Immigration: Ex-barrister repeatedly failed to disclose disbarrment
An ex-barrister who failed to disclose he had been disbarred has failed in a challenge to the Immigration Advice Authority’s (IAA) refusal to register his firm.
Judge Harris in the First-tier Tribunal said Syed Idnaan Ali did not tell the IAA’s predecessor body, the Office of the Immigration Service Commissioner (OISC), that he was being investigated or ultimately disbarred over three applications for registration in four years.
Though immigration law is not a reserved legal activity, those who are not qualified lawyers have to be authorised by the IAA.
Judge Baker said that, in the first application, in 2019, Mr Ali failed to mention that he was “on notice that he was under investigation” by the Bar Standards Board, and then in 2021 that “at least one hearing” by the Bar disciplinary tribunal into his conduct had taken place.
Having been disbarred in January 2022, Mr Ali made a third application to the OISC in August 2023, to register the Welfare Advice Centre at level 1 under the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999.
Again, he answered ‘no’ when asked to declare whether he was the subject of any existing or previous disciplinary proceedings by regulatory authorities or professional bodies, and if he had been involved in “any conduct which may call into question your honesty, integrity or respect for the law”.
The Bar disciplinary tribunal found that Mr Ali met ‘Mr J’ while working at a Birmingham law firm and told him that he would prepare a judicial review claim in relation to his failed asylum application, doing so separately from his work for the firm – even though Mr Ali had no professional client or a licence to conduct public access work.
In any case, he did not pursue the claim, but produced false evidence that he had, and used a false address for the client on the fabricated claim form. He was also found to have been “rude and aggressive” when the client complained.
The IAA eventually refused Mr Ali’s application in July 2025 because of the non-disclosure.
Among his grounds for appeal was that the OISC “failed to give the correct weight to the fact that I have passed the relevant assessment set by the regulator twice” and also to his recent work.
Judge Harris said there was “a significant pattern of behaviour in relation to completion of the IAA’s application forms which causes us concern”.
Another example was Mr Ali describing himself in the 2023 application as an ‘unregistered barrister’. This amounted to holding himself out as a barrister and, given that he had been disbarred, was dishonest, the judge said.
Judge Harris went on: “We consider in repeatedly failing to disclose his disciplinary action and disbarment, matters which were clearly of fundamental importance to any decision on fitness, we cannot be satisfied that he has demonstrated the appropriate readiness and willingness to comply with the requirements and standards of the IAA regulatory system such that we are not satisfied it is more likely than not that he will comply in future.
“We also consider that this does not demonstrate a history of honesty and legal compliance.”
In mitigation, Mr Ali highlighted volunteering and supervised activities he had been involved with, his recovery from previous mental health issues and that he passed the IAA’s competence examinations twice.
“While these are positive points, we consider that they do not outweigh the serious issues set out above.
“No evidence was provided by Mr Ali as to what he had learned from his previous misconduct or how he had rehabilitated himself and he sought to dismiss his non-disclosure (which occurred over the course of four years and three applications) as a simple mistake.
“Consequently, the tribunal could not be satisfied that Mr Ali would not pose a risk to the statutory objective of the [IAA], namely to ensure that all advice seekers receive reliable immigration advice from regulated professionals.”
Leave a Comment