Welfare Advice Centre v The Immigration Services Commissioner [2026] UKFTT 146 (GRC)

[2026] UKFTT 00146 (GRC)Case Reference: FT/IMS/2025/0007
First-tier Tribunal
(General Regulatory Chamber)
Hearing Heard on: 26 January 2026Date 30 January 2026
Immigration Services
Heard by Cloud Video Platform
Before
JUDGE HARRISMEMBER RENSHAW
Between
WELFARE ADVICE CENTREAppellantTHE IMMIGRATION SERVICES COMMISSIONERRespondentSyed Ali, representing himself for AppellantFairouz Fadhl for RespondentDecision: The appeal is DismissedREASONS

Background to the appeal

[2]This is an appeal pursuant to section 87(2) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (“The Act”) which concerns a decision made by the Immigration Services Commissioner (the “Commissioner”). The Office of the Immigration Service Commissioner (“OISC”) has recently been renamed the Immigration Advice Authority (“IAA”).[3]The Commissioner decided on 22 July 2025 to refuse the Welfare Advice Centre (“WAC”) and Syed Idnaan Ali’s (together “the Appellant”) application for registration at Level 1 under Schedule 6 of the Act (the “Decision”). Agreed facts[4]The Appellant applied for Level 1 IAA registration on 1 August 2023 (the “Application”)[5]The Commissioner refused the Application for the reasons set out in paragraphs 8-37 of its Decision notice dated 22 July 2025. These reasons related to fitness issues.[6]Having considered the Appellant’s Notice of Appeal and grounds, the following facts are not in dispute: 1. The Application was for registration at Level 1 under Schedule 6 of the Act in the categories of ‘Immigration’ and ‘Asylum and Protection’. The adviser named in the application was Syed Idnaan Ali. 2. The principles applied by the Commissioner are found in the Act. Pursuant to Section 83 (5) of the Act: "The Commissioner must exercise his functions so as to secure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that those who provide immigration advice or immigration services- (a) are fit and competent to do so.” 3. The Commissioner sets out the standards of fitness expected of advisers in the following document: Guidance on fitness (Advisers) https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploa ds/attachment_data/file/510309/fitness_2016.pdf 4. The IAA criteria for assessing fitness are: 1. The likelihood of compliance with the IAA's Regulatory Scheme 2. A history of honesty and legal compliance; and 3. A history of financial probity. 5. The Commissioner states that they consider the following matters outlined in his document “Guidance on fitness (Advisers)” are particularly relevant to this refusal: 1. If the person has been, or is currently, the subject of any investigation or disciplinary proceedings or any potential proceedings or investigation which might lead to such proceedings by the IAA or by other regulatory authorities, professional bodies or government bodies or agencies in the UK or abroad. 2. If the person has committed serious, several or repeated breaches of the IAA's regulations or the equivalent standards or requirements of other regulatory authorities, professional bodies or agencies in the UK or abroad 3. If the person or any business with which they have been involved has been investigated, criticised, disciplined, or suspended by a regulatory body, or professional body, a court or Tribunal, whether publicly or privately. 4. Any evidence that the person has not been candid or truthful in their dealings with any regulatory body or has failed to demonstrate a readiness and willingness to comply with the requirements and standards of the IAA regulatory system or with any other legal, regulatory and professional requirements and standards. 6. In consideration of all the circumstances, the Commissioner decided to refuse WAC and Mr Ali’s Application for regulation on the grounds of fitness. 7. The Commissioner was not satisfied that WAC and Mr Ali are fit to provide immigration advice and/or services due to the following reasons: 1. The circumstances of and failure to disclose Mr Ali’s disbarment by the Bar Standards Board (BSB) following a Bar Tribunal and Adjudication Services (BTAS) disciplinary tribunal decision on 7 January 2022. 2. Mr Ali’s history of honesty and legal compliance following two previous refusals of applications for regulation. 8. On the form for the Application received on 1 August 2023 Mr Ali failed to declare that he had been subject to a BSB investigation into providing unregulated legal services to a client for a judicial review application in respect to an asylum matter in 2018. Mr Ali failed to declare that he was subsequently disbarred by the BSB on 7 January 2022 following a BTAS disciplinary hearing. 9. Records published by the BSB shows the BSB made a decision to disbar Mr Ali on 7 January 2022 following a disciplinary tribunal, “for professional misconduct, contrary to rC8, rS24, Core Duty 3 and 5 of the Conduct Rules; part 2 and 3 of the Bar Standards Boards’s Handbook of England and Wales (3rd edition) “ Their press release stated “Syed Idnaan Ali was ordered to be disbarred by an independent disciplinary tribunal” (the independent BarTribunals and Adjudication Service (BTAS) “which concluded on 7 January 2022 following charges of professional misconduct brought by the Bar Standards Board (BSB).” As a sanction Syed Ali was “Disbarred, reprimanded and prevented from obtaining a practicing certificate for 12 months. Prohibited from obtaining a practising certificate pending appeal. (Sentence effective from 27 April 2022)” and “Syed Idnaan Ali was required to pay costs of £1560” 10. As a result of the actions above the BSB found Mr Ali had failed to act with honesty and with integrity and to have “behaved in a way which was likely to diminish the trust and confidence which the public places in him or in the profession”. The Commissioner concurs with the findings of the BSB. 11. Further the BSB found “on or about 13 December 2018, in a meeting with X, Mr Ali became rude and aggressive.” As a result of this behaviour the BSB found Mr Ali had “behaved in a way which was likely to diminish the trust and confidence which the public places in him or in the profession” and “behaved in way which could reasonably be seen by the public to undermine his honesty and integrity”. 12. As required as part of the Application Mr Ali submitted two forms. The first form titled “Organisation’s application for regulation” was dated 18 July 2023. In this Mr Ali, who at the time was director of WAC, declared no to both of the following questions: 1. Have you been, or are you, the subject of any existing or previousdisciplinary proceedings by regulatory authorities or professional bodies in the UK or abroad? 2. Have you ever been involved in any conduct which may call into question your honesty, integrity or respect for the law? 13. On the second form titled “New Adviser Application and Competence Statement” also dated 18 July 2023 Mr Ali declared no to each of the following questions: 1. Have you been, or are you, the subject of any existing or previous disciplinary proceedings by regulatory authorities or professional bodies in the UK or abroad? 2. Have you, or any business of which you have been an owner or manager, been the subject of any substantiated complaint related to regulatory activities? 3. Have you, or any business with which you have been involved, ever been refused the right to carry out a trade, business or profession requiring a licence, registration or other authority, or have had had thatauthorisation revoked, withdrawn or terminated, or has been expelled by a regulatory or government body? 4. Have you, or any business with which you have been involved, been investigated, disciplined, censured or suspended or criticised by a regulatory or professional body, a court or Tribunal, whether publicly or privately? 14. Mr Ali did, however, answer yes to the question - Have you ever been declared bankrupt? 15. When questioned by the Commissioner about the non-disclosure of his BSB disbarment, Mr Ali confirmed he had been disbarred in January 2022 and was awaiting directions from the High Court, after lodging an appeal in relation to the matter in October 2023. Mr Ali confirmed the BSB’s decision to charge him, was forwarded to him in October 2021 and related to his behaviour in 2019. (Documents confirm this relates to behaviour in 2018) Mr Ali submitted documents showing he previously lodged an appeal to the High Court in January 2022 which was dismissed on 7 April 2022. 16. Mr Ali stated that between late 2018 and mid 2022 he was in a state of cognitive impairment which affected him and his ability to represent himself in disciplinary proceedings. Mr Ali submitted documents, including a psychological report dated 14 August 2023 by Dr Bhatti who had a consultation with Mr Ali on 4 August 2023, to provide details of his impaired mental state at the time of the BTAS hearing in preparation for an appeal of that decision. Dr Bhatti noted in the report that Mr Ali declaredfollowing treatment and support, he had worked hard to manage his mental health and now felt “in a stronger mental space”. The consultation took place three days after Mr Ali lodged his application for registration with the Commissioner and declared himself fit to provide immigration advice and services. 17. Mr Ali has confirmed the BSB informed him of their decision to lay disciplinary charges against him in October 2021 after a delay. Mr Ali submitted a copy of the BTAS report which showed Mr Ali attended his Disciplinary Tribunal on 30 November and 1 December 2021. 18. Mr Ali stated that in relation to his current application he had contacted the IAA’s Regional Officer. “I had explained the background of my BSB disbarnment (sic) and that I had not declared this until the Disbarnment (sic) Order was received by myself, I was advised that no amendment could be made to my current application”. Mr Ali stated he was advised that he would be given the opportunity to make any declarations “and respond to the investigation against my application”. Mr Ali asked not to be unjustly penalised for something which was not his fault as he was following instructions to wait from the IAA. Mr Ali asked that personal struggles he faced (at the time of the complaint) and had overcome, be taken into consideration. Mr Ali stated he was trustworthy and would endeavour to follow any rules or conditions set by the Commissioner 19. The IAA has no record that Mr Ali has mentioned his BSB disbarment to any officer until he was asked to explain why he had not declared this on his applications. 20. Mr Ali has twice previously been refused regulation by the Commissioner, in relation to applications in 2019 and 2021. 21. Mr Ali and WAC applied for regulation on 30 December 2021. Mr Ali provided the correct DBS certificate on this application and declared he was at the time bankrupt. He also declared the BSB had previously sanctioned him for not disclosing his bankruptcy to them despite being under an obligation to do so. For this reason, Mr Ali received a warning from the BSB for breaching the BSB handbook. Mr Ali’s application and that of WAC was refused by theCommissioner on 8 August 2022 for a failure by Mr Ali to inform the Commissioner of the facts and circumstances regarding his prior bankruptcy. Mr Ali was required, and ought to have submitted, the bankruptcy documents requested by the Commissioner and had multiple opportunities to provide the documents over the course of just over two months but failed to comply with the Commissioner’s request. This past behaviour makes the Commissioner unconfident that Mr Ali would comply with the Commissioner's scheme. The Appeal[7]Mr Ali, on behalf of himself and WAC, appealed the Decision to the Tribunal by form GRC1 dated 2 August 2025. In summary he made the following points: 1. Paragraph 2 of the Decision indicates that Mr Syed Ali was the sole director of WAC and this is incorrect. 2. Paragraphs 10,11,13,14 & 20 of the Decision “address correctly my failure to disclose the sanctions placed on myself by the BSB at the time of submission of this application. I admit and regret not declaring this from the outset and confirm it was an honest mistake.It is my claim that I did attempt to make these declarations soon after but was unable to after the submission of my application due to the ongoing investigation from the OISC regarding providing unauthorised immigration advice” 3. Mr Ali disputes that he should have also made these declarations in his previous applications as alleged in paragraph 10 of the Decision, as he says that he was not subject to the disbarment at that time. 4. Mr Ali says the BSB’s finding relating to his disbarment that “Syed Ali, a BSB regulated person and unregistered barrister, supplied legal services without a professional client, without a licensed access or public access client, in that, on a date between 1 June 2018 and 25 September 2018, Mr Ali told X that Mr Ali would prepare a judicial review claim for him”, as set out in paragraph 12 of the Decision, is factually incorrect. Mr Ali states at the time he was working full time as a caseworker under the supervision of a senior solicitor at a firm of solicitors. He says that the allegation of the use of a false address was investigated and dismissed by the BSB. 5. Mr Ali says the Commissioner has at paragraph 19 of the Decision “failed to give the correct weight to the fact that I have passed the relevant assessment set by the regulator twice and my recent activities which should be taken into consideration” 6. In relation to the finding at paragraph 21 that Mr Ali had been charged by the BSB in October 2021 and subject to disciplinary proceedings by BTAS held on 30 November 2021 and 1 December 2021 before he lodged his previous application, therefore his nondisclosure of this was dishonest, Mr Ali submits this is factually incorrect. 7. Paragraph 22 of the Decision in relation to a conversation Mr Ali says he had with the IAA’s Regional Officer is challenged as partially incorrect. 8. Paragraph 26 of the Decision, which deals with the procedural history of a previous application is challenged entirely “as during the subsequent appeal it was shown that the OISC had failed to process the application due to their error. Further the OISC failed to follow the Directions given at that First Tier Tribunal” 9. Mr Ali says that the Commissioner has failed to confirm that at the time of the disbarment he was working full time as a caseworker under the supervision of a senior solicitor at a firm of solicitors, of which he says the Commissioner was aware. 10. Overall, Mr Ali submitted that “the IAA is incorrect of its factual assessment which is not line with the policy of the scheme”.[8]The Commissioner filed a brief response to the Appeal on 4 September 2025 which stated that they relied on the Decision. The Commissioner’s detailed response to the points of appeal raised by the Appellant was set out in the witness statement of Gemma Croome-Cooper dated 23 October 2025. In summary this made the following points: 1. At the time of submitting the Application on 1 August 2023, Mr Ali was the sole director of WAC. This position changed subsequently when he resigned in November 2023 but was correct at the point of applying. Mr Ali remained involved in the organisation and was the sole applicant adviser. 2. It is not accepted that Mr Ali was prevented from declaring his disbarment after submitting his Application by section 91 investigations by the IAA into unauthorised immigration advice. He was notified of a separate investigation in January 2024. 3. Mr Ali asked the Commissioner to decide on his Application for regulation prior to any matters from this criminal investigation being put to him, although he was advised and knew that this would result in a refusal. 4. The IAA expects applicant advisers to answer all declarations on the application forms honestly. 5. At the time of his application in December 2021 (the “2021 application”), Mr Ali was waiting for the result of his BTAS hearing and was aware of the fact he was the subject of existing disciplinary proceedings but did not disclose this. 6. At the time of his application in October 2019 (the “2019 application”), the BSB had written to Mr Ali to confirm he was under investigation in March 2019, but he did not disclose this. 7. The BSB’s published record of the offence includes the following wording “Mr Ali told X that Mr Ali would prepare a judicial review claim for him. In furtherance of that claim, Mr Ali used a false address unknown to X, provided by Mr Ali, which address Mr Ali knew to be a false address and which he nevertheless used dishonestly in providing legal services to X”. 8. The Application was refused on grounds of fitness not competence, so the fact he had passed the competence assessment was not relevant. 9. Mr Ali’s appeal to the Tribunal described in paragraph 26 of the Decision was struck out. 10. The reason for the refusal is not related to Mr Ali’s previous bankruptcy but due to the circumstances and non-disclosure of the BSB/TBTAS disciplinary findings and the history of Mr Ali’s dishonesty and non-compliance. Legal framework[9]The Immigration & Asylum Act 1999 (“the Act”) provides a scheme for regulation of immigration advisers. The Office of the Immigration Services Commissioner (now renamed the IAA) is established by section 83 of the Act, and the Commissioner has a general duty to promote good practice by those who provide immigration advice or immigration services. The Commissioner also has certain regulatory functions set out in Schedule 5 to Part 1 of the Act.[10]The Commissioner must exercise their functions so as to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that those who provide immigration advice and services are inter alia, “fit and competent to do so” [Section 83(5)(a)] and “act in the best interests of their clients” [Section 83(5)(b)].[11]Section 84(1) of the Act provides that “No person may provide immigration advice or immigration services unless he is a qualified person”. A qualified person is defined in section 84(2) to include:
“(a)A registered person … (ba) [A person] authorised to provide immigration and advice or immigration services by a designated qualifying regulator (e) [A person] acting on behalf of, and under the supervision of, a person within any of the paragraphs (a) to (d) (whether or not under a contract of employment).”
[12]The reference to a registered person in section 84(2)(a) is reference to a person who is registered with the Commissioner under section 85 of the Act. A person’s entitlement to provide immigration advice or immigration services by virtue of sub-section (2)(b) “Is subject to any limitation on that person’s authorisation imposed by the regulatory arrangements of the designated qualifying regulator in question …” (section 84(3A)). By section 86A of the Act a “designated qualifying regulator” includes “the Institute of Legal Executives”.[13]By section 85, the Commissioner must prepare and maintain a register of those persons registered by it to provide immigration advice and services. The system of registration is established under Schedule 6 of the Act. If the Commissioner considers that an applicant for registration is “competent and otherwise fit to provide immigration advice and immigration services”, they must register that applicant. Equally, the Commissioner must cancel a person’s registration if they consider that a person “is no longer competent or otherwise unfit to provide immigration advice or immigration services”. No further definition is provided by the Act as to what is meant by “competent or otherwise [un]fit”.[14]Schedule 5 of the Act provides that the Commissioner may make rules regulating any aspect of the professional practice, conduct or discipline of registered persons. These rules are known as the Immigration Service Commissioner’s Rules. The same schedule provides for the Commissioner to issue a Code of Standards, which apply to any person providing immigration advice or immigration services. “It is the duty of any person to whom the code applies, to comply with its provisions in providing immigration advice or immigration services” (paragraph 3(4) to schedule 5 to the Act).[15]An appeal process is provided for, so that “any person aggrieved by a relevant decision of the Commissioner may appeal to the First-tier Tribunal against the decision” (section 87(2)). The refusal of an application for registration made under Schedule 6 of the Act is a relevant decision.[16]The appeal is to the First-tier Tribunal and is a full appeal and not simply a review of the exercise by the Commissioner of their decision-making power. In an appeal it is necessary for the Tribunal to determine for itself whether the Commissioner’s decision was right and, in the circumstances of the instant case, to determine whether the applicant is, as of the date of the Tribunal hearing, fit and competent to provide immigration advice and services to the specified level. In doing so, the Tribunal will consider all relevant admissible evidence whether or not it was known to or taken into account by the Commissioner when making their decision (Visa Joy Ltd v Immigration Services Commissioner [2017] EWCA Civ 1473). The burden is on the appellant, the standard of proof being to the balance of probabilities. The evidence[17]The Tribunal considered a bundle of 444 pages. This included the Appellant’s documents as well as the Respondent’s. There was a short delay to the hearing while the Appellant downloaded a copy of the bundle.[18]The Tribunal had a witness statement and heard oral evidence from Mr Ali, who was also cross-examined by Ms Fadhl. In summary, he made the following additional points in his evidence and submissions: 1. He accepted that he should have declared his disbarment in his Application and regrets not having done so. He said there was no actual reason for him not having done so, but he did declare it at the next available opportunity and presented the whole file to the IAA. He said this was a mistake and he was unwell at the time. 2. He repeatedly commented that the IAA has not provided him with details of criminal investigation under section 91 about him and has not provided him with charges or any opportunity to state his case. He described the investigation as a “fishing expedition” and noted that service users of WAC have been approached for comment. 3. He argued that the IAA has not followed the directions of this Tribunal in his appeal of the 2021 application decision, which obliged the Commissioner to accept a resubmitted application. The IAA delayed doing so which meant that Mr Ali had to resit his competency assessment. 4. He stated that he had had a poor experience with the IAA which has delayed unfairly, making him wait for more than a year for a decision on the Application, and had not assisted him with making his application. 5. When asked about the 2021 application and why he had not declared his disbarment, he explained that there was a big delay with TBTAS and many hearings back and forth. 6. He accepted that the BSB/TBTAS hearing was as a result of the BSB’s investigation into his involvement with immigration services in 2018. He had been working under supervision at that time, and the focus was not on whether he was giving advice unlawfully, but that he was found dishonest for not disclosing all facts to TBTAS. 7. He accepted that he was familiar with the IAA’s guidance on fitness and that advisers should be fit and competent. 8. He considers that apart from the declaration he has followed all instructions from the IAA and waited patiently for over a year before demanding a conclusion and complaining. Since then, he considers his attitude in relation to the IAA is exemplary. 9. The declaration on the Application was made at a time when he was unwell; if he was as he is now he would ensure that this mistake never happened again. 10. He considers that the Commissioner has penalised him more harshly than expected in its assessment of his Application. He also alleged that the IAA had misled him when telling him it was reconsidering its decision, which he thought meant the decision would change. The IAA made him feel like it was going to assist him with his application and then refused him. 11. The Commissioner has failed to mention any positive element, for example about the declarations he made about the BSB disbarment. Previous published cases on fitness to practice focused on competence, whereas he has passed the competence assessment twice.[19]The Tribunal had the benefit of a witness statement and heard oral evidence from Ms Gemma Croome-Cooper, the IAA’s employee who assessed the application. When cross examined by Mr Ali, Ms Croome-Cooper made the following points: 1. She said that this application took a long time, but that most applicants are not subject to a section 91 investigation. The IAA would normally have allowed that to conclude before making a decision on the Application. However, Mr Ali was insistent that he wished the Application to be determined without further delay and she considered there was sufficient to make a decision to refuse without waiting for the investigation to conclude. 2. She is not the investigating officer for the section 91 investigation; this is one of her colleagues who works in the same region but whom she does not line manage and to whom she denies saying she was senior. 3. When making the decision on the Application, she referred this upward to her line manager and the Director of Operations, who approved it. 4. The fact that there was an ongoing investigation meant that decisions about adding further advisers to the Application could not be considered at that time. 5. When taken to an email dated 19 June 2025 in which she stated “As a priority I shall review your responses and reconsider my recommendation and forward this to my manager for review”, she denied that this indicated she was minded to change her decision as suggested by Mr Ali, but simply meant that she was taking into account the recently received information. 6. She said that Mr Ali only confirmed his disbarment with her when she put it to him.[20]The Tribunal had witness statements from Mr Jaden Singh and Ms Jaspreet Kaur who were witnesses for the Appellant. Unfortunately, neither of them was able to attend the hearing and the Appellant asked that we proceed in their absence. The fact that they were not available for cross-examination means that the Tribunal placed limited weight on their evidence. The oral hearing[21]The hearing was held remotely by Cloud Video Platform (CVP) and the Tribunal was satisfied that it was fair and in the interests of justice to proceed in this way. Discussion and conclusions Factual issues[22]Although many facts were agreed, there were a number of factual issues in dispute which were raised which we need to determine. We conclude as follows: 1. Mr Ali argued that it was incorrect to say he was the sole director of WAC. Having reviewed the evidence of Ms Croome-Cooper, whom we found to be a straightforward and honest witness, and the printouts from Companies House in the bundle, we were satisfied that it is correct that Mr Ali was, at the point of making the Application in August 2023, in fact the sole director. Mr Singh resigned as director in June 2023, and Ms Kaur was not appointed until November 2023. 2. We find that at the time of making the application in 2019, Mr Ali was on notice that he was under investigation by the BSB. At the time of the 2021 application, at least one hearing of the BTAS had taken place. At the time of making the Application Mr Ali was aware he had been disbarred. On none of these occasions did he disclose this by responding yes to the appropriate questions on the application form. In addition, we find that on the Application New Adviser Competence Statement submitted in 2023, Mr Ali, when asked if he had ever been a barrister stated “Yes, I am an unregistered barrister”. We consider that this amounts to holding himself out as a barrister at a point where he knew he had been disbarred, which we find to be dishonest. 3. We disagree with the assertion by Mr Ali that the allegation of the use of a false address was investigated and dismissed by the BSB. This is because the BSB’s published details for the disbarment at page 368 of the bundle refer explicitly to the use of a false address. 4. We disagree with Mr Ali’s argument that the IAA failed to comply with the directions of this Tribunal when he appealed the decision of the 2021 application. Mr Ali stated in the hearing that the Tribunal had directed him to amend his letter of authority and that if he made the amendments then his application would be approved. We find that as a matter of fact this is incorrect. Judge McKenna stated in the reasons for her directions dated 12 January 2023, which were made without a hearing, at paragraph 7 “However, I observe that there is much to recommend the Regulator’s suggestion that a fresh application, including all the facts, could be made and I hope that the Appellant will consider the cost implications for all parties and the Tribunal of proceeding to a hearing when this alternative course could be adopted. If the Applicant chooses this option, then this appeal should be promptly withdrawn.”. The Tribunal made no direction to the effect that the Appellant must withdraw, or that the Commissioner must grant any subsequent application. Similarly, based on the evidence of Ms Croome-Cooper, we do not agree with Mr Ali’s assertion that the IAA misled him into thinking it would change its view on his Application after he submitted further information in May and June 2025 . 5. We find that any investigation being carried out by the IAA into Mr Ali or WAC under section 91 is separate from its consideration of his application for registration. It appears to us that the investigation is ongoing and has not yet concluded. This is not the reason relied on by the Commissioner for refusing the Application. Legal issues[23]The key issue before the Tribunal is whether the Commissioner was correct to conclude that WAC and Syed Ali are not fit to provide immigration advice and/or services at Level 1 pursuant to section 83(5)(a) because of: 1. The circumstances of and failure to disclose disbarment by the BSB following a BTAS disciplinary tribunal decision on 8 January 2022; and 2. Mr Ali’s history of honesty and legal compliance following two previous refusals of applications for regulation.[24]The Tribunal has to determine this question afresh and may take into account information and evidence which was not previously before the Respondent when the initial decision to refuse was made.[25]The Tribunal’s starting point is the criteria set out in the Guidance on fitness for advisers and, to the extent it is relevant, owners. We do not consider that financial probity is in issue here; Mr Ali has previously been bankrupt, but this is now discharged. We must therefore consider whether we are satisfied that, when taken as a whole, he has a history of honesty and legal compliance and/or whether we are satisfied that it is more likely than not that he will comply with the IAA’s regulatory scheme.[26]The factors in the IAA’s guidance which we consider to be particularly relevant are as follows: 1. If the person has been, or is currently, the subject of any investigation or disciplinary proceedings or any potential proceedings or investigation which might lead to such proceedings by the IAA or by other regulatory authorities, professional bodies or government bodies or agencies in the UK or abroad 2. If the person has committed serious, several or repeated breaches of the IAA's regulations or the equivalent standards or requirements of other regulatory authorities, professional bodies, or government bodies or agencies 3. If the person has been refused the right to carry out a trade, business or profession requiring a licence, registration or other authority, or has had their authorisation revoked, withdrawn or terminated, or has been expelled by a regulatory or government body 4. If the person or any business with which they have been involved has been investigated, criticised, disciplined, censured or suspended by a regulatory or professional body, a court or Tribunal, whether publicly or privately 5. Any evidence that the person has not been candid or truthful in their dealings with any regulatory body or has failed to demonstrate a readiness and willingness to comply with the requirements and standards of the IAA regulatory system or with any other legal, regulatory and professional requirements and standards.[27]Mr Ali was disbarred by the BSB in January 2022 for professional misconduct connected with the provision of immigration services and/or advice, which is directly relevant to the regulation he seeks through the Application. The allegations which were made against him and proven beyond reasonable doubt are serious ones, which involve dishonesty and a lack of integrity. According to the transcript of the TBTAS hearing at page 197 of the bundle, Mr Ali on that occasion accepted the allegations against him and stated that he had made a mistake from which he had learned. He has clearly therefore been investigated and disciplined by his professional body and regulator for serious misconduct, resulting in his disbarment and inability to carry on business as a barrister. This does not, in our view, demonstrate a history of honesty and legal compliance.[28]We note a significant pattern of behaviour in relation to completion of the IAA’s application forms which causes us concern. We find that by ticking no and failing to declare on his application forms in response to direct questions about whether he was or had been investigated by a professional body or regulator that in 2019 he was under investigation, in 2021 that he was subject to disciplinary proceedings and in 2023 that he was disbarred, Mr Ali has not been candid and/or truthful with the IAA. 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.[29]Although not relied on by the Commissioner, we also note that Mr Ali is currently subject to a section 91 investigation by the IAA, which is ongoing.[30]Against this we need to consider the mitigating evidence provided by Mr Ali. In his correspondence with the IAA in June and July 2025, Mr Ali confirmed the volunteering and supervised activities he had been involved with and the names of his supervisors. He stated that since his full recovery from his previous illness he had had no mental health issues whatsoever. He noted that he passed the IAA’s competence examinations twice. He also stated that he has children to whom he attempts to be an exemplary role model. 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 Respondent, namely to ensure that all advice seekers receive reliable immigration advice from regulated professionals.[31]For all these reasons we concluded that WAC and Mr Ali are not currently fit to provide immigration advice and that the Commissioner was correct to refuse the Application.[32]Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.