circumstances for UKBA to invoke its powers where there is a risk that the sponsor might not be complying with its duties provided of course that UKBA complies with its public law duties. The expertise and experience of the UKBA in being able to detect the possibility that a sponsor might not be or be at risk of not complying with its duties is something that the courts must and does respect because, unlike UKBA, courts do not have this critically important experience or expertise.”

[29]The burden placed on a college seeking to gain or maintain a Tier 4 sponsor licence is therefore a heavy one. It is not impossibly heavy. The system can only operate if the SSHD can place trust in such an institution to fulfil its duties to assist in ensuring that the permissions granted to enter or remain in the UK in order to study, are not abused. It is for the SSHD reasonably to calibrate what level of proper suspicion justifies investigation and it is not for this court to override that judgement if it is fairly based on the expertise and experience of the Defendant in these matters.

[30]It is submitted by the Claimant that 116 fraudulently obtained certificates is too small a percentage of the total student body to be significant and therefore the SSHD has acted unreasonably. That cannot survive scrutiny. It is a significant gauge of the college’s ability or willingness to monitor its students if such a number have obtained a language certificate by cheating and have not, during the course of their studies, been discovered by the college to have inadequate English language skills. It is impossible to imagine that an applicant who does have adequate skill would need to cheat in such an examination. Having cheated to obtain the certificates the students were never identified by the college as not having adequate English. That is a significant failing on the college’s part and responsibility cannot be shifted to ETS. Examples of students’ work are relied upon by the Defendant to show an inadequate grasp of written English. Even when the figures are adjusted in the Claimant’s favour, there are still too many instances which demonstrate such inadequate English to raise a real concern that this had not been previously identified as a problem by the college.

Lack of Academic Progression

[31]The question of whether the Claimant college has satisfied its duties to ensure adequate “academic progression” is clearly a sensitive one. It also requires strict vigilance on the part of a college but it should not be measured in absolute terms by the SSHD. It is a “vague” expression. In most cases progression is marked by an achievement of increasingly more difficult or more taxing milestones, e.g. an undergraduate degree followed by a Masters degree. It may, in certain circumstances, mean another course at the same level but in an allied subject. It is possible to identify exceptional cases in which it might mean a further course at a lower academic level but which supplements the first, so that a degree in Business Studies might be followed by an A level in another language spoken in a country in which a career in business might be pursued. Whether something amounts to academic progression is a question of judgement which the sponsoring college is expected to make in a robust and cautious manner. Equally it is open to the SSHD to disagree with that assessment if she is not satisfied that the subsequent course does actually amount to academic progression. It is open to the SSHD to review the decision of a college, if proper scrutiny was not being paid to the issue or if a college was reaching decisions which are plainly inappropriate. In issuing a CAS a college is representing to the student and the immigration authorities that it has considered the question of whether a proposed course does amount to academic progression and it is satisfied that it does. Although the decision in Pokhriyal v SSHD EWCA Civ 1568 has some bearing it must be recognised that it dealt with the position of the student and not the college. In this application, as in the St Andrew’s case, it is the status of the college that is under consideration.

[32]There are a number of students, which even if adjusted downwards in the Claimant’s favour, whose choice of course cannot be shown to have been scrutinised, sufficiently or at all, to determine whether the study would amount to academic progression.

[33]The Claimant college has accepted a number of applicants who have come from other colleges that have lost their Tier 4 licence. In each case the Claimant contends that it was reasonable for them to accept those students onto a “new” course at the same level as their previous course at their previous college. The area of contention is that the Claimant argues that if it was necessary for them to consider whether that amounted to academic progression before doing so, they gave such consideration. The Defendant argues that such consideration is specifically required in order to satisfy her policy and was not applied at all, or adequately, in these cases.

[34]The relevant policy is set out at paragraphs 411 et seq, “411. …..if you assign a CAS to a Tier 4(General) student to take a course in the UK after they have finished another course in the UK………………it must represent academic progression from the first course…….. 412…….You do not need to show academic progression if: b) you are assigning a CAS for a student to maker a first application to complete an existing course. The student may be completing a course with you that they started with another tier 4 sponsor, for example if the student was studying for a degree and their original sponsor had their licence revoked, then the student wishes to complete their existing course with you…”

[35]The Claimant argues that paragraph 412(b) means that a student coming from another college can start anew and complete the same course as they were studying at the first college without there being a duty on them to consider the question of whether it amounts to academic progression. The Defendant’s reply is that the first course has been “finished” or terminated by the revocation of status at the first college and the student is applying to start a “new” course, even if there is an element of repetition, and therefore it is incumbent upon the college to consider academic progression.

[36]The Defendant further relies on the wider principle that a failure to consider academic progression, in these circumstances, would enable a student to manipulate the process by moving from one half-completed course to another never to be assessed by a sponsoring college to determine academic progression.

[37]Any college must be alive to the risk that it may be used by a student seeking to abuse the system and must exercise vigilance when considering a totally “new” applicant or someone who is moving on from another college. It may be a prudent course for any college to exercise caution when accepting any student that comes from another college which has lost its status in order to ensure that the applying student has not been a contributing factor to that revocation.

[38]On this point the Defendant’s interpretation must be the correct one, if a student applies to continue a part-completed course then consideration need not be given to academic progression but if any course is to be started, even if that is a re-start, then the issue must be considered. It may be that it would not be a difficult exercise but in delegating that responsibility to the sponsoring college the SSHD is properly entitled to expect that that task is undertaken and properly completed.

[39]If this point stood alone then it could not sensibly constitute a sufficient abdication of responsibility to justify revocation of the licence. However it does not stand alone and it provides some additional support for the Defendant’s contention that this is a college which was not doing all that it could and should to ensure that it complied with the standards expected of its general admissions policy.

Monitoring Attendance

[40]Students who are granted leave to enter or remain in the UK to complete their accredited studies are not permitted to work in breach of the conditions of their leave. Colleges with HTS status are expected to do what they reasonably can to ensure that this does not happen and if they discover it to take proper action to remedy the position. It is probably inevitable that some students seek to find paid work. If this is completed out of college hours and does not prevent conscientious completion of course work then it may be that a college would not be able to identify those students working in breach of their conditions. In this case only 1 of the 7 students who were found to be working in breach of their conditions obtained any qualification at all from the Claimant college. Again this is an obvious area of concern. It is a subject about which the college is obviously on notice and one where any suspicion that a student is working in breach must be investigated by the college and remedied. The college has not shown that it had or applied any adequate procedures to ensure that such a practice would not be tolerated.

Approval by External Agencies

[41]The Claimant has demonstrated that it received “glowing reports” from external agencies such as the Quality Assurance Agency, Edexcel and ASIC. The Claimant rightly argues that its recruitment policies have satisfied the QAA assessment. A failure in this regard would have meant a loss of status. It is contended that the Defendant has failed to consider such testimonials in reaching her decision and has therefore acted unlawfully.

[42]The Defendant accepts that those agencies have inspected the processes of recruitment and facilities provided by the college. She contends that such agencies have not inspected, at all or in sufficient detail, the same material that she reviewed e.g. actual coursework. She highlights that coursework in certain instances as being demonstrative of an unacceptably low standard. She argues that that, of itself, demonstrates that the college is failing in its duty to ensure that its assignment of CAS’s is only to those whose English language ability and intellectual capacity is good enough to complete the course with a reasonable prospect of success. She has demonstrated on the evidence of that coursework that, notwithstanding the testimonials from those external agencies, the material to which she had regard shows that the required standards were not being applied with any or any sufficient rigour.

Conclusion

[43]The college in this case has been shown by the Defendant not to have complied with the standards expected of its status as a HTS. It may be that it had not been fully appreciated how extensive those duties are and that they cannot be delegated, without further consideration, to a body such as ETS. As is clear from all the authorities in this line of college cases the responsibility to ensure compliance at the highest level falls on and stays with the sponsor. They have a duty to the SSHD effectively to police the immigration rules on her behalf but they also have a duty to the students that they seek to recruit to ensure that the college will only accept genuine applicants and will do all that is reasonably required of it to provide tuition to those who are willing and able to attend and satisfactorily complete such a course.

[44]For the avoidance of doubt this claim would fail on the primary ground alone. The other aspects of the Defendant’s case merely add further support for the validity of her decision.

[45]This claim must fail.