Exam: Adviser disagreed with marking
The First-tier Tribunal (FTT) has struck out an appeal by an immigration adviser against the Immigration Advice Authority (IAA) after she failed an exam.
Soheila Askani argued that she should have got 90%, instead of 60%, in section 2 of her IAA level 1 assessment. Failing the exam meant that her company, Prime Immigration Services, was not registered by the IAA to provide immigration services.
Judge Harris said: “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 judge said Ms Askani had not explained how the IAA’s decision, “as opposed to the marking of her paper”, was wrong in law.
The IAA rejected an application from Ms Askani in March this year to register Prime Immigration Services to provide level 1 immigration services.
In her grounds of appeal, Ms Askani said she was “disappointed” to find out the same month that she had failed her level 1 competence assessment.
She asserted that the standard of work she delivered in section 2 – 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%”.
She continued: “I had structured my answer based on practice questions and answers from OISC [now the IAA] 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 IAA applied in May 2025 to strike out the appeal on the grounds that there was no reasonable prospect of it succeeding as it amounted to “a simple disagreement” with the marks awarded.
HJT Training, which is independent of the IAA, writes and marks the assessments, using immigration law specialists, including solicitors and barristers.
All competence assessments were marked anonymously and Ms Askani’s section 2 paper was moderated because it fell within 8% of the pass mark. As a result, she was awarded an extra mark.
The IAA argued 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”.
Judge Harris said she was satisfied that Ms Askani’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”.
The judge struck out the appeal.
