IA074822014

I will refer the parties in this decision by their descriptions in the First-tier Tribunal notwithstanding that their roles are reversed in this Tribunal.

According to Miss Isherwood who appeared for the respondent at the Upper Tribunal hearing, the appellant only completed 6.9% of the total available course work in Icon College. He was subsequently found to be attending Ambassador College in apparent breach of the terms of his leave and that resulted ultimately in the curtailment of his leave. No issue is taken before me over the validity or extent of the appellant�s appeal rights. Therefore, I will assume that the appeal has been validly brought.

Although I allowed the parties to call any supplementary evidence that was necessary to deal with any material developments since the original decision which might affect the ultimate outcome, they did not in fact seek to do so.

I have heard submissions by both representatives at the convened hearing. Miss Isherwood explained the statutory background to me so as to understand the context of Section 50. She said that where an appellant wishes to change the course he is on he needs to make a fresh application. She referred me to the case of Bhimani [2014] UKUT 516 , a decision of Judge Allen in Upper Tribunal. That case supports the proposition that she advances.

In support of the appellant's case Mr Acharjee referred me to the guidance that the respondent had issued. He pointed out that it was wider than the Rules appeared to suggest. Therefore, he pointed out, the supplementary course may be embarked on without the need for permission from a Tier 4 Sponsor. The only limitation, he said, was that the supplementary course did not in any way hinder an appellant�s studies on the main course.