|[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]|
United Kingdom Asylum and Immigration Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Asylum and Immigration Tribunal >> B v Chief Immigration Officer Heathrow (Nigeria)  UKIAT 00055 (25 March 2004)
Cite as:  UKIAT 00055,  UKIAT 55
[New search] [Context] [View without highlighting] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
APPEAL No.  UKIAT 00055 B (Nigeria)
Date of hearing: 3 February 2004
Date Determination notified: 25 March 2004
|Chief Immigration Officer Heathrow||RESPONDENT|
'321. The following grounds for the cancellation of a person's leave to enter or remain which is in force on his arrival in, or whilst he is outside, the United Kingdom apply:
(i) There has been such a change in the circumstances of that person's case, since leave was given, that it should be cancelled.'
(a) The appellant has successfully completed the first year of a three year course which concluded in May 2002. He had enrolled on the second year of the course commencing September 2002
(b) During the vacation between the end of one course (sic) and the beginning of the other, the appellant worked in excess of twenty hours per week which he was entitled to at that time.
(c) The appellant had continued to work in excess of twenty hours per week during term time until he left the United Kingdom on a trip home to Nigeria. He has not attended the college at all during the academic year starting September 2002.
(d) In the interview on 5 December the appellant said that he had registered in September but the class was no good and told the college he wanted to start 'all over' in January. He produced a letter from South Chelsea College dated 12 December 2002 confirming he was registered as a full time student until the end of the academic year on 30 May 2003. The letter said the college had no objection to the student continuing his current course in January on companionated (sic) grounds.
'If the Secretary of State considers it objectionable that those who have been given leave to enter as students are not pursuing their studies, the appropriate course would seem to us to be to take steps to remove them for that reason. At present the appropriate way of doing this would seem to be to curtail, under Section 3(3)(a) of the 1971 Act and paragraph 323 of HC 395, the period for which the student has been given leave to enter, and then to remove the student under Section 10 of the 1991 Act. The former step would give rise to the right of an in-country appeal.'
'(a) Having only limited leave to enter or remain, he does not observe a condition attached to the leave or remains beyond the time limited by the leave.'