Brown and Migration Agents Registration Authority [2015] AATA 693 (10 September 2015)
Division
GENERAL DIVISION
File Number
2014/6375
Re
Ellen Brown
APPLICANT
And
Migration Agents Registration Authority
RESPONDENT
DECISION
Tribunal Dr Damien Cremean, Senior Member
Date 10 September 2015 Place Melbourne The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.
.............................[sgd]...........................................
Senior Member
MIGRATION AGENT REGISTRATION − Fit and proper person − Relevant factors − Criminal history − Decision affirmed
Legislation
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), section 290
Cases
Bie and Migration Agents Registration Board [1997] AATA 508
Council of the New South Wales Bar Association v Franklin (No 2) [2014] NSWCA 428
Ex parte Tziniolis; Re the Medical Practitioner’s Act (1966) 67 SR (NSW) 448
Hughes & Vale Pty Ltd v State of New South Wales(No 2) (1955) 93 CLR 127
Inglese v Estate Agents Board [1988] Vic SC 389Nguyen and Migration Agents Registration Authority [2012] AATA 925
REASONS FOR DECISION
Dr Damien Cremean, Senior Member
10 September 2015
The Applicant applies to review the Respondent’s decision made on 10 December 2014 declining to register her as a migration agent under the MigrationAct1958 (Cth) (the Act) on the ground that she does not meet the requirements of s 290(1) of the Act.
According to s 290(1)(a) of the Act, the Respondent must not register an applicant if it is satisfied that the applicant is not a fit and proper person to give immigration assistance. In considering whether it is satisfied that an applicant is not a fit and proper person, the Respondent must take into account any conviction of the applicant of a criminal offence relevant to the question whether the applicant is not a fit and proper person to give immigration assistance as stipulated in s 290(2)(c)(i) of the Act. The Respondent must also take into account any other matter relevant to the applicant’s fitness to give immigration assistance (see s 290(2)(h) of the Act).
As the Tribunal stated in Nguyen and Migration Agents Registration Authority [2012] AATA 925 at [25], referring to Hughes & Vale Pty Ltd v State of New South Wales (No2)(1955) 93 CLR 127 at [156], fitness for office as a migration agent calls for an assessment of honesty, knowledge and ability. In this case, the Applicant’s knowledge and ability are not in issue. In issue is her honesty.
The question for the Tribunal is whether the Applicant is or is not a fit and proper person. Although this question is expressed in the present tense, it is relevant to look at past conviction(s) for criminal offences because the past is an important touchstone by reference to which an assessment of whether a person is fit and proper is to be made. (Nguyen and Migration Agents Registration Authority at [27]).
The Applicant has a criminal record from 2007 and 2010. In 2007 the Applicant was convicted in the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria of 14 charges of defrauding the Commonwealth and three charges of endeavouring to impose on the Commonwealth.…
Continue reading Brown and Migration Agents Registration Authority
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Brown and Migration Agents Registration Authority [2015] AATA 693
- Case
- [1997] AATA 508
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Tribunal found that Ms Brown's criminal history, which included convictions for defrauding the Commonwealth, obtaining financial advantage by deception, and other serious offences, demonstrated a pattern of dishonest conduct. Despite Ms Brown’s remorse and efforts to make amends, including paying reparations and selling her house to repay the amounts defrauded, the Tribunal was not satisfied that she had demonstrated the requisite level of honesty and trustworthiness needed for registration as a migration agent. The Tribunal also noted Ms Brown’s attempt to sign a document intended to deceive the Australian Taxation Office, further casting doubt on her suitability. The Tribunal concluded that the risk to the public of Ms Brown engaging in dishonest or fraudulent conduct again was too great, and affirmed the Authority’s decision. The Tribunal's decision was based on the weight of Ms Brown's criminal history and the significant risk it posed to the public, despite her expressions of remorse and efforts to make restitution.
The final orders of the Tribunal were that the decision of the Authority made on 10 December 2014, declining to register Ms Brown as a migration agent, be affirmed.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.