Decision Summary Information

Back to Results | Search Again | Most Recent Decisions

Neutral Citation Number:	2015 UKUT 679 AAC
Reported Number:
File Number:	GIS 5271 2014
Appellant:	IE and VJ
Respondent:	The Immigration Services Commissioner
Judge/Commissioner:	Judge G. Knowles QC
Date Of Decision:	09/12/2015
Date Added:	23/12/2015
Main Category:	Immigration Services
Main Subcategory:	all
Secondary Category:	Tribunal procedure and practice (including UT)
Secondary Subcategory:	tribunal jurisdiction
Notes:	Court of Appeal decision reported as [2018]AACR 8 Immigration Services – to what extent a tribunal was entitled to take account of matters not relied upon by the original decision-maker The appellant, a regulated provider of immigration advice and services under the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, had their application for continued registration refused by the Office of the Immigration Services Commissioner, the relevant regulator of immigration advisors, based on the Commissioner’s adverse findings upon the appellant’s sister company. The First-tier Tribunal (F-tT) refused the appellant’s appeal having taken into account material that had not been relied upon by the respondent. The appellant appealed to the Upper Tribunal (UT) and the primary question was to what extent, if any, a tribunal was entitled to take account of matters that were not relied upon by the original decision-maker. There were conflicting UT authorities on the point. In AE v The Commissioner for Immigration Services [2015] UKUT 450 the UT had held that a tribunal did not have the power to re-open complaints determined by the original decision-maker when dealing with an appeal concerning registration but the contrary conclusion had been reached in the case of KMI v The Immigration Services Commissioner [2013] UKUT 520 (AAC). The UT in the instant case followed KMI and the appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal. Held, dismissing the appeal, that: 1. the wider interpretation of the role of the tribunal on an appeal under section 87 of the 1999 Act in KMI and the present case was correct. It was to be a full appeal and not simply a review of the exercise by the respondent of its decision-making power. It was necessary for the F-tT to determine for itself whether the respondent’s decision was right and to determine (as will normally be the case) whether the applicant was, at the date of the tribunal hearing, fit and competent to provide immigration and advice and services. The tribunal will consider all relevant and admissible evidence, whether or not it was known to, or taken account by, the respondent when making its decision on the issue of continued registration (paragraph 41 to 43); 2. the approach taken by the F-tT in AE to the effect that it was not a function of the tribunal to re-examine the merits of complaints or otherwise “go behind” a finding of the Office of the Immigration Services Commissioner, was wrong. The analysis of the UT in AE was not good law and was not to be followed (paragraphs 47 to 49).
Decision(s) to Download:	GIS 5271 2014-00.doc [2018] AACR 8.ws.rtf