Jin and Migration Agents Registration Authority

This matter concerned an application by Mr Jin for registration as a migration agent with the Migration Agents Registration Authority. The Authority had considered refusing his application on the grounds that he was not a fit and proper person or a person of integrity, as required by section 290(1) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). Mr Jin sought review of this decision before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether Mr Jin was a fit and proper person for the purposes of section 290(1) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth), and whether he was a person of integrity. This involved considering his conduct in relation to a 2016 visa application, a 2018 citizenship application, and his 2020 application for re-registration as a migration agent, including his disclosure of relevant matters to the Authority.

The Tribunal considered the meaning of "fit and proper person" as explained in *Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond*, noting that it takes its meaning from context and can relate to past conduct, likelihood of future improper conduct, or public confidence. The Tribunal found that Mr Jin was unaware of falsified documents in his 2016 visa application. While Mr Jin made a false statement and provided incomplete residential address information in his 2018 citizenship application, the Tribunal was satisfied this was for convenience rather than deception, and that his subsequent withdrawal of the application was due to family concerns and a desire to avoid the risk of refusal, not to cover up misconduct. The Tribunal also noted confusion regarding Mr Jin's response to a question on his 2020 re-registration application and the Authority's subsequent natural justice letter, which incorrectly stated he had answered "Yes" to a character question.

Ultimately, the Tribunal was not satisfied that Mr Jin's conduct in relation to the citizenship application warranted a finding that he was not currently a fit and proper person. The Tribunal also found that the Authority's approach to Mr Jin's 2020 application was flawed, particularly concerning the natural justice letter and the basis of the investigation into his integrity. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the Authority's decision and remitted the matter to the Authority to be reconsidered according to law.