Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
The appellant is a citizen of Tanzania born on 14 October 1982. He applied on 13 January 2014 for leave to remain in the UK as a Tier 4 (General) Student Migrant under the points-based system. The appellant proposed to complete a course at the College of Advanced Studies, London E1 leading to a diploma in strategic management NQF Level 7 finishing in September 2015. The appellant entered the UK as a student in December 2006.
On 30 January 2014 the Secretary of State refused the appellant further leave because the CAS submitted for the application related to a new course at the institution and the sponsor register was checked on 30 January 20124 and the sponsor college was found to be a legacy sponsor. Therefore the appellant could not comply with the requirements of Appendix A 116(da)(db) and paragraph 119.
In addition the appellant had previously been granted leave to study at degree level or above for a period of four years and eight months. The current application related to a course at Level until 4 September 2015. This would result in the appellant spending more than five years in the UK as a student at degree level above and contrary to paragraph 245ZX(c)(ha) of the Rules.
The appeal was heard by Judge S Taylor on 6 October and he dismissed the appeal on 17 October 2014. The judge found that at the time of the application the college was not yet a legacy sponsor and the appellant's representative submitted a copy of the published policy and guidance which confirmed that if a college became a legacy sponsor after it had assigned a CAS the relevant student may still apply for leave and if successful the student may continue to study at the college.
Application for permission to appeal was made contending that the judge had erroneously found that the five year rather than the six year limit under paragraph 245ZX(ha) of the Rules applied on the basis that the appellant was required to demonstrate he wished to follow a Masters course and the combination of the first and Masters course may total up to six years. The appellant had completed a first and Masters course and now wished to complete an additional �diploma course�.
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.