IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM ACT 1999
THE IMMIGRATION SERVICES TRIBUNAL
APPEAL NO: IMS/2001/001/RTR
Between:
SHF CONSULTANTS
Appellant
and
THE IMMIGRATION SERVICES COMMISSIONER
Respondent
Before:
His Honour Judge S Cripps, President
Mrs Shindo Maguire
Mr Mahmud Quayum
Sitting at 48/49 Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1JR
Sent to parties: 2nd November 2001
DECISION and REASONS, [RULE 24]
Background
SHF Consultants, the appellant, applied for registration with the Immigration Services Commissioner by application dated 25th April 2001. The Immigration Services Commissioner refused to register SHF Consultants and set out his reasons in letter dated 12th July 2001.
The appellant appealed by Notice of Appeal dated 8 August 2001.
Acknowledgement of appeal [Rule 6] was sent to the appellant dated 9th August 2001 and a copy of the notice of appeal was sent to the Commissioner on the same date.
The appellant supplied a copy of the Commissioner’s refusal letter dated 12th July to the Tribunal by Fax dated 1st September 2001.
The Commissioner sent their Rule 7 notice to the Tribunal with letter dated 5 September. The Notice referred to and included a bundle of correspondence.
The appellant was sent a letter asking him to submit details of any witnesses to be called [Rule 17] and details of documents upon which he intended to rely [Rule 18]. The Tribunal has received no reply.
Two alternative dates for hearing this appeal were notified to the parties by letter dated 4th October 2001. The Commissioner indicated that either date was suitable. The appellant did not reply to the letter.
The date was fixed for 2nd November and notified to the parties by letter dated 12th October 2001.
The Hearing
The appellant did not appear.
The Commissioner was represented by Counsel, Matthew Smith.
Letters dated 12th October had been sent to both addresses used by the appellant informing him of the date of the appeal hearing. Neither had been returned by the Post Office.
We were satisfied that the appellant had received notice of the hearing of his appeal.
Mr Smith then opened his case and explained the history of the matter. He had provided us with a skeleton argument in advance of the hearing.
Kayleigh Joanne Foulkes was called to give evidence. She affirmed and gave evidence in accordance with her statement previously sent to the Tribunal.
We then closed the hearing and reserved our Decision.
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
The Commissioner called upon the appellant to provide information about his organisation that was required to enable the Commissioner to form a view as to whether the appellant was suitable for registration in accord with section 84(2)(a) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999.
Despite reminders, the appellant failed to provide the information requested and, in particular, failed to deal with those matters set out in the Commissioner’s letter dated 12th July 2001.
The appellant, in his letter dated 15th May, gave details of his experience as an advocate to support his argument that he was competent to provide Immigration services. We found those documents wholly unimpressive. They do not and cannot be sufficient to show competence as required by the Commissioner.
In the circumstances, we dismiss the appeal.
His Honour JUDGE SEDDON CRIPPS