Many thanks, Tudor. I am preparing the internal appeal. My supervisors will support my appeal by writing a letter to prove the irregularities in the examination. But they strongly suggests me complain my former supervisor. Anyway, I know inadequate supervision might not be strong ground for appeal, as you said.

Besides irregular procedures, I also want to prove that the examiner was biased. That is to say, he attacked the theory or methodology that he does not agree with. But my supervisors thought it was difficult to prove the examiner was biased. What do you think?

It is important that you are offered a list of revisions and time frame for the revision. Otherwise in your second round examination you are still facing the danger of fail.

Thanks very much, TreeofLife. In my case, it was highly sensitive. My research is on international relations, specifically on China's policies on the islands disputes in the South China Sea. It suggests that the examiner aims to fail me and the HoD nominee did not like my argument. I admit that my former supervisor was disengaged in my research. He just paid attention to the typos and grammar errors. But he did not give me suggestions on how to improve my argument. And he had almost no critical comments on my work. The examiner that failed me was appointed by him. Actually his viewpoint was quite opposite to mine. I read several of his works and find out he has his mono-approach and tends to attack other theories, including mine. After the first round examination, the committee changed my supervision. But the new main supervisor's research field was far away from mine. Even though the co-supervisor's research field was closer to mine, he said to me I know the issues far more than he known. He can guide me on methodology. So I believe I have evidence to show that I been really ill treated by the committee, former supervisor and the examiner.

I submitted the thesis in the early 2016 when two supervisors agreed. Co-supervisor finds my work a "major achievement". Unfortunately I got two conflicted reports. One was to pass with major correction. The other was r&r. Then the committee changed the supervisors of mine and gave me 6 months to revise and resubmit. New supervisors were satisfied with my process and work. But their research area is a little bit far away from mine. Then I submitted at the end of last year. The reports of examiners were still in conflict. One was to pass, the other was to fail. The examiners in my two round of examination are the same. The committee agreed to let me come to the oral defense. Unfortunately it was the examiner that wants to fail me dominated the oral defense. In our university, only one examiner is invited to the oral defense. According to the report of the oral examination, positive comments from the other examiner totally disappeared, leaving alone the negative comments of the oral examiner. The outcome is really a nightmare to me. Now I am appealing for this result. My supervisors support my appealing. They told me that the entire process is totally unfair to me. For example, before the oral exam, the committee suggested the supportive examiner came to the oral defense. But the graduate center refused that option without explanation. Can anyone give me some suggestions? I have spent more than five years on this Phd. I cannot accept this result, given supervisors were satisfied with my work. And I have got job offers from universities in my home country. But it means nothing to me if I ended up with a Master.