Lilienthal v Migration Agents Registration Authority

[2002] FCA 93

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Lilienthal v Migration Agents Registration Authority [2002] FCA 93

MIGRATION – Migration agents – Registration – Appeal against decision of Administrative Appeals Tribunal affirming decisions of Migration Agents Registration Authority cancelling and refusing registration of a migration agent – Whether statutory provisions conferring jurisdiction on Authority apply to conduct of agent in respect of all clients – Whether jurisdiction only applies where there has been a prior finding about the agent – Meaning of “person of integrity” – Ambit of para (h) of s 290(1) of Migration Act – Nature of agent’s obligation towards Department.

Migration Act 1958 ss 276, 290

GARY IAN LILIENTHAL v MIGRATION AGENTS REGISTRATION AUTHORITY
N1434 of 2001

WILCOX J
4 FEBRUARY 2002
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N1434 of 2001

BETWEEN:	GARY IAN LILIENTHAL APPLICANT
AND:	MIGRATION AGENTS REGISTRATION AUTHORITY RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	WILCOX J
DATE OF ORDER:	4 FEBRUARY 2002
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The appeal against the decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal be dismissed.

2.The applicant, Gary Ian Lilienthal, pay the costs of the respondent, Migration Agents Registration Authority.

Note:    Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N1434 of 2001

BETWEEN:	GARY IAN LILIENTHAL APPLICANT
AND:	MIGRATION AGENTS REGISTRATION AUTHORITY RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	WILCOX J
DATE:	4 FEBRUARY 2002
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

WILCOX J:

1. This is an application, instigated by filing a notice of appeal, whereby the applicant, Gary Ian Lilienthal, challenges a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

2. The matter came before the Tribunal, constituted by Deputy President Purvis, by way of application for review of three decisions of the Migration Agents Registration Authority, constituted under the Migration Act 1958. Two of these decisions related to cancellation of Mr Lilienthal's registration as a migration agent. The third was a deemed refusal, by the Authority, to register him as a migration agent as from 7 January 2001.

3. In this Court Mr Lilienthal has acted on his own behalf.  Pursuant to directions made by me, he filed and served a document entitled “Appellant's Outline of Written Submissions”.  This document is lengthy and makes numerous references to the transcript of the hearing before the Tribunal.  Overwhelmingly, the raised matters are of fact, rather than law. 

4. When the hearing commenced this morning, I pointed out to Mr Lilienthal that the Court had power only to deal with submissions of error of law: see s 44 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975. Mr Lilienthal accepted this. He thereupon put a number of points, which he expressed as propositions of law and argued with some references to authority and to the transcript. I will deal with each of them separately.

5. Mr Lilienthal's first point, which was also raised in his outline of submissions, is that the provisions concerning registered migration agents contained in the Migration Act apply only to the conduct of…