EXAMINERS’ REPORT
LEVEL ONE WRITTEN EXAMINATION
ACCREDITATION AND RE-ACCREDITATION
October 2014
General comments
Only a few candidates took the Level 1 re-accreditation exam. In exams, the overall performance and the level of knowledge were similar. Good candidates scored well whereas a number of candidates who failed do not appear to have acquired sufficient knowledge or had poor examination techniques. Where the candidates were asked to refer to relevant rules/regulations, they lost marks if they did not do so.Many candidates lost marks for not answering the questions fully or because they failed to understand/read the questions properly.
Asylum
This question is based on a scenario where a client entered the UK in a container ship and claimed asylum on arrival. One of client’s close relatives was a powerful figure in the opposition party with whom he used to live. Client was arrested and detained. In detention he was beaten.
Candidates were asked possible convention(s) reasons that engage in this scenario. Most candidates were able to identify that political opinion is the possible convention reason. Very few identified imputed political opinion and/or particular social group. Most candidates identified the definition of persecution in a Qualification Regulation. However some failed to score marks as they did not cite the regulations despite being expressly asked to do so. Candidates were asked what they would do after receiving the transcript of the interview record. Most identified that they would need to check with the client the accuracy of the interview record and any discrepancy must be reported to the case owner within 5 days. However some candidates failed to score all the points as their answers were incomplete. Some candidates said that they would keep the interview record in a safe place without answering what they would do with it. Candidates stated correctly major sources of country information and whether their client would get any benefits while waiting for decision in his asylum case. The scenario developed further and the client has been granted refugee status. Only very few candidates correctly identified that client’s father would not have any entitlement to come to the UK under family reunion provision.
Immigration
In this question, candidates were tested on their knowledge of the immigration rules, in particular, Appendix FM. They were also asked questions about nationality law, application procedure and evidence that should be submitted in support of their client’s application.
Candidates were told that the client had limited leave to remain in the UK as a spouse. This leave expired while she was out of the country. Most candidates correctly identified that the client would have to obtain a new spouse visa under Appendix FM of the immigration rules. However some candidates thought the client could return under the returning resident rules, ignoring the fact that client did not have indefinite leave to remain while she left the country. Candidates were then asked what procedure the client would have to follow to obtain such a visa. Many candidates, as it seems, did not read/understand the question and explained the requirements as opposed to the procedure in their answers thus scoring low marks. Candidates answered well what documents their client would need to submit with the application. However it appears that some candidates were not aware of Appendix FM-SE (family members specified evidence) and therefore could not answer this question fully. Most candidates correctly stated the income threshold, conditions imposed on spouse visa and the requirements for naturalisation as a British Citizen. Some candidates however thought the client would have to wait for 12 months after obtaining indefinite leave to remain despite the fact that client is the spouse of a British Citizen.
EEA Law
This part of the question tested candidates’ knowledge ofEEA regulations and how to correctly apply them in a given situation. Candidates were also tested on their knowledge on the rights acquired under the regulations and the process for documenting their rights.Candidates were asked to explain what further information they would need in order to assist the client who is an EEA national and working, to bring her 3rd country national spouse and their child. Most candidates correctly stated that they would need to find out a number of hours she works, the age of her child. Most candidates identified correctly what type of documents her family members would need to obtain from abroad in order to succeed in their applications. However some weaker candidates mentioned the EEA2 form and a residence card which is only appropriate for in-country applications. Candidates correctly identified what documents needed to be submitted with the application. Most candidates identified that client’s 25-yearold son could not join her under the regulations as he is no longer a dependant. However, some weaker candidates thought her son is an extended family member. The facts given to the candidates do not support such an assumption. .
Generally, all EEA questions were answered well by the majority of candidates.
December 2014