Franz Khalid & Ors v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] UKUT 295 (IAC)
[1]Ealing, Hammersmith and West London College (EHWLC) has an online management and record keeping system called Centime, operated from 2003 and still in current use. This system is so detailed, well operated and robust that evidence from EHWLC based on its records to the effect that a person made no application to the college, was not enrolled on a course there and was not awarded any qualification will, in general, be cogent evidence to that effect. Accordingly, it will in general be extremely difficult for a person who does not feature in the records to demonstrate that they were enrolled at EHWLC and studying there at the relevant time.[2]Evidence of academic achievement at EHWLC, relied upon by those claiming to have studied there, including certificates, results sheets and course work claimed to have been submitted for assessment, will, in general, include a student’s unique data number, assigned to him or her under the Centime system and the absence of such a number is, accordingly, likely to be an adverse factor of substantial weight.[3]Genuine postgraduate diploma certificates issued by EHWLC will include a logo showing the full name of the college rather than a single campus or a combination of sites not reflecting the full name.[4]Postgraduate courses in Hospitality Management and in Business and Management are of eighteen months duration and any work placement arranged as part of a course will begin after the commencement of studies and not beforehand; the catchment area for the 2008 course Hospitality Management course was Mumbai and the intake in that year was from that city and its environs and not elsewhere. DETERMINATION AND REASONSIntroduction
[1]The appellants, Fraz Khalid, Salman Ali Syed, Tahira Salman, Mahnoor Salman and Sheikh Muhammad Akmal are citizens of Pakistan and were born on 18th December 1978, 23rd August 1971, 15th March 1982, 27th December 2007 and 19th August 1978 respectively. The second and third named appellants are Mr Syed’s dependants (his wife and his daughter respectively) and their appeals depend on the outcome of his. The first, second and last named appellants each applied for leave to remain in the United Kingdom as a Tier 1 (Post-Study Work) Migrant. In support of their applications, each submitted what purported to be a Postgraduate Diploma from Ealing, Hammersmith and West London College (“EHWLC”). Mr Khalid and Mr Syed claimed to have been awarded a Diploma in Hospitality Management. Mr Akmal claimed to have been awarded a Diploma in Business and Management. In each case, the Secretary of State found that the qualification relied upon was false and that, in consequence, each application fell to be refused under paragraph 322(1A) of the Immigration Rules. The Secretary of State also found that the appellants had failed to show that they were entitled to points claimed under Appendices A and B of the Immigration Rules and that they had therefore not shown that the requirements of paragraph 245Z(c) and (d) were met. The applications made by Mr Syed’s dependants were refused as they could not show that the requirements of paragraph 319C and 319H of the rules were met.[2]In a determination promulgated on 14th August 2009, appeals brought against the adverse decisions were dismissed by a Designated Immigration Judge sitting at Hatton Cross. An application for reconsideration under section 103A of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 was made on behalf of appellants. On 16th November 2009, a panel consisting of Senior Immigration Judge Storey and Senior Immigration Judge P R Lane found that the determination contained a material error of law, such that no part of the findings could stand, with the result that a fresh hearing was required on all issues (see Appendix 1). Detailed case management directions were given on 10th September 2010 and the matter came before us on 10th January 2011.[3]The appellants did not appear at the hearing on 10th January 2011. It was apparent from the case management file that each was served with notice of the hearing and directions at the addresses provided by them. There was no explanation for their absence and no application for an adjournment. We were satisfied that the appellants had been notified of the hearing and that it was in the interests of justice to proceed, as permitted under rule 38 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008. In so deciding, we took into account the overriding objective (and the parties obligation to cooperate with the Upper Tribunal) in rule 2 of those Rules.The Documentary Evidence of the Appellants
[4]Before us were copies of the applications for leave to remain in the United Kingdom, the notice of decision in each case, the notices of appeal to the First-tier Tribunal and documents relied upon in support. Short bundles were prepared in readiness for the hearings before the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal by the solicitors then acting for the appellants. In Mr Khalid’s case, a witness statement and a document purporting to be an academic assignment were provided. In Mr Syed’s case, a witness statement and documents purporting to be two assignments were provided. Mr Akmal also provided a witness statement and documents purporting to be two assignments.[5]In response to the case management directions given by the Upper Tribunal, Mr Khalid, Mr Syed and Mr Akmal each provided a further witness statement (dated 7th January, 6th January and 5th January 2011 respectively). The respondent provided a composite bundle, consisting of witness statements made by Victoria Charles, a course director for the Foundation Degree in Hospitality Management at EHWLC, dated 27th September 2010 and by Kathryn Vines, Head of International Operations at the same college, dated 27th September 2010. The respondent’s bundle also included copies of documents provided by Mr Khalid, Mr Syed and Mr Akmal in support of their applications (including postgraduate diploma certificates, results sheets and letters purporting to have been written by members of staff at the college), sample documents provided by EHWLC, further copies of the respondent’s original trial bundle and a copy of a second witness statement made by Ms Vines, on 17th June 2009.[6]Also before us were the original diploma certificates, letters and transcripts provided by Mr Khalid, Mr Syed and Mr Akmal in support of their applications for further leave. Mr Tarlow handed up the International Course Guide for 2009 and 2010 published by EHWLC and we were also provided with examples of certificates issued by Edexcel, certificates of eligibility, letters to students at the college from course directors, transcripts, results sheets and diploma certificates issued by the college.[7]The case management file included letters sent by fax from the solicitors who had previously represented the appellants, confirming that they were no longer instructed.