Heyeob Son and Migration Agents Registration Authority

Administrative Appeals Tribunal

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2009] AATA 383

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )

)          No 2009/1621

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION		)
Re		Heyeob Son

Applicant

And Migration Agents Registration Authority

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Mr G. L. McDonald, Deputy President

Date27 May 2009

PlaceMelbourne

Decision The Tribunal refuses the applicant’s application that it make an order under s 41(2) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 staying the operation or implementation of a decision made by the respondent on 8 April 2009.

..............................................

Deputy President

CATCHWORDS – ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – interpretation of s 300(7) of the Migration Act – whether deemed continuation of the applicant’s registration had ceased – whether a stay would be futile in the circumstances – application for stay refused.

Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 s 41

Migration Act 1958 ss 300, 303, 306AA, 314

Migration Agents Regulations 1998 reg 7B

Seymour v Migration Agents Registration Authority [2006] FCA 649

Seymour v Migration Agents Registration Authority [2007] FCAFC 5

REASONS FOR DECISION

27 May 2009 Mr G. L. McDonald, Deputy President    

1.      On 22 April 2009 the applicant filed an application for review of the decision of the respondent and an application to stay the respondent’s decision.  These reasons for decision address the application for a stay of decision.

2.      The applicant was first registered as a migration agent on 25 August 2004.  Since that time, he has conducted his own practice as a migration agent and applied annually for his registration to be renewed.  On 22 August 2008 the applicant applied for registration for the period 25 August 2008 to 24 August 2009.

3. On 9 April 2009, the respondent notified the applicant that on 8 April, the respondent had decided to cancel the applicant’s registration as a migration agent in accordance with its power under s 303(1)(a) of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).  The respondent relevantly found that the applicant:

(a)  had failed to deal with certain clients competently, diligently and fairly;

(b)  misled the authority by giving false evidence;

(c)  made statements to the Department of Immigration and Citizenship in support of applications that he knew to be misleading or inaccurate; and

(d)  failed to maintain a clients’ account.

4. The respondent consequently found the applicant breached the relevant Code of Conduct, prescribed under s 314 of the Act, and decided to cancel the applicant’s registration as a migration agent in accordance with s 303(1)(a).

5.      The applicant, in his application for a stay, stated that as at 9 April 2009, he had 163 clients for whom the applicant had submitted or was about to submit application for visas to the Department of Immigration and Citizenship.  About 99% of his clients are of Korean decent.  The applicant is also of Korean decent and speaks with the majority of his clients in the Korean language.  The applicant submitted that his clients may be prejudiced if a stay order was not made by this Tribunal.

6.      The applicant did not file an affidavit…