Huang
[2007] UKHL 11 that there is in general administrative desirability of applying known Rules, so that a system of immigration control is to be workable, predictable, consistent and fair as between one applicant and another. The particular context of this is Article 8 but it does in my view have some relevance to the proper approach to my consideration of the issues in this case. Undue deference is clearly inappropriate, but regard must be had to the views of the decision maker in an area of policy such as this. 26. I must bring these matters together. In my view, for both policy and operational reasons, the respondent’s decision not to extend the 60 day grace period on Tier 4 cases to Tier 2 cases is a rational one. I accept that there are material distinctions which the respondent is justified in drawing between Tier 4 and Tier 2. In particular the relationship between the applicant and the sponsor and the purposes of granting leave are significantly different in each case. I do not read Patel as requiring in effect that its ratio in the context of Tier 4 is directly applicable to Tier 2 cases. It is clear from that and other decisions that fairness is essentially context driven, and I am persuaded that the different context identified by the respondent for Tier 2 cases is such as to justify not extending the 60 day policy to those cases. There are clearly different policy objectives. The Tier 4 objective is to provide persons who wish to study in the United Kingdom access to appropriate education at institutions and to regulate demand from prospective students, whereas the purpose behind Tier 2 is to meet demand from prospective employers in areas of skills shortage with applicants who can fill particular skilled vacancies where no resident worker can be found. There is materiality in the distinction drawn by the respondent between the applicant in a Tier 4 case who is a service consumer and the applicant in a Tier 2 case who is the service supplier. A Tier 4 applicant may or may not have completed a level of study when a further application is made. In some instances therefore I accept they may be in the same position as a Tier 2 applicant who has been able to do the job for which they obtained the visa. There may in some cases therefore be an equivalence of inability to do a new course or take on a new job but that in my mind is not a material distinction such as to indicate irrationality in the respondent’s decision. Inevitably there are going to be points of coincidence between the two systems, but equally I consider there are proper and clear matters of material difference between the two which I have set out above. I think there is also some merit to the point made by Mr Payne that it may be relatively easy for a Tier 4 student to find an alternative sponsor, whereas it is difficult to see how, even in a 60 day period a Tier 2 applicant would be able to find another labour market gap existing which could not be filled by a resident worker. I also attach some weight to what is said about the logistical problems, identified at paragraph 17 of Ms Buzzeo’s statement, that would arise if a 60 day grace period were to be implemented for Tier 2 applicants. Clearly there would be significant operational difficulties, including the need to establish new processes involving significant storage, management and review elements. A reasonable expectation of the Tier 2 applicant when granted leave is limited to working in a specific role for a specific employer whereas a student may, although as I have said above I accept not necessarily, wish to do further studies and their investment in the time they have been studying may well be adversely affected if they are unable to take advantage of a 60 day period in which to find another college. 27. I conclude therefore that the respondent’s decision in these cases is a rational one, and that it was not unlawful for her not to afford a 60 days period to the applicants in order to seek to obtain further Tier 2 employment. 28. In relation to the other decisions that were made, in each case a supplemental decision concerning each applicant dated 5 April 2017, as noted at the start of this decision, I reach no conclusions on those matters since it was common ground that the judicial review applications are disposed of by my decision on the 60 day point. ~~~~ 0 ~~~~