Student loses challenge to cancellation of leave for excess working

The Court of Appeal has dismissed a judicial review brought by a student against the cancellation of leave for working in excess of the 20 hours per week permitted under his leave. The case is R (Singaram) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Rev2) [2025] EWCA Civ 1375.

The claimant entered the UK on a student visa on 5 October 2022. His leave was subject to the condition that he was not permitted to work more than 20 hours in term time.

The Home Office had been tipped off about students working in breach of their leave. On 7 November 2023 immigration officers attended an off licence where they encountered the claimant who said that he was training there by doing stock filling from 9am to 6pm on Mondays and Tuesdays. He said that he was also working 20 hours a week at Tesco.

The claimant was then arrested, cautioned in relation to a suspected breach of a condition of his leave. He was detained and interviewed and then his leave was cancelled with immediate effect for failing to comply with a condition of his leave by working more than 20 hours per week.

The claimant sought judicial review of the decision on the basis that it was procedurally unfair and did not comply with Balajigari v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2019] EWCA Civ 673.

The High Court refused permission for judicial review, but this was later granted by the Court of Appeal who directed that the claim be retained there.

The court accepted that the immigration officer was obliged to act in a procedurally fair manner when considering whether to cancel the claimant’s leave, a decision with serious consequences for him. The court identified that in this case there were two essential parts to the exercise of power to cancel leave. The first was that the person must have failed to comply with a condition of their leave, and second that there was a discretion as to whether and when to cancel leave.

With reference to Balajigari, the Court of Appeal said that “procedural fairness required both that the Secretary of State indicate clearly to the individual that he has that suspicion (i.e. that the individual’s presence in the United Kingdom was undesirable) and to allow the individual an opportunity to respond to matters going to whether the discretion should be exercised”.

On the first point, the court said that the matter “was a simple, straightforward one” of whether or not the claimant had worked more than 20 hours per week in term time. The claimant was given every opportunity to explain his working situation and there was no procedural unfairness here.

The court said that the position on the second point, on the exercise of discretion to cancel the claimant’s leave, was more nuanced. However, the court held that:

Any failure to comply with the principles of procedural fairness by not making it clear to the claimant that he had an opportunity to make representations as to why his leave should not be cancelled immediately, or at a later date, did not in fact result in any prejudice. As a result of the questions that were asked during the decision-making process, the claimant did, in fact, provide the information that he wanted the decision-maker to consider when deciding whether to cancel his leave immediately. In the circumstances, there was no, or no material, breach of the principles of procedural fairness and certainly none that vitiated the decision.

The judicial review was dismissed.