EKUSH PTY LTD (Migration)

EKUSH PTY LTD (Migration) [2021] AATA 3723 (4 August 2021)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
APPLICANT:  Ekush Pty Ltd
CASE NUMBER:  1823535
HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):          BCC2017/2324993
MEMBER:Antonio Dronjic
DATE:4 August 2021
PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne
DECISION:The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and substitutes a decision approving the nomination.

Statement made on 04 August 2021 at 3:52pm
CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Employer Nomination – approval of nominated position – Temporary Residence Transition nomination stream – Café or Restaurant Manager – term of employment – financial capacity – decision under review set aside
LEGISLATION
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), r 5.19
STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs on 25 July 2018 to reject the applicant’s application for approval of the nomination of a position in Australia under reg 5.19 of the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations).
The applicant applied for approval on 29 June 2017. The requirements for the approval of the nomination of a position in Australia are found in reg 5.19 of the Regulations, which contains two alternative streams: a Temporary Residence Transition nomination stream (reg 5.19(3)) and a Direct Entry nomination stream (reg 5.19(4)). If the application is made in accordance with reg 5.19(2) and meets the requirements of either stream, then the application must be approved. If any of the requirements are not met, then the application must be refused: reg 5.19(5).
In this case, the applicant has applied for approval of a nomination, seeking to satisfy the criteria in the Temporary Residence Transition nomination stream. The delegate refused the application on the basis that the applicant’s nomination did not satisfy reg 5.19(3)(d)(i) of the Regulations because the delegate was not satisfied that on the evidence the applicant will be employed on a full-time basis in the position for at least two years.
The nominator is Ekush Pty Ltd, a company that operates Ekush Halal Bengali restaurant in Lakemba, NSW. The nominated occupation is Café or Restaurant Manager and the nominee is Mr Harpreet Singh. The applicant applied to the Tribunal on 14 August 2018 for review of the delegate’s decision and with the application submitted a copy of the primary decision.
On 18 March 2020, the applicant’s representative submitted documentary evidence in support of the review application. The list of documents submitted to the Tribunal is attached to this decision record as Attachment A.
On 5 February 2021, the Tribunal wrote to the applicant pursuant to s 359(2) of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act). The letter invited the applicant to provide information in writing that will demonstrate the applicant meets all of the requirements of reg 5.19(3).
On 19 February 2021, the applicant responded to the Tribunal’s invitation. The list of documents submitted to the Tribunal is attached to this decision record as Attachment B.
On 2 June 2021, the Tribunal wrote to the applicant advising that it had considered the material before it and was unable to make a favourable decision on this material alone, and invited the authorised person to appear before the Tribunal on behalf of the nominating business at a hearing on 20 July 2021. With the hearing invitation letter, the Tribunal invited the applicant to provide additional documentary evidence.
On 13 and 14 July 2021, the applicant’s representative provided additional supporting documentary evidence. The list of documents submitted to the Tribunal is attached to this decision record as Attachment C.
Mr Cena appeared on behalf of the applicant before the Tribunal on 20 July 2021 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal also received oral evidence from Mr Franco Giannuzzi, an accountant retained by the business. The applicant was represented in relation to the review by its registered migration agent. The representative attended the Tribunal hearing.
In his evidence Mr Cena stated that he and his mother, Ms Haque, are directors and shareholders of the nominating business. Mr Cena comes to the restaurant every day. He reiterated claims contained in his written statement of 2 July 2021 that his duties at the restaurant include monitoring the business activities and employees on a weekly basis, including reviewing sales information and financial matters. His mother, Ms Haque, makes decisions as to whether any money should be reinvested in the business and the nominee, in his role of a restaurant manager, makes decisions about employing staff.
The Tribunal noted that, according to the information contained on the restaurant’s webpage, Ms Haque controls the kitchen and service team, liaises with suppliers and creates menus. Mr Cena gave evidence that his mother no longer works as a chef at the restaurant as both he and his mother are currently employed at another business. He gave evidence that his mother’s role at the restaurant is providing support to other employees.
He stated that he and his mother operate a registered training organisation (RTO) through another legal entity, Wiseman and Co Advanced Learning Institute Pty Ltd (Wiseman & Co). Mr Cena and his mother are directors and shareholders of this company. They use the restaurant premises Monday to Fridays from 8.30am to 4pm to provide practical training to RTO attendees. That is the reason why the restaurant is open for business from 5pm to 11pm on workdays and from 8am to 11pm on weekends. Wiseman & Co does not pay Ekush Pty Ltd compensation for use of the restaurant’s premises.
Mr Cena gave evidence that from July 2019, he and his mother were neither paid salary by the business nor directors’ fees. He gave evidence that in the 2018/19 financial year, his annual salary was approximately $45,000. His mother, who worked as a part-time head chef at the restaurant, was paid $22,000.
The business currently employs one full-time restaurant manager, two full-time chefs, two part-time cooks and one part-time kitchen hand. The restaurant has a seating capacity of approximately 50 customers.
He first met Mr Singh in February 2015. At that time, the business advertised for the position of a full-time restaurant manager as Mr Cena wanted to employ a person to take over his duties and responsibilities. The nominee responded to the advertisement and was offered the position as he had prior experience in managing fast-food restaurants. On 18 May 2015, (being the same day he was granted a Subclass 457 visa) the nominee commenced full-time employment at the restaurant. His initial salary was $55,000. Currently he is paid $57,000. The applicant’s representative undertook to provide an updated employment agreement.
The Tribunal explained the requirements of reg 5.19(3)(d)(i) and noted that the Tribunal must be satisfied that the nominator has the financial capacity to provide the nominee with a minimum of 2 years of full-time employment.
The Tribunal noted that, according to the financial statements for the 2019/20 and the 2020/21 financial years, had Mr Cena and his mother continued to draw salary and superannuation from the business as they did prior to 1 July 2019, the business would not be able to trade with any profit and arguably not have financial capacity to pay employees’ salaries.
Mr Cena stated that the nominee is running the restaurant and that neither he nor his mother are actively involved in day to day business operations. He added that he is hopeful that the profit from the business will increase in the future.
As a result of the COVID-19 lockdown, the business is currently open for delivery and take away services only. Mr Cena gave evidence that the nominee is continuing to be employed by the business and paid salary. His current tasks include taking orders from customers and delivery. Mr Cena gave evidence that during the past financial year the business received $20,000 from the Government. None of its employees received JobKeeper payments.
Mr Giannuzzi stated that he was retained by the nominating business to help them fix the problem with the ATO related to unpaid directors’ superannuation. He confirmed that he submitted a letter dated 27 February 2020 and that everything stated in that letter is true and correct.
He gave evidence that he did not examine the nominator’s financial statements for the 2020/21 financial year and undertook to provide his written opinion as to whether the business is financially capable of employing and paying the nominee’s salary for a minimum of two years.
The applicant was granted additional time until 27 July 2021 to provide additional documentary evidence and submissions.
On 22 July 2021, the applicant’s representative provided additional supporting documentary evidence. The list of documents submitted to the Tribunal is attached to this decision record as Attachment D.
For the following reasons, the Tribunal has decided to set aside the decision under review and substitute a decision approving the nomination.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
The issue in this case is whether the applicant meets the requirements for approval of the nomination under the Temporary Residence Transition nomination stream set out in reg 5.19(3), which is extracted in Attachment E to this decision. For the nomination to be approved, all the requirements must be met.
The application must be compliant: reg 5.19(3)(a)
Regulation 5.19(3)(a) requires that the application for approval must be in the approved form, must be accompanied by the prescribed fee and, where applicable, must include the required written certification relating to conduct that contravenes s 245AR(1). The application must also identify a relevant person and occupation.
From the material on the Department file, the Tribunal is satisfied that the nomination application complied with the above requirements.
Status of the nominator: reg 5.19(3)(b)
Regulation 5.19(3)(b) requires the nominator to be or have been the relevant standard business sponsor who is actively and lawfully operating a business in Australia. In addition, the nominator, as that standard business sponsor, must not have met certain criteria relating to the operation of a business overseas, in the most recent sponsorship approval.
The Department’s records indicate that the applicant was approved as a standard business sponsor between 13 December 2014 and 13 December 2017 and again from 18 June 2018 to 18 June 2023. The Tribunal is satisfied that the company was the standard business sponsor which last identified the nominee, Mr Harpreet Singh, and nominated him for a Subclass 457 visa. The Tribunal is further satisfied that the company did not meet certain criteria relating to the operation of a business overseas in its most recent sponsorship approval.
In relation to whether the applicant is actively and lawfully operating a business in Australia, the Tribunal is satisfied from the financial documents provided and the evidence of its current ABN and ASIC registrations that the applicant is actively and lawfully operating a business in Australia.
Given the above, the Tribunal finds that the requirement in reg 5.19(3)(b) is met.
Previous employment of the nominee: reg 5.19(3)(c)
Broadly speaking, to meet the requirement in reg 5.19(3)(c), either:
·the nominee must have been employed full time in Australia in the position for which he or she holds a Subclass 457 visa for at least 2 of the 3 years preceding the nomination application; or
·the nominee holds a Subclass 457 visa on the basis that s/he was identified in a nomination of a specified occupation for that visa, the nominator nominated the occupation, and the nominee has been employed in that occupation for at least 2 years in the 3 years immediately before the application.
The Tribunal has reviewed the occupations specified in the relevant instrument for the purposes of the second dot point above and is satisfied that the nominated occupation of a café or restaurant manager is not included in it. Accordingly, the applicant must meet the requirements of the first dot point above.
The Tribunal is satisfied on the evidence before it that:
·The nomination was made on 29 June 2017;
·The relevant 3-year period is therefore 29 June 2014 to 29 June 2017;
·The nominee was granted a Subclass 457 visa on 18 May 2015, which was valid until 18 May 2019;
·The nominee commenced his full-time employment at the nominating business on 18 May 2015 and continued to work there until the present time; and
·He had therefore worked for the applicant in the nominated position as the holder of a Subclass 457 visa for more than 2 years in the 3‑year period immediately prior to the nomination application being lodged.
Accordingly, given the above, and PAYG summary statements for the nominee provided to the Department and the Tribunal, the Tribunal is satisfied that the requirement in reg 5.19(3)(c) is met.
Future employment of the visa holder: reg 5.19(3)(d)
Regulation 5.19(3)(d) only applies to certain nominees (those described in reg 5.19(3)(c)(i)). For this class of person, the Regulations require that the nominee will be employed on a full time basis for at least 2 years on terms that do not expressly preclude the possibility of an extension.
The applicant provided the Tribunal with a copy of an offer of employment between the applicant and the nominee dated 20 July 2021, which states, among other things, that the employment was offered for a period of no less than 2 years from the date of a Subclass 186 visa grant. The nominee’s annual salary is set at $57,115, excluding superannuation.
The Tribunal is satisfied, based on the offer of employment referred to, that the terms and conditions of the nominee’s employment do not include an express exclusion of the possibility of extending the period of employment further (with, notably, the nominee’s employment still now continuing with the applicant more than 4 years after the nomination application).
The Tribunal considered whether the applicant has the financial capacity to provide the nominee with a minimum of two years of full-time employment.
In his evidence, Mr Cena stated that, despite the current trading restriction imposed by the Government because of the COVID-19 pandemic, the nominator is financially capable of paying the nominee’s wages for a minimum of 2 years, even if the business does not re-open for seating services within the next few months or is limited to take away and delivery services.
The applicant submitted a letter from Mr Giannuzzi, an accountant retained by the business, dated 22 July 2021, confirming that the nominator has financial capacity to continue paying its employees. Mr Giannuzzi stated in his letter that the business received four cash flow boosts from the ATO and that the nominating business entered into an agreement to sublease part of its premises to the related company Wiseman & Co, which will earn the nominating business an additional $20,800 per year.
The Tribunal acknowledges that the applicant provided evidence that the nominee was paid his salary from 2015 to date and that he had continued to work for the nominating business for more than six years despite the Department refusing his visa application.
Based on the nominator’s financial statements from the 2019/20 and the 2020/21 financial years provided by the applicant, the Tribunal finds that:
·as of 30 June 2020, the business traded with a net profit of $13,117; and
·as of 30 June 2021, the business traded with a net profit of $23,465.
Based on the documentary evidence provided on behalf of the applicant, including the nominee’s most recent contract of employment dated 20 July 2021, his PAYG summary statements to date, and the applicant’s financial information for the 2019/20 and the 2020/21 financial years, the Tribunal is satisfied that the nominee will continue to be employed on a full-time basis for at least 2 years, and that the terms and conditions of his employment do not expressly exclude the possibility of extending his period of employment.
Accordingly, the Tribunal is satisfied that the requirement in reg 5.19(3)(d) is met.
No less favourable terms and conditions of employment: reg 5.19(3)(e)
Regulation 5.19(3)(e) requires that the terms and conditions of employment applicable to the nominated position will be no less favourable than those that are, or would be, provided to an Australian citizen or permanent resident performing equivalent work in the same workplace at the same location.
The Tribunal is satisfied that there is no Australian citizen or permanent resident performing equivalent work in the same workplace at the same location as the nominee. The Tribunal therefore needs to be satisfied that the terms and conditions of employment applicable to the nominated position will be no less favourable than those that would be provided to an Australian citizen or permanent resident performing equivalent work in the same workplace at the same location.
The nominee’s contract of employment provides that the nominee’s salary is $57,115 per year plus superannuation. The applicant submitted evidence of market salary rates for a Café or Restaurant Manager gathered from the PayScale database. According to the applicant’s market salary research, the average salary for a Café or Restaurant Manager ranges between $49,000 to $70,000.
From the above, the Tribunal is satisfied that the proposed salary associated with the nominated position is within the salary range of what an equivalent Australian employee would be paid.
The Tribunal is further satisfied that the contract of employment for the nominee has standard provisions relating to leave and termination that are consistent with those in the Fair Work Act 2009 (Commonwealth) and National Employment Standards (NES).
Accordingly, the requirement in reg 5.19(3)(e) is met.
Training commitments and obligations: reg 5.19(3)(f)
Regulation 5.19(3)(f) requires the applicant to have fulfilled any commitments made relating to meeting training requirements, and complied with applicable obligations relating to training requirements, during the period of the applicant’s most recent sponsorship approval. These requirements may be disregarded if it is reasonable to do so.
However, the nominator is not required to comply with training obligations in reg 2.87B(2) or (3) of the Regulations in relation to a period of 12 months ending on or after 12 August 2018: cl 7602(5) of Schedule 13 to the Regulations.
While the Tribunal acknowledges that the applicant provided documentary evidence concerning the training requirements related to the period of the previous SBS approval, the applicant was most recently approved as a standard business sponsor on 18 June 2018 for a period of 5 years. The requirements at the time of the most recent sponsorship approval did not include any training commitments that have to be fulfilled by the applicant. The Tribunal further notes that the sponsorship obligation to provide training no longer applies. In the circumstances, the Tribunal considers that the requirements relating to training have been satisfied.
Accordingly, the requirement in reg 5.19(3)(f) is met.
No adverse information known to Immigration: reg 5.19(3)(g)
Regulation 5.19(3)(g) requires that there is no adverse information known to Immigration about the nominator or a person associated with the nominator; or it is reasonable to disregard any such information. For these purposes, ‘adverse information’ and ‘associated with’ have the meaning given in reg 1.13A and reg 1.13B.
There is nothing before the Tribunal to show any adverse information is known to the Department about the relevant business or anyone associated with it.
Accordingly, the Tribunal, on the evidence before it, is satisfied that the requirement in reg 5.19(3)(g) is met.
Satisfactory compliance with workplace relations laws: reg 5.19(3)(h)

Regulation 5.19(3)(h) requires the applicant to have a satisfactory record of compliance with the laws of the Commonwealth, and of each State or Territory in which the applicant operates a business and employs employees in the business, relating to workplace relations.
There is nothing in the Department’s records to indicate that the applicant does not have a satisfactory record of compliance with the laws of the Commonwealth or of the State of Victoria relating to workplace relations.
Accordingly, the requirement in reg 5.19(3)(h) is met.
Based on the findings above, the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant meets the requirements of reg 5.19 for approval of the nomination of the position in Australia.
DECISION
The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and substitutes a decision approving the nomination.
Antonio Dronjic
Member

Attachment A: Document List
·HESTA Annual Statement for Harpreet Singh for the year ending 30 June 2015 to 30 June 2019
·Financial Statements for Ekush Pty Ltd for the year ending 30 June 2015 to 30 June 2019
·Letter from Franco Giannuzzi (Partner UHY Haines Norton) (27/02/2020)
Attachment B: Document List
·Legal submission from Richard Shakenovsky, applicant’s migration agent (19/02/2021)
·ASIC Current and Historical Company Extract Ekush Pty Ltd (08/02/2021)
·ASIC Company Summary Ekush Pty Ltd (08/02/2021)
·ASIC Company details Ekush Pty Ltd (08/02/2021)
·ABN Lookup Ekush Pty td (8/2/2021)
·Company tax return for Ekush Pty Ltd 2019
·Company tax return for Ekush Pty Ltd 2020
·Activity Statement for Ekush Pty Ltd for:
oJuly 2018-September 2018
oOctober 2018-December 2018
oJanuary 2019-March 2019
oApril 2019-June 2019
oJuly 2019-September 2019
oOctober 2019-December 2019
oJanuary 2020-March 2020
oApril 2020-June 2020
oJuly 2020-September 2020
·Ekush Pty Ltd Financial Statements for the year ended 30 June 2019
·Ekush Pty Ltd Financial Statements for the year ended 30 June 2020
·Ekush Pty Ltd Organisation Structure Chart
·Menus
·Ekush Shopping Order List 2018
·Ekush 4/5/6^th person job role created by Harpreet Singh
·Copies of Harpreet Singh’s work emails 2020-2021
·Fire Check Tax invoice for Ekush Pty Ltd signed by Harpreet Singh (23/03/2019)
·Employment Contract between Ekush Pty Ltd and Harpreet Singh (17/02/2021)
·Seek Job Advertisements for other restaurant manager positions (2021)
·PAYG payment summary-individual non-business for Harpreet Singh for the year ending 30 June 2016 to the year ending 30 June 2020
·Notice of assessments for Harpreet Singh for the year ending 30 June 2016 to the year ending 30 June 2020
·Previous employment contract between Ekush Pty Ltd and Harpreet Singh (02/08/2020)
·Ekush Pty Ltd letter of approval as a standard business sponsor (18/6/2021)
·Visa Training A Benchmark contributions tax invoices for the period of 2017-2020
·Updated Letter from Franco Giannuzzi (Partner UHY Haines Norton) (19/02/2021)
·HESTA Annual Statement for Harpreet Singh for the year ending 30 June 2020
Attachment C: Document List
·Activity Statement for Ekush Pty Ltd for:
oJanuary 2021-March 2021
oApril 2021-June 2021
·Payslips for Harpreet Singh for the period of 29 June 2020-27 June 2021
·Harpreet Singh Bank Statements for the period of 01/06/2015-31/07/2015 and 01/07/2020 to 20/06/2021
·PAYG payment summary-individual non-business for Harpreet Singh for the year ending 30 June 2015 to the year ending 30 June 2021
·Statement of Ajoy Cena, Director and shareholder of Ekush Pty Ltd (02/072021)
·Financial Statements for Ekush Pty Ltd for the year ending 30 June 2015 to 30 June 2021
·Ekush Pty Ltd Tax Return 2021
·Letter from Ekush Pty Ltd accountant, Russell Rahman (02/07/2021)
·QuickSuper contribution summary for the period of 2020-2021
·HESTA Annual Statement for Harpreet Singh for the year ending 30 June 2015 to 29 June 2021
·Letter from Franco Giannuzzi (Partner UHY Haines Norton) (27/02/2020)
·Legal submission from Richard Shakenovsky, applicant’s migration agent (13/07/2021)
·Ekush Pty Ltd director’s superfund history 2015-2020
·Harpreet Singh HESTA Superfund statement for the period of 25/06/2020 to 03/07/2021
Attachment D: Document List
·Updated Letter from Franco Giannuzzi (Partner UHY Haines Norton) (22/07/2021)
·PayScale Average Restaurant manager Salary in Australia
·Employment Contract between Ekush Pty Ltd and Harpreet Singh (20/07/2021)
·Ekush Pty Ltd Organisation Structure Chart (15/07/2021)
·Ekush Pty Ltd Financial Statements for the year ended 30 June 2020
·Ekush Pty Ltd Financial Statements for the year ended 30 June 2020
·Activity statement for Ekush Pty Ltd for the period of 20/07/2019 to 20/07/2021
ATTACHMENT E - EXTRACTS FROM THE MIGRATION REGULATIONS 1994
5.19Approval of nominated positions (employer nomination)
…
(2)The application must:
(a)be made in accordance with approved form 1395…; and
(aa) include a written certification by the nominator stating whether or not the nominator has engaged in conduct, in relation to the nomination, that constitutes a contravention of subsection 245AR(1) of the Act; and
(b)be accompanied by the fee mentioned in regulation 5.37.
Temporary Residence Transition nomination
(3)The Minister must, in writing, approve a nomination if:
(a)the application for approval:
(i)       is made in accordance with subregulation (2); and
(ii)      identifies a person who holds a Subclass 457 … visa granted on the basis that the person satisfied the criterion in subclause 457.223(4) of Schedule 2; and
(iii)     identifies an occupation, in relation to the position, that:
(A)is listed in ANZSCO; and
(B)has the same 4-digit occupation unit group code as the occupation carried out by the holder of the Subclass 457 … visa; and
(b)the nominator:
(i)       is, or was, the standard business sponsor who last identified the holder of the Subclass 457 … visa in a nomination made under section 140GB of the Act or under regulation 1.20G or 1.20GA as in force immediately before 14 September 2009; and
(ii)      is actively and lawfully operating a business in Australia; and
(iii)     did not, as that standard business sponsor, meet regulation 1.20DA, or paragraph 2.59(h) or 2.68(i), in the most recent approval as a standard business sponsor; and
(c)either:
(i)       both of the following apply:
(A)in the period of 3 years immediately before the nominator made the application, the holder of the Subclass 457 …visa identified in subparagraph (a) (ii) has:
(I)held one or more Subclass 457 visas for a total period of at least 2 years; and
(II)been employed in the position in respect of which the person holds the Subclass 457 … visa for a total period of at least 2 years (not including any period of unpaid leave);
(B)the employment in the position has been full-time, and undertaken in Australia; or
(ii)      all of the following apply:
(A)the person holds the Subclass 457 … visa on the basis that the person was identified in a nomination of an occupation mentioned in sub-subparagraph 2.72(10)(d)(iii)(B) or sub-subparagraph 2.72(10)(e)(iii)(B);
(B)the nominator nominated the occupation;
(C)the person has been employed, in the occupation in respect of which the person holds the Subclass 457 … visa, for a total period of at least 2 years in the period of 3 years immediately before the nominator made the application; and
(d)for a person to whom subparagraph (c)(i) applies:
(i)       the person will be employed on a full-time basis in the position for at least 2 years; and
(ii)      the terms and conditions of the person’s employment will not include an express exclusion of the possibility of extending the period of employment; and
(e)the terms and conditions of employment applicable to the position will be no less favourable than the terms and conditions that:
(i)are provided; or
(ii)would be provided;
to an Australian citizen or an Australian permanent resident for performing equivalent work in the same workplace at the same location; and
(f)either:
(i)       the nominator:
(A)fulfilled any commitments the nominator made relating to meeting the nominator’s training requirements during the period of the nominator’s most recent approval as a standard business sponsor; and
(B)complied with the applicable obligations under Division 2.19 relating to the nominator’s training requirements during the period of the nominator’s most recent approval as a standard business sponsor; or
(ii)      it is reasonable to disregard subparagraph (i); and
Note Different training requirements apply depending on whether the application for approval as a standard business sponsor was made before 14 September 2009 or on or after that date.
(g)either:
(i)       there is no adverse information known to Immigration about the nominator or a person associated with the nominator; or
(ii)      it is reasonable to disregard any adverse information known to Immigration about the nominator or a person associated with the nominator; and
(h)the nominator has a satisfactory record of compliance with the laws of the Commonwealth, and of each State or Territory in which the applicant operates a business and employs employees in the business, relating to workplace relations.

[2021] AATA 3723

4 August 2021

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Administrative Law

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Statutory Construction

Procedural Fairness

Remedies