Behrouzian and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Citizenship)

Behrouzian and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Citizenship) [2021] AATA 17 (15 January 2021)
Division:GENERAL DIVISION
File Number(s): 2020/2904
Re:Afshin Behrouzian
APPLICANT

AndMinister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs
RESPONDENT

DECISION
Tribunal:Chris Puplick AM, Senior Member
Date:15 January 2021
Place:Sydney

The decision under review is affirmed.
................................[sgd]........................................
Chris Puplick AM, Senior Member
CATCHWORDS
CITIZENSHIP – Application for Australian citizenship – citizenship by conferral – refusal on character grounds – whether Applicant had demonstrated “good character” – whether false documentation provided in application for registration as a migration agent – whether Applicant was providing “immigration assistance” without being registered as a migration agent – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1974 (Cth) s 35
Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth) s 21
Migration Act 1958 (Cth) s 276, 280, 290, 314 and 316
Migration Agents Regulations 1998 (Cth) reg 5
Migration Amendment Act (No. 3) 1992 (Cth)
CASES
AFY18 v Minister for Home Affairs [2018] FCA 1566
BOY19 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2019] FCA 574
Drake v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1979) 46 FLR 409
Elias v Commissioner of Taxation [2002] FCA 845
Fang and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (Citizenship) [2018] AATA 3686
Gbojueh v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2014] FCA 883
Irving v Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (1996) 139 ALR 84
Kakar and Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2002] AATA 132
Kumar and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2014] AATA 944
Lachmaiya and Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs [1994] AATA 27
MDXJ v Secretary, Department of Social Services [2020] FCA 1767
Re Aston and Secretary, Department of Primary Industry (1985) 8 ALD 366
Re Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No.2) (1979) 2 ALD 634
Re Nguyen and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (Citizenship) [2018] AATA 1082
Re Taradel and Minister for Immigration, Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] AATA 1255
Shi v Migration Agents Registration Authority [2008] HCA 31
Zheng and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2011] AATA 304
SECONDARY MATERIALS
Australian Citizenship Policy Statement
Citizenship Procedural Instruction 15
Commonwealth, Parliamentary Debates, House of Representatives, 27 May 1992
REASONS FOR DECISION
Chris Puplick AM, Senior Member
15 January 2021
Preliminary Matters

In these proceedings, the Applicant made an application for the granting of a confidentiality order regarding the Applicant’s name and the granting of a pseudonym in place thereof.[1] This application was opposed by the Respondent. The Tribunal indicated that it would give consideration to the matter after the conclusion of the hearing. It has now decided that no good reason has been advanced for the granting of a pseudonym or any departure from the Tribunal’s normal practices in regard to the conduct of open hearings and the publication of decisions. The application for a confidentiality order is therefore refused.
[1] Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) s 35(3).
On 20 October 2017, Dr Afshin Behrouzian (the Applicant) lodged an application for citizenship by conferral under the provisions of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth) (the Citizenship Act). This application was refused on 21 April 2020.
The grounds for the refusal were that the delegate of the Minister (the Respondent) found that the Applicant was not a person of good character as required by paragraph 21(2)(h) of the Citizenship Act. The delegate arrived at this conclusion based on their finding that the Applicant had submitted false or misleading documentation to the Australian government in support of visa applications and that, while in Australia, he had been providing “immigration assistance” to people contrary to the provisions of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Migration Act).[2]
[2] Section 37 Tribunal documents (Tribunal documents) at 7-18.
The Applicant appealed the Minister’s decision to this Tribunal on 13 May 2020 and the matter was heard on 7 and 8 December 2020.
In accordance with the Tribunal’s protocols related to the COVID-19 pandemic, the hearing was conducted on a hybrid (COVID-safe) basis. The Applicant and legal representatives appeared in person before the Tribunal as did the Applicant’s wife (as a witness) and the two Farsi language interpreters. Two witnesses were heard by telephone from Tehran (Iran) and two by telephone in Sydney.
Apart from the documentary material and the evidence from witnesses, the Tribunal also viewed a YouTube clip of the Applicant participating in an interview used for advertising purposes which was recorded in Tehran around the year 2012. The interview was conducted in Farsi and so was translated for the Tribunal as it was being shown, by a NAATI accredited interpreter. The parties were notified that the Tribunal intended to view this YouTube video the day before it was viewed, and no objection was raised to the Tribunal viewing it.
The Applicant’s personal and initial visa history
The Applicant is a citizen of Iran where he qualified to practice law.[3] In Australia, the Applicant holds a current Registration Certificate from the Council of the Law Society of NSW which recognises his Iranian qualifications and authorises him “to practice foreign law in New South Wales.”[4] The Applicant has completed a Graduate Certificate in Australian Migration Law and Practice, issued in July 2015 by the Victoria University.[5]
[3] Tribunal documents at 167-168.
[4] Tribunal documents at 170.
[5] Tribunal documents at 169.
There is a claim in some documentation that the Applicant “studied at University of Sydney Law School”.[6] This is not correct. The Applicant obtained a library card from the Law School and may have attended the odd class. He was never enrolled as a student and never formally studied there.
[6] Tribunal documents at 150.
On 29 August 2007, he lodged an application for a Class BN (Subclass 136) Skilled-Independent visa on the basis that he had some skills in areas of computer technology.[7] This visa was granted on 12 August 2009. However, prior to that date the Applicant had arrived in Australia for the first time on 15 March 2008 holding a Business-Short Stay (Subclass 456) visa. Subsequently, he was granted a Resident Return (Subclass 155) permanent visa on 2 September 2016.[8]
[7] Tribunal documents at 151.
[8] Respondent’s Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions at [2]; Letter to the Applicant from (then) Department of Immigration and Citizenship dated 12 August 2009, Exhibit A4.
Departmental records indicate that the Applicant has left from and returned to Australia on some 10 occasions since January 2015 and that he has travelled in each year until 2019. He has not departed Australia in 2020 due to COVID-19 travel restrictions.[9]
[9] Exhibit A2.
Despite his holding a Skilled-Independent visa, it was the Applicant’s evidence that he has never worked in Australia, either on a full-time or casual basis since his arrival in 2008.[10] He does, however, say that he has done volunteer work for a variety of charities[11] and has participated in political and community activities as an enrolled member of the Australian Labor Party.[12]
[10] Tribunal documents at 162.
[11] Attachment [2d] to Applicant’s Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions.
[12] Tribunal documents at 171 and Applicant’s statement in Tribunal documents at 161.
Prior to his arrival in Australia, the Applicant married Ms Roshanak Rahimi, who arrived in Australia in February 2014 and is now an Australian citizen. She has accompanied him on several of his trips back to Iran but is otherwise in full-time employment in Australia.[13]
Legislative Framework
[13] Attachment [3c] to Applicant’s Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions.
Applications for citizenship by conferral
The Citizenship Act provides that a person may make an application for citizenship by conferral.[14] The Minister must make a decision on the application and either approve or refuse it.[15] An applicant must meet certain qualifications as specified in the Citizenship Act[16] and, if they do, they must then undertake and pass the Citizenship Test[17] (unless they are exempted from so doing).[18] Once those steps are complete, a qualified applicant must make the Pledge of Commitment[19] (unless they are exempted from so doing) before their citizenship is finally granted.
[14] Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth) (Citizenship Act) s 21(1).
[15] Citizenship Act s 24(1).
[16] Citizenship Act s 21(2).
[17] Citizenship Act s 23A.
[18] Citizenship Act ss 21(3)(d), (4)-(8).
[19] Citizenship Act s 26.
There are also certain other constraints on the Minister’s power to grant citizenship which touch upon matters of national security, residential status and breaches of the law.[20]
[20] Citizenship Act ss 24(4)-(6).
In order to qualify for citizenship by conferral an applicant must satisfy a number of requirements which are set out in subsection 21(2) of the Citizenship Act. The qualifying conditions are enumerated from paragraphs (a) to (h). Each of them must be satisfied.
In making decision about whether or not an applicant satisfies the subsection 21(2) criteria, a decision-maker must have regard to the Act, the Australian Citizenship Policy Statement (Policy Statement) and Citizenship Procedural Instructions (CPIs) which have been published by the government as a guide to decision-makers.
The Citizenship Policy Statement and its application
The Tribunal notes that the role of the Policy Statement is defined as outlining:
“the overarching legislative requirements for the process of becoming an Australian citizen (either automatically or by application), the rights and responsibilities of an Australian citizen, the circumstances in which a person’s Australian citizenship may cease, evidence of Australian citizenship, personal identifiers of persons applying for Australian citizenship and other citizenship related matters.”[21]
[21] Australian Citizenship Policy Statement.
In addition, the Tribunal, standing as it does in the shoes of the original decision-maker but making a de novo assessment of the evidence,[22] may take into account any other relevant factors, including where appropriate any relevant factors or evidence which have arisen since the original decision was made and may not have been available to the original decision-maker.
[22] AFY18 v Minister for Home Affairs [2018] FCA 1566 at [9] per Charlesworth J.
A decision-maker is required to have regard to any statements of government policy. As far back as 1979, the Full Federal Court held that:
“If the original decision maker has properly paid regard to some general government policy in reaching his decision, the existence of that policy will plainly be a relevant factor for the tribunal to take into account in reviewing the decision. On the other hand, the tribunal is not, in the absence of specific statutory provision, entitled to abdicate its function of determining whether the decision was, on the material before the tribunal, the correct and preferable one in favour of a function of merely determining whether the decision made conformed with whatever the relevant general government policy might be.”[23]
[23] Drake v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1979) 46 FLR 409 at 420.
In a further review of the same case, the then President of this Tribunal made it clear in relation to Ministerial discretion (as expressed in policy directions) that, in relation to the responsibilities of a decision-maker, “[h]is discretion cannot be so truncated by a policy as to preclude consideration of the merits of a specified class of cases.”[24]
[24] Re Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No.2) (1979) 2 ALD 634 at 640.
In 1985, the Tribunal noted:
“Policy is not law. A statement of policy is not a prescription of binding criteria. By conferring a discretion upon the decision-maker, the law requires that all matters relevant to the exercise of the discretion shall be taken into account”.[25]
[25] Re Aston and Secretary, Department of Primary Industry (1985) 8 ALD 366at 376.
Similarly, in Gbojueh the Federal Court noted:
“At both common law and under statutory judicial review a decision-maker will not commit jurisdictional error merely by having regard to a principle or policy when exercising a statutory discretion. Error, may, however, occur if the decision-maker considers him or herself bound to apply the policy without regard to countervailing considerations and acts accordingly.” [26]
[26] Gbojueh v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection[2014] FCA 883 at [39].
In Elias, this principle was expressed as:
“The Commissioner is entitled to adopt a policy to provide guidance as to the exercise of the discretion, provided the policy is consistent with the statute by which the discretion is conferred. Thus if the statute gives a discretion in general terms, the discretion cannot be truncated or confined by an inflexible policy that it shall only be exercised in a limited range of circumstances. A general policy as to how a discretion will “normally” be exercised does not infringe these principles, so long as the applicant is able to put forward reasons why the policy should be changed, or should not be applied in the circumstances of the particular case.”[27]
[27] Elias v Commissioner of Taxation[2002] FCA 845 at [34].
In relation to both the Policy Statement and the CPIs, the Tribunal notes that Senior Member McCabe (as he then was) observed in Kumar that:
“I do not accept the Australian Citizenship Instructions[28] are useful aids to the interpretation of the statute. At best, they represent the respondent’s opinion as to the correct interpretation of the legislation. My task is to focus on the words of the statute in their context. The Act says what it says, and the words mean what they say.”[29]
[28] These “Instructions” (last made on 26 February 2015) have since been replaced by the Australian Citizenship Policy Statement. The current set of Instructions are a different form of advice to decision-makers.
[29] Kumar and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2014] AATA 944 at [7].
More recently this matter was addressed by Besanko J as follows:
“The part which a governmental policy should ordinarily play in the determinations of the Tribunal is a matter for the Tribunal to determine, in the context of the particular case, informed by considerations of the desirability of consistency of administrative decisions, but balanced against the ideal of justice in the individual case (Hneidi v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2010] FCAFC 20; (2010) 182 FCR 115 at [43]). Further, it is well-established that the Tribunal must make the correct or preferable decision in each case on the material before it and that the Tribunal is at liberty to adopt whatever policy it chooses, or no policy at all, in fulfilling its statutory function (Re Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No 2) (1979) 2 ALD 634 at 642–643 per Brennan J). The important matter is compliance with the terms of the relevant statute itself (Minister for Home Affairs v G [2019] FCAFC 79; (2019) 266 FCR 569).”[30]
[30] MDXJ v Secretary, Department of Social Services [2020] FCA 1767 at [17].
Good character
Paragraph 21(2)(h) of the Citizenship Act requires that an applicant be “of good character at the time of the Minister’s decision on the application.” In his or her assessment, the delegate found that the Applicant was not of good character and this was the sole identified basis for the refusal of his application.
The term “good character” is, unhelpfully, not defined in the Act and so the Tribunal must place reliance upon the definitions developed by the Courts and supported by the provisions of the Australian Citizenship Policy Statement and Citizenship Procedural Instructions issued to assist decision-makers.
In Irving v Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs, the Full Federal Court stated:
“Unless the terms of the Act and regulations require some other meaning be applied, the words “good character” should be taken to be used in their ordinary sense, namely, a reference to the enduring moral qualities of a person, and not to the good standing, fame or repute of that person in the community.”[31]
[31] Irving v Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (1996) 139 ALR 84 at 94.
The Tribunal has further found that evidence of what a person says, does or what they are heard to say or seen to do should be taken as indication of their acceptance of the values and norms to which they are expected to adhere and be loyal.[32]
[32] Zheng and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2011] AATA 304 at [120].
An elegant encapsulation of what the authorities have identified as the hallmarks of “good character” was given by O’Bryan J in BOY19 as follows:
“The following principles can be distilled from the authorities about the meaning of the expression “good character” in s 21(2)(h) of the Act. First, it refers to the enduring moral qualities of a person and not to the good standing, fame or repute of that person in the community, although the latter may provide evidence of the former. The expression is not concerned with the physical or intellectual attributes or abilities of a person. Second, the expression does not have a fixed and precise content. Like other broad statutory standards, such as whether an entity is a fit and proper person to hold a statutory licence or whether a decision is in the public interest, the expression imports a discretionary value judgment to be made by reference to undefined factual matters confined only by the subject matter, scope and purpose of the statutory provisions. Third, and as a corollary of the second point, the expression requires a judgment as to whether any proved deficiencies in the moral qualities of a person are sufficient to deny the person citizenship.”[33]
[33] BOY19 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2019] FCA 574. Citations omitted.
Citizenship Procedural Instruction 15 (CPI 15) itself then goes on to outline what the characteristics of good character might amount to. These are set out, at some length, as expecting that applicants would (inter alia):
·respect and abide by the law in Australia and other countries;
·be honest and financially responsible (for example, pay tax, not be in dishonest receipt of public funds pay debts to the Commonwealth);
·not practise deception or fraud in dealings with the Australian Government, or other organisations, for example
ointentionally providing false personal information (such as fraudulent work experience or qualification documents) or
oother material deception during visa and citizenship applications;
oevading immigration control at the border or living unlawfully in the community after their visa ceased, or assisting others to do so, or involvement in people smuggling or trafficking;
oknowingly entering into a bogus marriage or pretending to be a de facto partner of another person;
oconcealing criminal convictions;
ofraud against the Commonwealth such as tax fraud or Centrelink fraud;
ogiving false names and/or addresses to police;
·not be the subject of any extradition order or other international arrest warrant;
·not be violent, involved in illegal drugs or unlawful sexual activity, and not cause harm to others through their conduct (for example multiple and/or repeated instances of recklessness exhibited by negligent or drink driving, excessive speeding or driving without a licence);
·not associate with persons who are involved in anti-social or criminal behaviour, or who do not uphold and obey the laws of Australia, such as organisations involved in war crimes, criminal gangs, OMCGs or youth gangs;
·not have committed, or been involved in, or associated with war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide
·not be involved in terrorist organisations or acts of terrorism overseas or in Australia.[34]
[34] Citizenship Procedural Instruction 15.

CPI 15 elaborates, by attaching to the phrase “enduring moral qualities”, further qualifications, namely:
·characteristics which have endured over a long period of time;
·distinguishing right from wrong; and
·behaving in an ethical manner, conforming to the rules and values of Australian society.[35]
[35] Ibid.
In both Fang and Nguyen, I drew attention to the numerous decisions of the Tribunal which emphasise the necessity of honest dealings with government.[36] In Fang I said, in relation to applicants for citizenship, that they
“must be absolutely truthful as to who they are and absolutely truthful about their identity. Truthfulness in the completion of government documents, such as passenger arrival cards, applications for visas or citizenship, licences or identity documents is an absolute requirement – applicable indeed, equally to citizens and non-citizens alike.”[37]
[36] Fang and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (Citizenship) [2018] AATA 3686 at [99]-[104].
[37] Fang and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (Citizenship) [2018] AATA 3686 at [97].
In Nguyen I came to a conclusion, affirming a refusal of citizenship, in the following terms:
“Citizenship of Australia is regarded as a special privilege when extended to those not automatically qualified. Earning it requires adherence not only to statutory requirements but also to the set of moral values and qualities related to honesty in dealings with the Government. These values and qualities are themselves a hallmark of good citizenship.[38]
Citizenship cannot be awarded on the basis of false statements. There are no excuses for making false statements in this regard.
Equally, it is a hallmark of citizenship to take personal responsibility for one’s own actions and not cast them off onto the shoulders of others. Even persons who are not able to manage well in the English language can do this without resort to placing themselves in the hands of deceitful third parties.”^[39]
[38] See Zheng v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2011] AATA 304 at [120].
[39] Re Nguyen and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (Citizenship) [2018] AATA 1082 at [82]-[84].
Decisions in cases such as Lachmaiya[40] and Taradel[41] further emphasise that being truthful in dealing with government departments, especially in terms of provision of information which itself is part of the architecture of important public policies, such as immigration and border security, is of such high value that any derogation from it should be regarded seriously and subject to sanction. It is certainly grounds for refusal of citizenship by conferral on character grounds.
[40] Lachmaiya and Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs [1994] AATA 27 at [35].
[41] Re Taradel and Minister for Immigration, Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] AATA 1255 at [23].
A person who supplies false or fraudulent information or documentation to any Australian authority, in this instance, in relation to visa, immigration or citizen ship matters, ipso facto is a person who is not of good character and hence fails the paragraph 21(2)(h) test.
The provision of immigration advice
Legally emigrating to Australia is a complicated process and while much of that process is conducted online, many people (perhaps the majority) who seek to emigrate, require a degree of advice and assistance.
Much of this advice can be obtained from government websites or direct contact with Australian government agencies. However, many people, especially those unfamiliar with issues of language, document management and the completion of applications, rightly seek advice from people with expertise in these matters.
In 1992, the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Migration Act) was amended[42] to establish the Migration Agents Registration Scheme (the Scheme) whereby certain persons could be registered as migration agents and thereby authorised to give what is called “immigration assistance”[43] to clients seeking to navigate the complexities of the Migration Act.
[42] Migration Amendment Act (No. 3) 1992 (Cth).
[43] Migration Act 1958 (Cth) s 276.
In introducing the legislation, the Minister at the time stated that the scheme was “designed to improve standards of professional conduct and quality of service.”[44]
[44] Commonwealth, Parliamentary Debates, House of Representatives, 27 May 1992 at 2937 (Gerry Hand, Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs).
The Minister identified the ills which needed to be remedied as follows:
“This initiative reflects the Government’s concern over the level and nature of complaints made against incompetent and unscrupulous agents… It also recognises the fact that many of those who are likely to seek the assistance of agents are among the most vulnerable in our society… I do not intend to list comprehensively problems which led to the development of the scheme, but some examples include agents having been paid to lodge applications and then failing to do so; lodging applications without paying the prescribed fees, thereby not giving effect to the application; lodging applications tardily in a way which adversely affects the entitlements of applicants; and holding passports as 'security and then demanding extra payments'. There are also examples of agents providing incompetent advice because they lack even a rudimentary knowledge of the Migration Act and regulations.”[45]
[45] Ibid.
The legislation establishes a system whereby a person seeking to become a migration agent must apply for and be granted registration.
Registration requires that an applicant meet certain statutory requirements (for example, being over the age of 18, holding professional indemnity insurance or holding Australian citizenship or appropriate other status) and the Migration Act provides that they must be a person who is deemed to be a person of integrity or who is a fit and proper person to give immigration assistance.[46]
[46] Migration Act 1958 (Cth) s 290.
In addition, the Migration Act[47] provides for the development and publication of a Code of Conduct (the Code) for migration agents and adherence to this Code is mandatory. The Minister made clear that “[t]his is a critical element of the scheme”[48] designed to ensure both the protection of consumers (“clients”[49]) and the orderly management of the Scheme itself.
[47] Migration Act 1958 (Cth) s 314.
[48] Commonwealth, Parliamentary Debates, House of Representatives, 27 May 1992 at 2939 (Gerry Hand, Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs).
[49] “Clients” are defined in section 306C of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth).
The Scheme is now regulated by the Office of the Migration Agents Registration Authority (OMARA) whose responsibilities, powers and duties are set out in the Migration Act.
Among OMARA’s responsibilities are the registration and re-registration of migration agents; the monitoring of adherence to the Code; and the investigation of complaints against migration agents.[50]
[50] Migration Act 1958 (Cth) s 316.
Only registered migration agents may give “immigration assistance” which is defined, inter alia, in section 276 of the Migration Act as:
(1) For the purposes of this Part, a person gives immigration assistance if the person uses, or purports to use, knowledge of, or experience in, migration procedure to assist a visa applicant or cancellation review applicant by:
(a) preparing, or helping to prepare, the visa application or cancellation review application; or
(b) advising the visa applicant or cancellation review applicant about the visa application or cancellation review application; or
(c) preparing for proceedings before a court or review authority in relation to the visa application or cancellation review application; or
(d) representing the visa applicant or cancellation review applicant in proceedings before a court or review authority in relation to the visa application or cancellation review application.
(2) For the purposes of this Part, a person also gives immigration assistance if the person uses, or purports to use, knowledge of, or experience in, migration procedure to assist another person by:
(a) preparing, or helping to prepare, a document indicating that the other person nominates or sponsors a visa applicant for the purposes of the regulations; or
(b) advising the other person about nominating or sponsoring a visa applicant for the purposes of the regulations; or
(c) representing the other person in proceedings before a court or review authority that relate to the visa for which the other person was nominating or sponsoring a visa applicant (or seeking to nominate or sponsor a visa applicant) for the purposes of the regulations.
Under subsection 276(3), it is not “immigration assistance” merely if a person
(a) does clerical work to prepare (or help prepare) an application or other document; or
(b) provides translation or interpretation services to help prepare an application or other document; or
(c) advises another person that the other person must apply for a visa; or
(d) passes on to another person information produced by a third person, without giving substantial comment on or explanation of the information.
Section 280 of the Migration Act is precise in stating that:
Subject to this section, a person who is not a registered migration agent must not give immigration assistance.
Exceptions are provided in relation to this prohibition so that it does not apply to advice given by parliamentarians, lawyers (who may give only “immigration legal assistance”), certain public officials, diplomats and close family members.[51]
[51] Migration Act 1958 (Cth) s 280(2)-(6).
People who are not registered migration agents must not advertise that they provide immigration assistance services. Section 284 of the Migration Act provides:
(1) Subject to this section, a person who is not a registered migration agent must not advertise that he or she gives immigration assistance.
Penalty: Imprisonment for 2 years.
(2) This section does not prohibit a parliamentarian from advertising that he or she gives immigration assistance.
(3) This section does not prohibit a lawyer from advertising that he or she gives immigration legal assistance.
(4) This section does not prohibit an official from advertising that he or she gives immigration assistance in the course of acting as an official.
Migration agents who operate outside Australia do not need to be registered. They may obtain an identification number from the Department, but this does not qualify them as a migration agent.[52]
[52] Department of Immigration and Citizenship (as it was then): Visas, Immigration and Refugees – Migration Agents – Agents Outside Australia. Tribunal documents at 166.
The Applicant’s attempts to register as a Migration Agent – Notifications
On 9 June 2014, the (then) Department of Immigration and Border Protection received communication from a known person (whose identity has been redacted in the files) to the effect that the Applicant was
“providing immigration assistance and services to Australia, but he is not a registered migration agent. Check out his website… I have seen the advertisements of his business on (sic) the local newspapers of Australia as well.”[53]
[53] Supplementary Tribunal documents at 61.
As a result of this “dob-in”, on 19 September 2014 Department sent the Applicant a letter which stated, inter alia:
“It has come to the attention of the Department... that you may be giving immigration assistance to visa applicants without authority.”[54]
[54] Exhibit A1.
The Applicant responded to this correspondence on 1 October 2014 denying any such allegations and setting out details of his work providing migration advice in Iran.[55]
[55] Ibid.
After considering these representations, the Department, by email on 14 October 2014 replied stating:
“Thank you for your responses. They have been noted. As the letter was for Educational purposes only, no further action will be taken at this stage.”[56]
[56] Ibid.
A further “dob-in” communication was received by the Department on 1 July 2015. The record shows:
“Specific information: He is not [a] registered migration agent, he is an Australian permanent resident and currently lives in Australia. He advertises in the Iranian papers and he provides immigration assistance offshore/onshore. He does not have an office in Sydney, nevertheless he provides assistance while he is an Australian permanent resident and lives in Australia.
Information Source: I am a member of the community and have this knowledge through the community.”[57]
[57] Supplementary Tribunal documents at 57-58.
On 19 April 2016, the Department sent another letter to the Applicant which stated, inter alia:
“The purpose of this letter is to advise you that the Department of Immigration and Border Protection (the Department) has reason to believe that you are in breach of sections of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act) and to warn you that if breaches have occurred or are found to continue to occur the Department will consider taking further action.”[58]
[58] Exhibit A2.
The letter went on to specify sections 280 to 285 of the Migration Act as being the relevant provisions and drawing attention to the consequences of any person found to be in breach thereof.
Once again, the Applicant responded to the department’s warning letter, denying any breaches of the legislation (25 April 2016)[59] and on 5 May 2016 the Department wrote back:
“Thank you for taking the time to respond to the warning letter.
At this stage no further action will be taken in regards to this case. However the Department continues to have some concerns over your practice, particularly your duties when advising and representing applicant before the Department for visa lodgements.”[60]
[59] Ibid.
[60] Ibid.
While all this was on foot, the Applicant submitted a formal application to register as a Migration Agent. That application was received by the Office of the Migration Registration Authority (OMARA) on 25 August 2015.
On 29 July 2016, OMARA wrote to the Applicant giving him notice of the fact that it was considering a refusal of his application, setting out the reasons for this pending decision and inviting his comments thereon.[61]
[61] Respondent’s Tender Bundle at 1-6.
The basis for the pending refusal of the application was that OMARA was concerned that the Applicant had provided false information in support of his application with regard to the Internet Based Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL iBT) which he was required to complete.
Discussion of relevant language tests is set out below.
It appears that the Applicant did not reply to the specifics of the OMARA letter, but instead wrote on 23 August 2016:
“I believe that MARA play with me and took the opportunity to lodge a new application with the same completion letter just because assign my application to the incompetent case officer (the first one ). If she noticed me about this problem in Dec 2015 then I had plenty of time to handle it and there is no need to pay another $5000 to renew my completion letter and MARA application fee!!
Unfortunately there are many problems and human faults in governmental departments like Police department- immigration department – judicial department and... ,just because they use Unprofessional and incompetent staff on duties .
Finally , Based on all these please withdraw my application by now until my next application and I really hope the next one will be success without any problems .
Best regards,
Dr.Afshin Behrouzian (LL.D).”[62]
[62] Ibid at 7.
OMARA responded by email on 24 August 2016:
“We are writing to confirm that, as per your written request of 24/08/2016, your application for registration as a migration agent has been withdrawn.”[63]
[63] Exhibits A3 and A3-2.
Because of an error in the Respondent’s preparation of its Section 37 material, the identities of the two persons who made the “dob-in” allegations were apparent to the Applicant. He claimed that each of them had been, at some stage, a business partner or colleague and that, as a result of various fallings-out they were intended to do him damage as a “competitor”. When it was put to him that they could only have been “competitors” if he was operating a commercial business in Australia, the Applicant refined his position to say that they were also “competitors” in Iran and/or with the Iranian community and hence were seeking to damage his reputation in that market.
The Tribunal has no way of assessing these claims and no independent knowledge of who might have been the individuals concerned, let alone their business or personal interests or motives.
Test results
Both the delegate’s decision of 21 April 2020 refusing the Applicant’s citizenship application and the OMARA letter of 29 July 2016 indicating a potential refusal of his application for registration as a migration agent, turned primarily upon both decision-makers finding that documents submitted by the Applicant in relation to various English language proficiency tests were fraudulent.
For certain classes of visa, including Skilled-Independent visas, applicants must demonstrate a require level of proficiency in reading, writing and speaking the English language. There are a number of tests which are recognised by the Australian government as being acceptable for this purpose.
One of the these is the International English Language Testing System (IELTS) which, in several countries, including Iran, is conducted under the auspices of the British Council.
In order to put these various matters within context, it is necessary to re-visit certain claims and counter-claims about the Applicant’s visas. The chronology appears to be:
·18 August 2005 – Applicant lodges application for Skilled-Independent (Subclass 136) visa (application dated 12 August 2005)[64]
[64] Supplementary Tribunal documents at20.
·8 September 2005 – Department acknowledges receipt of application at Adelaide Skills Processing Centre[65]
[65] Ibid at 23.
·5 October 2005 – Applicant writes to Department to seek advice about levels of English language competency required[66]
[66] Ibid at 29.
·10 October 2005 – Department responds to Applicant re English language advice[67]
[67] Ibid at 27.
·5 April 2006 – Applicant asked to provide proof via IELTS test of his English language competency[68]
[68] Ibid at 31.
·22 April 2006 – Applicant sits for IELTS test[69]
[69] Ibid at 32.
·9 May 2006 – IELTS certificate for Applicant issued[70] and found by the Department to be “non-genuine”[71]
[70] Ibid.
[71] Ibid at 44.
·23 June 2006 – email sent to Applicant advising his that a letter is attached asking him to comment on adverse findings made on 9 May 2006.[72] This letter cannot be found in departmental files and the Applicant claims not to have retained a copy.
[72] Ibid at 34.
·19 July 2006 – Applicant makes Statutory Declaration related to the IELTS results denying any wrongdoing and asking for time to provide additional information[73]
[73] Ibid at 36-37.
·25 July 2006 – Applicant granted 28-day extension to provide further documentation[74]
[74] Ibid at 38.
·10 August 2006 – Applicant advises he cannot provide further documentation and indicates he has booked to sit for a further IELTS test on 14 October 2006[75]
·22 May 2007 – Applicant’s application for Subclass 136 visa is refused.[76] It should be noted that in his Statutory Declaration of 17 December 2019 the Applicant states that as a result of not being able to obtain further documentation regarding the IELTS test, “I had to withdraw my application on July 2006.”[77] There is no evidence of such a withdrawal, only of a refusal decision, before the Tribunal.
·29 August 2007 – Applicant applies for Class BN Subclass 136 Skilled-Independent visa[78]
·10 February 2008 – Applicant granted (offshore) Business-Short Stay (Subclass 456) visa[79]
·15 March 2008 – Applicant arrives in Australia on Subclass 456 visa[80]
·12 August 2009 – Applicant granted Class BN visa[81]
·9 June 2014 to 14 October 2014 – first OMARA investigation of Applicant
·1 July 2015 to 5 May 2016 – second OMARA investigation of Applicant
·2 September 2016 – Applicant granted Return Resident (Subclass 155) permanent visa
·20 October 2017 – Applicant lodges application for citizenship by conferral.
[75] Ibid at 39.
[76] Ibid at 42-45.
[77] Tribunal documents at 158.
[78] Exhibit A4.
[79] Tribunal documents at 10.
[80] Respondent’s Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions at [2].
[81] Exhibit A4.
First language test

As noted above, the first language test was undertaken on 22 April 2006 and the relevant certificate issued on 9 May 2006. On examination by the Department, this test result certificate was found to be non-genuine. The Applicant was notified of this and asked to comment on potentially adverse findings.
It is deeply regrettable that the Department has been unable to produce the letter sent to the Applicant which would have explained the basis for this finding of non-genuineness. The Tribunal cannot speculate on the basis upon which such a finding was made in the absence of any evidence.
In the upshot, the Applicant indicated that he was “shocked” at the finding and had no idea regarding the correctness or otherwise of his exam results.[82] His further response to the adverse notification letter was:
“I will try to confirm my IELTS result or get a letter from the British Council or I will take part in IELTS exam in the earliest date because I am sure my immigration file has been sacrificed due to an official mistake.”
[82] Supplementary Tribunal documents at 36.
In the event, the Applicant did not provide any further information, although he claimed that he had sought assistance from the British Council who “did not cooperate enough with me.”[83]
[83] Tribunal documents at 158.
The results of this first IELTS test were given as Listening (7.0); Reading (6.5); Writing (7.0); Speaking (7.0) with an overall band score of (7.0). The Regulations under the Migration Act provide that a minimum requisite score is (7.0) overall with at least (6.5) in each individual category.[84] As such, the Applicant “passed” the test.
[84] Migration Agents Regulations 1998 (Cth) regs 5(3)(b) and 5(4); IMMI 12/097.
It was on the basis of the Applicant’s failure to provide evidence of his English language proficiency that his application for the Skilled-Independent visa was refused in May 2007.[85]
[85] Supplementary Tribunal documents at 44.
Second language test
In association with his second application for a Skilled-Independent visa lodged on 29 August 2007, the Applicant submitted a second IELTS test report dated 15 December 2008.
Those test results show scores of Listening (5.5); Reading (5.5); Writing (6.0); Speaking (6.0) and overall band score (6.0).[86] These are clearly inadequate scores to “pass” the test. They bespeak failure.
[86] Tribunal documents at 20.
Third language test
The third test was conducted in relation to the Applicant’s application to OMARA to be registered as a Migration Agent. Interestingly, the Applicant did not return to the British Council to take an IELTS test, but rather, on this occasion the test in question was the Internet Based Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL iBT) which is administered by the Educational Testing Service which has its headquarters in Princeton, New Jersey, United States of America.
The Applicant sat for the TOEFL test on 14 February 2015. His scores on that occasion were Reading (28); Listening (27); Speaking (23); Writing (27) and Overall band score (105). These results do not allow direct comparison with the IELTs scores but the minimum requisite scores in this scale are an overall band score (100) and at least (22) in each sub-category.[87] Hence, this was a “passing” grade on the TOEFL test.
[87] Migration Agents Regulations 1998 (Cth) regs 5(3)(b) and 5(4); IMMI 12/097.
The procedure when this test is undertaken involves (inter alia) an applicant providing proof of identity at the test centre (photograph and signature), then being separately photographed with that photograph being embedded into the score reports.[88]
[88] TOEFL iBT Test Security Procedures, Exhibit R1.
On 11 March 2016, the Educational Testing Service, from its American headquarters, wrote to the Applicant in Tehran advising (inter alia) that:
“I am writing to advise that the test scores issued in your name for the February 14, 2015 TOEFL iBT have been cancelled. We have taken this action because a comprehensive investigation has revealed that documents and other information in or files from test day indicate that you had someone else appear for the test.”[89]
[89] Respondent’s Tender Bundle at 13.
At some stage, OMARA received information which led it to conclude that the Applicant had in fact not personally sat for the TOEFL test but that someone else had undertaken it on his behalf. It therefore requested, from the (then) Department of Immigration and Border Protection, a forensic analysis of material in its possession. The request was made on 7 December 2015 and a report was provided on 14 December 2015.[90] There is no indication before the Tribunal as to how such matters were raised with OMARA in the first instance.[91]
[90] Supplementary Tribunal documents at 52-54.
[91] Respondent’s Tender Bundle at 2.
It will be recalled that between April and May 2016 OMARA was conducting investigations into the Applicant regarding the second set of “dob-in” allegations.
On 16 June 2016, OMARA contacted the TOEFL test provider to verify details of the Applicant’s test scores and on 29 June 2016, the provider sent OMARA a copy of their letter to the Applicant of 11 March 2016.[92]
[92] Ibid.
OMARA then took the position that, as the Applicant had not provided proof of English language competency, his application for registration as a migration agent could not be approved and they wrote to him seeking his response. As is outlined above, the Applicant then withdrew his application. In his email of withdrawal, he sought to assign blame in this matter to officers of the department, as quoted above.
The Applicant, naturally, vigorously contests the finding by the TOEFL test provider that another person substituted for him at the test itself.
There are some matters in relation to the Facial Image Comparison Report which have not been satisfactorily outlined to the Tribunal. The Report compares two photographs designated as P1 (passport photo) and Q1 (Behrouzian). Both show the name of the photographic subject as Afshin Behrouzian with a date of birth of 23 August 1975.[93] The first one appears to have either been provided by the Applicant at some stage or else was readily retrievable from the federal government’s data base of photographs of visa applicants. There is no explanation of the origin of photograph Q1. It does not seem likely that this was sourced from the TOEFL test provider as there is no evidence that OMARA made contact with them before 16 June 2016, which is six months after the comparison Report.
[93] Supplementary Tribunal documents at 53.
Thus, the Tribunal cannot be sure who provided photograph Q1, where or when it was taken and how it came into the possession of OMARA for comparative purposes. There is no other evidence to show how, when or where, photograph Q1 was ever held out to be a photograph of Afshin Behrouzian. The Tribunal notes that this photograph appears to have emerged in the possession of OMARA during the period of its second investigation of “dob-in” allegations against the Applicant.
If one accepts the Applicant’s premise that each of the “dob-in” allegations were made in order to damage his commercial standing and business activities, then the emergence of this otherwise unsourced photograph emerges in a potentially different context.
The Tribunal also notes that when the letter of 11 March 2016 was put to the Applicant he claimed that it should be read as having been addressed to him only as part of the whole group of persons who undertook the TOEFL test that day. In other words, he claimed that the letter should be read as vitiating the whole TOEFL test procedure and not applying exclusively to him and his test. The Tribunal must reject this assertion which has no basis in any of the evidence before it.
The Applicant’s business practice
The Applicant is the principal of an Australian Proprietary Company, limited by shares which was originally registered with the Australian Securities and Investments Commission as Dr Afshin Behrouzian Immigration Services Pty Ltd. ASIC records suggest that on or about 16 August 2015 it changed its name to Premier Legal Firm Pty Ltd. In its former name it had ASIC registration dating from 24 November 2009 and both entities show their registered offices at the home address of the Applicant. The company has ACN and ABN numbers.[94]
[94] Details obtained from ASIC Registry Search.
In addition to the Applicant’s Iranian legal qualifications, he states he is a member of the NSW Law Society and the Migration Alliance.
What the Applicant outlined to the Tribunal was that he has a company registered in Australia through which he conducts business in Iran acting as a migration agent assisting people in Iran (almost exclusively Iranian citizens) who wish to migrate to either Australia or New Zealand. He advertises his services in Iran drawing attention to his specialist knowledge of Australian and New Zealand immigration law.
He employs five to six staff members at offices in Tehran where he spends up to seven months each year.
It was his testimony, and that of two employees (Kasra Kassaeyan and Mohsen Samimi) who gave evidence by telephone and provided written statements,[95] that all the company’s business was done in Tehran where all “agreement and payments” were made. It was agreed by the witnesses that some limited advertising took place in Australia “for the purpose of those Iranians in Iran who happen to have family or relatives living in Australia.”[96]
[95] Applicant’s Submissions at Tab [3b] and [3d].
[96] Statutory Declaration of Mr Mohsen Samimi.
All business is done using the email account [email protected] and regular sums are emitted from Tehran to Sydney to provide income for the Applicant while he is resident in Australia. Most business is transacted online with a limited number of clients attending the Tehran office in person.
It was the testimony of all three gentlemen that when the Applicant is in Australia, it is often necessary for the staff in Tehran to call the Applicant in Sydney to seek his advice on matters which are more complex, although it was the testimony of Mr Kassaeyan that all the Tehran staff have some “experience” with Australian immigration law and procedures.
The Tribunal notes that the Applicant’s wife (Ms Rahimi) noted that while her “husband does not have any kind of business activities in Australia which violates any Australian law and or regulation whether immigration or otherwise”,[97] she nevertheless agreed in her evidence that he takes frequent calls from his office in Tehran to deal with matters referred to him.
[97] Applicant’s Submissions at Tab [3c].
She and the Applicant’s personal friends, Mr Reza Mohammadzad and his wife Ms Baharak Eshghi Sabetkar, all testified that despite these arrangements, the Applicant does not have “an office” set up in his home.
The Tribunal examined a number of advertisements provided by the Respondent showing how the Applicant presents his services. The Tribunal also made arrangements to view a YouTube clip made some years ago in which the Applicant and a prominent television presenter discuss his business activities related to assisting Iranian citizens to migrate and also considered the Applicant’s current website.
Understandably, most of this material is in Farsi. The Respondent provided a translation of some of the material, admitting that the translation mechanism used was Google translate.[98]
[98] Respondent’s SFIC Annexure [4c].
This is entirely unsatisfactory and led to the Tribunal being presented with such arrant nonsense as a line translated as “Immigrating to New Zealand with years of experience and setting hundreds of cases ready to get a kidney.”[99] Similarly, when the Respondent’s translations were put before a NAATI accredited interpreter at the hearing, original “translations” giving “New South Wales Bar Association and the International Bar Association” were properly rendered as “New South Wales Law Society and International Law Society”.
[99] Ibid.
The advertisements do however display the logos of IELTS, the University of Cambridge (a partner in the IELTS consortium) and TOEFL.
At one stage, the advertisements showed an Australian number as the number for applicants to call, but this was explained as being a number which “automatically” diverted to a number in Tehran. The number is no longer operative. Similarly, the number now listed for Australian-based applicants or interested parties to contact is an Iranian number (also now no longer functional).
In either case, direct calling or calling via a diverted number would no doubt be frustrating for Australian-based callers given the seven and half-hour time difference between Australia and Iran.
With the limited evidence available to it, the Tribunal is only able to conclude that the Applicant advertises his services, emphasising that he is a specialist in Australian and New Zealand immigration law and policy, with a degree of hyperbole in relation to both the qualifications of members of his firm, his status in Australia and the record of success of his operations. In the world of competitive advertising, there is nothing unusual about any of that.
Discussion
Immigration assistance
The Tribunal accepts that the Applicant owns and operates a business which, for all intents and purposes, could be characterised as a migration advisory service whose principal clients are Iranian citizens wishing to migrate to Oceania.[100] The Applicant clearly puts himself forward as a “specialist” in dealing with immigration to Australia and New Zealand and promotes his various legal qualifications in this regard.
[100] The company’s current website show a map of the world with a red line stretching between Iran and “Oceania”.
The evidence is that he spends up to seven months a year in Tehran but equally that when he is in Australia he is called by his staff in Tehran for the purposes of getting his advice and guidance on the management of immigration applications and related matters.
When the Applicant is in Tehran giving advice about Australian immigration matters he is clearly rendering “immigration assistance” but because he is off-shore, he is entitled to do so, and, as far as his clients are concerned, the principle of caveat emptor applies.
The question which arises is – when the Applicant is called by his office in Tehran and he gives them advice about matters of some complexity which they cannot handle themselves, is he giving immigration assistance? The Tribunal would answer this in the negative – no.
It appears that the discussions between the Applicant and staff in his office when he is in Australia do not involve the Applicant speaking directly to any visa applicant or cancellation review applicant as defined by section 276 of the Migration Act. He is speaking or advising a third party, an intermediary, and as such he does not provide a prohibited service not being a registered migration agent.
False documentation
The Tribunal has outlined the narrative which emerges from consideration of both the Applicant’s visa history and his interactions with OMARA. It has expressed its concerns about aspects of the identity matching report.
However, it believes that there is a logical path through the thicket of claims and counter-claims which is this: the Applicant contrived to achieve a score on the First Test which was a passing score – for reasons not explained to the Tribunal that test result was found to be non-genuine (a finding, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, it feels bound to accept) – the Applicant himself then undertook the Second test, which he failed – he then understood that he needed to secure a pass mark on the Third test and as a result he arranged for someone else to sit it on his behalf.
The Tribunal believes the result of the second test was genuine and those of the first and third tests non-genuine.
The Tribunal is not prepared to accept that the significant decline in the Applicant’s scores between the first test (at passing grade) and the second test (at failing grade) bespeaks anything other than different people undertaking them. The Applicant’s claim that he was under stress or had insufficient time to study for the second test is not credible – the time lapse between them (over a year) was such that any reasonable expectation would be for the same applicant to do better on the second test, especially if that 12 months or so had been taken up with working with English-language based Australian government documents and with time spent in Australia.
In some respects, this all seems so unnecessary as the Applicant presented to the Tribunal as a highly articulate gentleman who had no difficulty in speaking a or comprehending English or indeed managing large amounts of documentation. Admittedly, the Tribunal is dealing with matters which took place up to 15 years ago and, no doubt, much has changed in that time.
Conclusion
The Tribunal has set out above the clear authority which supports the proposition that the supply of false, deceptive or misleading information to the Department in itself constitutes a failure of the good character test and thus a failure to meet the requirement of paragraph 21(2)(h) of the Citizenship Act.
It follows that since the Tribunal has found that the Applicant engaged in this practice, perhaps on more than one occasion, it must necessarily find that the Applicant fails the character test.
An unanswered question
It is difficult to comprehend how the Applicant managed to secure his Subclass 456 visa in February 2008 when the Department would have been aware that he had been refused a Subclass 136 visa in May 2007 and his second application for a Subclass 136 visa was still undetermined. While it may well be that the language requirements differ between the visa categories, the basis for the refusal of the original Subclass 136 visa would have been known to the Department and would have alerted them to matters of “character” concern. This matter is, however, not relevant to the Tribunal’s current determination.
The Department’s conduct - Unsatisfactory
In these proceedings, the Department failed to conduct itself at the level of being a model litigant as should be expected in terms of the preparation of material for the Tribunal’s consideration.
In the first instance, it was unable to produce a critically important letter from the Department to the Applicant stating the detailed reasons for the determination that the first test results were non-genuine.
Secondly, it failed to redact in full, identifying details of the individuals who had “dobbed-in” to OMARA thus allowing the Applicant to identify them personally.
Thirdly, its presentation of material to the Tribunal via Google Translate is quite unacceptable when the Department has access to highly skilled and qualified translators and which led to the sort of arrant nonsense in some of the translations being presented.
While there will always be legitimate instances where documentation cannot be found, the combination of this with two other matters, neither of which is excusable, presented the Department itself in a less than commendable light before the Tribunal.
DECISION
The decision under review is affirmed.

I certify that the preceding 128 (one hundred and twenty -eight) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Chris Puplick AM, Senior Member

.....................................[sgd]...................................
Associate
Dated: 15 January 2021

Date(s) of hearing: 7 and 8 December 2020

Solicitors for the Applicant: Mr F Nikjoo, Nikjoo Lawyers

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr T Reilly

Solicitors for the Respondent: Ms C Hillary, Australian Government Solicitor

[2021] AATA 17

15 January 2021

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Administrative Law

Statutory Interpretation

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Procedural Fairness

Statutory Construction

Date(s) of hearing:	7 and 8 December 2020
Solicitors for the Applicant:	Mr F Nikjoo, Nikjoo Lawyers
Counsel for the Respondent:	Mr T Reilly
Solicitors for the Respondent:	Ms C Hillary, Australian Government Solicitor