OISC adviser who worked beyond his authorisation loses appeal against cancellation of registration

The First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) has dismissed the appeal against cancellation of the OISC accreditation of an organisation, Anzan Immigration Lawyers, and its sole adviser Mr Ali Rahmanyfar after a large number of breaches of the code of standards. The case is Anzan Immigration Lawyers v Office of the Immigration Services Commissioner [2024] UKFTT 901 (GRC).

Mr Rahmanyfar applied to OISC for registration on 10 September 2021 under the name “Anzan Centre”, this was later changed to “Anzan Immigration Lawyers”. Registration was approved on 18 November 2021.

Mrs Odubela paid Mr Rahmanyfar £4,500 in instalments starting on 3 November 2021, prior to OISC registering the organisation and adviser. The payments were for work relating to her asylum claim after she was misled into believing that “only a lawyer could write her statement and present it to the Home Office” and that this must be done before she could claim asylum. She later found out that free advice was available and the British Red Cross helped her find a legal aid lawyer.

Mrs Odubela then sought a refund on the basis that she had been misled and she also said that no work had actually been done. British Red Cross assisted with a complaint to the adviser who initially denied having been paid at all until receipts were produced following which a refund of £500 was offered.

Mrs Odubela made a complaint to OISC in January 2023. She said that her mental health had deteriorated, her family had also been impacted, and she had waited unnecessarily to make her asylum claim. She sought a refund of the money she had paid to Mr Rahmanyfar.

The investigation by OISC found multiple breaches of the code of standards (since replaced) as well as the provision of unregulated advice and assistance. Both Mr Rahmanyfar and the organisation had been conducting work above OISC level 1. Mr Rahmanyfar’s father had apparently also provided immigration and services relating to Mrs Odubela’s case, despite the fact that he had his OISC registration cancelled and had been prosecuted on 4 April 2010 for giving unregulated immigration advice.

As part of the investigation OISC had obtained a copy of the “Home Office’s application list” which showed that there had been a number of asylum applications submitted by Anzan Immigration Lawyers over several years. This included applications submitted outside this period of registration with OISC and the applications were work beyond that permitted at OISC level 1.

OISC said that “At the first and only initial consultation that should have taken place, Mr Ali Rahmanyfar had two options as a Level 1 adviser, he could have signposted Mrs Odubela to a Legal Aid firm or he could have arranged an appointment at the Home Office’s AIU.” At that point his involvement with the case should have ended.

OISC found that there had been breaches of 19 different codes and cancelled the registration of the organisation and Mr Rahmanyfar on 19 March 2024 effective from 17 April 2024. Mr Rahmanyfar appealed the decision on 20 March 2024.

So many breaches…

I am not covering all of the breaches here as there were so many and I suspect that many of you will be reading the judgment in full (and if you are an OISC adviser you would be well advised to do so).

Mr Rahmanyfar said that he had carried out 6 hours of face to face consultations (over three appointments) and 9 hours and 46 minutes of telephone consultations (over eight appointments) from November 2021 to February 2022. This was done in order to complete a case statement which OISC described as “unnecessary and unhelpful to Mrs Odubela’s asylum claim and merely replicated work that the Asylum Intake Unit (AIU) would have completed in a timelier manner and at no cost”.

The tribunal found that it was “very clear” that Mr Rahmanyfar was carrying out preparation of an asylum statement which is level 2 work, beyond what he was authorised to do. This was regardless of whether he planned to send it to the Home Office or to an authorised level 2 person/organisation to submit.

The tribunal said that Mr Rahmanyfar “also referred to the giving of advice on her asylum claim frequently during his oral evidence, an activity he was not authorised to do”. The tribunal concluded that there had been a “clear breach” of code 3 which is that organisations and advisers must only act within their level of authorisation.

The tribunal held that the failure to advise Mrs Odubela that she could claim asylum herself led to delays which may impact on her credibility with the Home Office. That and the failure to signpost to an appropriate adviser from the start were held to be breaches of code 4 (must be fit and competent within the category authorised), code 5 (must act competently when providing immigration advice or services) and code 12 (must act in client’s best interests). The tribunal reiterated that Mr Rahmanyfar was not obligated to find Mrs Odubela an appropriately qualified advisor but merely to tell her that he could not assist and she needed to find someone else.

There was nothing to show that Mrs Odubela had agreed to Anzan’ terms and conditions or any signed record of a retainer. There was a client care letter that Mrs Odubela denied receiving but no other letters sent to her with an update on progress. The tribunal held that this was a breach of code 29 which said that organisations and advisers must ensure that clients are kept up to date on the progress of their case and at a minimum are updated every three months.

The tribunal found that because of a lack of clarity from the attendance notes as to who had been in attendance on any given date and the amount of time spent that there was a breach of code 7 which is that advisers must clearly identify themselves when giving immigration advice or immigration services.

The tribunal was also satisfied that the adviser’s father was present in at least one of the attendances and that Mrs Odubela’s perception had been that he was providing her with advice. This was held to be a breach of code 8, that organisations must ensure that unauthorised people do not provide immigration advice or services on their behalf.

The tribunal held that there had been a breach of code 61 which is that charges must be reasonable and directly relate to the work done. They said that no typed statement had ever been produced and the work claimed was excessive and there was little evidence that 10 hours had been spent on attendances with Mrs Odubela.

The tribunal also found a breach of code 11, duty not to mislead clients or prospective clients, stating that

Mr Ali Rahmanyfar exploited Mrs Odubela’s lack of knowledge to charge for work which was unnecessary and beyond his authorisation.  It was not possible to identify her as a vulnerable person per se, even though many asylum seekers are vulnerable because of their life experiences.  There was no doubt that she had been misled about the extent to which Mr Ali Rahmanyfar could assist her claim – in reality, he could legitimately do very little.

Another breach was that the money from Mrs Odubela was not paid into and held in a separate client account as was required by code 64.

The tribunal found that an aggravating feature of this case was Mr Rahmanyfar’s “continued failure to understand the limitations of his authorisation” and the fact that he continued to maintain that he had not carried out level 2 work in the face of “overwhelming evidence” to the contrary. He also expressed no regret or remorse during the appeal.

In addition to upholding OISC’s decision and dismissing the appeal, the tribunal used section 89(5) of the Asylum and Immigration Act 1999 to direct that the fees were repaid to Mrs Odubela within 28 days of the decision.

Conclusion

Apart from the obviously egregious elements of this case, this is a reminder of the importance for OISC advisers of only carrying out work which is within their competence. Any advisers who do work they are not appropriately qualified to do will risk damaging their client’s case. Anyone who wants to carry out work at a higher level must raise their accreditation accordingly or risk their (and potentially their organisation’s) registration being cancelled in its entirety.

All OISC level 1’s should review the guidance on competence which sets out work permitted at level 1 on a regular basis and reflect on their practice to ensure that they are acting in accordance with their regulatory requirements and the law, and that compliance is clearly documented on file.