Former immigration adviser loses appeal against refusal of re-registration

The First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) has dismissed an appeal against the refusal of the Immigration Advice Authority to register the appellant as a level 1 adviser in the immigration category. The case is Ajay Omnath Kapoor v Immigration Advice Authority [2025] UKFTT 809 (GRC).

The appellant had previously been registered as a level 3 adviser from June 2011 to May 2023. He then left the scheme and over a year later he decided to rejoin the scheme and submitted a new application to register at level 1.

On 25 July 2024 the appellant took the test, where he passed the first section but failed the second, meaning the assessment was failed. The appellant was the sole applicant advisor at the organisation and so the IAA rejected their application for registration. On 10 September 2024 an appeal was lodged on the following grounds:

a. The Respondent failed to take into account the Appellant’s regulatory history;

b. Section 2 of his OISC Level 1 Competence Assessment contained a question that was of an OISC Level 2 nature;

c. It is in the interest of HJT Training Ltd to fail candidates;

d. It was not clear that candidates had to attain 60% in each Section to pass the OISC Level 1 Competence Assessment overall.

Grounds b to d were dismissed by the tribunal. On ground a, the tribunal was more sympathetic, stating that:

We accept that from looking at the decision letter, it is not entirely clear if the IAA took into account the Appellant’s regulatory background, it is not set out in any detail. The reasoning in the decision letter is strikingly light on this issue and inadequate. It would be of much greater assistance to Appellants (and the Tribunal) if the IAA explicitly set out what ‘considerations’ it has taken into account when coming to a decision. We have sympathy with the Appellant’s submissions on this point.

However the tribunal considered, with reference to the evidence and arguments, that the IAA was correct to ask the appellant to sit the competence assessment. In saying this, the tribunal pointed out that the appellant’s last exam had been in 2011 and he had not been audited for several years. In those circumstances it was reasonable to require him to take the assessment.

The tribunal also reviewed the appellant’s response to the assessment, agreeing with the marks awarded and noting that the appellant “provided incorrect advice on an important aspect of appealing the decision”. The tribunal said that although the appellant had previously been deemed competent, there had been a period of 15 months by the date of the refusal where he had not been registered, and continued competence could not be assumed.

The tribunal also noted and attached weight to the absence of evidence of any training courses recently attended by the appellant. Taking everything into account, the tribunal dismissed the appeal.