English UK, the body that represents English languages schools in the UK, has mounted a legal challenge, urging the UK Government to scrap new Tier 4 rules introduced by the previous Labour Government.
With fears that the UK economy could lose up to £1.4 billion and the dole queue could grow that little bit longer, English UK have sought a Judicial Review, focused on then-home secretary Alan Johnson’s decision to prevent beginner’s language learners from studying in the UK.
The new tier 4 rules were announced earlier this year and were a direct response to growing public and media angst surrounding illegal immigration. This new Tier 4 rule was announced only days after a terrorist tried to blow up a flight to America on Christmas Day, despite the suspect being a student at a highly reputable UK university. And he was radicalised in the UK, so the new Tier 4 English is both perverse and unjust.
This new Tier 4 rule was introduced at a time of a clampdown on the education system, with deep cuts to University support and the suspension of all visa applications from entire countries and reasons, seriously damaging enrolment figures.
English UK described the unique situation now in place here – where you can’t study the English language in England if you are a beginner – as “an absurdity”. They add that their request for a Judicial Review is also because they claim the former Home Secretary acted unlawfully, as he did not put these new Tier 4 rules before Parliament, as required by the UK’s constitution.
English UK’s concern is valid; as many as 100,000 students will be deterred from coming to the UK to study, resulting in losses to the economy of £1.4 billion. Such an impact, English UK argues, would not justify the new rule introduced.
“It’s clearly absurd requiring students to know English before they come here to study it,” said Tony Milns, chief executive of English UK, “We are already seeing evidence from agents, who book students onto courses, that they are saying the UK doesn’t want students anymore.”
Milns said his association would suspend its legal action if the government backed down and reconsidered.
A Home Office spokesman said: “These changes were made in the best interests of the UK and we will robustly defend them in court if necessary. The new rules will ensure those who come to the UK to study English are genuine students and are not exploiting the system to work illegally.”
“Raising the level of English means students must demonstrate a commitment to learning English before they come. We welcome international students but there should be no doubt that we will come down hard on those who flout the rules.”Mark Lindsay, managing director of St Giles International, an English language college with sites around the UK, said: “With a forthcoming general election in mind, the government wants to be seen as ‘tough on immigration’. This is a sledgehammer to crack a nut and will exacerbate already severe problems of unemployment in the UK.”
He added: “The UK Border Agency has been encouraged by the government to clamp down on ‘bogus colleges’. But a number of wrongly accused colleges had recently had their accreditation restored.”
A sad day for the UK. The door is again open wide for some individuals who cannot speak English to supposedly come to the study English in the UK. Of course, amongst them will be economic “students” and others who have other reasons for entering the UK.
What the judgement did not state was whether students applying for entry to study subjects OTHER than English would still have an open door entrance.
However, the battle has commenced – and we will fight back!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
ENGLISH UK WINS HIGH COURT JUDICIAL REVIEW CASE ON ENGLISH LANGUAGE COURSES UNDER THE POINTS BASED VISA SYSTEM
More than 3,000 jobs and over £600 million a year in foreign earnings have been saved for the UK economy by a High Court judgement on which international students can come to the UK.
English UK has today won its case in the High Court against the last Home Secretary’s decision to raise the level of English which students must have before they can get a UK visa to learn the language here.
On March 3 2010, the level was raised from elementary to intermediate (from A1 to B1 on the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages) for students who wanted to take courses of longer than six months and so needed a General Student Visa. They could no longer study on a course at a lower level than B2, roughly equivalent to A Level. In effect, this meant that they had to have a good standard of English before they could come to the UK to learn it.
The change was not directly put before Parliament, but was made through a paragraph in an appendix to the immigration rules which gave the UK Border Agency (UKBA) the blanket power to specify the minimum academic level of course which students can come to the UK to study on the General Student visa (GSV).
In his written judgement, Mr Justice Foskett said anything which “changed materially” the criteria of entry for overseas students must be done through a change in the rules, and not through a change in the guidance.
He agreed with counsel for English UK that a recent ruling from the Court of Appeal, on another immigration case, also applied to the way the language requirement was changed.
The rationale for the judgment in the Pankina case, Mr Justice Foskett said, was that ‘a provision that reflects a substantive criterion for eligibility for admission or leave to remain must be the subject of a process that involves a true Parliamentary scrutiny’ (his emphasis). The increase in the level of English was not in fact subject to Parliamentary process, but done through a change in administrative guidance.
On this, Mr Justice Foskett said: ‘I do not doubt that the changed approach in the new guidance does operate to change materially the substantive criteria for entry for foreign students who wish to study English in the UK, and…that cannot be achieved by a change in guidance – it must be achieved through the medium of a rule change.’
He went on to conclude that ‘extrinsic guidance cannot be used…to make a material or substantive change in existing immigration policy without the negative resolution procedure set out in section 3 (2) of the 1971 Immigration Act being implemented’.
Tony Millns, Chief Executive of English UK, which represents 440 fully-accredited English language centres, said: “This judgement upholds our basic case that the Home Secretary was wrong to introduce a substantive change in the entry criteria for GSV students without laying that change before Parliament.
“We have asked the court to rule that the English language requirement must now revert to what it was before 3 March, in other words students must be at level A1 to take an English language course at A2. This will give our 440 member centres some immediate help since many of them faced losing a damaging number of students this summer and autumn.”
He added: “We brought this case as a last resort, and will now seek to discuss with UKBA ways in which we can help formulate a more sensible policy which our members can support and which will contribute to immigration control. Genuine colleges have no desire to enrol people who are not genuine students. We are pleased that Mr Justice Foskett saw the merits of our case and we believe that his decision is good for the UK economy, to which the English language sector contributes about £1.5 billion in foreign earnings each year.”
English UK’s case was led by Nichola Carter of Penningtons Solicitors LLP and Judith Farbey of Doughty Street Chambers. Commenting on the case, Nichola Carter, immigration partner at Penningtons, said: “Creating an immigration system which both denies entry to those with unlawful intentions and allows the UK to retain its reputation for world-class English language teaching is a complex process involving decisions of cultural and economic importance. This ruling confirms that parliament must be included in decisions which will significantly change the immigration system. In the months between the implementation of this unlawful policy and the hearing of this case, English UK continuously offered its assistance in creating a policy which was effective, sensible and lawful, and maintains that offer now.”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Hi
The hearing was allowed today. The full judgment will be published towards to end of the day online.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Hi Daniel
Could you let us know the reslts of the court case, please?
Bruce
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
hi the hearing finished today, anyone knows the outcome or when the decision be released?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I read sumwhere “AN APPLE A DAY KEEPS THE DOCTOR AWAY” But I Guess Government implement it as “A NEW RULE EVERYDAY KEEPS NEW STUDENT AWAY”
Well if Good quality education is available in third world countries why should anyone then choose UK for higher Education Visa officers can conduct interviews to judge about applicants level of english even ielts test result is not acceptable after 2 years or else English Course should be compulsary before starting main course is a good idea
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
As a qualifed ESOL / TESOL teacher, I hope the government stands firm on this issue.
Prospective students can learn the basics in their own countries at UK accredited training centres. It will be more cost effective for the students.
Please let me know when the hearing will take place. I would like to support the government on this issue.
Regards
Bruce
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Hi
Anyone know when the hearing is?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0