Prime Immigration Services Ltd v The Immigration Services Commissioner

This is an appeal against a decision of the Immigration Services Commissioner (“the Commissioner”) set out in a letter dated 18 March 2025, reference Z000033047 (“the Decision”).

The decision concerned the refusal by the Commissioner of an application to register Prime Immigration Services Ltd to provide immigration services at Level 1 under Schedule 6 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. The adviser named in the application was Soheila Askani, who failed her Level 1 competence assessment on 26 February 2025. The Commissioner accordingly decided that Ms Askani had failed to demonstrate sufficient competence and decided to refuse Prime’s application.

Ms Askani filed an appeal on behalf of the Appellant by way of form GRC1 dated 9 April 2025. Her grounds of appeal read as follows:

“I received the outcome of my OISC level 1 assessment on 18/03/2025 which I was disappointed to receive.

The outcome states I attained 55% on Section 1 and 60% on Section 2. I believe the standard of work I delivered in Section 2 (the scenario based questions) was so well written, presented and met all of the required criteria that I would have received a minimum grade of 90%. I had structured my answer based on practice questions and answers from OISC past paper questions and am therefore aware of what the mark scheme would be looking for.

This has made me question the reliability of the entire marking of my exam paper as I believe this was not done accurately or fairly and has, as a result, provided me with an incorrect assessment outcome.”

The Commissioner applied by form GRC5 dated 20 May 2025 to strike out the appeal under Rule 8(3)(c) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal)(General Regulatory Chamber) Rules, on the basis that there is no reasonable prospect of the Appellant’s case succeeding, as it amounts to a simple disagreement with the marks awarded to Ms Askani.

In his strike out application, the Commissioner explained that the body responsible for marking the Immigration Advice Authority (“IAA”)’s competence assessments, HJT Training Limited (“HJT”), is a professional and highly specialised organisation which is independent of the IAA. Those responsible for writing and marking the Commissioner’s assessments at HJT comprise immigration law specialists, including immigration solicitors and barristers

All competence assessments are marked anonymously. As such, HJT assessment markers would not know whose assessment that they were marking. As Section 1 is multiple choice, this section is marked by automated means. As Section 2 comprises of scenario-based questions, this section is marked by an individual marker. By marking the assessments anonymously, this ensures fairness across the entire marking process. The Commissioner submitted that therefore the exam markings awarded by HJT are correct, objective and reliable.

In addition to this, the Commissioner operates a moderation process, whereby certain assessment papers are remarked by a second and different individual marker. As Section 1 is initially marked by automated means (a computer), this section is not subject to moderation; whereas Section 2 is moderated. The Respondent automatically moderates all papers that fall within 8% (currently between 55-63%) bandwidth of the Level 1 pass mark. p. 47 §2].

Therefore, in light of the marks, Section 2 of the Appellant’s assessment paper was automatically moderated. In other words, it was marked twice. Upon moderation, the Appellant was awarded one additional mark for Section 2.

The Commissioner submits that, other than simply disagreeing and not accepting the markings of her assessment paper, the Appellant has not put forward any evidence to suggest that the markings awarded were incorrect, unfair or improper.

Part V of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 regulates immigration advisers and immigration service providers, and establishes the Immigration Services Commissioner (now the IAA). The Act prohibits the provision of immigration advice or services by those who are not qualified to do so and contravention is an offence. A person may be qualified via their membership of a professional body (such as the General Council of the Bar or the Law Society of England and Wales) or by being registered.

Schedule 6 paragraph 1(1) sets out that an application for registration by the Respondent must be made to the Commissioner 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. Section 83(5) of the Act provides that –

“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—...are fit and competent to do so;”

The ultimate question for the First-Tier Tribunal on appeal is whether the appellant is considered to be competent and otherwise fit to provide immigration advice and immigration services. The Tribunal is not concerned with the legality or otherwise of the Commissioner's process, but what the process was and whether it was correctly applied in this case.

It appears to me that the competence test administered by HJT is not the only requirement for registration, but it was the only one designed to fully assess competence in an objective and fair way. The Commissioner's published materials make it clear that failure to complete or pass the test will result in refusal of registration and that remarking of the test cannot be undertaken, other than through the moderation process described above, of which the Appellant has already had the benefit.

I am satisfied that the Appellant’s grounds of appeal set out only the fact that she disagreed with the marks she was awarded which caused her to question the integrity of the Commissioner’s process for determining competence. In light of the information provided in support of the Commissioner’s strike out application, I am satisfied that there is no reasonable prospect of that appeal succeeding. The Tribunal’s job is not to examine the legality of the process of marking itself, but to determine whether that process is applied correctly and in accordance with the relevant law and policy. It appears to me that in this case it was, to the benefit of the Appellant who received an extra mark on moderation. The Appellant has not explained how the Commissioner’s decision, as opposed to the marking of her paper, was wrong in law.

Accordingly, I consider the appropriate action is to strike out the appeal.