Syed Saad Uzair (A&S Legal Services) v The Immigration Services Commissioner

By notice of appeal dated 5 November 2025, the Appellant appealed to the Tribunal pursuant to section 87(2) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (“the Act”). The appeal is made against the decision of the Commissioner of 5 November 2025 to refuse to register A&S Legal Services with Syed Saad Uzair as a Level 1 immigration adviser under Schedule 6 of the Act.

The grounds of appeal state that the decision was unfair as it did not take account of Mr Uzair’s current immigration circumstances. Mr Uzair stated that he would be eligible for indefinite leave to remain (‘ILR’) in January. He had already met all the necessary requirements and begun preparations for his ILR submission. The only reason the application had not yet been submitted was that Mr Uzair was due to travel abroad. He planned to complete the application immediately upon his return.

Mr Uzair added that he had waited over 5 months for the outcome of the application to the Commissioner and provided all the correct and complete information during the process. He has already paid the application fee and started preparations for the relevant exam, which he hoped to book shortly. The fee would be non-refundable and he would need to restart the process for qualification entirely. Mr Azair considers this unfair given that his ILT status is imminent and his right to work and remain in the UK will continue indefinitely once granted.

On 5 December 2025 the Commissioner applied to strike out the appeal under Rule 8(3)(c) of the 2009 Rules on the basis that there is no reasonable prospect of it succeeding. The Appellant was given opportunity to provide written representations opposing the application to strike out the proceedings by 5pm on 22 January 2026. The directions stated that the application to strike out the proceedings would be determined after 22 January 2026.

On 22 January 2026 Mr Uzair applied for an extension of time until 1 February 2026 to respond to the strike application. The reason given was that he was currently outside the UK with limited access to his case papers, documents and appropriate facilities. This had significantly restricted his ability to prepare a full, accurate and properly considered response within the time specified.

An extension of time was granted retrospectively by the Tribunal in case management directions dated 6 February 2026. Those directions gave the Appellant until 5pm on 13 February 2026 to respond to the strike out application. They contained a warning that a failure to respond may lead to the appeal being struck out. The directions were sent by email to the Appellant on 9 February 2026 timed at 14.13. No reply has been received by the Tribunal.

The reason for the Commissioner refusing the application is that Mr Uzair did not demonstrate having at least 18 months valid leave to remain and right to work in the United Kingdom at the point of application.

The application was submitted to the Immigration Advice Authority (IAA) on 31 July 2025. Mr Uzair’s leave to remain in the UK is only valid until 1 June 2026. Therefore, he had only 10 months 2 days leave to remain at the point of application.

Page 5 of the IAA’s Guidance for Registration, 2023 makes clear that:

As this requirement was not met from the outset, the application for registration was bound to fail. The prospective application for ILR did not meet the requirement for valid leave to remain and right to work in the UK for a minimum of 18 months at the point of application. As Mr Uzair acknowledged, his application for ILR had not even been submitted. There was nothing for the Commissioner to consider in this regard.

As the Commissioner has pointed out, had Mr Uzair applied to join an existing regulated organisation, instead of setting up his own organisation, then a case by case consideration may have been afforded to him as per the IAA’s Guidance for Registration, 2023 [page 7], which provides that “individual advisers with less than 18 months leave applying to join existingregulated organisations will be considered on a case by case basis.” This was not the basis of the application.

When making an application for registration under the Act, the Appellant will have been aware of the requirements. The fact that application fees have been paid clearly does not obligate the Commissioner to grant the application or consider it further if the requirements for registration are not met.

One of the outcomes sought by the Appellant when he submitted his appeal in November 2025 was for his application before the Commissioner to be held in abeyance until he is granted ILR in January. That timescale has elapsed without confirmation from the Appellant that he has ILR.

In any event, the Appellant would not be entitled to practice as a registered Level 1 adviser for A&S Legal Services or otherwise regardless of whether the appeal is suspended. That is because he is not currently registered to undertake that role. If the Tribunal were to suspend the effect of the Commissioner’s decision, it would have no practical impact on the Appellant’s ability to practice as a regulated adviser when he could not do so before the application was made or refused. The Tribunal cannot confer registration on an applicant whose application has been refused pending the outcome of appeal. To do so would frustrate the purpose of the appeal.

After careful consideration, I conclude that the proceedings should be struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success.