We have recently reviewed the High Court’s decision in R (on the application of Prabhjot Kaur and another) v Birmingham City University [2024] EWHC 3185 (Admin). The case sheds light on the responsibilities of Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) as licensed student sponsors and highlights how allegations of fraudulent documentation can lead to the withdrawal of student sponsorship, often resulting in visa cancellations by the Home Office.
In this matter, two claimants, Ms. Prabhjot Kaur and Ms. Amandeep Kaur, both Indian nationals, had secured places at Birmingham City University (“the Defendant”). Despite having initially been assigned Confirmations of Acceptance for Studies (CAS), issues arose when the University discovered that certain bank statements used to evidence their financial status were not genuine.
As a result, the University withdrew the student sponsorship, prompting the Home Office to cancel both claimants’ student visas. Both individuals challenged this withdrawal and the subsequent decision, ultimately seeking judicial review.
Grounds for Judicial Review
Both claimants sought judicial review, relying on five principal grounds to challenge the University’s decision:
1. Fraud
They argued there was no proper basis to accuse them personally of fraud or dishonesty.
2. Bad Faith / Improper Motive
The claimants suggested the University acted in bad faith, allegedly to protect its own sponsor status and deflect blame for poor oversight of its agents
3. Irrationality
They contended that withdrawing sponsorship was an irrational step because, in their view, not every use of a false document automatically proves the student’s complicity.
4. Procedural Fairness
The claimants argued that they were not given a proper opportunity to respond to the allegations before sponsorship was withdrawn.
5. Article 8 (Right to Private Life)
High Court’s Decision
At a renewed permission hearing, the High Court again refused permission for judicial review. In short, the Judge held:
1. Withdrawing Sponsorship Was Lawful: The University acted within its rights and in line with the Home Office’s Student Sponsor Guidance, which demands scrupulous vigilance against misuse of the immigration system. When credible evidence of fraudulent documents emerged, the University was justified in withdrawing the CAS.
2. No finding of dishonesty against the claimants was required: The rules allow for permission to be refused or cancelled if fraudulent documents are provided, irrespective of whether the applicant personally knew about the falsity. Since the sponsor duties are strict, it was not necessary for the Defendant to establish the students’ direct complicity.
3. Procedural Fairness was not breached: The claimants had enough notice that the verification process was taking place and were explicitly asked not to travel. They nonetheless entered the UK and were given opportunities to explain themselves during campus meetings. The Court also noted that any further representations would not have changed the fact that the bank statements were false.
4. No arguable Article 8 Claim: Neither claimant provided a viable argument as to why they had a private or family life claim that should override the University’s decision or the Home Office’s subsequent action.
5. Claimants’ own duty of candour: The Court highlighted that the claimants had not produced full disclosure, particularly regarding their communications with the alleged agent/sub-agent who submitted the fraudulent documents. This further undermined their position.
Overall, the Court concluded that the University’s actions were legally sound, and the Secretary of State was similarly within her powers to cancel the claimants’ permission to enter.
Our Comments
This case clearly demonstrates how the High Court balances the duty of educational institutions to uphold immigration control against the need for fairness to individual students. When suspicious documents surface, especially on a large scale involving the same bank or agent, universities have little choice but to alert the Home Office and withdraw their support.
In the face of strict sponsor obligations, it is vital that students take every step to verify the authenticity of their financial proofs. Moreover, a thorough trail of communication with any educational agent should be maintained, ensuring that students themselves understand every part of the documentation being submitted on their behalf.
For those faced with sponsorship withdrawal, it is crucial to seek prompt legal advice. As seen in this case, once a CAS is cancelled and the Home Office is notified of suspected fraud, the path to overturning visa revocations can be extremely challenging.
Ultimately, R (on the application of Prabhjot Kaur and another) v Birmingham City University serves as an important reminder: ensuring accuracy and transparency in all visa-related documentation is not merely a formality, but an absolute necessity to safeguard both the student’s status and the sponsor’s licence.
Have questions? Get in touch today!
Call us on 020 7928 0276, we will be taking calls from 9:30am to 6:00pm.
Email us on info@lisaslaw.co.uk.
Use the Ask Lisa function on our website. Simply enter your details and leave a message, we will get right back to you: https://lisaslaw.co.uk/ask-question/
For more updates, follow us on our social media platforms! You can find them all on our Linktree right here.
