East Ham MP backs student’s visa victory after fraud claims
- Credit: Archant
An overseas student says his future studies in the UK are uncertain – despite winning a legal battle against the Home Office.
East Ham resident Mohammad Mohibullah won a landmark tribunal case against the government last month after it revoked his student visa.
He was one of thousands of students whose right to stay in the UK was cancelled after cases of fraud were uncovered at two language test centres in 2014.
The 28-year-old, who is originally from Bangladesh, had his decision quashed by HM Courts and Tribunals Service.
However, he claims he has been granted limited time from the Home Office to find a university course and raise £25,000 to cover the overseas funding for an MA qualification.
You may also want to watch:
This is because he has been unable to work for the last two years and is still waiting for his degree to be awarded after it was suspended.
“That is why I am not totally happy with the judgement,” he told the Recorder.
- 1 Police appeal for help after woman raped in Beckton
- 2 Newham's Covid-19 case rate 'huge' but there is 'light at end of the tunnel'
- 3 Footage shows crowd piling onto train at Canning Town station
- 4 Double murder accused remanded in custody over ‘brutal’ stabbings
- 5 Forest Gate man, 21, charged with dangerous and drug driving
- 6 Leyton Orient boss Embleton expecting more movement in the transfer window
- 7 Dangerous driver arrested after police find drugs and £28k cash
- 8 NHS Nightingale London opens to patients without Covid-19
- 9 Barts apologises to family after death of Stratford woman
- 10 Serial fraudster who set up fake real estate company jailed for six years
A Home Office spokeswoman denied his allegation but did not wish to comment.
East Ham MP Stephen Timms has backed Mr Mohibullah and called the government’s handling of its crackdown on student visa fraud “disgraceful”.
He has accused the government of “stabbing in the back” foreign students who have had their visas unfairly cancelled.
The East Ham MP says up to 40 of his constituents may be among thousands of overseas students whose right to stay in the UK was revoked.
However, the decision of an immigration tribunal in Mohammad Mohibullah’s case means more of Mr Timms’ constituents could fight to have their visas reinstated.
He said: “Many are still here but do not have leave to remain so they have been depending on support from friends or family while all of this hopefully gets resolved.
“It is an absolutely disgraceful way for the British government to treat people who have put their faith in our education system.”
Fake candidates were allegedly paid for taking written and oral exams on behalf of others.
These lay undetected after being sent for marking to a company called Educational Testing Service Limited (ETS).
Theresa May, then Home Secretary, vowed to clamp down on the numbers of “bogus students” sitting the tests.
More than 33,000 were said to be invalid and a further 22,000 “questionable” – up to 5,000 people were deported or left the UK, while others were held in detention centres as a result.
Mr Mohibullah successfully appealed his decision as the Home Office cancelled his right to stay in the UK without offering him a chance to appeal.
The resulting report by the immigration tribunal stated the Secretary of State’s decision was “an abuse of power”.
Speaking about affected students in East Ham, Mr Timms said that “one or two of them can speak English better than me”.
He said he hoped “it won’t be too long for their visas to be reinstated so they can get back to their studies”.
A spokesman for the Home Office said its investigation had “revealed extremely serious, large-scale, organised fraud”.
He said: “Where we suspect or have evidence of sponsorship abuse or failings we will investigate to establish whether or not an institution is fulfilling its responsibilities as a licence holder.
“In the case of Mr Mohibullah, the court did not find that the Home Office was wrong to conclude he had used deception but rather that it had chosen an unsuitable legal mechanism for implementing the decision to curtail the leave.”