R v. Chief Immigration Officer Bradford Airport, Ex parte Ashiq Hussain

Publisher	United Kingdom: High Court (England and Wales)
Author	Immigration Appeal Tribunal
Publication Date	13 October 1969
Citation / Document Symbol	[1969] 3 All ER 1601, [1970] 1 WLR 9
Cite as	R v. Chief Immigration Officer Bradford Airport, Ex parte Ashiq Hussain, [1969] 3 All ER 1601, [1970] 1 WLR 9, United Kingdom: High Court (England and Wales), 13 October 1969, available at: https://www.refworld.org/cases,GBR_HC_QB,3ae6b65414.html [accessed 4 November 2019]
Disclaimer	This is not a UNHCR publication. UNHCR is not responsible for, nor does it necessarily endorse, its content. Any views expressed are solely those of the author or publisher and do not necessarily reflect those of UNHCR, the United Nations or its Member States.

R. v. CHIEF IMMIGRATION OFFICER BRADFORD AIRPORT, Ex parte ASHIQ HUSSAIN.

QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION

[1969] 3 All ER 1601, [1970] 1 WLR 9

Hearing Date: 13 October 1969

13 October 1969

Index Terms:

Commonwealth Immigrant -- Admission -- Grounds of admission -- Attendance on course of study -- Right of immigration officer to interrogate and test immigrant as to his suitability to attend course of study -- Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1962 (10 & 11 Eliz. 2 c. 21), s. 2 (3) (b).

Held:

The applicant, a Pakistani, wished to attend a course of study at a technical college in England. His cousin, who lived in England, agreed to act as his sponsor and he applied via the Pakistani High Commission in London to the technical college for a place on the course beginning on 22nd September 1969. The application was supported by a Lahore Secondary School Certificate stating that the applicant had qualified in, inter alia, English and mathematics. The technical college, which required a General Certificate of Education at ordinary level in English and mathematics as a prerequisite of entry to the particular course, was misled by the Lahore certificate and accepted the applicant for the course on an undertaking by the sponsor to pay the fees. On 8th September the applicant arrived in England. He was interviewed by an immigration officer and produced satisfactory evidence of his acceptance for the course at the technical college. The immigration officer, although he was able to communicate with the applicant without an interpreter, found that the applicant had little knowledge of mathematics and experienced difficulty in writing in English. After a telephone call to the college in which he was informed, inter alia, of the minimum educational standards required, the immigration officer refused entry to the applicant. Later, after the applicant had been interviewed by staff from the college, the principal stated that the applicant's knowledge of English and mathematics was insufficient to enable him to benefit from the course. On the question wheter, under s. 2 (3) (b) * of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1962, the immigration officer was entitled to refuse the applicant entry once the applicant had satisfied him that he genuinely wished to enter the United Kingdom for the purpose of attending a course of study,

* Section 2 (3), so far as material, is set out at p. 1603, letter F. post.

Held: (i) before admitting the applicant under s. 2 (3) (b), the immigration officer had to satisfy himself not merely of the genuine wish of the applicant to attend a course of study but also of the fact that the applicant was in a position to attend a course of study (see p. 1603, letter H, and p. 1604, letter D, post);

(ii) there were no grounds for suggesting that the immigration authorities ought to have admitted the applicant subject to conditions, e.g., for a period of 12 months to enable him to learn sufficient mathematics and English, since this had not been suggested to the authorities by the applicant and he had not submitted evidence of any suitable course which he could attend or of his ability to pay the necessary fees for any such course (see p. 1604, letters C and D, post).

Applications dismissed.

Notes:

As to the control of Commonwealth Immigrants and their examination by immigration officers, see SUPPLEMENT to 5 HALSBURY'S LAWS (3rd Edn.), paras. 1513, 1514.

For the Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1962, s. 2, see 4 HALSBURY'S STATUTES (3rd Edn.) 27.

Introduction:

Motions for certiorari and mandamus. These were applications by Ashiq Hussain, a Commonwealth citizen from Pakistan, for an order for certiorari to quash a notice of refusal of admission issued in respect of him by the chief immigration officer at Bradford Airport and/or for an order of mandamus directed to the chief immigration officer at Bradford Airport and to the Home Office directing them properly to enquire whether he was a student desirous of attending a course of study in textile and cloth manufacture at an institution in the United Kingdom.

Counsel:

S. P. Khambatta, Q.C., and Y. R. K Suri for the applicant. Gordon Slynn for the respondents.

PANEL: Lord Parker C.J., Cross, L.J., and Ashworth, J.

Judgment By-1: LORD PARKER, C.J.

Judgment One:

LORD PARKER C.J.: In these proceedings counsel moves on behalf of one Ashiq Hussain, the applicant, who arrived at Bradford Airport on 8th September 1969, and who the same day was refused entry as a Commonwealth immigrant. The relief sought here is an order of certiorari to quash that notice of refusal, and in addition or in the alternative, an order of mandamus directed to the chief immigration officer of Bradford Airport and to the Home Office directing them to enquire further into the matter.

What happened in this case was that the applicant was desirous, so he said, of coming to this country and undertaking a two-year course at Bradford Technical College in the manufacture of cloth. With that in view, his cousin, who is already in this country, acted as his sponsor; in due course an application was made by the sponsor to the office of the High Commissioner for Pakistan in this country, supported by, amongst other things, a certificate of Matriculation from a college in Lahore certifying that he had passed certain examinations in mathematics and in English. The High Commissioner's office sent that on to the college at Bradford, who, on the faith of that certificate, agreed by letter dated 8th July 1969 to accept the applicant for the course. Thereupon the High Commissioner issued a letter dated 15th July:

"TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: THIS is to state that [the applicant] has been accepted by the Bradford Technical College for the two year full time course in Cloth Manufacture which will begin on 8th September, 1969. [The applicant] will be financially maintained by Mr. Mohammad Rafiq [that is the cousin]... This completes all formalities at our end. [There applicant] should make his travel arrangements with a view to join the college on the date above and may present this statement, the letter of the college and the financial guarantee to the authorities."

On 8th September the applicant arrived at Bradford Airport, and there he was interviewed by a Mr. Farrage, an immigration officer at that airport. There is no doubt that the applicant told him he had come to study at Bradford Technical College, and produced at any rate the letter from the college to which I have referred of 8th July. Moreover it appeared that it was unnecessary to have an interpreter, and the immigration officer was able to communicate with the applicant. However, in order to make certain of the matter, communication was made with Mr. Farnell, the head of the Department of Taxtiles at Bradford Technical College, who informed the immigration officer over the telephone that while there were minimum qualifications for students wishing to take the course, namely a General Certificate of Education at ordinary level in English and mathematics, he had accepted the applicant on the basis of a Lahore Secondary School Certificate stating that the applicant had qualified in English, mathematics, and other subjects. Mr. Farnell also said that the cousin, the sponsor, Mr. Rafiq, had undertaken to pay the college fees of @ 150 per annum, and the course was to start on 22nd September.

What had caused the immigration officer to ring up Mr. Farnell was his immediate doubt whether the applicant knew enough English and mathematics really to be acceptable to the college, or to benefit from this course. The immigration officer had tested the applicant in simple addition and simple division, and found that his knowledge of mathematics was nil; the immigration officer asked the applicant to write the words "The cat sat on the mat" and this the applicant failed to do. I say at once it may have been because the applicant did not understand the immigration officer's Yorkshire accent, if he had a Yorkshire accent, but the applicant did not write it down. As a result the immigration officer in due course issued his notice of refusal. Immediately the applicant's sponsor took the matter up; solicitors were employed, the secretary of the immigrant association at Bradford took a part in the matter and it went then to the chief immigration officer at Hull, a Mr. Creasey, who then communicated, very properly, with the Bradford Technical College and said: "Is this really true, that you have accepted and will accept [the applicant] for this course in September?" As a result the Bradford Technical College took a great deal of trouble; two men went and interviewed the applicant, the principal lecturer in the Department of Humanities and a Mr. Simmons; they went down and spent over an hour with the applicant at the police station and tested him. In the result, the principal of Bradford Technical College has stated on affidavit that the applicant simply has not got enough knowledge of English and mathematics to benefit from any course, and that he, as principal of the college, thinks that the applicant would be utterly unsuitable for the course and will not have him. One would say: no wonder then that the immigration officer refused to revoke the notice of refusal. It is in these circumstances which I have related very briefly without going through all the affidavits, that counsel for the applicant here taskes as his first point, and indeed his main point, that the applicant had done all that was necessary for him to do to satisfy the immigration officer that he, the applicant, came within s. 2 (3) of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1962 which provides, so far as it is relevant, that the power to refuse admission under the section:

"... shall not be exercised... in the case of a Commonwealth citizen who satisfies an immigration officer... (b) that he wishes to enter the United Kingdom for the purpose of attending a course of study at any university, college, school or other institution in the United Kingdom, being a course which will occupy the whole or a substantial part of his time;..."

Counsel for the applicant says that all that the immigration officer is entitled to be satisfied of is that there was a genuine wish on the part of the applicant to attend this course at Bradford Technical College. Counsel says that the only point is whether the applicant genuinely wished to enter the United Kingdom for that purpose. For my part I am quite unable to accept that submission. It seems to me quite clear that the immigration officer is not only entitled to interrogate an applicant to see whether his is genuine, but also to see whether the applicant is in a position to attend a particular course of study, in other words the immigration officer is entitled to have, as it were, particulars of the course and of the college and to be assured that the fees will be paid. In other words I think that in s. 2 (3) it is not merely the genuine wish of which the immigration officer must be satisfied, but the practicability of it, in other words whether the applicant not only wishes to enter for that purpose, but is in a position to attend a course of study. Accordingly, as it seems to me, the immigration officer in the first instance was fully entitled to communicate with the college to verify whether the applicant was in a position to attend the course which he said he had come to attend. It is true that it would, I think, be quite wrong for an immigration officer to take upon himself to ascertain the exact degree of education of the applicant in order to decide for himself whether the applicant would benefit from the course, but in a case such as this when the applicant quite clearly did not appear to understand enough English or indeed mathematics, it seems only right that the immigration officer should communicate with the college concerned to make sure that the college will have him. In the present case the Bradford Technical College were in the first instance misled by this certificate from Lahore -- I am not suggesting that it was a forgery or false -- but clearly it was not in accordance with the facts.

The second point taken by counsel for the applicant is that it is possible and indeed is conceded by the principal of the Bradford Technical College that a period in this country, he thinks possibly 12 months, would enable the applicant to get enough understanding of English and mathematics for him then to be acceptable at the Bradford Technical College, and counsel submits that the immigration authorities ought to have considered admitting the applicant subject to conditions, at any rate for a period of 12 months, in order to enable him to learn English and mathematics. All I desire to say about that is that that is not the case put forward by the applicant. It may well be that that would be a proper matter for consideration if the applicant came and said: I want in a year to go to Bradford Technical College, and I want during that year to learn sufficient English and mathematics. That is not this case, and before it fell to be considered by the immigration authorities, it would be for the applicant to satisfy them that there was an institution where he could go and which was willing to have him, to teach him mathematics and English, and that somebody was available to pay their fees. That has never been put forward or dealt with in the present case; it has been a claim to enter to attend a course beginning three weeks after entry, namely on 22nd September.

I can see nothing in the present case which would entitle the applicant to relief, and I would dismiss these applications.

Judgment By-2: CROSS, L.J.

Judgment Two:

CROSS, L.J.: I agree.

Judgment By-3: ASHWORTH, J.

Judgment Three:

ASHWORTH, J.: I agree.

DISPOSITION: