An immigration adviser and firm face serious repercussions following a tribunal verdict.
- The adviser operated beyond their authorised level, raising grave concerns.
- Misleading actions led to the cancellation of the firm’s registration.
- Multiple breaches of conduct were uncovered during the investigation.
- The adviser failed to demonstrate understanding of their professional limitations.
The tribunal issued a firm rejection of the appeal lodged by an immigration adviser, Ali Rahmanyfar, whose registration, along with that of his firm Anzan Immigration Lawyers, was revoked. This decision stemmed from severe breaches of the Office of the Immigration Services Commissioner (OISC) code. Judge Moan expressed deep concern regarding Rahmanyfar’s persistent inability to grasp the constraints of his authorisation, casting doubt on his professional suitability.
Distinctive to the field of immigration, the legal practice operates under statutory regulation, though not considered a reserved legal activity. For those outside the categories of solicitors, barristers, or chartered legal executives, compliance with the OISC is mandatory. Rahmanyfar, holding only a level 1 adviser status—the most basic level—was limited to straightforward administrative duties and explicitly barred from engaging in substantial asylum work, which falls under level 2 adviser’s capabilities.
The OISC revoked Rahmanyfar’s accreditation in March after a client, Mrs O, accused him of being deceptive—leading her to believe a payment was requisite for asylum application eligibility. An inquiry revealed numerous breaches of conduct, including unauthorized counsel and aid, demonstrating that Rahmanyfar exceeded his authorisation and undertook efforts deemed unnecessary and detrimental.
Evidence presented by the Home Office highlighted Anzan Immigration Lawyers’ persistent submission of asylum applications over multiple years, contradicting the firm’s authorisation. Furthermore, it was disclosed that Rahmanyfar’s father, Hajibaba, who had formerly lost his registration for dispensing unlicensed advice, played a role in the case under scrutiny.
During the appeal, Rahmanyfar contended he merely assisted Mrs O in documenting her case upon request, later recognising the case’s demands exceeded his jurisdiction and subsequently, referring her to a solicitor. He defended that his father engaged with Mrs O solely as a family acquaintance. He cited a commendation from the Central Bar Association of Iran to back his integrity. However, Judge Moan identified his unyielding stance as an aggravating element, asserting that Rahmanyfar considered his involvement level 1 despite clear indications of level 2 requirements.
Judge Moan criticised Rahmanyfar for not acknowledging the obligations owed to both OISC and his client. Rahmanyfar attributed misunderstanding to Mrs O’s lack of awareness and her agreement to a fixed fee as consent for his services. The tribunal underscored the restrictions imposed on level 1 advisers to handle substantive asylum tasks, accentuating the work’s intricacy and the need for authorised advisers.
It was also discovered Rahmanyfar did not disclose the investigation when applying to the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA). His father, Hajibaba, similarly omitted his prior prosecution when successfully seeking registered foreign lawyer status. The tribunal’s findings affirmed Rahmanyfar’s failure to confront concerns regarding his honesty and integrity adequately.
In upholding the OISC’s ruling, the judge recognised the code violations as both extensive and grave, simultaneously ordering Rahmanyfar to reimburse the £4,500 paid by Mrs O.
The tribunal’s decision underscores the importance of strict adherence to regulatory constraints within the immigration advisory sector.
