Tribunal decision reinforces immigration adviser standards

Augusto Scerrato's appeal against the OISC illustrates the importance of competence assessments for immigration advisers in the UK

The case of Augusto Scerrato v The Immigration Services Commissioner highlights a significant decision made by the Office of the Immigration Services Commissioner (OISC) regarding the competency of immigration advisers. On 9 August 2023, the OISC refused Scerrato's application to upgrade his registration from Level 1 to Level 3, preventing him from providing more advanced immigration advice. Following this, a hearing for the appeal took place on 2 April 2025, culminating in the Tribunal confirming on 29 April 2025 that the appeal was dismissed due to Scerrato's inability to demonstrate the required competency.

Initially, Scerrato was authorised by the OISC in December 2020 to deliver up to Level 3 advice under supervision for specific periods. However, his registration was subsequently downgraded to Level 1 in November 2021. In March 2023, he sought to enhance his registration level but refused to undertake the online competence assessment deemed necessary for the elevation, arguing that his qualifications and experience should be enough to prove his competency.

The OISC maintained a firm position that without completion of the competence assessment, Scerrato's existing qualifications could not substantiate his capability to provide Level 3 services. Numerous discussions regarding the necessity of the assessment were held between Scerrato and the OISC. The Appellant consistently expressed his reluctance to comply, asserting that his experience qualified him sufficiently.

Faced with the rejection of his Level 3 application, Scerrato lodged an appeal in September 2023 highlighting various grounds, with a main focus on whether the OISC had the authority to enforce testing as outlined in Schedule 6 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. By early 2025, the Tribunal narrowed the grounds of appeal, concentrating on whether Scerrato had adequately demonstrated his competence and the justifiability of the OISC's insistence on the competence assessment.

During this process, procedural concerns surrounding the application and assessment were critically evaluated. The Tribunal reviewed two bundles of evidence, one from the OISC and another submitted by Scerrato. Testimonies during the remote hearing were provided by both parties and included accounts from individuals involved in the decision-making process.

An examination of the legal framework governing immigration advisers revealed strict prohibitions against unqualified individuals providing immigration services. The crucial question centred on the legitimacy of the competence test as a regulatory requirement. Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that Scerrato's prior qualifications and experience did not sufficiently demonstrate his competence without the necessary testing, which served as a pivotal evaluative instrument.

In the end, despite Scerrato showcasing considerable experience, the Tribunal determined that he had failed to exhibit comprehensive knowledge of immigration law necessary for Level 3 qualifications. It was concluded that the OISC's requirement for a competence assessment was justified and reasonable, especially in the context of managing complex immigration issues.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the OISC's authority to impose such assessments for registration, leading to the dismissal of Scerrato's appeal and the reaffirmation of OISC's decision to restrict his registration to Level 1.

This case serves to highlight the critical role of standardized testing in assessing the competence of immigration advisers, demonstrating that regulatory entities are entitled to establish reasonable requirements to ensure client safety and high standards of service within the realm of immigration law