Case No. UKUT-00489-(IAC)

, study at the Highly Trusted Sponsor institution which the Confirmation of Acceptance for Studies Checking Service records as having assigned a Confirmation of Acceptance for Studies to the Tier 4 migrant; … As Mr Malik pithily observed in oral submissions, it makes no sense to specifically allow for study in such circumstances and then to ignore it when calculating periods of leave granted for the purpose of study. 23. Yet further support for the proposition that the legal framework specifically caters for and accommodates periods of study while leave is extended by s3C is provided by the reported decision of the Upper Tribunal in Patel (revocation of sponsor licence fairness) [2011] UKUT 00211 (IAC) and the decisions of the Court of Appeal in SSHD v Khan [2016] EWCA Civ 137 and R (Raza) v SSHD [2016] EWCA Civ 36 in each of which it was accepted that students could and did continue to study during periods of s3C leave. 24. Drawing all of this together, in my judgment the position is unambiguously clear. Where a person who is present with leave as a Tier 4 student makes an application for further leave in the same capacity during the currency of that leave, his leave, although extended by statutory effect of s3C, is an extension of that same leave and so it continues to be leave granted to him as a Tier 4 Student. Therefore, for the purposes of paragraph 245ZX(ha) of the Immigration Rules, any period during which leave to remain is extended by operation of s3C does count towards the five-year limit for grant of leave for study at or above degree level. That construction of paragraph 245ZX(ha) is consistent not just with the scheme of the immigration rules, but also with clear authority from the Court of Appeal and the natural and ordinary meaning of the words used. 25. There has been no unfairness suffered by this applicant. The additional period of leave he sought, if granted, would have meant that he would have been granted more than the 5 years permitted for study at or above degree level. There was never any doubt or ambiguity about that limit on the leave that would be available to the applicant, it being made clear both in the immigration rule itself and in published policy. The policy was not seeking to add to the framework applicable that was absent from the immigration rule. Therefore, the decision under challenge in these proceedings was correct and lawful and the application for judicial review is refused. ~~~~ 0 ~~~~