ML (student; �satisfactory progress�; Zhou explained) Mauritius

Factual and Procedural Background

The appellant, a citizen of Mauritius born on 1 July 1983, was initially granted leave to enter the United Kingdom as a student on 8 September 2004, with leave valid until 31 October 2005. She completed an IATA Diploma in Travel and Tourism and was subsequently granted further leave until 30 November 2006 to study the IATA-UFTAA Consultant Diploma in Travel and Tourism at the same institution. In April 2006, the appellant failed a component of the Consultant Diploma and was required to retake examinations but did not do so, citing advice that it would interfere with her new BTEC HNC Hospitality Management course at St Patrick's College, London, which she enrolled in on 27 September 2006.

On 14 November 2006, the appellant applied for an extension of her leave to continue as a student for the BTEC HNC course. The respondent refused this application on 13 February 2007, citing unsatisfactory progress due to the failure in the Consultant Diploma. The appellant appealed, but the Immigration Judge dismissed the appeal on 29 March 2007, holding that the relevant course for assessing progress was the Consultant Diploma for which leave was last granted. Senior Immigration Judge Perkins ordered reconsideration on 23 April 2007, bringing the matter before the current court.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the phrase "his course of study" in paragraph 60(v) of the Immigration Rules (HC 395) refers exclusively to the course for which leave was last granted or may include consideration of progress in subsequent courses.
2. Whether the Tribunal's decision in TY, which limited the assessment of satisfactory progress to the last course of study for which leave was granted, was correctly applied and legally sound.
3. Whether the Court of Appeal's decision in Zhou v SSHD affects the interpretation of paragraph 60(v) regarding satisfactory progress in a course of study.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The appellant argued that she had demonstrated satisfactory progress in her current BTEC HNC course and submitted a Progress Profile showing partial examination success.
• Her attorney contended that the Tribunal in TY erred by restricting the assessment to the course for which leave was last granted, advocating instead for a more 'global' approach considering progress in multiple courses.
• It was submitted that the Tribunal improperly added words to paragraph 60(v) by limiting the assessment to a single course, which was not stated in the rule.
• The appellant relied on the Court of Appeal decision in Zhou v SSHD to argue that the student's status and progress should be assessed more flexibly, allowing for course changes without penalty in the assessment of satisfactory progress.

Respondent's Arguments

• The respondent maintained that the relevant course for assessing satisfactory progress under paragraph 60(v) is the course for which leave was last granted, consistent with the Tribunal's decision in TY.
• The respondent argued that the phrase "his course of study" is singular and unambiguous, precluding a 'global' assessment across multiple courses.
• It was submitted that the Court of Appeal decision in Zhou did not address the meaning of paragraph 60(v) and thus did not support the appellant's broader interpretation.
• The respondent emphasized that the appellant failed to show satisfactory progress in the last course of study, which was the controlling factor for the extension of leave.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court began by examining paragraph 60(v) of the Immigration Rules, which requires evidence of satisfactory progress in "his course of study," emphasizing the singular form. The Tribunal's interpretation in TY, focusing on the course for which leave was last granted, was deemed a reasonable and necessary interpretation rather than an addition of words to the rule.

The court rejected the appellant's argument for a 'global' approach considering multiple courses, noting that such an interpretation conflicts with the clear language of the rule. The appellant's reliance on Zhou v SSHD was distinguished as addressing student status rather than progress requirements under paragraph 60(v).

The court acknowledged that while the Court of Appeal in Zhou recognized practical circumstances allowing students to change courses or face difficulties, this did not imply a relaxation of the strict progress requirements for extensions of leave.

Further, the court noted that even if a broader approach were adopted, the appellant's failure in the Consultant Diploma would still preclude a finding of satisfactory progress. The court concluded that the appellant had not shown any error in the Immigration Judge's application of the law or in the dismissal of the appeal.

Holding and Implications

The court UPHELD the decision to dismiss the appellant's appeal.

The holding confirms that under paragraph 60(v) of the Immigration Rules, satisfactory progress must be shown in the course of study for which leave was last granted. The decision reinforces the interpretation that progress in subsequent or alternative courses is not relevant for the purpose of extending leave. The appellant may seek discretionary relief outside the rules, but no error was found in the application of the Immigration Rules in this case. No new legal precedent was established.