Haque v Migration Agents Registration Authority

[2016] FCA 1249

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Haque v Migration Agents Registration Authority [2016] FCA 1249

Appeal from:

Haque v Migration Agents Registration Authority [2016] AATA 186

File number:

VID 318 of 2016

Judge:

TRACEY J

Date of judgment:

24 October 2016

Catchwords:

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – appeal from a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal to affirm a decision of the Migration Agents’ Registration Authority refusing application by the applicant for registration as a migration agent – whether AAT erred by failing to identify relevant sections of Migration Act – whether AAT erred by taking into account spent convictions – whether AAT applied incorrect standard of proof – AAT did not so err – appeal dismissed

Legislation:

Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth)

Crimes Act 1914 (Cth)

Migration Act 1958 (Cth)

Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic)

Cases cited:

Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336

Frugtniet v Australian Securities and Investments Commission [2016] FCA 995

Haritos v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (2015) 233 FCR 315

Sun v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCAFC 52

Date of hearing:

10 October 2016

Registry:

Victoria

Division:

General Division

National Practice Area:

Administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights

Category:

Catchwords

Number of paragraphs:

35

Counsel for the Applicant:

The Applicant appeared in person

Counsel for the Respondents:

Mr W Mosley

Solicitor for the Respondents:

Clayton Utz

ORDERS

VID 318 of 2016

BETWEEN:

DR ZAHIDUL HAQUE

Applicant

AND:

MIGRATION AGENTS REGISTRATION AUTHORITY

First Respondent

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

JUDGE:	TRACEY J
DATE OF ORDER:	24 OCTOBER 2016

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The appeal be dismissed.

2.The applicant pay the first respondent’s costs.

Note:    Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

TRACEY J

1. The applicant, Dr Zahidul Haque, has, for some time, wished to become a migration agent.  To this end he applied to the first respondent, the Migration Agents Registration Authority (“MARA”), to be registered as an agent.  The requirement that he be registered was imposed by the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (“the Migration Act”). MARA rejected the application on the ground that Dr Haque was not a fit and proper person to perform the work of a migration agent. Dr Haque exercised his right to appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (“the AAT”) against MARA’s decision. The AAT affirmed that decision. Dr Haque then appealed to this Court against the AAT’s decision.

2. For the reasons which follow that appeal must be dismissed.

3. Dr Haque made his application for registration to MARA on 27 July 2011.  The form on which his application was made required him to state whether there had ever been a finding of guilt against him for a criminal offence in Australia (other than a spent conviction).  Dr Haque marked the “no” box adjacent to this question.  The next question asked whether he was the subject of any criminal proceedings in any country.  He marked the “yes” box adjacent to this question.  Later in the form he declared that…