“C1.3 Sponsorship is a privilege not a right. The sponsorship system reflects that those who benefit directly from migration (employers, education providers or other organisations who bring in overseas nationals) should play their part in ensuring the immigration system is not abused. Significant trust is placed in sponsors and they must ensure they comply with immigration and wider UK law, and not behave in a manner that is not conducive to the wider public good. C1.4 To achieve these aims, all licensed sponsors must fulfil certain duties. Some of these duties apply to all sponsors, whilst others are specific to those licensed under certain routes. C1.5 The objectives of these duties include, but are not limited to: • preventing abuse of immigration laws and sponsorship arrangements • capturing early any patterns of behaviour that may cause concern • addressing possible weaknesses in process which can cause those patterns • monitoring compliance with the Immigration Rules, all parts of the Worker and Temporary Worker sponsor guidance, and wider UK law (such as employment law) • ensuring sponsors do not behave in a way that is detrimental to the wider public good.” • preventing abuse of immigration laws and sponsorship arrangements • capturing early any patterns of behaviour that may cause concern • addressing possible weaknesses in process which can cause those patterns • monitoring compliance with the Immigration Rules, all parts of the Worker and Temporary Worker sponsor guidance, and wider UK law (such as employment law) • ensuring sponsors do not behave in a way that is detrimental to the wider public good.”
“C7.1 The ability to sponsor workers to work in the UK is a privilege that must be earned. When a sponsor is granted a licence, significant trust is placed in them. With that trust comes a responsibility for sponsors to act in accordance with our immigration law, all parts of the Worker and Temporary Worker sponsor guidance, wider UK law (such as employment law) and the wider public good. [UK Visas & Immigration] has a duty to ensure all sponsors discharge these responsibilities, and that a sponsor’s actions (or omissions) do not create a risk to immigration control or are not conducive to the public good. C7.2 The majority of those who employ overseas workers are honest and willing to comply with their duties. However, because sponsorship transfers a significant amount of responsibility and trust to sponsors, we have a duty to ensure that we deal appropriately with the minority who do not comply with their duties. We place great weight on the importance of trust in the operation of the sponsorship system and the need to ensure that sponsors take their duties seriously. C7.3 We will continually monitor sponsors’ compliance and take action against those who: • pose, or may pose, a threat to immigration control • breach their sponsorship duties, or otherwise fail to comply with the Immigration Rules or Worker and Temporary Worker sponsor guidance • are convicted of criminal offences or issued with certain civil penalties (such as those for employing illegal workers) • have engaged or are engaging in behaviour or actions that are not conducive to the public good C7.4 Compliance checks may be taken on the basis of a reasonable suspicion that you have breached your sponsor duties or are otherwise no longer suitable to hold a licence. This may be based on a poor previous record of compliance with us or other government departments. C7.5 We have a range of measures to make sure that we enforce sponsors’ duties and identify dishonest, incompetent, or otherwise inappropriate sponsors early on. Action we may take includes: • reducing your certificate of sponsorship allocation • downgrading your licence to a B-rating • suspending your licence • revoking your licence • cancelling the permission of your sponsored workers to remain in the UK • where we believe a criminal or civil offence has taken place, reporting this to the police or other relevant authorities.” • pose, or may pose, a threat to immigration control • breach their sponsorship duties, or otherwise fail to comply with the Immigration Rules or Worker and Temporary Worker sponsor guidance • are convicted of criminal offences or issued with certain civil penalties (such as those for employing illegal workers) • have engaged or are engaging in behaviour or actions that are not conducive to the public good • reducing your certificate of sponsorship allocation • downgrading your licence to a B-rating • suspending your licence • revoking your licence • cancelling the permission of your sponsored workers to remain in the UK • where we believe a criminal or civil offence has taken place, reporting this to the police or other relevant authorities.”
“ … accept our assurances that [access to the SMS] is secure and as I stated in the body of this response, Mr Daniel Igwe is the only person with sole and absolute control of the system. He issues all of the certificates of sponsorships to workers following recommendation from me as the director of the Company. Although events have been reported late through our Sponsorship Management System …, however, on behalf of the Compliance Officer, I humbly and regretfully express our remorse …” (d) Sponsored workers’ visa expiry dates had previously been monitored by using a spreadsheet because “technical glitches” had prevented it using its software programme. The Claimant admitted that “this process was inadequate at times, a situation we regret and offer our deep remorse and undertake that it will not happen again hence we have invested in the software Cezzane.”
“There are substantial advantages for sponsors in participating [in the Tier 4 Scheme] but they are not obliged to do so. The Rules contained in the Tier 4 Guidance for determining whether applicants are suitable to be sponsoring institutions, are in reality conditions of participation, and sponsors seeking the advantages of a licence cannot complain if they are required to adhere to them.”
“Lord Sumption in New London College described the rules of the scheme as the conditions of participation. “Sponsors seeking the advantages of a licence cannot complain if they are required to adhere to them.”
“67. I turn finally to the question of procedural rigour in public law litigation. In my view, it cannot be emphasised enough that public law litigation must be conducted with an appropriate degree of procedural rigour. I recognise that public law litigation cannot necessarily be regarded in the same way as ordinary civil litigation between private parties. This is because it is not only the private interests of the parties which are involved. There is clearly an important public interest which must not be overlooked or undermined. In particular procedure must not become the master of substance where, for example, an abuse of power needs to be corrected by the court. However, both fairness and the orderly management of litigation require that there must be an appropriate degree of formality and predictability in the conduct of public law litigation as in other forms of civil litigation. 68. In the context of an appeal such as this it is important that the grounds of appeal should be clearly and succinctly set out. It is also important that only those grounds of appeal for which permission has been granted by this Court are then pursued at an appeal. The Courts frequently observe, as did appear to happen in the present case, that grounds of challenge have a habit of “evolving” during the course of proceedings, for example when a final skeleton argument comes to be drafted. This will in practice be many months after the formal close of pleadings and after evidence has been filed. 69. These unfortunate trends must be resisted and should be discouraged by the courts, using whatever powers they have to impose procedural rigour in public law proceedings. Courts should be prepared to take robust decisions and not permit grounds to be advanced if they have not been properly pleaded or where permission has not been granted to raise them. Otherwise there is a risk that there will be unfairness, not only to the other party to the case, but potentially to the wider public interest, which is an important facet of public law litigation.”
“… the Secretary of State took no issue as to SOC code when [the certificates of sponsorship] were assigned. It is not open to the Secretary of State to now contend that the wrong SOC code was used and, on that basis, hold that there are no genuine vacancies. The Secretary of State does not suggest that the Claimant had any incentive to dishonestly mislead the Secretary of State in that respect. Accordingly, it cannot be suggested that the Claimant dishonestly exaggerated the job description so to facilitate sponsored workers entry and stay in the United Kingdom.”
“… it is tolerably clear … that the Secretary of State arrived at his decision on the basis that the sponsored workers do not undertake regulated activities. However, there is no explanation by the Secretary of State as to how that leads to a conclusion that [the] wrong SOC code was used and there are no genuine vacancies. There is a gap in the reasoning.”
“… there is simply no engagement by the Secretary of State with the detailed statement of Abayomi Joshua Adeboye. It is directly on point. The complete failure to have regard to this crucial evidence is a plain public law error and [it] makes the revocation decision irrational.”
“caring personal services occupations transport patients by ambulance, stretcher, wheelchair or other means and assist health professionals with the care of patients in hospitals, dental surgeries, nursing homes, residential homes, clinics, day care services and within the home.” (b) Occupations identified as falling within Minor Group 614 are nursing auxiliaries and assistants; ambulance staff (but excluding paramedics); dental nurses; house-parents and residential wardens; care workers and home carers; senior care workers; care escorts and undertakers’ assistants. (c) The SOC’s coding index identifies the occupations that fall within the scope of particular SOC codes. For example, SOC 6145 includes activity organisers in nursing homes and old people’s homes; carers; carers (welfare services); care nurses; care workers (including welfare services); community care workers; domiciliary carers; residential care workers; care visitors; hobby therapists; home carers; nursing home orderlies; personal carers; residential officers (welfare services) and sitters (welfare services). (d) SOC code 6145 provides that: “6145 CARE WORKERS AND HOME CARERS Care workers and home carers attend to the personal needs and comforts of the elderly and the infirm with care and support needs (‘service users’) within residential care establishments, day care establishments or in their own homes. TYPICAL ENTRY ROUTES AND ASSOCIATED QUALIFICATIONS There are no formal academic entry requirements. In most cases workers will be required to register with the appropriate statutory body which involves satisfying the registration criteria … TASKS • assists and enables service users to dress, undress, wash, use the toilet and bathe; • serves meals to service users at table or in bed, and assists with feeding if required; • generally assists with service users’ overall comfort and well being; • provides interest and activities to stimulate and engage the service user; • helps with daily activities such as letter writing, paying bills, collecting benefits; • undertakes light cleaning and domestic duties including meal preparation as required; • monitors service users’ conditions by taking temperature, pulse, respiration and weight and contributes to record keeping; • liaises with professional staff in carrying out care plans etc. RELATED JOB TITLES Care assistant Care worker Carer Home care assistant Home carer Support worker (nursing home)”
“In any event, when deciding whether the sponsored workers is being paid less, the Secretary of State is obliged to consider global wages. In this instance, as Mr David Entonu confirms in his witness statement, the period in question fell within a transition period and there was [a] slight error on the net wages, which was swiftly corrected. The Secretary of State made a public law error in failing to consider whether the alleged error was merely an error. In any event, there is a failure by the Secretary of State to consider Mr David Entonu’s wages globally. It is clear from his evidence that he is not being paid less and the shortfall was subsequently paid. The Secretary of State simply failed to take into account this witness statement …”
“The decision maker has a wide discretion in making their decision in each case, based on the specific facts. There was, in my judgment, nothing inherently unreasonable in the decision maker selecting, in this case, the four month period of May-August 2024 in which to assess compliance with the required annual pay rate … I would have some doubt, however, that a decision maker could reasonably conclude that a person who is being paid at least the correct annualised salary when looked at over a four month period but who is below that level for a single month could be said to be paid less than the required annual rate.”
“ … The impact of revocation is not a factor which is either prescribed or proscribed in the Guidance. It therefore falls into the third category, a factor to which the decision-maker may have regard if in his judgment and discretion he thinks it right to do so. Where, as here, the decision-maker does not advert to a consideration at all, the decision is not unlawful unless the consideration is obviously material according to the Wednesbury irrationality test. Where it is taken into account, but given no weight, that is again open to challenge unless the decision-maker acts irrationally. Subject to the test of rationality, the weight to be given to a particular consideration is a matter for the decision-maker, and this includes that a decision-maker might lawfully decide to give a consideration no weight.”