Immigration firm loses appeal against cancellation of registration following multiple serious breaches

An immigration adviser trading as Sport Immigration Services (SIS) has lost his appeal against cancellation of registration by the Immigration Advice Authority (formerly OISC). The case is Kesejini (t/a Sport Immigration Services) v Immigration Services Commissioner [2025] UKFTT 290 (GRC).

Background

Complaints were made about SIS in January and February 2022 by two people, Dr Maham and Ms Kimiyaee. The complaint alleged that SIS had told Dr Maham that his chances of succeeding in an innovator visa were 100% even though at that stage he had not passed the English language test. Apparently SIS also told Dr Maham that another application could be included in his application and so he instructed them to include his friend Ms Kimiyaee who also wanted to come to the UK.

The commissioner concluded that the innovator visa application was doomed to fail from the outset as Dr Maham did not meet the basic requirements including the English language requirement and a valid endorsement letter dated within the three months before the application was submitted. There was also evidence that Dr Maham had paid £100,000 to SIS for the application, as he had been misled to believe that was required, whereas the immigration rules state that the applicant needs to have £50,000 in available funds.

The commissioner understands that Dr Maham withdrew his instructions to pursue the application after failing the English language test twice, the business plan prepared by SIS was not to the standard required by the endorsing body and that Ms Kimiyaee also did not proceed with the application.

Dr Maham and Ms Kimiyaee sought a refund of all money paid to them, including for Dr Maham’s application – £3,000 in legal fees, £4,200 for a business plan, the Home Office application and immigration health surcharge, and the £100,000. The commissioner concluded that SIS was responsible for over £110,000 of the complainants’ losses and ordered repayment of the £100,000 investment money within ten working days. SIS were also told that a written apology should be provided to the complainants and the commissioner cancelled their registration.

SIS appealed the decision.

The appeal

Both complainants were in Iran and so it was not possible for them to give evidence by video link. The adviser who was trading as SIS, Mr Kesejini, gave evidence through a Farsi interpreter. The tribunal found that:

No financial ledger was kept for individual files, at least none that we have seen, nor was much of the correspondence routinely stored on a central file. The most likely conclusion considering the overall evidence is that both transactions and correspondence were collated from the relevant sources (bank statements, email accounts, WhatsApp on a mobile device, etc) in response to OISC’s investigation rather than being contemporaneously recorded on a file. That disorganisation was reflected in Mr Kesejini’s answers. He showed little understanding of criticisms put to him on file and practice organisation, or why matters that OISC expects to be in correspondence, for example assessments of prospects of success, should be there.

Several examples were given in support of the above.

The appellant disputed that he had ever told Dr Maham that the prospects of his application succeeding were 100%. The tribunal found that the appellant had not deliberately misled Dr Maham, but concluded that he had failed to explain what the prospects of success actually were or what the timescales were. This vagueness was capable to leading Dr Maham to believe that his prospects of success were 100% and that the matter would be concluded within three months.

The tribunal found a breach of code 4 of the 2016 Code of Standards. Making matters worse for the appellant, an audit in March 2020 had specifically raised concerns about a failure to clearly communicate advice on prospects, yet the conduct had been repeated.

Concerns had also been raised about a breach of code 8, which states that organisations must ensure that that unauthorised people are not providing immigration advice or services on their behalf. An individual called Mr Afjari had been emailing clients with advice, the email stating at the bottom that he was supervised by Mr Kesejini. The tribunal stated that it had “unallayed serious concerns with Mr Afjari’s presence in SIS and his influence over it” and concluded that there had been a serious breach of the code.

Failure to provide Ms Kimiyaee with a client care letter was deemed “significantly aggravated” by the fact this issue had been raised in two previous audits. The lack of a complaints handling procedure in the client care letter sent to Dr Maham was also deemed a significant breach, with the tribunal describing the appellant’s assertion that the letter did comply as “unreal”. Further breaches were found in relation to the drafting of the business plan.

More serious breaches were found in relation to the failure to keep funds in a separate client account and failure to keep accurate and complete financial records.

An alleged breach of code 10, taking advantage of a client’s vulnerability, was dismissed by the tribunal as were alleged breaches of codes 34 and 53. An allegation of fraud relating to the £100,000 was dismissed as unproven, as Mr Kesejini had asserted that he was in fact the victim and that he had not requested or received the money. The tribunal concluded that the commissioner had not met its burden of proof in respect of this allegation.

The tribunal pointed out that cancellation is mandatory for the commissioner under paragraph 4A(e) of schedule 6 to the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 where the commissioner “considers that the person is no longer competent or is otherwise unfit to provide immigration advice or immigration services”.

With reference to Visa Joy Ltd v Office of the Immigration Services Commissioner [2017] EWCA Civ 1473, the tribunal reiterated that its role in the appeal was to determine for itself whether the cancellation decision was right and to determine whether the appellant is fit and competent to provide immigration advice and services, as at the date of the hearing.

Unsurprisingly, given the above, the tribunal found “without hesitation that SIS is not competent and is not fit to provide immigration advice or immigration services”. Cancellation of registration was therefore required under the 1999 Act.

Conclusion

The tribunal concluded by noting that the statutory regime provides only for cancellation of registration where there is a lack of competence or fitness. This means that the tribunal was unable to consider additional action such as a “a limitation on Mr Kesejini providing immigration services and advice other than in the direct employment of, and under the supervision of, another authorised person”. The tribunal said that the commissioner may wish to consider this point further.