IA265492015

On the file was the Respondent's bundle which comprised: immigration information on form PF1; witness statements of Home Office officials Peter Millington and Rebecca Collings; report by Professor French 20 April 2016 and statement from Sonia Poulter 18 November 2016; Project Façade documentation; CAS details; ETS invalid test analysis; refusal letter; IELTS certificate dated 29 May 2014.

For the hearing the Appellant submitted a bundle which comprised: first statement of the Appellant dated 15 November 2016 and second dated 12 November 2018; statement of the witness Harvinder Bhuie dated 12 November 2018; e-mail correspondence with ETS; test certificates and educational documents

If the Appellant had been making a dishonest application, the grounds continued, there would have been no need for him to go elsewhere. The Appellant spoke excellent English, he had an IELTS score of 6 for speaking and writing. He submitted his certificate dated 15 May 2014 confirming these scores to the Respondent on 6 June 2014. The Respondent should have given the Appellant a period of 60 days within which to find another college.

The Appellant's appeal initially came before Judge of the First-tier Tribunal Aziz sitting at Hatton Cross on 21 November 2016. He allowed the Appellant's appeal. At [24] and [25] he summarised the Appellant's evidence concerning the day the Appellant took the test. The Judge described the Respondent's evidence of a proxy test taker as generic and he was not persuaded that it was significant. The Respondent had not discharged the evidential burden placed upon him. The Appellant should have been awarded 60 days leave in order to find a new sponsor when his college lost its licence.

There was specific evidence relating to the test taken at South Quay college which was capable of supporting a finding that the test at Eden college was taken by proxy. There was an article from Project Façade setting out the percentages of those taking the test at Eden college and South Quay college. They formed part of the background against which evidence of an innocent explanation could be assessed. Judge Latter also found that the Respondent only had to produce sufficient evidence to discharge the evidential burden (at stage I) not significant evidence as Judge Aziz had stated.