Entry Certificate Officer, Lagos v. Amusu

ENTRY CERTIFICATE OFFICER, LAGOS v AMUSU, TH/2364/72(152)

Immigration Appeal Tribunal

[1974] Imm AR 16

Hearing Date: 22 May 1973

22 May 1973

Index Terms:

Student -- Journalism, one-year diploma course -- Correspondence course with tutorials on college premises and 'outside' assignments -- Less than 15 hours' organised daytime study weekly on college premises -- Whether course acceptable as course within Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1962 and immigration rules -- Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1962, s 2(3)(b) -- Cmnd 4298, paras 18, 19, 21.

Held:

Mr A, a citizen of Nigeria, was an applicant for an entry certificate as a student. He had been accepted by a bona fide school of journalism ('the School') as a full-time student for a one-year diploma course. The School was primarily run on a correspondence course basis, but facilities were available for tutorials on the School's premises; part of the course consisted of outside assignments where a student would be working on his own, but any slackness would be noted and dealt with by his tutor; according to the School's prospectus, students taking supplementary tutorials would spend 15 hours a week over their studies and outside assignments. The entry certificate officer ('the E.C.O.') was satisfied that Mr A had a genuine and very keen interest in writing as a career, and adequate means of support. After consultation with the Home Office, however, he refused an entry certificate because he was not satisfied that the proposed course met the requirements for student entry set out in the Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1962 and the rules made thereunder, in particular because the course was primarily a correspondence course (not acceptable under para 19 of Cmnd 4298), supplemented by daytime studies at the School's premises of less than 15 hours per week (which would not comply with paras 18 and 21 of Cmnd 4298) n1. n1 The act of 1962 and the relevant immigration rules made thereunder provide so far as here material as follows: -- Section 2(3) of the Act: "... the power to refuse admission 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..." Paragraphs 18, 19 and 21 of Cmnd 4298: -- "18.... The Act provides that admission is not to be refused... to a Commonwealth citizen who satisfies the Immigration Officer that his purpose in coming to the United Kingdom is to attend a course of study at a university, college, school or other institution, and that the course will occupy the whole or a substantial part of his time. The term 'college, school or other institution' includes both institutions supported by central or local government and private institutions."

"19. A Commonwealth citizen seeking admission as a student should normally be expected to produce evidence of acceptance for a course of study... that meets the requirements of the Act (a correspondence course does not meet those requirements)..."

"21. As a general rule a student should be regarded as devoting a 'substantial part' of his time to his studies if he proposes to spend not less than 15 hours a week in organised daytime study of a single subject or related subjects..."

In para 18 of H.C. 79 (replacing para 18 of Cmnd 4298 quoted above) the student must have been "accepted for a course of study at a university, a college of education or further education, an independent school or any bona fide private educational institution", and the course must similarly "occupy the whole or a substantial part of his time". Paragraph 19 of H.C. 79 incorporates part of paras 19 and 21 of Cmnd 4298 (as quoted) in providing that "As a general rule an entry clearance is not to be granted unless the applicant proposes to spend not less than 15 hours a week in organised day-time study of a single subject or of related subjects, and is not to be granted for the taking of a correspondence course." The adjudicator to whom Mr A appealed allowed the appeal on a consideration of the meaning of the words "organised daytime study" in para 21 of Cmnd 4298. The E.C.O. appealed to the Tribunal. Held: dismissing the E.C.O.'s appeal, the opening words of para 21 of Cmnd 4298, "as a general rule", indicated that the requirement that a student spend not less than 15 hours a week in organised daytime study was not inflexible; in the present case, though it had not been shown that Mr A would spend 15 hours a week in such study, an exception should be made for the following reasons: -- (i) the E.C.O. was satisfied that Mr A had a genuine and keen interest in writing as a career and that he wished to take a full-time course at a bona fide school of journalism; (ii) the particulars of the course which were given in the School's prospectus showed, inter alia, that a great deal of work and study would be needed by a student to obtain the School's diploma, and the benefit to individual students by the School's use of a tutorial system in preference to class instruction was explained (see p 21, post).

Counsel:

B. Lockett for the appellant entry certificate officer. C. O. Richards of the United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service, for the respondent student. PANEL: P. N. Dalton Esq. (Vice-President), L. W. Chapman Esq, A. J. Coles Esq.

Judgment One:

THE TRIBUNAL: In this appeal the appellant is the entry certificate officer, Lagos, and the respondent is Mr Isidore Ayodeji Amusu, a citizen of Nigeria born on 5 April 1946. Mr Amusu applied on 1 September 1971 at the British High Commission in Lagos for an entry certificate to enable him to come to the United Kingdom to take a one-year diploma course at the London School of Journalism in Hertford Street, London W1. When he was interviewed, the respondent told the entry certificate officer that he proposed to stay in the United Kingdom for a period of 3 years as a student, and he produced a letter from the London School of Journalism confirming that he had been accepted there as a full-time student for a one-year course. In support of his application the respondent produced various other documents, and the entry certificate officer formed the opinion that Mr Amusu had a genuine and very keen interest in writing as a career. However, the entry certificate officer was not satisfied that the course offered by the London School of Journalism fulfilled the requirements for the admission of students as set out in s 2(3)(b) of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1962 and in paras 18 and 21 of Cmnd 4298 and he accordingly referred the application to the Home Office n2. n2 The material provisions in the Act of 1962 and in Cmnd 4298 are set out in footnote 1, ante. The Home Office asked the police to make enquiries on their behalf at the London School of Journalism, and a Director, Mr G. L. Butler, was interviewed by a police officer. Mr Butler told the officer that the school was primarily run on a correspondence course basis, although there were facilities available whereby a special student from overseas could receive tutorials on the premises. Part of the course was spent on outside assignments where the student would be working on his own and it was up to the student how hard he worked. Mr Butler said that any slackness in a student's work would come to the notice of his tutor, who would take the matter up with the student and that, if it was obvious that a student had no real intention of properly completing the course, the school would inform the Home Office of this fact. In the case of special students, Mr Butler said, tutorials were given together with correspondence lessons, and 18 tutorials could in theory mean a student having up to 50 sessions of 1 -- 1 1/2 hours duration with his tutor at the school. In the light of this information, the Secretary of State decided that persons coming to attend the London School of Journalism, should not be regarded as students, since they were not spending 15 hours per week in "organised daytime study". Paragraph 21 of Cmnd 4298 refers. As stated in para 19 in Cmnd 4298, a correspondence course which leaves a student to choose his own hours of study does not meet the requirements of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1962, and as Mr Amusu's proposed course of study at the LondonSchool of Journalism was primarily a correspondence course and would apparently be supplemented by daytime studies of less than 15 hours per week on the premises, the Secretary of State did not consider that the course met the requirements of the Act and the rules made thereunder n2, and he therefore refused the appellant's application. n2 The material provisions in the Act of 1962 and in Cmnd 4298 are set out in footnote 1, ante. Mr Amusu appealed to an adjudicator (Mr E. J. T. Housden) and at the hearing of the appeal, Mr C. O. Richards who appeared on his behalf, put in evidence the following documents: -- 1. The record of proceedings in the case of Emina (TH/1139/72). 2. Mr Housden's determination in that case dated 29.10.71. 3. Home Office letter dated 14.1.72 abandoning an appeal from that determination. 4. A copy of the latest prospectus from the London School of Journalism. In the case of Emina n3 the appellant was a Mr Emmanuel Uzo Emina and he applied to the British High Commission in Lagos for an entry certificate to enable him to be a student of the London School of Journalism. The entry certificate officer refused to grant the entry certificate as he did not believe that Mr Emina was a genuine student because of a lack of correspondence between his previous attainments and the course of study he wished to take. In a supplementary statement the Secretary of State put forward a second ground for refusing the application: that the proposed course did not meet the requirements of para 21 of Cmnd 4298 n4. n3 Emina v Entry Certificate Officer, Lagos, TH/1139/72 (unreported). n4 The relevant provision in para 21 is set out below. In his determination in Emina's Case n3 Mr Housden said that he did not believe that there was such an obvious lack of correspondence between Mr Emina's previous attainments and the nature of the course which he proposed to follow as to lead him to believe that the appellant's application was not genuine. Mr Housden then dealt with the second ground for refusing the application and for reasons which he set out in clear detail said he considered that the course which Mr Emina proposed to follow met the requirements of para 21 of Cmnd 4298. The appeal was therefore allowed. The Home Office letter dated 14.1.72 referred to above was in the following terms: -- n3 Emina v Entry Certificate Officer, Lagos, TH/1139/72 (unreported).

"I wish to inform you that the Secretary of State has decided, after careful consideration of the evidence which was put before the adjudicator on 3 November 1971 that he is prepared to issue an entry certificate to Mr Emina and that he no longer wishes to proceed with his appeal to the Tribunal against the adjudicator's decision. It would be appreciated therefore if you would regard this letter as a formal abandonment of the Secretary of State's appeal."

In his determination in the present case Mr Housden said that the only issue in this appeal was whether the course which Mr Amusu wished to attend met the requirements of the Act and the immigration rules. Mr Housden then said that he had heard two earlier appeals, including that of Emina n3, concerning courses at the London School of Journalism. In both cases he allowed the appeals. Mr Housden added: -- n3 Emina v Entry Certificate Officer, Lagos, TH/1139/72 (unreported).

"The fact that the Secretary of State has twice failed to challenge the suitability of the London School of Journalism before the Immigration Appeal Tribunal is no reason, of course, for allowing the present appeal; but it would be interesting to know why there has been this change of view at the Home Office."

The relevant portion of para 21 of Cmnd 4298 is: --

"As a general rule a student should be regarded as devoting a 'substantial part of his time' to his studies if he proposes to spend not less than 15 hours a week in organised daytime study of a single subject or related subjects."

The adjudicator said the Secretary of State sought to convince him what he meant by "organised daytime study" was "organised classroom tuition", but he had said in Emina's Case n5 that he did not think that the latter phrase was an accurate rendering of the requirements of para 21. If it was an immutable requirement of the immigration rules that a student would be considered to be devoting the whole, or a substantial part "of this time" to a course of studies only if he attended lectures or tutorials (or, presumably, laboratory classes) for a total of not less than 15 hours a week, Mr Housden considered that many of Britain's students would not meet this requirement. The consequences of such a requirement, Mr Housden said, were certainly surprising and he gave instances where bona fide students would not comply with the requirements of the rule. The adjudicator pointed out that the bona fides of the London School of Journalism had not been questioned by the Secretary of State and said that there was no evidence to suggest that Mr Amusu would not be properly supervised if he attended the course at the London School of Journalism. The adjudicator concluded by saying that for the reasons he had given he considered that the decision to refuse Mr Amusu an entry certificate was not in accordance with the law and the immigration rules applicable to the case and, he allowed the appeal. n5 TH/1139/72 The entry certificate officer applied to the Tribunal for leave to appeal on the following grounds: -- "1. that the Secretary of State cannot agree that the London School of Journalism course satisfies the requirements of para 21 of Cmnd 4298; 2. that he does not accept that the London School of Journalism course is, in itself, acceptable under para 18 of Cmnd 4298." n6 n6 The relevant provision in para 18 is set out in footnote 1, ante. Leave to appeal was granted. Mr Lockett said that the adjudicator found that the only matter in issue was whether the course the respondent wished to attend met the requirements of the Act of 1962 and the rules. Mr Lockett referred to the requirements of para 21 of Cmnd 4298 and said that he agreed that the proposed studies are organised and that the respondent would study a single or related subjects. The question remained of the number of hours of organised daytime study, and Mr Lockett said that the interview with Mr Butler, the director of the School, clearly showed that this requirement would not be met. Mr Richards said that the integrity and method of teaching of the London School of Journalism were not in question, and he submitted that the content of the course as set out in the latest prospectus of the London School of Journalism showed that the course would occupy a substantial part of the respondent's time. As to para 21 of Cmnd 4298, Mr Richards submitted that the draftsman must have had it in mind that there are courses of study to which it was not possible to apply the requirement of 15 hours a week in organised daytime study. Since para 21 of Cmnd 4298 commences with the words "as a general rule" we do not consider that it is an inflexible requirement that a student has to spend "not less than 15 hours a week in organised daytime study". Exceptions to this requirement are, we think, envisaged. The question is whether an exception should be made in this case. In their prospectus the London School of Journalism have set out the reason why they have refused to arrange for class instruction for their students. Others have tried this method and failed because it is impossible to give individual instruction to a class of 30 or more students in an personal a matter as writing. The full course of journalism for which the respondent was accepted involved the use of tutorials. Under this system the tutor deals with only one student at a time, the instruction is entirely personal and much time is devoted to showing the student how the professional journalist's mind works. According to the prospectus, students taking the supplementary tutorials spend 15 hours a week over their studies and outside assignments. The prospectus also contains the various lessons that go to make up the full journalism course and a perusal of the subject matter of such lessons, 15 in all, leaves little doubt that a great deal of work and study will be needed by a student to obtain the diploma which is awarded to those who successfully complete the course. The entry certificate officer was satisfied that the respondent had a genuine and keen interest in writing as a career. He wishes to attend a full-time course of journalism at a bona fide school of journalism. Though it has not been shown that he will spend 15 hours a week in organised daytime study we are satisfied for the reasons given that an exception should be made in this case and we dismiss the appeal.

DISPOSITION:

Appeal dismissed.