Richards UK Ltd v Office of the Immigration Services Commissioner

The Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (Part V) sets out the means of establishment of a scheme to regulate immigration advisers and service providers. Under the scheme, the provision of immigration advice or immigration services will be prohibited unless a person is registered with the Office of Immigration Services Commissioner (“the Respondent”), authorised to practice by a designated professional body or exempt under the terms of the scheme or Act. The Respondent has a duty to ensure that those who provide immigration advice or immigration services are competent to do so and the Respondent has power to register or refuse to register applicants at various levels of competence to provide immigration advice or services.

Richards UK Ltd, (“the Appellant”) herein applied for registration by the Respondent at Level 1 on the 21^st September 2007 which said application was received by the Respondent on the 24^th September. On the said application the officers of the Limited Company, that is the Applicant/Appellant, were identified as Anna Jasinska, Director/Secretary and Osaro Richards, Director. Inter-alia Anna Jasinska claims to have an MSc in Economics and Osaro Richards claims to have LL.B from the University of London.

After a protracted and undoubtedly unsatisfactory period of exchange between the parties the Respondent finally issued a letter of Refusal of Application for Registration to the Applicant/Appellant on the 22^nd December 2008. We make it clear from the outset that we find the unfortunate and unsatisfactory delay was not entirely the fault of either party.

In the letter of refusal of the 22^nd December 2008 the Respondent gave the following reasons for the Decision;

“The decision to refuse the application takes into consideration the failure of Osaro Richards and Anna Jasinska to demonstrate their fitness to provide immigration advice and services.

Section 83(5)(a) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 requires that the Commissioner must exercise his function so as to secure, as far as is reasonably practicable, that those who provide immigration advice or immigration services are fit and competent to do so.

In considering the application for registration the Commissioner has taken into account evidence relating to the fitness to provide immigration advice or services of Anna Jasinska in her role as director of City College and Osaro Richards in respect of his involvement with Cherub and his allegations concerning OISC’s alleged responsibility in relation to the suicide of a client/friend.”

The Decision given by the respondent in the letter of refusal refers to Codes 4 and 13(a) of the OISC Code of Standards. The letter sets out that Code 4 requires that “All advisers must satisfy the Commissioner that they are fit and competent to provide immigration advice or immigration services and that they continue to be so.” The letter further sets out that Code 13(a) requires that an adviser must at all time “show due respect, politeness and courtesy to their client, the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal and the Commissioner.”

The Respondent then sets out in the letter of refusal the basis in which it seems they have found much confusion about the applicants’ business affairs and those of the two named directors. This confusion gave rise to justified suspicions, which were never satisfactorily explained. Further throughout the course of the application and the failure to satisfactorily explain the said confusion, the Respondent found a lack of politeness, courtesy and respect to the Commissioner by the Applicant in the course of the protracted exchange between the parties. The Appellant also published material criticising and castigating the Respondent.

The Appellant has lodged an appeal of the decision by way of Notice of Appeal dated the 15^th January 2009 as a result of which this appeal has been brought to hearing.

This Tribunal had been presented with a trial bundle, “The Respondents Bundle of Documents”, and a similar Bindle from the Appellant both of which have been helpfully indexed and paginated. Additional documentation was admitted with the consent of the parties. This tribunal also had the benefit of comprehensive Skeleton Arguments presented by the representatives for both parties at the end of the evidence.

The case involves an unusually large volume of material and reference to a complicated factual background and issues that arose between the parties throughout the period of exchange while the application was being processed. Very helpfully and at the request of the Tribunal at the outset of the hearing, the Respondent narrowed down the issues. The Respondent agreed to drop the following issues of fact: “Name Change, Planning permission by the applicant, Potential abuse of running an advisory organisation and an educational institution and Association with colleges not DFES/DIUS registered. This left three main issues which the respondent claims demonstrated the Applicant/Appellants lack of fitness to provide Immigration and Asylum advice or services:

Essentially and significantly the Respondent takes no issue with the Competence of the Applicant/Appellant.

The Appellant provided witness statements from Anna Jasinska and from Osaro Richards. Although Anna Jasinska did not attend the hearing to give evidence, she did provide comprehensive evidence in her sworn statement that addresses the factual issues pertinent to the hearing and accepted that if her evidence was untrue it would amount to contempt. The Respondent provided witness statements from two case workers dealing with the application, both of whom were called to give evidence.

Osaro Richards was sworn and gave evidence on behalf of the Appellant. He adopted his statement of the 16^th April 2009. His evidence in chief gave a detailed explanation of the background to the application and the unfortunate course of events that led to an apparent break down between the parties during the course of the processing of the application. He was cross-examined in depth by counsel for the Respondent on the issues of concern and was further questioned by members of this Tribunal about his background and about the issues pertaining to the processing of the application in question.

The two case workers were called to give evidence on behalf of the respondent. Their evidence, surprisingly, took little issue with the evidence given on behalf of the Appellant.