Immigration adviser loses appeal against refusal to raise registration level

An appellant has lost his appeal against a refusal by the Immigration Advisory Agency (formerly OISC) to raise his level of registration from level 1 to level 3 without taking the online test. The case is Scerrato v Immigration Services Commissioner [2025] UKFTT 454 (GRC).

The appellant took the level 3 test in February 2022 but was notified on 10 March 2022 that there was an issue with the webcam which is used for the online invigilation and the video had not been recorded. This meant that the test was deemed invalid and the appellant was not notified of the results. The appellant was offered assistance but declined because access to his computer was needed and it held client confidential material.

On 3 March 2023 the appellant applied to lift his registration from level 1 to level 3. He was asked to do the test but he, presumably quite miffed from his previous experience of the test, said that he did not wish to do so and that his experience and qualifications were enough to demonstrate his competence to level 3 standard. The level 3 application was refused on 9 August 2023 on the grounds that the Commissioner was not “satisfied of his competence to provide immigration advice at level 3”. The appellant appealed on the following basis:

Book your place now

Whether the Appellant had demonstrated to the Respondent that he was competent for level 3 registration and whether the Respondent was correct to refuse to register him at level 3 on the basis of the evidence (now) provided and insisting on the taking of an online competence assessment.

The tribunal rejected the appellant’s argument that the insistence on his taking the test was unlawful because it is not prescribed by statute. The tribunal said that “Schedule 6 paragraph 1 of the Immigration Act 1999 clearly state that the Commissioner may determine what form and manner an application for registration must be made, the information and supporting evidence required and what further evidence may be needed”.

The appellant also raised arguments relating to Brexit and the removal of the exemption for certain lawyers in the EEA, but the tribunal said that these were not within the scope of the appeal.

The tribunal considered that the evidence provided by the appellant supported the need for him to take the competence test. The appellant asked the tribunal to take into account his conduct of the appeal, which he had done himself, as evidence of his competence, however the tribunal declined to do so.

The tribunal dismissed the appeal.

Hopefully the Immigration Advisory Authority has resolved the technical issues with their assessments by now, but if anyone does have recent examples of tests going wrong then please do feel free to let me know.