Raphael Folarin v Immigration Services Commissioner: fitness to practise and criminal convictions

The First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) dismissed an appeal by Mr Raphael Folarin against the Immigration Services Commissioner's refusal to register him as a Level 1 immigration adviser. The decision, handed down on 29 January 2026, concerned whether Mr Folarin had demonstrated sufficient fitness to provide immigration advice despite historic criminal convictions.

Mr Folarin applied for registration on 19 March 2025, having passed the Immigration Advice Authority's (IAA) Level 1 Competence Assessment. However, his application disclosed eleven criminal convictions from 2008 to 2013, including attempted robbery, firearms offences, possession of counterfeit currency, making off without payment, possession of Class A drugs, driving whilst disqualified, and failure to comply with a community order. Several of these offences involved dishonesty, which the IAA regards as particularly concerning given that immigration advisers occupy positions of trust with vulnerable clients.

The Commissioner refused the application on 1 August 2025, concluding that Mr Folarin had not demonstrated fitness to provide immigration advice. The refusal letter noted that whilst the Commissioner considered Mr Folarin's correspondence to be sincere, the serious nature of the convictions—particularly those involving dishonesty and disobedience—did not demonstrate a positive history of honesty and legal compliance or suggest likely compliance with the IAA Regulatory Scheme.

Grounds of appeal

Mr Folarin contended that the decision placed undue weight on historic convictions from 2008–2013 without properly acknowledging evidence of rehabilitation. He argued that he had provided evidence of personal reform, community contribution, employment records and educational development. He submitted that the IAA's approach was rigid and punitive, effectively creating a permanent bar to the profession for anyone with historic offences regardless of subsequent reform. He further argued that the IAA had misinterpreted the likelihood of compliance and failed to conduct a proper forward-looking risk assessment.

Legal framework

Under section 83(5)(a) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, the Commissioner must exercise functions to ensure that those providing immigration advice are fit and competent to do so. Schedule 6 requires the Commissioner to register an applicant who is "competent and otherwise fit to provide immigration advice and immigration services". The IAA's Guidance on Fitness for Advisers sets out criteria including the likelihood of compliance with the regulatory scheme, a history of honesty and legal compliance, and a history of financial probity.

The Tribunal's role in such appeals is to conduct a full merits review, determining for itself whether the appellant is fit and competent as at the date of the hearing, rather than merely reviewing the Commissioner's decision-making process. The burden of proof rests on the appellant to demonstrate fitness on the balance of probabilities.

The Tribunal's findings

The Tribunal heard evidence from Mr Mohammed Rakib, the IAA employee who assessed the application, and from Mr Folarin himself. Judge Harris, sitting with Judge Saward and Member Renshaw, found that the Commissioner had properly considered all evidence submitted, including Mr Folarin's responses to the minded-to-refuse notice. The Tribunal was satisfied that the decision-making process had complied with principles of procedural fairness and natural justice, and that the Commissioner had applied the correct legal test.

Whilst the Tribunal accepted that Mr Folarin had provided evidence of reform in his personal life—including property ownership, family life and church involvement—it found the evidence relating to his professional conduct notably lacking. No references from previous employers were provided, despite Mr Folarin's claims to have worked in responsible positions with vulnerable people. The Tribunal considered that evidence of personal reform alone was insufficient to counterbalance the historic convictions, particularly the dishonesty offences which remained directly relevant to the role of immigration adviser.

The Tribunal disagreed with Mr Folarin's characterisation of the refusal as creating a permanent bar. Refusal of a specific application does not preclude future applications or alternative routes to practising as an immigration adviser, such as working under supervision pursuant to section 84(2)(e) of the Act.

Concerns regarding artificial intelligence

A significant additional concern arose during the hearing regarding Mr Folarin's use of artificial intelligence in preparing his legal submissions. Upon questioning, Mr Folarin admitted using ChatGPT to locate case law and produce extracts, without verifying the cases or reading the underlying judgements. The Tribunal was unable to locate several cited cases in any legal database.

The Tribunal noted the recent High Court guidance in R (Ayinde) v London Borough of Haringey [2025] EWHC 1383 (Admin), which confirmed that placing false citations before a court may constitute contempt and breach regulatory requirements. Whilst accepting that Mr Folarin did not intend to mislead, the Tribunal considered his failure to verify AI-generated legal research demonstrated a lack of care that raised concerns about his fitness to advise vulnerable clients on immigration matters. Had Mr Folarin already been registered, the Tribunal indicated it would have considered reporting him to the IAA.

The Tribunal concluded that Mr Folarin had not demonstrated on the balance of probabilities that he possessed a history of honesty and legal compliance, was likely to comply with regulatory requirements, or had shown sufficient financial probity in a professional context. The appeal was dismissed. The judgement serves as an important reminder that those seeking registration must provide robust evidence of professional rehabilitation, not merely personal reform, and must exercise appropriate care when presenting legal arguments to tribunals.

Copyright & permissions