Cambridge College of Learning considered

In the case of NA and Others v SSHD [2009] UKAIT 00031, the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal considered and rejected the claim of three students to have studied post graduate diploma courses taught at the now notorious Cambridge College of Learning (CCL). The tribunal went on to find that no such courses had ever been taught. The case therefore has major implications for any ex-student of CCL claiming to have studied and obtained a post graduate diploma from CCL, and the tribunal has in fact written to all such students with outstanding appeals proposing that their appeals are determined without a hearing (copy here). This is because any outstanding appeals based on post graduate diplomas from CCL are certain to be dismissed on the basis of NA and Others unless compelling new evidence is produced that suggests the tribunal was wrong in NA.

There do still seem to be ex-students from CCL claiming to have been genuine students, in the sense that they did attend the college on a regular basis, did attend lectures and did complete assignments. In short, they claim that there was a real course, even if it wasn’t a terribly good one. Under the immigration rules at the time (and which must be applied on appeal) there was no requirement for there to be a good quality course – the Home Office left the door wide open to any college to run a course said to be a post graduate diploma without there being any minimum requirements, accreditation or regulation for such courses.

I don’t know if there were genuine ‘post graduate diploma’ courses at CCL or not. If any of the remaining ex CCL students out there want to try and persuade the tribunal (a) to grant an oral hearing and (b) to allow their appeal, they’ll need substantial and compelling and evidence. It’s difficult to imagine what that might be, but perhaps:

1. Evidence from the actual lecturers on the course. This was conspicuous by its absence in the NA case.
2. Identity or enrolment evidence that matches with the evidence seized by the Home Office during the raid. None of the students in NA matched any of the CCL records held by the Home Office (or so said the Home Office, at least), but if there are genuine students out there perhaps they would match those records. To find out, disclosure from the Home Office would need to be sought.
3. None of the students in NA had a CCL identity card. Possession of one might be helpful.
4. The course materials and assignments  submitted by the alleged students in NA sound to be of very poor quality and in one case entirely plagarised from the internet. More convincing course materials and assignments might be helpful, although it is difficult to imagine this being enough by itself as an immigration judge might conclude materials had been manufactured for the purpose of the appeal.

Frankly, the chances of obtaining any of this evidence looks pretty slender. The chance of any successful appeal is also therefore correspondingly slender.

There are at least a few ex CCL students who won their appeals before the NA case was heard. The evidence relied on by the Home Office in those early cases was almost non-existent. To a significant extent, the Home Office has had its chance and blown it in such cases. Unless the Home Office has appealed, those students ought to be granted visas. If the Home Office did appeal, even though there is no error of law in making a decision on the basis of the evidence that was presented at the time, immigration lawyers sometimes suspect senior immigration judges of granting permission to the Home Office rather readily. It may be that even though there is no obvious error of law, such cases do get reconsidered and dismissed later on.