OISC v Javed Chaudry t/a Springwood Legal Services Ltd

On 14^th July 2009 a complaint was received by the Office of the Immigration Services Commissioner (“OISC”). The complaint was made by Mr Ali Akhtar, of Dewsbury, Yorkshire, on behalf of his brother, Mr Muhammad Arfan Akhtar. The complaint was made against Mr Javed Chaudry, of Springwood Legal Services Limited, of Huddersfield, Yorkshire. The complaint was made in respect of the quality of immigration services provided by Mr Chaudry to Mr Muhammad Arfan Akhtar.

The complaint was investigated by OISC, and determined on behalf of the Immigration Services Commissioner on 31^st March 2010. The Commissioner determined, against Mr Chaudry, that he had breached Codes 6, 9 and 13 (a) and (d). She concluded that Springwood Legal Services Limited, in the person of Mr Chaudry, had provided immigration advice or services unlawfully, and had deliberately attempted to mislead the Commissioner in her investigation.

By reason of her determination and conclusions, she decided to lay before the Immigration Services Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) a disciplinary charge against Mr Javed Chaudry of Springwood Legal Services Limited, pursuant to paragraph 9(1)(e) of Schedule 5 to the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (“the Act”), seeking the prohibition of Springwood Legal Services from providing immigration advice or immigration services for an indefinite period, pursuant to Section 89 (8)(c) of the Act.

The Tribunal sat to consider this disciplinary charge on 15^th July 2010.

OISC appeared at the hearing, represented by Mr Peter Ratcliffe.

Mr Chaudry did not attend, nor did any representative of Springwood Legal Services Limited attend, the hearing.

Rule 36 of The Tribunal Procedure (First-Tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009 (“the Rules”) provides: “If a party fails to attend a hearing the Tribunal may proceed with the hearing if the Tribunal – (a) is satisfied that the party has been notified of the hearing or that reasonable steps have been taken to notify the party of the hearing: and (b) considers that it is in the interests of justice to proceed with the hearing.

After allowing a reasonable period to elapse after the hour appointed for the hearing (10.30 am), and having ascertained that OISC wished to proceed, the Tribunal proceeded to consider the facts material to the non-attendance of Mr Chaudry, or of any representative on his behalf.

A copy of the aforesaid determination of the Commissioner, of 31^st March 2010, had been sent by OISC on that date to Javed Chaudry of Springwood Legal Services Limited, to the registered address of Springwood Legal Services, at Prospect House, Prospect Business Centre, Prospect Street, Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, HD1 2NU (that is, the address registered with OISC as the address of Springwood Legal Services in respect of its registration as a provider of immigration advice and immigration services).

In respect of the said registration, and continued registration, of Springwood Legal Services Limited, and in the course of the aforesaid investigation by OISC of the material complaint, a considerable body of correspondence had passed between OISC and Springwood Legal Services Limited at that registered address. Correspondence to OISC had emanated from Mr Chaudry at that address, in response to correspondence from OISC. That correspondence appears in the Appellant’s trial bundle of documents, which was before the Tribunal for the purpose of this hearing.

The material Notice of Charge was sent by the Tribunal to Mr Chaudry, to the aforesaid address, on 7^th April 2010, together with a copy of the Rules and notification of the expiration of the time for providing information and documents under the Rules (20^th May 2010).

The Notice of Charge contained an application by OISC for an interim direction under paragraph 9(3) of Schedule 5 to the Act, prohibiting the person charged from providing immigration advice or services whilst the Tribunal dealt with the charge. By Order dated 20^th April 2010, George Marriott, Judge of the General Regulatory Chamber, refused that application. This Order also contained directions as to the filing of a response by the Respondent, and the exchanging and filing of documents and witness statements by the Appellant and the Respondent, and directed that the Tribunal shall hear “the substantive appeal” on 15^th and 16^th July 2010.

A copy of this Order was sent by the Tribunal to Mr Chaudry, to the aforesaid address, on 21^st April 2010.

No response to the Order was received from Mr Chaudry.

By letter dated 12^th May 2010, sent by the Tribunal to Mr Chaudry, to the aforesaid address, and enclosing again a copy of the Order, the Tribunal reminded Mr Chaudry of his failure to file a response by the due date (6^th May 2010).

By letter dated 9^th June 2010, sent by the Tribunal to Mr Chaudry, to the aforesaid address, the Tribunal gave notice to Mr Chaudry of the hearing of this case on Thursday 15^th and Friday 16^th July 2010, at Victory House, 30-34 Kingsway, London WC2 6EX, not before 10.30 am. That letter also again reminded Mr Chaudry of his failure to furnish any documentation in accordance with the directions of the aforesaid Order of Judge Marriott. No documents were ever furnished, to OISC or to the Tribunal, by Mr Chaudry.

As set out above, despite the aforesaid correspondence, notices and reminders, Mr Chaudry did not appear at the hearing on 15^th July 2010, nor did any representative on his behalf.

Having considered the aforesaid facts material to that non-attendance, the Tribunal, pursuant to Rule 36 of the Rules, was satisfied that reasonable steps had been taken to notify the party (Mr Chaudry) of the hearing.

As set out above also, OISC attended the hearing, with a representative, Mr Ratcliffe, and also with four witnesses, who were Mr Dodd and Mr Dunn, caseworkers of OISC, and Mr Ali Akhtar and Mr Muhammad Arfan Akhtar, the “complainants”, who had travelled to the Tribunal from their homes in the North of England. OISC wished to proceed.

The Tribunal had further regard to the aforesaid reasonable notice, to the absence of any response whatever to the aforesaid correspondence by Mr Chaudry, to the absence of any reason for non-attendance or of any application for an adjournment, to the attendance of OISC and the Akhtar brothers, to the establishment and attendance of the Tribunal for the hearing, in the person of the Chair and of the two Members, to the consequent public expense, and to the desirability of the avoidance of further expense and waste of court time and resources which would be consequent on an adjournment.

The Tribunal had regard also to the very considerable strength of the prima facie evidence against Mr Chaudry contained in the documents which had been duly placed before the Tribunal prior to the date of hearing

In all the circumstances, the Tribunal considered that it was in the interests of justice to proceed with the hearing.

The Tribunal heard the opening statement of Mr Ratcliffe, on behalf of OISC , and the evidence, on behalf of OISC, of Mr Ali Akhtar and Mr Muhammad Akhtar, in respect of their dealings with Mr Chaudry, and of Mr Dodd and Mr Dunn, caseworkers of OISC, in respect of the course, content and results of the investigation by OISC of the material complaint.

The Tribunal received also in evidence a statement of Mr David Chapman, the Customer Services Manager of the owners and operators of the Answer-4u Messaging Service.

The Tribunal received also in evidence those documents placed before it by OISC, and contained in the Trial Bundle.

The hearing concluded in the afternoon of 15^th July 2010, and the Tribunal reserved its decision.

Muhammad Arfan Akhtar is referred to below as “Arfan”. Ali Akhtar is referred to below as “Ali”.

Arfan is a citizen of Pakistan. On 23^rd July 2008 the Home Office, in the person of an Entry Clearance Officer, refused an application by Arfan for entry clearance as a student.

In August 2008 Arfan identified Springwood Legal Services Limited (“Springwood”) as a firm which provided immigration advice and services. He asked his brother, Ali, to visit Springwood’s office, to ask if Springwood would represent him in his appeal against the refusal of his application for entry as a student.

Ali visited Springwood’s office by appointment on 10^th August. He met there with Javed Chaudry (“Chaudry”), explained his reason for coming, showed Chaudry the document refusing entry to his brother Arfan, and asked Chaudry to represent his brother in his appeal against that refusal. Chaudry agreed to submit the appeal to the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal (“AIT”) and to represent Arfan in his appeal.

Chaudry asked Ali for £550 – his fee for this representation. Ali made out a cheque for this amount, payable to Springwood, on 18^th August, gave this cheque to Chaudry, and received from Chaudry an undated Springwood invoice (No: 000169) setting out an amount payable of £550 for “our professional charges for legal services rendered in acting on your behalf in connection with Student Appeal Application”. Shortly afterwards, that cheque was presented to Ali’s bank, Lloyds TSB, and payment was made to Springwood.

On 11^th August, after his brother’s visit to Springwood, Arfan sent to Springwood by e-mail a number of documents necessary for the presentation of his appeal, including an AIT appeal form. On that same day Springwood acknowledged by e-mail receipt of Arfan’s e-mail and documents. On 18^th August, when Ali made payment to Chaudry, the latter showed and gave to Ali a copy of a completed AIT appeal form. That copy did not contain page 5 of the form, which page should have contained details of the appellant’s representative.

At all material times, Springwood and Chaudry were registered to provide immigration advice and services only at level one of the Commissioner’s levels of competence. In respect of Springwood, Chaudry was its sole registered adviser. In respect of Springwood, there is reference to a “Muhammad Javad”. Muhammad Javad and Javad Chaudry are one and the same person.

The presentation of an appeal to AIT, and the representation of an appellant in such an appeal, constitute immigration advice and services at level three of the Commissioner’s levels of competence, manifestly above and beyond the level of Springwood’s and Chaudry’s level of registration and competence.

The aforesaid “immigration” transaction was the only matter in respect of which Ali or Arfan had dealings with Springwood and Chaudry. There was no other transaction, or discussion or dealings with any other matter or business, between these parties.

On 1^st September 2008 AIT received a Notice of Appeal, Grounds of Appeal and supporting documentation in respect of Arfan’s appeal against his refusal of entry clearance. Page 5 of the Notice, which should have contained representative details, was blank. These documents were sent by fax to AIT, from Springwood’s fax number.

Between 15^th October 2008 and 24^th June 2009 a series of e-mails passed between Arfan, Springwood and AIT in respect of Arfan’s appeal. Prints of these e-mails appear seriatim on pages 50 to 67 of the Trial Bundle.

Inter alia, on 29^th April 2009 AIT informed Arfan that no representative details were held on its database for his appeal, and on that date Arfan so informed Springwood and expressed his concern. That information from AIT was repeated on 28^th May 2009.

On 18^th June 2009 AIT received a letter from Springwood, dated 15^th June, referring to Arfan’s appeal, in which Springwood confirmed that “we are instructed to act on behalf of Mr Akhtar as his legal representative in this matter.

In addition to the e-mail correspondence, records from a telephone answering service, “Answer-4u”, used by Springwood, which forwards by E-mail telephone messages left with that answering service for Springwood, show that between 26^th May and 7^th August 2009 Ali made a number of calls to Springwood’s telephone number, and left specific messages about “his case”, “student appeal”, “the status for Arfan” and “a student immigration matter”.

On 7^th September 2009 Arfan’s appeal was decided by Immigration Judge Hindson, on consideration of the documentary evidence only. The appeal was allowed, and AIT records show that the written Determination of the appeal was sent to Springwood, as Arfan’s representative.

Prior to that decision, as set out at 1 above, Ali had made his complaint, on behalf of his brother Arfan, to OISC, to the effect that his brother’s adviser, Chaudry, had not named himself as Arfan’s representative on the AIT appeal form.

Although Chaudry did not appear at the hearing, and thus no evidence was given by him or on his behalf, the Trial Bundle contained a number of letters and e-mails from him written in the course of the investigation of Arfan’s complaint by OISC. These documents contained a number of factual assertions, which the Tribunal took into account and carefully considered. The material documents are contained in the Trial Bundle.

These assertions are summarised seriatim below. Chaudry stated that:

A Mr Akhtar had contacted Springwood requesting that the latter conduct an appeal on behalf of his brother’s failed student application.

That request was denied because Springwood was not authorised by OISC to conduct appeals.

He, Akhtar, insisted, and said that he was prepared to do anything – to falsify documents.

Chaudry refused again, but Akhtar’s brother e-mailed repeating the appeal request, to which Springwood made no reply

Prior to this request, Springwood had carried out other legal work for Mr Akhtar (drafting consultancy and business agreements), for which the cost was £550, and for which a standard invoice was issued – there were also negotiations with Mr Akhtar about a possible business venture – the latter was not an honest person and was excluded from this venture – he stated that he would teach me (Chaudry) a lesson.

He (Akhtar) has fabricated a false story (in respect of the appeal) and has forged documents, including the invoice issued (according to Akhtar) in respect of the immigration appeal.

The complaint was a frivolous and bitter attempt by Mr Akhtar to discredit and tarnish the reputation of Springwood.

He/Springwood had not carried out any immigration related work on behalf of Mr Akhtar.

The Akhtars had forged a number of e-mails, which they said had passed between them and Springwood.

The accusation that the Akhtars had forged e-mails was repeated, and Chaudry said Arfan must have informed AIT that he, Chaudry, was his representative.

The allegations made by Mr Akhtar were baseless, frivolous and malicious.

Springwood/Chaudry had never any determination document from AIT, nor did they have any file or associated documents with regard to the appeal.

Mr Akhtar had printed/typed the fax number of Springwood on the appeal documents sent to OISC

With his first letter to OISC in response to this complaint, on 3^rd August 2009, Chaudry enclosed three documents, in support of his assertions. These were:

An e-mail purporting to be from Arfan to Springwood/Javed, dated 14th August 2008, in which Arfan requests Springwood to do his appeal and says that he and his brother are prepared to get any documents for you to make appeal a success (sic).

An e-mail message (dated 31^st July 2008) from Answer-4u (the aforesaid messaging service), purporting to be from Ali Ak.htar, in which the latter requests you (Springwood) to prepare partnership and other consultancy documents.

An invoice from Springwood, dated 18^th August 2008, to Mr A Akhtar for the sum of £550 in respect of “our professional charges for the preparation of Partnership and Consultancy agreements.”

With regard to all those documents which are relied upon by the complainant in respect of his complaint, which documents are set out and referred to in that Section above relating to “The Facts Asserted by the Evidence on behalf of the Appellant (OISC)”, at paragraphs 27 to 43 above”, OISC has confirmed the veracity and integrity of those documents, by inspection of the material bank and telephone messaging records, and of the material AIT file, and by physical inspection of the electronic versions of the material e-mails.

With regard to the e-mail referred to at paragraph 45 (a) above, the e-mail sent to OISC by Chaudry, purporting to have been sent from Arfan to Springwood/Javed on 14^th August 2008, OISC has established:

that Arfan has checked his e-mail account, and states (as he has stated to the Tribunal in sworn evidence), that he did not send this e-mail.

that Chaudry, in response to an offer from OISC to visit his office to establish the authenticity of the e-mail by viewing it electronically (as the Akhtar e-mails’ authenticity had been established), said that this e-mail was not held in electronic form on “our” office computer and had never been so held as it had been deleted the same day it was received, though due to “the content and seriousness of the e-mail a paper copy was held”.

that the e-mail, which purported to have been sent on 14^th August 2008, showed at its foot that “no virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG – www.avg.com. Version: 8.0.236 / Virus database: 270.12.67/2173 – Release Date: 06/13/09 05:53:00”.

that it therefore appears that the release date indicates the date at which the virus checking software was released, and that it would not be possible for an e-mail received and deleted on a given date to have been scanned by software released after that date - these (transparently obvious) facts were confirmed by enquiry by OISC from AVG.

With regard to the e-mail telephone message referred to at paragraph 45 (b) above, the document setting out the alleged message dated 31^st July 2008, purporting to have been recorded by Answer-4u, and to have been a message from Mr Akhtar requesting Springwood to prepare partnership and other consultancy agreement, OISC has established, through the evidence of David Chapman, the Customer Services Manager of the owners and operators of Answer-4u, that”

Angela Tervit, the agent employee of Anwer-4u, named on the document as having recorded and sent the message on 31^st July 2008, was on annual leave from 19^th July to 13^th August 2008, and could not therefore have received, recorded or sent any messages on behalf of Answer-4u on 31^st July 2008.

The comprehensive records of Answer-4u show that no call was taken from Mr Akhtar at the time and date (10.31.19 on 31^st July 2008) shown on that document, nor was any message sent to Springwood at that time or on that date.

With regard to the invoice referred to at paragraph 45 (c ) above, purporting to be an invoice from Springwood, dated 18^th August 2008, to Mr Akhtar for the sum of £550 in respect of “our professional charges for the preparation of Partnership and Consultancy agreements” (in respect of which alleged agreements see paragraph 45 (b) and paragraph 48 above), OISC, in the course of its investigation of the complaint, invited Springwood/Chaudry to provide full copies of documents relating to any other work, apart from immigration advice or services, done by Springwood/Chaudry on behalf of Mr Ali Akhtar (having obtained the latter’s written authorisation for the production of such documents by Springwood to OISC and sent the said written authorisation to Chaudry). In response to that invitation and that authorisation, Springwood/Chaudry refused to provide any such documents to OISC.

The Tribunal reminds itself that in charge proceedings the Commissioner shall have the burden of proving the facts on which she relies, and that proof shall be on a balance of probabilities.

The Tribunal is wholly satisfied that each and every one of the material facts asserted by the evidence on behalf of the Appellant is true.

The Tribunal is wholly satisfied that each and every one of the material facts asserted by the Respondent is false.

The Tribunal is wholly satisfied that each of the documents (those set out at paragraph 45 (a), (b) and (c) above, provided by the Respondent in support of his asserted facts has been fabricated by him.

The Tribunal is wholly satisfied that Chaudry acted as the representative of Arfan in respect of his material appeal, and provided immigration advice and services to him in that regard. In so doing, he provided that advice and those services to Arfan illegally, in that the advice and services were above the registered level and beyond the approved competence of Springwood Legal Services Limited and its sole registered adviser, Javed Chaudry. In so doing, Chaudry was in clear breach of Code 6 of the Commissioner’s Code of Standards.

In so doing, as set out in paragraph 54 above, Chaudry was in clear breach of Code 9 also of the Commissioner’s Code of Standards, since it was manifestly not in Arfan’s (Springwood’s and Chaudry’s client) best interests that Chaudry should seek to represent Arfan in the material appeal, at a level beyond his registration and competence, and seek and obtain payment for same.

The Tribunal is wholly satisfied that Chaudry has falsely accused Ali Akhtar of fabricating a false story and of forging documents in respect of the material appeal, and has communicated this false accusation to OISC in the course of the latter’s investigation of this complaint, and has furnished false documents to OISC in purported support of that accusation, and is according wholly satisfied that, in so doing, Chaudry was in clear breach of Code 13 (a) and (d) of the Commissioner’s Code of Standards.

Whilst it may seem paradoxical that this complaint, and these findings, have arisen from an immigration appeal which has been successful, the Tribunal considers that, in all the circumstances of this most regrettable case, the Commissioner, bearing her statutory responsibility imposed by Section 80 of the Act, was fully justified in investigating this complaint, and in coming to the conclusions set out in the material Complaint Determination of 31^st March 2010.

The Tribunal upholds this disciplinary charge.

The Tribunal considers that the Respondent’s breaches of Codes 6 and 9 were blatant, and that his aforesaid conduct, in respect of his breaches of Code 13 (a) and (d), was grave, and utterly reprehensible. The Tribunal is driven to the inexorable conclusion that the Respondent is not fit to provide immigration advice or immigration services.

Accordingly, the Tribunal directs, pursuant to and under Section 89 (8) (c) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, that the Respondent and Person Charged, Javed Chaudry, is to be prohibited from providing immigration advice or immigration services indefinitely.