Case Reference: FT/IMS/2026/0001
Immigration Services
Decided without a hearing
Before
JUDGE HARRIS
Between
AISSA CHENCHANA
Appellant
and
THE IMMIGRATION SERVICES COMMISSIONER
Respondent
Decision: The Application is struck out under Rule 8(2)(a) because the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to deal with it and under Rule 8(3)(c) because there is no reasonable prospect of it succeeding.
REASONS
Background to the Appeal
These proceedings concern an appeal against a decision of the Immigration Services Commissioner (the “Commissioner”) dated 27 January 2026 (reference Z000034084) to refuse the Appellant’s application for registration for his firm UK Immigration & Refugee CIC (the “Firm”) and for himself at level 1 under schedule 6 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (“the Act”).
On 8 September 2025, the Appellant applied for registration with the Commissioner at IAA Level 1 in the categories of ‘Immigration’ and ‘Asylum & Protection’.
Within this application, the Appellant applied to be the sole immigration adviser of the Firm. According to Companies House, the Appellant is also currently the sole director and sole shareholder of the Firm
Pursuant to IAA guidance, an applicant must demonstrate that they have valid leave to remain and right to work in the UK for a minimum of 18 months at the point of making their application.
The Appellant has passed the IAA Level 1 Competence Assessment and has no previous convictions.
The Appellant previously had leave to remain in the UK as a Skilled Worker. This period of leave expired on 4 April 2023.
The Appellant did not have at least 18 months leave to remain when he submitted his application for registration to the Commissioner.
On 27 January 2026, the Respondent refused the Appellant’s application for registration (the “Decision”).
The Appeal
The Appellant lodged an appeal with the Tribunal by way of form GRC1 dated 3 February 2026. He stated that the outcome he was seeking was as follows:
“I am seeking an order that the Tribunal allows my appeal and sets aside the Immigration Advice Authority’s refusal decision dated 27 January 2026, and:
Remits the matter to the IAA with a direction to re-consider and re-decide my application for regulation as a Level 1 adviser in accordance with law and published guidance, OR
Alternatively, allows the appeal and substitutes a decision granting my application for registration as a regulated immigration adviser, if the Tribunal considers the evidence supports such an outcome.”
The Appellant also sought in his GRC1 form a stay of enforcement of the Decision pending the outcome of this appeal, so that the refusal does not prevent him from practising as a regulated immigration adviser while the appeal is determined. I refused this request by directions dated 13 February 2026.
In his grounds for the appeal, the Appellant, in summary, raised the following points:
The fact that the Respondent referred to the date of the application as 22 November 2024 and 22 November 2025 and did not explain which date was the correct one, or how this inconsistency affected the eligibility assessment. He argues that the failure to provide clear reasoning and reconcile contradictory material in the Decision renders it unlawful. The Commissioner has subsequently confirmed that the correct date is 22 November 2025.
The Commissioner has misapplied its published policy on proof of right to work, which requires valid leave to remain of a minimum of 18 months at the point of application, which the Appellant says was irrational.
The Appellant said it was procedurally unfair to allow him to proceed to and successfully complete the competence assessment, only to refuse his application on an eligibility point which should have been picked up earlier.
The strike-out application
The Commissioner applied by way of form GRC5 dated 23 April 2026 to strike out the Appeal on the basis that there is no reasonable prospect of it succeeding under Rule 8(3)(c) (the “strike-out application”).
The reasons which the Commissioner gave for striking out the application, in summary include the following:
under the Appellant’s previous Skilled Worker Visa, the Appellant could only work for the current sponsor and additional employment attached to that Visa. This does not permit him to work for his own organisation. In other words, he is not permitted to work for the Firm.
The Commissioner submits that if the Appellant were to be granted registration and subsequently asked to leave the country, this would cause major distress and disruption in any client matters and may prejudice their immigration status, if the Appellant was then required to leave the UK.
In those circumstances, at the point of application, the Appellant did not demonstrate to the Commissioner that he had valid leave to remain in the UK for at least 18 months, as his leave to remain expired in 2023.
Whether the requirement of having 18 months valid leave to remain at the point of application is rational and proportionate is a question for judicial review, not this Tribunal. The only question before the Tribunal is whether the Appellant is fit and competent to provide immigration advice and/or services.
The requirement to have 18 months valid leave to remain in the UK is made clear to all applicants in the IAA Guidance for Registration and the Commissioner expects all applicants to be aware of these requirements before applying for registration.
The Appellant is not currently registered with the Respondent. As such, his current livelihood is not dependent on being a registered immigration adviser.
The Appellant made submissions in response to the strike-out application dated 24 April 2026, so I am satisfied that the Appellant has had an opportunity to make representations on the proposed striking out under rule 8(4). The points made by the Appellant, in summary, were as follows:
He maintains the appeal is arguable, raising multiple issues of law, fact, reasoning and procedural fairness. It cannot properly be said there is no reasonable prospect of it succeeding. He submits this is a real dispute on the merits, not a hopeless appeal.
He repeats his previous arguments as to factual inaccuracy, procedural unfairness and inconsistent chronology.
He says that it is at least reasonably arguable that the Commissioner’s reading of the 18-month requirement of leave to remain is wrong. The wording does not say that an applicant must prove a guaranteed future Home Office outcome or prove no future immigration decision could affect his position.
He says that he is not the sole shareholder of the Firm as he only holds 75% of the shares. He does not dispute that he is the sole director. He says that his directorship and management of the Firm were unpaid.
Legal framework
Part V of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 regulates immigration advisers and immigration service providers and establishes the Office of the Immigration Services Commissioner (now the IAA).
Schedule 6 paragraph 1(1) sets out that an application for registration by the Commissioner must be made in such form and manner, and be accompanied by such information and supporting evidence as the Commissioner may from time to time determine. The Commissioner therefore has the power to set its own policy and application process for registration.
The IAA’s guidance for registration, in the section on proof of right to work states the following:
“You must demonstrate that you have valid leave to remain and right to work in the United Kingdom for a minimum of 18 months at the point of application. “
Discussion and conclusion
The Appellant accepts that his leave to remain in the UK expired in 2023.
I find as a matter of fact that the Appellant did not demonstrate that he had 18 months valid leave to remain at the point of applying for registration. He was unable to provide evidence of this as required by the Commissioner under the IAA guidance for registration, pursuant to Schedule 6 of the Act.
Because the Appellant cannot demonstrate that he has leave to remain and the right to work in the UK for at least 18 months, at the present time I consider that there is no prospect of his appeal succeeding. The proceedings are therefore struck out under Rule 8(3)(c) because there is no reasonable prospect of them succeeding.
There is nothing to stop the Appellant reapplying for registration once he is in a position to demonstrate his right to remain in the UK for at least 18 months.
Signed: Judge Harris Date: 8 May 2026
Amended: 22 June 2026