Dao and Pham v MIAC

In *Dao and Pham v MIAC*, the applicants, Mr and Mrs Dao and Mr Pham, sought judicial review of decisions made by the Migration Agents Registration Authority (MARA) to refuse their applications for registration as migration agents. The applicants had previously been registered but their registrations had lapsed. MARA refused their applications on the basis that they did not satisfy the character requirements under s 289(1)(b) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) and reg 5.23(1)(a) of the *Migration Regulations 1994* (Cth), due to past conduct involving dishonesty. The matter came before Crennan J in the Federal Court of Australia.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether MARA had erred in law in its assessment of the applicants' character. Specifically, the Court was required to determine whether MARA had correctly applied the relevant legislative provisions concerning character requirements, and whether its findings of dishonesty were supported by the evidence and properly considered in the context of the applicants' past conduct. The applicants contended that MARA had failed to give adequate weight to their subsequent rehabilitation and good conduct, and that the refusal decisions were unreasonable.

Crennan J found that MARA had correctly applied the legislative framework and had not erred in law. His Honour held that the character provisions required MARA to consider past conduct, and that the applicants' history of dishonesty was a relevant and significant factor. While acknowledging that MARA could consider evidence of rehabilitation, the Court found that the applicants had not provided sufficient evidence to displace the adverse findings regarding their past dishonesty. The decisions of MARA were therefore upheld.