The High Court has ruled that a requirement for English-language programmes to have ACELS accreditation unduly restricted the Minister for Justice’s discretion over student immigration. It also held that the Qualifications and Quality Assurance Authority of Ireland (QQI) had no power to operate ACELS accreditation for entry to an interim list of eligible programmes.
The ruling concerned judicial review proceedings brought together by National Employee Development Training Centre Ltd (NEDTC) and Academic Bridge Ltd, two English-language education providers whose students were largely from outside the EU and EEA. NEDTC had failed to obtain ACELS accreditation, including on appeal. Academic Bridge’s application was still pending.
A September 2014 policy set Irish accreditation as a condition for programmes to be included on an Interim List, which was intended to begin in January 2015. The Minister said Irish accreditation would involve more rigorous oversight. The applicants argued that making ACELS accreditation the qualifying route unlawfully fettered the Minister’s discretion and that QQI lacked statutory authority to run the scheme.
Justice Baker distinguished the Government’s general immigration policy, which she said was not open to review in these proceedings, from the criteria used to implement it. She held that the criteria could be reviewed where they preordained decisions or fettered discretion. ACELS had been closed to new applications since January 2014, leaving a finite group of pending applicants. In the judge’s view, requiring that accreditation effectively shut the interim list to providers outside that group and left the Minister little or no scope to assess other programmes on their individual merits.
The court also rejected QQI’s argument that its statutory powers over quality assurance implied authority to operate ACELS. Justice Baker said the 2012 legislation established a different statutory quality mark, the International Education Mark, and did not transfer NQAI’s former powers to QQI. She concluded that QQI could not run ACELS as a mandatory route onto the interim list, though it could operate a more limited voluntary recognition scheme by agreement.
The judgment did not assess whether either applicant provided bona fide or high-quality education, approve either company’s courses, restore the former Internationalisation Register, or decide any individual student’s visa application. It held that the Minister must consider individual applications and that the applicants could benefit from a declaration against the strict ACELS condition. The judgment’s summary records the court’s conclusions but does not set out the precise wording of any final order.