Appeal against Immigration Advice Authority’s refusal to register firm struck out by tribunal

The First-tier Tribunal (GRC) has, unsurprisingly, struck out an appeal which was based on a disagreement with the marks awarded in the Immigration Advice Authority’s level 1 competence assessment. The case is Prime Immigration Services Ltd v The Immigration Services Commissioner [2025] UKFTT 959 (GRC).

Prime Immigration Services Ltd had applied to the Immigration Advice Authority (then known as OISC) for registration as level 1 in immigration but the named adviser in the application failed her level 1 competence assessment on 26 February 2025. Prime’s application was refused. The proposed adviser appealed against the decision on 9 April 2025, stating:

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 pass mark for each section is 60% and so the appellant did actually pass section 2. Her argument was with the marking of section 1 which are the multiple choice questions and where there is less scope for argument.

The Immigration Advice Authority applied to have the appeal struck out on the grounds that there was no reasonable prospect of success given the appeal amounted to a disagreement with the marks awarded. The Authority explained their marking process and said that the appellant had not put forward any evidence to show that the marks were incorrect or unfair.

The tribunal said:

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.

The appeal was struck out on the papers.