Neo Atlas Limited v The Immigration Services Commissioner [2026] UKFTT 335 (GRC)

[2026] UKFTT 00335 (GRC)Case Reference: FT/IMS/2025/0014
First-tier Tribunal
(General Regulatory Chamber)
Date 09 March 2026
Immigration Services
Decided without a hearing
Before
JUDGE HARRIS
Between
NEO ATLAS LIMITEDAppellantTHE IMMIGRATION SERVICES COMMISSIONERRespondentDecision: The Appeal is struck out under Rule 8(2)(a) because the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to deal with it and under Rule 8(3)(c) because there is no reasonable prospect of it succeeding.REASONS

Background to the Appeal

[1]These proceedings concern an appeal against a decision of the Immigration Services Commissioner (the “Commissioner”) dated 12 December 2025 (reference Z000038900) to refuse the Appellant’s application for registration at level 1 under Schedule 5 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (“the Act”). The sole adviser named in the application, Mr Chi Yuen Chan, is a level 1 registered adviser for immigration only with a separate organisation registered with the Immigration Advice Authority (“IAA”).[2]On 17 September 2025, Mr Chan applied to register his own organisation, Neo Atlas Limited (“the Appellant company”).[3]In accordance with the IAA Guidance for Registration applicants must have valid leave to remain and right to work in the United Kingdom for a minimum of 18 months at the point of application.[4]At the point of submitting his application, Mr Chan’s leave to remain was valid until 6 May 2026. Therefore, Mr Chan had 7 months and 19 days leave to remain in the UK when applying to register his own organisation. As such, at the point of making his application, Mr Chan did not have 18 months leave to remain in the UK.[5]When applying for registration, the onus is on the applicant to demonstrate to the Commissioner that they have the necessary leave to remain at the time of making their application.[6]Applicants are required to adhere to the Commissioner’s application requirements. The IAA Guidance for Registration is available to all applicants at the time of making their application. Therefore, all of the application requirements were known to Mr Chan at the time, including the leave to remain requirement. In this case, Mr Chan could not show that he fulfilled the leave to remain requirement.[7]In those circumstances, the Commissioner refused the Appellant’s application for registration on 12 December 2025 (the “Decision”).

The Appeal

[8]Mr Chan lodged an appeal with the Tribunal by way of form GRC1 dated 17 December 2025. He stated that the outcome he was seeking was as follows:
“I am looking for allowing the appeal, setting aside the decision and reopening the application in expedition. If the Commissioner agrees that their published guidance did not mention the requirement clearly but lack the power to overturn, I am looking for the full refund of application fees.”
[9]In his grounds for the appeal, Mr Chan, in summary, made the following points:a. He accepts that he has limited time to stay in the UK, as he is on a British National (Overseas) Visa which expires on 6 May 2025. He explained in his application that he intends to apply for settlement in early April 2026.b. He argues that the limited leave to remain is not relevant to an application for a company to be registered with the IAA as it is not set out in the Act. He has been a level 1 adviser since 2024 and does not consider that he will need to apply for personal registration again.c. He believes the Commissioner used the wrong guidance when making the Decision and that this was not picked up earlier in the application process. IN particular there was nothing on the IAA’s online application portal to warn him or prevent him from submitting his application.

The strike-out application

[10]The Commissioner applied by way of form GRC5 dated 22 January 2026 to strike out the Appeal on the basis that there is no reasonable prospect of it succeeding under Rule 8(3)(c) (the “strike-out application”).[11]The reasons which the Commissioner gave for striking out the appeal, in summary, were as follows:a. the process of registering a company at Companies House is an entirely different and separate process to an entity applying to the IAA for registration. By submitting his application, Mr Chan is applying for the Appellant company, Neo Atlas Limited, to be registered to provide immigration advice and/or service under the IAA’s regulatory scheme.b. Although the Commissioner acknowledges Mr Chan’s intention of applying for settlement status in early April 2026, there is no guarantee, at this stage, that the application will ultimately be successful. An applicant is required to have 18 months leave to remain in the UK at the point of making their application. The fact that Mr Chan intends to submit a future immigration application does not satisfy this requirement. It is entirely open to Mr Chan to apply to the IAA for registration again after, and in the event, that he is granted settlement status.c. Although the requirement for applicants to have at least 18 months leave to remain in the UK at the point of their application is not specifically stated in the Act; the Act does give the Commissioner discretion to specify that applications be accompanied by such information and supporting evidence, as the Commissioner may from time to time determine. The Commissioner requires applicants to have at least 18 months of valid leave to remain in the UK at the point of application. In this case, Mr Chan did not meet this requirement.d. The IAA expects applicants to be aware of all the requirements before submitting their application. As stated above, the IAA Guidance of Registration was available to Mr Chan before he submitted his application. As such, Mr Chan either knew or should have known of these requirements. Nevertheless, Mr Chan chose to submit his application irrespective of this.e. Mr Chan informed the Tribunal on 22 January 2026 that he does not currently intend to operate the Appellant company as an immigration advice business.[12]I directed on 4 February 2026 that the Appellant should provide representations in relation to the strike out application by 19 February 2026 under Rule 8(4).[13]Mr Chan made submissions by email dated 5 February 2026, so I am satisfied that the Appellant has had an opportunity to make representations on the proposed striking out under rule 8(4). The points made by Mr Chan, in summary, were as follows:a. A formal refusal of registration is a "black mark" on his professional record as in future, he will always have to declare that he was refused registration. If that refusal was based on a mistake or an unfair policy, he has a right to have it corrected now so it does not damage his reputation or future ability to start a business or work in this profession (or others). The appeal is still necessary even though he does not intend to operate the Appellant company to provide immigration services.b. He does not accept that the IAA’s guidance is clear. He was already a registered level 1 adviser and it was unfair to treat him as a new applicant. By following the 18 month rule strictly, the Commissioner failed to look at the actual facts of his case.c. His choice to apply does not make the decision lawful. Mr Chan says that he chose to join another organisation to earn a living not to give up on the Appellant company.d. The IAA’s policy creates “a massive deterrent effect across the entire profession”. He says “Under this system, even if I have a flawless record, I am 'locked' into my current employment. If I try to start my own company or move to a new one, the Respondent uses this 18-month guidance as a 'veto.' This means that for the final year and a half of any visa, a qualified professional is effectively banned from career progression or entrepreneurship”. Even if applications are assessed on a case by case basis for those joining an established firm, this does not diminish the deterrent effect. He observed “My competence doesn't vanish because I changed a company name. This is an irrational barrier to trade that goes far beyond what is necessary to protect the public”. Legal framework[14]Part V of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 regulates immigration advisers and immigration service providers, and establishes the Office of the Immigration Services Commissioner (now the IAA).[15]Schedule 6 paragraph 1(1) sets out that an application for registration by the Commissioner must be made in such form and manner, and be accompanied by such information and supporting evidence as the Commissioner may from time to time determine. The Commissioner therefore has the power to set its own policy and application process for registration.[16]The IAA’s guidance for registration, in the section on proof of right to work states the following: “You must demonstrate that you have valid leave to remain and right to work in theUnited Kingdom for a minimum of 18 months at the point of application. “ Discussion and conclusions

Discussion and conclusions

[17]The Appellant in his grounds of appeal accepts that at the point of application for the Appellant company to be registered, he had limited time to stay in the UK, as he is on a British National (Overseas) Visa which expires on 6 May 2025. He explained in his application that he intends to apply for settlement in early April 2026 but I agree with the Commissioner that this application has not been made yet and the outcome is not certain at this stage. I also note that Mr Chan argues that he would be able to apply for extended leave to remain because of his existing BN(O) visa, but again this application has not yet been made or determined, so does not have any bearing on the decision.[18]I find as a matter of fact that the Appellant did not have 18 months valid leave to remain at the point of applying for registration for the Appellant company. He therefore was unable to provide evidence of this as required by the Commissioner under the IAA guidance for registration, pursuant to Schedule 6 of the Act. I do not consider that it is relevant that Mr Chan was at the time already registered as a Level 1 adviser, because this was a fresh application for a fresh entity to be registered and therefore subject afresh to the requirements imposed by the Commissioner and IAA.[19]The questions which Mr Chan raises as to the lawfulness and clarity of the IAA’s policy are not ones which this Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine – these are matters for the administrative court on judicial review.[20]Because Mr Chan cannot demonstrate that he has leave to remain and the right to work in the UK for at least 18 months, at the present time I consider that there is no prospect of his appeal succeeding. The proceedings are therefore struck out under Rule 8(3)(c) because there is no reasonable prospect of them succeeding.[21]There is nothing to stop Mr Chan or the Applicant reapplying for registration once Mr Chan is in a position to demonstrate his right to remain in the UK for at least 18 months.