Huma Akhtar v Entry Clearance Officer - Islamabad

Where an applicant relies on an IELTS result to satisfy a CEFR-based English-language requirement, the result must be assessed under the relevant UKBA guidance if the Immigration Rules HC 395 do not themselves state an equivalence.

The guidance must be read as a whole. An overall IELTS score does not establish the required CEFR level where the guidance requires separate speaking and listening scores. Since the guidance assigned no CEFR equivalence below IELTS 4.0, an applicant using that test had, in practical terms, to establish at least B1 in each required module even though the Rules required A1.

The appellant, a Pakistani national, applied for entry clearance as the spouse of a person settled in the United Kingdom. The Entry Clearance Officer refused the application because her English-language certificate did not establish the requirement in paragraph 281(ii) of the Immigration Rules HC 395.

The First-tier Tribunal dismissed her appeal. It held that her IELTS scores, including an overall score of 4.5 and a speaking score of 3.5, did not demonstrate CEFR level A1. It also dismissed an Article 8 claim, but that part of the decision was not challenged.

On appeal, the sole issue was whether the IELTS result met the English-language requirement in paragraph 281(ii).

1. Appeal dismissed. The First-tier Tribunal made no error of law in concluding that the appellant had not shown a qualification meeting or exceeding CEFR A1 under paragraph 281(ii) of the Immigration Rules HC 395.

2. Paragraph 281(ii) required an original approved English-language test certificate in speaking and listening showing a qualification at or above A1. IELTS results were not expressed in CEFR terms. An applicant relying on IELTS therefore had to use the relevant UKBA guidance to establish equivalence.

3. The guidance gave equivalences only for IELTS scores of 4.0 (B1), 5.5 (B2) and 6.5 (C1). It provided no equivalence for scores below 4.0, including A1 or A2. Accordingly, although the Rules specified A1, an IELTS candidate could in practice establish compliance only by attaining at least the B1-equivalent score.

4. The guidance also required separate assessment of speaking and listening. It could not be satisfied by an overall band score alone. The appellant's listening score of 5.5 was sufficient, but her speaking score of 3.5 had no recognised CEFR equivalence under the guidance. Her overall score of 4.5 could not cure that failure.

5. The appellant had therefore not proved compliance with paragraph 281(ii). The dismissal of her appeal stood.

• Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber): dismissed the appeal and upheld the First-tier Tribunal's dismissal: [2013] UKUT 306 (IAC).

• First-tier Tribunal: dismissed the appeal against refusal of entry clearance, finding that the IELTS certificate did not meet paragraph 281(ii) of the Immigration Rules HC 395.