Doody
[1994] 1 AC 531 at 560. It is argued that whether the principle of fairness had to be applied identically or differently depends on the context of the legal and administrative system in question and that the Immigration Rules fall within the definition of the legal and administrative system for the purposes of Doody . 10. As regards what was said in Patel , emphasis was placed on paragraph 22 where it was said that where the applicant is both innocent of any practice that led to loss of the sponsorship status and ignorant of the fact of such loss of status, it seemed to the Tribunal that common law fairness and the principle of treating applicants equally meant that each should have an equal opportunity to vary their application by affording them a reasonable time with which to find a substitute college on which to base their application for an extension of stay to obtain the relevant qualification. It was noted that in curtailment of leave cases the express Home Office policy was to afford a period of 60 days for such an application to be made, and that period was thought to be equally appropriate to the case of refusal of leave. This was based on the principle of fairness. It was clear that the Home Office knew that it had suspended the college in question in January 2010 but no one else knew this. The applicant could not have known subsequently that the college’s status as an approved sponsor was revoked before his application for an extension of stay was decided. It was said to be obviously unfair for the Secretary of State to revoke the college’s status after the application had been made when it was an approved sponsor and not to inform the applicant of such revocation nor to afford him an opportunity to vary the application. This would not apply where the applicant had not been a bona fide student at the college or where he had participated in the practices that might have led the college to lose its sponsorship status or where he had had actual knowledge of the termination of the college’s status as a sponsor. 11. It was argued that on the one hand fairness dictated that students who had been refused following revocation of their education provider’s education sponsor licence should be treated the same as students whose leave had been curtailed and also that it was, with particular reference to the instant case, obviously unfair of the Secretary of State to revoke the college’s status after the application had been made when it was an approved sponsor and not to inform the applicant of such revocation and not afford him an opportunity to vary the application. It was argued by Mr Malik and Mr Jafar that this second strand in the Patel ratio was supported in