EK (Ivory Coast)
[2014] EWCA Civ 1517, where it was held that the principle of fairness did not extend to requiring the Secretary of State to afford an applicant who had applied for leave to remain under Tier 4 an opportunity to correct an administrative error made by her education provider whereby it cancelled her Confirmation of Acceptance of Studies letter owing to an administrative error. The principle of fairness was said to apply only to decisions within the Secretary of State’s control. It was argued that this reasoning applied equally across to the situation of Tier 4 applicants. This was on the basis that revocation by the Secretary of State of a sponsorship licence in circumstances where the applicant is unaware of that revocation without affording a 60 day period of grace is unfair. In addition it was argued that there are no material differences between the two categories as defined and therefore it was unlawful not to apply the Patel principle to Tier 2 cases. Both categories were set out in part 6A of the Immigration Rules, the PBS section, both categories made reference to Appendix A of the Immigration Rules and under paragraph 245HD of the Immigration Rules some applicants already in the United Kingdom under Tier 4 were part of the limited category of applicants entitled to “switch” to Tier 2 without having to leave the United Kingdom to seek entry clearance. Also it was argued to be clear from the respondent’s own description of the certificate of sponsorship that it was analogous to an education sponsor licence. 12. On behalf of the respondent it is argued that the Patel principle has been considered only in the context of Tier 4 applicants, in cases such as EK (Ivory Coast) , and in