Case No: IMS/2013/9/RTR
BEFORE THE FIRST TIER-TRIBUNAL (IMMIGRATION SERVICE)
GENERAL REGULATORY CHAMBER
BETWEEN:
MICHELLE LYONS t/a LYONS & Co.
Appellant
-and-
OFFICE FO THE IMMIGRATION SERVICES COMMISSIONER
Respondent
Appeal against the Respondents decision of Refusal of Application for regulation by the Immigration Services Commissioner dated 3oth August 2013 2011.
Before
Judge Brian Kennedy QC
Martin Hoare
Orla Conway
Heard at Rolls Building
Fetter Lane, London EC4A 1NL.
On the 28th January 2014.
DECISION
The Tribunal refuses the appeal.
REASONS
Background: An application for registration at Level 1 under Schedule 6 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (“the Act”) was received by the Commissioner (“the Respondent”) from Lyons *& Co. Immigration Services on the 25th September 2012. The adviser named in the application was Michelle Lyons, (“the Appellant” herein).
The Law: The principles to be applied by the Commissioner are found in the Act, in particular: - Pursuant to Section 83(5) of the Act , “The Commissioner must exercise his functions so as to secure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that those who provide immigration advice or immigration services –
are fit and competent to do so;
act in the best interests of their clients;
do not knowingly mislead any court, tribunal, or adjudicator in the UK;
do not seek to abuse any procedure operating in the UK in connection with immigration or asylum (including any appellate or other judicial procedure);
do not advise any person to do something which would amount to such abuse.
The Decision: The Respondent decided to refuse the application for regulation by way of a letter dated the 30th August 2013 (“The Decision Notice”) .
Reasons: On the 25th September 2012, Lyons & Co. Immigration Services made an application for registration at Level 1 with the Respondent. During the application process, the Respondent became aware of of a newspaper article dated the 13th September 2012 which stated that Michelle Lyons, a trainee solicitor was facing eight charges, including facilitating a sham marriage at Belfast registry Office in August 2011 by arranging to obtain the relevant paperwork and that the said Michelle Lyons had been remanded on bail to Belfast Crown Court. The Respondent contacted the Appellant and indicated that she had not informed them of the background to the said charges. An exchange of correspondence followed between the two parties. It further emerged in that exchange that the Appellant had wrongly claimed in her application for regulation to be a trainee solicitor at various periods between January 2009 and August 2012. This proved not to be so and was in effect a mis-representation by the Appellant.
The Commissioner has pointed out to the Appellant that at no time since she was charged in relation to Section 25(1) of the Immigration with the offence (referred to above) did she bring this matter to the attention of the OISC.
It seems that the charges against the Appellant remain outstanding at the time of the hearing of this appeal and the Tribunal contacted the Appellant who has asked that this appeal proceed.
This Tribunal has considered the Respondents impugned Decision Notice carefully and in particular the following: “The Commissioner notes that Michelle Lyons submitted an application for regulation to the OISC in full knowledge that there were immigration related charges outstanding. The Commissioner is of the Opinion that she cannot be satisfied as is required by the Act that Michelle Lyons is currently fit to provide immigration advice and services.”
Conclusion:
The appellant in her appeal denies her guilt in relation to the outstanding criminal charges but does not contradict the fundamental factual matrix leading to the reasons given by the respondent in the Decision Notice for her finding, inter-alia failing to disclose the outstanding and relevant charges and further mis-representing her position as a trainee solicitor to the Respondent in the application process. In these circumstances the Tribunal finds that the Appellant has failed to establish that the Respondent was wrong in their reasoning and unanimously refuses this appeal.
Brian Kennedy QC 3rd February 2014.