Unfortunate series of circumstances left student without leave to remain

What happened

Ms L made an in–time application for an extension to her student visa in summer 2009. However, the application was returned because of a problem taking payment for the application fee. In autumn 2009, Ms L submitted another application for a student visa, but her existing visa had expired in the summer of that year. UKVI accepted the application but refused the visa later in autumn 2009. This was because Ms L's college had its licence to sponsor student visa applications revoked in autumn 2009. The college's licence was reinstated the next month. Because Ms L's autumn 2009 application had been submitted after her leave to remain had expired, she was not entitled to appeal the decision.

Ms L then made another student visa application in early 2010 but this was refused because Ms L's course had started more than 28 days after her period of overstaying began.

From 2010, Ms L complained to UKVI about the problem taking payment for her first application. She considered that UKVI had made a mistake and that if that application had gone through, she would have been entitled to appeal the decision to refuse her visa. While she appealed, she would also have retained her existing leave to remain.

UKVI found no evidence that it made a mistake taking payment for the summer 2009 application. It considered that its decisions on Ms L's applications were appropriate.

Ms L currently has no leave to remain in the UK and has failed to report to the immigration authorities as she has been asked to do.

What we found

We did not uphold this complaint. The evidence of Ms L's payment for her summer 2009 application had been destroyed after 18 months in line with UKVI's guidelines. We did not find evidence to show that Ms L had asked UKVI to properly investigate the matter before 18 months had passed. Therefore, there was insufficient evidence for us to find that UKVI's handling of the summer 2009 application was unreasonable.

As Ms L's subsequent application from autumn 2009 was made after her leave to remain expired, UKVI's decision to refuse the application without full appeal rights was correct.

UKVI's guidance from 2009 showed that only those with over six months leave to remain left were offered 60 days grace period to find alternative college courses, when a college's licence to sponsor students expired. As Ms L had less than six months leave to remain when she made both her summer and autumn 2009 applications, UKVI followed procedure by not offering her 60 days grace. It was reasonable that it refused her autumn 2009 application.

Ms L tried to make a third application in early 2010, but she fell foul of the Immigration Rules because the application was made more than 28 days after her previous leave to remain expired.

While Ms L was unhappy that UKVI had retained her passport, legislation states that it can do this when a person has overstayed their leave to remain.