Issam Issa and Migration Agents Registration Authority

[2014] AATA 870  

Division	GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION
File Number	2014/5298
Re	Issam Issa
APPLICANT
And	Migration Agents Registration Authority
RESPONDENT

DECISION

Tribunal	Ms G Ettinger, Senior Member
Date	24 November 2014
Place	Sydney

The Tribunal refuses the Applicant’s request for a stay pursuant to section 41(2) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975.

............................[sgd]............................................

Ms G Ettinger, Senior Member

CATCHWORDS

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application to stay decision of Office of Migration Agents Registration Authority – consideration of prospects of success at substantive hearing, public interest, disadvantages to the Applicant – procedural fairness – stay refused.

LEGISLATION

Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 s 41(2)

Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ss 303, 306AA

Migration Agents Regulations 1998 reg 7B

CASES

Re Scott and ASIC [2009] AATA 789

Re Bundy v Australian Securities and Investments Commission [2013] AATA 59
Re Commonwealth of Australia v Quirke (1986) 9 ALD 92
Re Zarfati v Australian Securities and Investments Commission (2008) 106 ALD 225
Re Dekanic and Tax Agents’ Board of New South Wales (1982) 6 ALD 240
Re Tanari v Migration Agents Registration Authority [2005] AATA 419

REASONS FOR DECISION

Ms G Ettinger, Senior Member

24 November 2014

1. The Migration Agents Registration Authority (MARA) made a decision on 10 October 2014, to cancel Mr Issam (Sam) Issa’s registration as a migration agent pursuant to section 303 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Migration Act). The expiry date for Mr Issa’s registration would otherwise have been 6 February 2015.

2. Mr Issa filed an application for review with this Tribunal on 14 October 2014, which was accompanied by an application for a stay of the operation of the decision of MARA pursuant to section 41 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) (AAT Act).

3. His counsel, Mr M Robinson SC, argued extensively that Mr Issa had not been afforded procedural fairness by the Respondent, MARA, in that he had not been given the opportunity of replying to many of the findings which were made against him. He also argued, amongst other things, that Mr Issa, who has been practising as a solicitor and migration agent for over 19 years, was disadvantaged by the fact his ability to practise was ceased without notice on 10 October 2014. He was also, Mr Robinson submitted, further disadvantaged by the publication in full of the cancellation decision on the internet, and the ensuing publicity surrounding the cancellation decision.

4. Mr L Leerdam, solicitor of DLA Piper Australia, who represented the Respondent, opposed the stay on the basis of complaints made against Mr Issa which date back to 2011, and which had been made by the Refugee Review Tribunal, the NSW Legal Services Commissioner, the then Department of Immigration and Citizenship, and various individuals. The Respondent submitted that these complaints resulted in the findings against Mr Issa on 10 October 2014.

5. I have considered the evidence and submissions of the parties which I will discuss further in the paragraphs below, and the principles to be taken into account when…