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.
In this appeal the Appellant challenges the decision of the First-tier Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) which held that in accepting an unpaid work placement the Appellant violated the conditions attached to his visa.
The facts may be summarised shortly. The Appellant is a student. He arrived in the United Kingdom in June 2009 in order to study. He was granted a series of extensions of his stay as a Tier 4 general student migrant. Until 26 th July 2013 his conditions contained a “remark” that he could work a maximum of 20 hours during the academic term. He engaged in employed work with APECS Consult Limited which was within the terms of the conditions attached to the visa.
However, a residence permit (referred to by the UKBA as a BRP) granted to him subsequently, on 26 th July 2013 which was valid until 19 th March 2016, contained a different “remark”. It stated: “ No work except work placement ”.
This particular work permit was provided to him under cover of a standard form letter from the UK Border Agency dated 26 th July 2013. The letter contained the following:
The attached leaflet explains the conditions of your stay whilst in the United Kingdom”.
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.