Juma v. Secretary of State for the Home Department

Publisher	United Kingdom: Asylum and Immigration Tribunal / Immigration Appellate Authority
Author	Immigration Appeal Tribunal
Publication Date	9 January 1974
Citation / Document Symbol	[1974] Imm AR 96
Type of Decision	TH/2630/73(242)
Cite as	Juma v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, [1974] Imm AR 96, United Kingdom: Asylum and Immigration Tribunal / Immigration Appellate Authority, 9 January 1974, available at: https://www.refworld.org/cases,GBR_AIT,3ae6b66f0.html [accessed 3 June 2023]
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.

JUMA v THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT, TH/2630/73(242)

Immigration Appeal Tribunal

[1974] Imm AR 96

Hearing Date: 9 January 1974

9 January 1974

Index Terms:

Student -- Attendance record -- Evidence for consideration on appeal the attendance record at the time of application and refusal -- H.C. 80, para 13 -- Immigration Act 1971, s 19(1)(a)(i).

Held:

Under para 13 of H.C. 80 n1 a student or would-be student may be granted an extension of stay as a student if he produces evidence, which is verified on a check being made, that (inter alia) he is giving regular attendance at his full-time course of daytime study; and if an application has been properly refused under para 13 by reason of the applicant's unsatisfactory attendance record, the applicant cannot succeed on an appeal against that ground of refusal by showing that his attendance since the refusal of his application has improved.

n1 Paragraph 13 of H.C. 80 is in the following terms: --

"Applications from students or would-be students for variation of their leave will consist mainly of applications for extension of stay as a student. An extension for an appropriate period, normally up to 12 months, may be granted if the applicant produces evidence, which is verified on a check being made, that he has enrolled for a full-time course of daytime study which meets the requirements for admission as a student; that he is giving regular attendance; and that he has adequate funds available for his maintenance and that of any dependants. When an extension is granted the student may be reminded that he will be expected to leave at the end of his studies."

The Tribunal so held on the facts which are set out in the determination reported below.

Counsel:

Miss S. C. Leigh for the appellant.

B. Lockett for the respondent.

PANEL: P. N. Dalton Esq (Vice-President), E. A. Lewis Esq, Sir Gordon Whitteridge.

Judgment One:

THE TRIBUNAL: The appellant Miss Yasmin Merali Kassam Juma, a citizen of Tanzania born on 25 February 1948, arrived at London Airport from Jedda on 12 October 1972. She had an onward ticket to Karachi and @ 150 and she told the immigration officer that she wished to spend three weeks in London visiting her sister who lives in London and she would then go on to Karachi. She was admitted as a visitor for one month.

On 6 November 1972 the appellant requested an extension of stay in the United Kingdom to enable her to take a course in shorthand and typewriting. With her letter of application she enclosed a letter from the Porten Secretarial College in Kensington High Street which showed that she had enrolled for a course lasting from 1 November 1972 to 1 May 1973 involving three hours' study a day. The Home Office asked the Porten Secretarial College about the appellant's attendance at her course and the reply that was received from the College on 15 February 1973 indicated that Miss Juma had attended for only 69 hours out of a possible 138. On 9 March a further enquiry was made and the answer received was that the appellant's attendance continued to be poor; her typing tutor reported her attendance "much as it had been in the past" and over the last two weeks she had attended the class only four times and her shorthand tutor reported her attendance to be "as bad as ever".

In view of her poor attendance, Miss Juma was not fulfilling the requirements for a student laid down in para 13 of H.C. 80 n2. Her application was accordingly refused on 15 March 1973, but an extension of stay was granted to enable her to make arrangements to leave the United Kingdom.

n2 Paragraph 13 of H.C. 80 is set out in footnote 1, ante.

Miss Juma appealed stating that she had been suffering from colds and influenza in the cold climate but with the warmer weather she was able to attend her classes quite regularly. In view of this the Home Office made further enquiries but because of the answer received from the College, the Secretary of State did not consider that the appellant was giving regular attendance and he was not prepared to reverse his decision.

A hearing of the appeal before the adjudicator (Mr W. J. Coley) had not been requested and so Mr Coley's determination was given pursuant to the provisions of r 12 of the Immigration Appeals (Procedure) Rules 1972. Mr Coley had before him a letter from the appellant dated 7 August 1973 setting out fully further representations in support of her appeal for an extension of stay in the United Kingdom. In his determination the adjudicator said: --

"I have carefully considered the notice of appeal and the letter written by the appellant on 7 August 1973, and I am not satisfied with the appellant's excuses for her poor attendance, especially at the first course. I find it impossible to believe that minor ailments not necessitating a visit to a doctor could account for the fact that she only attended during the first course for about half the possible total number of hours and while her attendance at the second course has been better, on reviewing all the relevant considerations, I do not consider the appellant can be said to be a bona fide student". The appellant applied for leave to appeal to the Tribunal on the following grounds: --

"(1) That the adjudicator erred in law in finding that the appellant was not fulfilling the requirements for a student laid down in para 13 of H.C. 80 and that her attendance at the Porten Secretarial College did not amount to 'regular attendance'.

(2) That the adjudicator erred in law in assuming that a student's attendance is not regular even though her actual attendance does not amount to 15 hours per week.

(3) That the adjudicator erred in law in taking into account in making his decision that the appellant originally presented herself to the immigration officer as a person wishing to spend only a short time here, in view of the fact that she was later given permission to stay for the purpose of study." The Tribunal was not satisfied that the grounds of appeal raised any arguable point of law but leave to appeal was granted so that the Tribunal could hear argument concerning the appellant's attendance record.

Miss Leigh for the appellant urged that Miss Juma had found the winter of 1972-73 very hard to bear and was depressed and ill and did not realise that if she did not attend for each hour of her course she was in danger of losing her course. The letter of 8 January 1974 from the Porten Secretarial College which was put in evidence showed, Miss Leigh said, that the appellant's attendance has become regular and that she wishes to take the R.S.A. intermediate examination is March and then join her two brothers in Canada, where it is hoped the whole family will come together. Miss Leigh also made the point that the appellant was unable to check the registers of attendance kept by the Porten Secretarial College.

There does appear to be some doubt as to the accuracy of the figures of hours of attendance, and Mr Lockett also agreed that the appellant's attendance at the course has improved. However, this appeal has to be decided under the provisions of para 13 of H.C. 80 n2 and this rule provides (inter alia) that when applying for an extension of stay as a student, the applicant has to produce evidence to show that he is giving regular attendance at a full-time course of daytime study. When Miss Juma applied, and when the decision which is now appealed against was taken, Miss Juma did not produce evidence of regular attendance at her course; the evidence on the contrary showed that her attendance was poor. The matters that have been submitted on behalf of the appellant may be considered elsewhere but they do not show that the decision appealed against was "not in accordance with the law or with any immigration rules applicable to the case" n3. The appeal is therefore dismissed.

n2 Paragraph 13 of H.C. 80 is set out in footnote 1, ante.

n3 Under s 19(1)(a)(i) of the Immgration Act 1971.

DISPOSITION:

Appeal dismissed.

SOLICITORS:

Lawford & Co.