At the recent meeting organised by Pupil’s Rights, and facilitated by JCWI, we were delighted to have been joined by barrister, Edward Nicholson from No. 5 Chambers. Whilst students spoke about the immigration and other problems they were encountering as a result of revocation of licences of their colleges, Edward spoke about his pending, and very interesting legal challenges on behalf of New London College – these have implications for the lawfulness of the sponsorship regime.
Quick round up
You can listen to Edward (below). He does a quick round up of Pankina, Alvi and the JCWI challenge to the interim cap, touches upon his challenge to the tier 4 regime in the Administrative Court, and moves on to discuss his other challenge in the Court of Appeal on behalf of a college who had its licence revoked.
Edward’s challenges pose some interesting questions. Whilst under the Immigration Act 1971 SSHD has the power to regulate entry and leave to remain of those who are not British/have rights of abode etc, do these powers really extend to regulation of entirely separate commercial entities?
Edward also queries the extent to which the sponsorship regime is Pankina compliant (which itself is to be subject to the Supreme Court’s consideration in relation to the correctness of the approach) given that revocation of licences is not dealt with in the Rules, but in the guidance, and given that the requirement for students/tier 2 employees to have sponsor with a licence is a condition of leave.
Finally, given that revocation of licences has significant implications for those employed at sponsoring organisations, as well as students, he asks whether the absence of an appeal can really be Article 6 ECHR compliant.
We’re currently awaiting judgment on this one. We believe it is expected in February of this year.