Multiple choice test: Solicitor failed one of the two parts
The First-tier Tribunal (FTT) has rejected an appeal by a solicitor who failed the exam to become an immigration law adviser.
Can Canko had argued that, as a solicitor, he should have been exempt from written competence assessments required by the Office of the Immigration Services Commissioner (OISC), now the Immigration Advice Authority (IAA).
Judge James Armstrong-Holmes said: “The fact that the appellant is disgruntled by having failed section one of the competence assessment and does not now consider that he should be required to take a written assessment, is of no assistance to him.”
Mr Canko obtained a law degree and worked for law firms between 2007 and 2011 before qualifying as a Turkish lawyer in 2011. Since then, he has practised through unregulated Newcastle-based Canko Law Firm, qualifying as a solicitor in 2023.
A solicitor cannot provide immigration advice and/or services without successfully passing the competence assessment unless doing so from a law firm regulated either by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) or the IAA.
Mr Canko provided no evidence to the OISC of “any relevant, recent experience of immigration or asylum training” in England and Wales.
“The evidence he did provide was in relation to his experience of domestic employment and family law.”
Judge Armstrong-Holmes said that if the solicitor had completed one of the Law Society’s immigration and asylum accreditation scheme examinations, then he “may have been granted an exemption” by the OISC from taking a competence assessment.
“We do not consider that requiring an applicant to have suitable experience within the jurisdiction they wish to practice in as being in any way discriminatory,” he added.
Mr Canko scored 55% for the multiple-choice section one of his OISC Level 1 immigration assessment and 93% in section two. He had to get 60% in each to pass and so his application for registration was refused.
Mr Canko argued that as a “qualified and experienced lawyer”, with a practising certificate from the SRA, “his competence should have been assessed by reference to that experience, and not by way of a competence assessment, which he submits is designed to assess those without formal legal qualifications and experience”.
Subjecting experienced practitioners to an additional written exam imposed “an unreasonable burden” and undermined their “rigorous legal education and professional training”.
Rejecting his application to the OISC on the basis of competence when he was a dual-qualified lawyer was “inconceivable”.
An automated marking system went through the papers first and a lead assessor then reviewed Mr Canko’s marks to rule out any errors. He confirmed that the 55% score was correct.
Judge Armstrong-Holmes said: “All candidates are subject to the same requirements and marking criteria, and there is no subjective element to section one.”
Dismissing the appeal, he said Mr Canko had not “demonstrated his competence to provide immigration advice and services to the required standard for registration at Level 1” and he had not demonstrated that the decision to refuse registration was wrong.
Despite Mr Canko’s assertion that the IAA was required to establish a separate assessment pathway for solicitors, the judge said “we have been shown no rule or law which supports this proposition, and it appears that this is merely a bold assertion or a suggestion”.
Judge Dwyer contributed to the ruling.