Home Office: Evidence of multiple applications beyond firm’s competence
A tribunal has rejected an appeal from an immigration adviser and firm whose registration was cancelled for breaches of the Office of the Immigration Services Commissioner (OISC) code that were “as extensive as they were serious”.
District Judge Moan, sitting as a judge of the First-Tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) (FTT), said Ali Rahmanyfar’s “continued failure to understand the limitations of his authorisation” gave the tribunal “grave concern” about his fitness and competence.
Immigration is a unique area of legal practice in that it is not a reserved legal activity but is subject to statutory regulation. Those who are not solicitors, barristers or chartered legal executives must quality through and by regulated by OISC.
Mr Rahmanyfar was the sole adviser at Anzan Immigration Lawyers, registered with the OISC at level 1, the lowest of the three categories of adviser.
Level 1 advisers can handle various straightforward, largely administrative tasks, but cannot undertake any substantive asylum work, such as making applications or appeals. Drafting statements for asylum claims are within the scope of a level 2 adviser.
OISC cancelled Mr Rahmanyfar’s individual and firm registration in March this year following a complaint from a client, Mrs O, that she had been misled into believing that she had to pay before she could apply for asylum.
Its investigation uncovered “multiple breaches of the code of conduct as well as the provision of unregulated advice and assistance”.
It said that, in conducting numerous consultations with Mrs O and completing a case statement for her claim, Mr Rahmanyfar had worked above his authorisation level. Further, the work was “unnecessary and unhelpful” to the claim.
Evidence from the Home Office showed that Anzam had submitted a number of asylum applications over a period of years, again beyond the level of its authorisation.
OISC also found that Mr Rahmanyfar’s father, Hajibaba, had worked on the case despite his own registration being cancelled in 2010 for providing unregulated immigration advice.
On appeal, he argued that he had only helped the client write down her case as she had requested. When he realised the case was outside his authorisation, he said he had referred her to a solicitor. He said she had spoken to his father as a family friend.
Mr Rahmanyfar also pointed to a certificate of good standing issued by the Central Bar Association of Iran that formed part of his application to the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) to become, like his father, a registered foreign lawyer.
However, Judge Moan said an “aggravating feature” was that Mr Rahmanyfar “remained unshakeable throughout the appeal” that the work he had done for Mrs O was level 1 work whereas it was “clearly” level 2.
“He did not recognise or understand his obligations to the OISC and to the client. He sought to blame Mrs O for her lack of understanding about what work he could do and relied on the fact that she had agreed to pay the fixed fee as evidence that she had agreed to the services he was offering.
“He had not acted in Mrs O’s best interests which would have been to signpost her elsewhere quickly but had continued to undertake expensive and worthless work on her claim, to her prejudice.
“The restrictions on level 1 advisers carrying out any substantive asylum work are in place precisely to recognise the complexity of this work and the importance of it only being carried out by appropriately authorised advisers.”
Further, OISC said he had not declared the investigation when applying to the SRA and the tribunal found he “was not able to adequately refute those concerns about his honesty and integrity”.
OISC also said Hajibaba Rahmanyfar had not told the SRA about his previous prosecution for providing unregulated advice when he successfully applied to become a registered foreign lawyer.
Upholding the OISC’s decision, the judge said the breaches of the code were “as extensive as they were serious”.
She also acceded to OISC’s request that she direct Mr Rahmanyfar to return the £4,500 that Mrs O had paid him.
Leave a Comment