“33. The student immigration route (formerly known as Tier 4) is a route by which prospective students can enter the UK to study including within Higher Education. A sponsor is required who is licensed by the Home Office. 34. The requirements for entry to the UK via the student route are set out in the Immigration Rules: Appendix Student… 35. Sponsors who are licensed by the Home Office will issue eligible students with a [Certificate of Studies – i.e. a] CAS. This is an electronic document with a unique reference number issued by a student sponsor to a person it has agreed to sponsor. Students from overseas require a CAS to apply for entry to the UK through the student route. The CAS will be an important part of UKVI’s consideration when asking whether to grant permission to enter…. 36. Both parties have referred to government guidance issued to educational institutions. This is primarily contained within Student Sponsor Guidance… 39. The courts have on a number of occasions emphasised the heavy duties imposed upon a sponsor and the high degree of trust in sponsors who are granted licences: see the summary of legal principles set out in R(London St Andrews College) v SSHD[2018] EWCA Civ 2496 at [29] and the approval of the first instance judgment at [69]: “it must be understood that the grant of [sponsor] status is a fragile gift, constant vigilance about compliance is a minimum standard required for such sponsors. The burden of playing an active role in the support of immigration control is a heavy one. The SSHD is entitled to review purported compliance with a cynical level of supervision.” 55. It is agreed the Defendant is subject to stringent duties as a sponsor. The Defendant must be vigilant, report and, if necessary expel students who have failed to meet the requirements even if partway through a period of study. The Defendant was obliged to play an active role in support of immigration control.’ “it must be understood that the grant of [sponsor] status is a fragile gift, constant vigilance about compliance is a minimum standard required for such sponsors. The burden of playing an active role in the support of immigration control is a heavy one. The SSHD is entitled to review purported compliance with a cynical level of supervision.”
‘29. I summarised the legal principles applicable to Tier 2 and Tier 4 sponsorship cases in R(Raj & Knoll) v SSHD[2015] EWHC 1329 (Admin) and my summary was cited by Tomlinson LJ in R(Raj & Knoll) v SSHD[2016] EWCA Civ 770 in the Court of Appeal at [23]: ‘(1) The essence of the system is that the Secretary of State imposes ‘a high degree of trust’ in sponsors granted (‘Tier 2’ or ‘Tier 4’) licences in implementing and policing immigration policy in respect of migrants to whom it grants Certificate of Sponsorship (‘CoS’) or Conformation of Acceptance (‘CAS’) (per McGowan J in London St Andrews College at [12] (and see Silber J in R (Westech College) v SSHD(2011) EWHC 1484 ). (2) The authority to grant a certificate (CoS or CAS) is a privilege which carries great responsibility: the sponsor is expected to carry out its responsibilities ‘with all the rigour and vigilance of the immigration control authorities’ (per McGowan J in St Andrews College at [13]). (3) The Sponsor ‘must maintain its own records with assiduity’ (per McGowan J in London St Andrews College (supra) at [13]). (4) The introduction of the Points-Based System has created a system of immigration control in which the emphasis is on ‘certainly in place of discretion, on detail rather than broad guidance’ (per Lord Hope in R(Alvi) v Secretary of State for the Home Department[2012] 1 WLR 2208 at [42]). (5) The CAS in the ‘Tier 4’ scheme…is very significant: the possession by a migrant of a requisite CAS provides strong, but not conclusive, evidence of some of the matters which are relevant upon the migrant’s application for leave to enter or remain (Global Vision per Beatson LJ at [12], citing Lord Sumption SCJ in R (New London College Ltd) v SSHD[2013] UKSC 51 . (6) 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 (Silber J R(Westech College) at [17-18]). (7) The primary judgment about the appropriate response to breaches by licence holders is that of the Secretary of State. The role of the Court is simply supervisory. The Secretary of State is entitled to maintain a fairly high index of suspicion and a “light trigger” in deciding when and with what level of firmness she should act R(The London Reading College Ltd) v SSHD(2010) EWHC 2561 (Admin) per Neil Garnham QC. (8) The courts should respect the experience and expertise of UKBA when reaching conclusions as to a sponsor’s compliance with the Guidance, which is vitally necessary to ensure that there is effective immigration control ((per Silber J in R (Westech College) at [29(d)]).’ 30. I would endorse the following…principles [of’
“3.4 UKVI will always take action when it considers that a sponsor poses, or may pose, a risk to immigration control…. 3.7 … where there is a serious breach indicating a significant or systematic failing, the sponsor no longer meets the eligibility or suitability requirements for holding a Student sponsor licence, or UKVI considers that the sponsor constitutes a serious threat to immigration control, UKVI may decide to revoke the sponsor’s licence. This may also occur where there has been sustained non-compliance over a period of time, or where there have been a number of breaches which are isolated or minor in themselves but – taken together – indicate a serious or systematic failing. 3.10 Accordingly, if UKVI believes: * a serious breach has occurred; and/or * that there has been sustained non-compliance over a period of time; and/or * that a number of isolated or minor breaches have occurred which taken together indicate a serious failing; it is unlikely to consider that the provider will retain its Student sponsor licence…. 3.13 UKVI will monitor data on course designations and liaise with the appropriate regulatory body, where areas of concern are noted. compliance concerns [e.g.] Failure to withdraw sponsorship from non-compliant students.” * a serious breach has occurred; and/or * that there has been sustained non-compliance over a period of time; and/or * that a number of isolated or minor breaches have occurred which taken together indicate a serious failing; compliance concerns [e.g.] Failure to withdraw sponsorship from non-compliant students.”
“If c. A student does not enrol within the enrolment period. Then you must: Report it to us within 10 working days of the enrolment period ending, including the reasons for nonenrolment, for example; a) they missed their flight; b) they decided not to come to the UK; c) they delayed their enrolment; d) they are doing a course with a different sponsor; or e) we have refused them permission to come to, or stay in, the UK If we have refused a student permission to come to, or stay in, the UK, you do not need to report the nonenrolment as soon as you become aware of the refusal. The time-limit is still 10 working days from the date the enrolment period ends.”
“If: A student defers their studies after they have arrived in the UK and is no longer actively studying. You may continue to sponsor a student who has deferred their studies for up to a maximum of 60 calendar days (except for recognised vacation periods) providing you can continue to carry out your sponsorship duties and the student will be able to complete their course within their existing period of permission. If you think the student will not resume their studies after 60 calendar days, you must withdraw sponsorship. In exceptional circumstances, such as serious illness or injury, you may continue to sponsor a student for longer than 60 calendar days, providing the student can still complete their course within their existing period of permission when they resume their studies. It is for you to decide whether you are prepared to continue sponsoring a student during a deferral and, if necessary, provide evidence to verify this decision to our compliance officers Then: You must report that the student has deferred their studies within 10 working days of agreeing the deferral. If you withdraw sponsorship, the student’s permission to stay is no longer valid and you must advise them to leave the UK. Once the student is ready to resume their studies, you must assign a new CAS and the student must reapply for a new visa.”
“International students (Non-EU) are required to pay a tuition fee deposit at each Academic Stage/Year to secure a place. Before you can fully enrol onto your course, or each Academic Stage/Year,£8,000 of your full tuition fees for the relevant Academic Stage/Year must be received by the University. Please ensure you allow sufficient time (approx. 7-10 working days) for your payment to be processed by your bank, received by the University and credited to your student account. You may not be able to attend classes and have full access to University facilities, if you do not fulfil all the requirements for enrolment.”
“Providing you have paid enough to enrol before this date, you will be released to enrol. As soon as the correct funds hit our account, you will be released for enrolment. With regards to your assignment due at the end of the week it may be worth applying for an extension or deferral…”
“I kindly request that you reconsider your decision or provide a fair solution under these exceptional circumstances.”
“I kindly request the university to reconsider my case and allow me to continue my studies either through a reinstatement or by confirming my eligibility for the next available intake. I remain committed to fulfilling all my academic and compliance obligations.”
“Had the Claimant submitted a clear and timely written request indicating his intention to defer his studies until September, under paragraph 7.5(f)… the University would have been in a position to seek clarification from UKVI” [i.e. the Home Office] “as to whether such an arrangement was permissible. In the absence of such communication, the University was unable to explore alternative options or advocate on his behalf within the bounds of UKVI guidance.”
“The university as sponsor for international students is obliged by the UKVI regulations to report any student who has failed to enrol, and to withdraw sponsorship. This is not a university decision but one that is imposed by the UK Home Office….It is not possible for the university to further review its decision relating to your enrolment… If you wish to resume your studies you will now need to apply for a new CAS and Visa” and it set out how to do so. Then it also said: “Please be aware that it is now too late for you to request a return to study in September 2025.”
“Your Client requests that the University: 1. Retract and review our withdrawal of your Client’s student visa sponsorship; 2. Permit your Client to enrol on the Course and conclude your Client’s late enrolment appeal; and 3. Inform the Home Office that our sponsorship of your Client’s student visa is still valid. For the reasons outlined above, we can confirm that we will not withdraw our notification to the UKVI nor inform the Home Office that our sponsorship is still valid. In respect of enrolment onto the Course, your Client has missed the enrolment period and therefore is unable to enrol for this intake.”
“As reports are made in accordance with the Sponsorship Guidance, it is uncommon for the University to retract notifications made to the UKVI. However, I can confirm that the University can, if it wishes, decide to retract a notification of withdrawal of sponsorship to the UKVI via the online portal (the Sponsorship Management System ‘SMS’). The difficulty however, is that the University does not know how long it would take for the UKVI to respond, and we do not know if /when the Home Office curtails a visa. Before the University would consider a retraction, it needs to contact the Home Office via a separate UKVI portal to query whether the visa in question has been curtailed. Again, we are unable to predict the timescales for responses as it varies depending on the UKVI’s workload. To clarify, a retraction cannot be made once a visa has already been curtailed….. As mentioned above, the University can retract a notification of withdrawal of sponsorship, but it will be questioned by the Home Office as to why the retraction is being sought. We therefore need to justify our position and confirm that, for example, a student had been engaging with their studies and is able to continue on the course successfully. Our university ID card swiping system shows that Mr Khan only attended on campus teaching on 1 July… 3… 4 and 7 July and did not attend any classes/seminars/lectures in person after that date. Considering the circumstances, the University would not have withdrawn its notification to the UKVI in July 2025 as Mr Khan would not have been released from enrolment due to nonpayment and not meeting the … conditions. I understand from Registry that Mr Khan is unable to return to his studies immediately as he has missed a significant amount of teaching as his term started on 23 June not 8 September as he alleges. To clarify, a student studies in ‘blocks’. Mr Khan has missed the June-August block. He is currently missing the September-October block. The University exercises its judgment in determining when a student can re-start learning, and usually this is at the start of a teaching block so that a student will be able to participate fully in all teaching and learning activities.”
“Academically, Mr Khan was not in a position to re-enrol after 21 July … as he would have missed too much teaching and learning, of which he did not have access to the required materials, and the teaching block was due to finish the following week. This was not a material fact in the University’s decision making as the15 July 2025 deadline was a commercial deadline, however, it is important to clarify the academic position, especially if Mr Khan is claiming the University should have enrolled him once the payment had been received on21 July 2025 .”
“While paragraph 7.5(f) of the UKVI Sponsorship Guidance permits continued sponsorship of students who defer their studies for up to 60 calendar days, in Mr Khan’s case he was not enrolled, and under current university policy, non-enrolment due to failure to pay tuition fees is not considered a valid basis for continued sponsorship or an exceptional circumstance. As we are unable to monitor students who are not actively enrolled, this provision is only applied in exceptional circumstances such as serious illness or maternity leave. In Mr Khan’s case, as he would not have been actively enrolled during the relevant period, we were unable to fulfil our obligation to monitor him in accordance with our sponsoring duties under the Student visa route. This duty includes tracking academic engagement and attendance, which is only possible when a student is actively enrolled. As such the provision could not be applied, consequently deferment until September was not a viable option. Furthermore, Mr Khan has not provided any specific justification or supporting evidence to explain why he believes he is eligible for the issuance of a new CAS and visa while remaining in the UK, or explain the basis upon which he would complete his studies under his initial CAS. Had he submitted a clear and timely written request indicating his intention to defer his studies until September, under paragraph 7.5(f) of the guidance the University would have been in a position to seek clarification from UKVI as to whether such an arrangement was permissible. In the absence of such communication, the University was unable to explore alternative options or advocate on his behalf within the bounds of UKVI guidance.”
“If a student to whom you have issued a CAS intends to request administrative review of a decision to refuse their visa application, and you will continue to sponsor them if the refusal is overturned, do not withdraw sponsorship until the review has been concluded. Report such students as non-enrolments in accordance with row c. of this table unless, you are withdrawing sponsorship for other reasons.”
“Q. We have issued a CAS to a potential student to use in an application. The student hasn’t arrived for enrolment and we don’t know whether their application was successful. As a result of contacting them/failing to get in touch with the student, we have excluded them from the course…. A. You need to access your SMS account and select the activity type ‘sponsor has stopped sponsoring the migrant’ and then ‘sponsorship withdrawn; student has not enrolled. You can then use the notes field to add more detail such as the outcome of the application is unknown.”
“If the student is still being sponsored for their re-sits, then sponsorship should not be withdrawn, and a new CAS is not required for the student to continue their studies. If they then fail to enrol on the next stage of their course, for example on either year two or three, a notification to withdraw your sponsorship should be made to reflect that the student has stopped studying; you should select ‘Sponsorship withdraw; sponsor has stopped sponsoring the student’. You should not select any option that states they have failed to enrol as the student did enrol on their course at year one.”
“44. A public authority which has a discretionary power may adopt a policy or rule to regulate the exercise of the power and indeed, if it fails to act consistently with its rule or policy, its decision may be open to public law challenge by a person adversely affected. At the same time the principle against fettering discretion requires decision-makers not to shut their ears to claims falling outside the policies they have adopted: see Ali (Iraq) v SSHD[2016] 1 WLR 4799 , para 15. The leading authority is British Oxygen Co Ltd v Minister ofTechnology[1971] AC 610 . In that case the Board of Trade had a discretionary power to make grants for capital expenditure, but it adopted a policy not to make a grant for any item costing less than£25 . British Oxygen had purchased a very large number of gas cylinders which cost over£4 million in total but only about£20 each. In accordance with its policy, the Board declined to make a grant. Lord Reid identified the general rule as being that “anyone who has to exercise a statutory discretion must not ‘shut his ears to an application’” and “refuse to listen at all” but must be ‘always willing to listen to anyone with something new to say’. As the Board had “carefully considered” all that British Oxygen had said and had done nothing to suggest that it would not continue to do so, it acted lawfully… 48. The principle against fettering discretion requires a decision-maker to be willing to listen to and consider arguments for not acting in accordance with a rule or other established policy. But it does not require the decision-maker to cast around for possible reasons to do so. That is clear from the nature of the principle which, as the British Oxygen case shows, is a requirement founded in procedural fairness that the decision-maker must not “shut his ears” to an application or refuse to “listen to anyone with something new to say”
“Had [the Claimant] submitted a clear and timely written request indicating his intention to defer his studies until September, under paragraph 7.5(f) Guidance the University would have been in a position to seek clarification from UKVI as to whether such an arrangement was permissible. In the absence of such communication, the University was unable to explore alternative options or advocate on his behalf within the bounds of UKVI guidance.” (my italics) However, as I have explained, the Claimant specifically wrote on 30 July: “I kindly request the university to reconsider my case and allow me to continue my studies either through a reinstatement or by confirming my eligibility for the next available intake. I remain committed to fulfilling all my academic and compliance obligations.” (my italics) Moreover, in the Claimant’s solicitor’s pre-action letter on 16 August, they said: “[W]e request the university restore the sponsorship and notify the Home Office his sponsorship has been restored to prevent visa curtailment and that Mr Khan can continue his classes in September 2025.”
“5. Q. We have a prospective student who is unexpectedly delayed. They have provided a new date of arrival which we are happy to agree and set a revised enrolment date. How do we tell you this? A. You need to access your SMS account and select the category ‘student is delayed’ and then ‘student enrolment is delayed and a new date provided’ entering the new date in the free text field…. 8. Administrative error in student reporting. Q. We have reported that one of our students has failed to turn up to enrol on their course. However, we now realise that an administrative error had been made and the student actually did enrol. How do we correct this? A. You need to access your SMS account and select the option ‘previous notification withdrawn’ providing all relevant details in the free text field. If the report is submitted in time curtailment of the student’s leave will be cancelled.”