Submit an Academic Petition or Appeal

Petition Letter: Dear reviewer,

The assignment in question was not for the purposes of any deep analysis, it was a question answer format where none of my responses were wrong. The professor is a lawyer and had a different opinion. I cannot be subjected to opinions.
In question 2 I was asked to be counsel and what I would do and the professor disagreed and said that she was disappointed while I am disappointed the client paid for incompetent counselling, while I was asked what I would do and was NOT permitted to say what I would do and then in debate over this grade, was told that 'it is my duty' to do something, while ethically it is 'incompetent' to provide poor advise and pretend there is something that can erase lack of credibility and fraud. I would be pretending that there was something more that can be done to undo 17 areas which lacked credibility. Undoing 1 area, is not sufficient to the board.

For question 3, I have no idea if they were looking for specific evidence or not. I gave the significant categories of evidence which were applied for the applicant and the specific evidence of the wife which pointed to fraud, with NO explanation for it.
I can't tell if the instructor wanted the late dates the applicant submitted, or specific evidence. If I had to I would have to list 17 specific evidences, the question did not ask for specifics. It is an ambiguous question and was split into 2, where I gave a specific evidence for the wife which pointed to fraud. If a full 10 cannot be given here, then a 7 would have been appropriate.

The feedback is highly subjective, based on what the prof believes. I kindly asked for her to review the grade and she suggested that there was a tone in the email, while I can see no tone. I am not permitted to say that I failed to see how the grade was made.

I am seeking that for answers that did not ask for reasoning or explanation, such as question 1, which asks 'If' or 'did' and not 'how', that full marks are given.
For question 2, I did what I would do as counsel, based on a case where no further evidence could save this client. The prof disagrees, but I was asked what 'I' would do.
Given that there are thousands of immigration consultants, no answer can be right or wrong, it is entirely subjective what each one would do. I am permitted to say that there was no evidence that could save this case.

Natalie Domazet, the other instructor in the course said that it is my duty as counsel to put everything that supports the client in the case.
It was an appeal, where the client lied in 17 areas to the Minister.
There was nothing that could save them, but I am asked to pretend.

I pointed out that competence comes before duty, counsel should not be appealing in the first place as nothing can save this case.
We were debating, which shows that there is no right or wrong answer and my answer should be permitted.
Where there was fraud, in a birth certificate, Natalie pretended not to see fraud.
I, the adjudicator and the Minister are all expected to pretend that we don't see fraud on the wife's behalf back in Africa.
For Question 4, I was asked if credibility was a factor. I fully stated that is a serious factor and then elaborated on why credibility is significant; the prof said she can't see that I stated that it was and how. This is false. The question is answered.

Further, they said that 'they don't agree' that credibility is not the only factor or an overriding factor in an appeal, while I showed that it is. Again there is debate, and their feedback is subjective when they say 'I don't believe'.

I was given a 6.5 out of ten.

Question 1 is answered, the question asked for no further reasoning. That grade should be a 10
Question 2, was answered, I am permitted to say what I would have done. That grade should be a 10.
Question 2 was split into 2, where I gave a specific evidence for the wife which pointed to fraud and categories of evidence for the applicant. If a full 10 cannot be given here, then a 7 would have been appropriate.
Question 4, the answer was clear and elaborated, as to why credibility is so important, this question should have been a 10.


The final grade should have been 35 to 37 out of 40, or at minimum 8.7.

The expectations /instructions of this assignment require significant improvement to ensure that 'expectations' are understood, such as where a line of reasoning and analysis is expected, and where a list is expected (Questions 1 and 3).