Liu and Migration Agents Registration Authority - [2004] AATA 1282

Administrative

Appeals

Tribunal

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2004] AATA 1282
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL Nº V2004/598
GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION

Re: GUO ZHONG LIU
Applicant

And:MIGRATION AGENTS REGISTRATION AUTHORITY
Respondent

DECISION
Tribunal:       G.D. Friedman, Member
Date:             2 December 2004
Place:            Melbourne
Decision:The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Member

MIGRATION - migration agent - cancellation of registration - breach of Code of Conduct - whether fit and proper person
Migration Act 1958 ss 290, 309, 314
Re Feng and Migration Agents Registration Authority [2002] AATA 709
Re Griffiths and Migration Agents Registration Authority [2002] AATA 247
Re Hakaoro and Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (1998) 26 AAR 534
REASONS FOR DECISION
2 December 2004  G.D. Friedman, Member
1.      This is an application by Guo Zhong Liu (the applicant) for review of a decision of the Migration Agents Registration Authority (the respondent) dated 20 April 2004 to refuse the applicant’s Application for Repeat Registration as a migration agent, on the grounds that the applicant had not complied with the Code of Conduct as required under the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).
2.      At the hearing of this matter on 16 November 2004 the applicant represented himself, with the assistance of an interpreter in the Mandarin language, and Mr M. Brereton, solicitor with the Australian Government Solicitor, represented the respondent.
3.      The Tribunal received into evidence the documents lodged under s 37 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (T1-T9), plus three exhibits (Exhibits A1 to A3) lodged by the applicant.
BACKGROUND
4.      The applicant was born on 1 November 1963 in China and completed a Master of Computer Science degree at Beijing University. In 1995 he migrated to New Zealand where he worked as a computer programmer. In December 2000 he arrived in Australia and completed the Migration Agents course at Victoria University of Technology. In 2001 he became a registered migration agent and was employed by Express Education & Migration Centre (EEMC). His registration was renewed in 2002.
5.      On 3 June 2003 the applicant applied for re-registration as a migration agent. On 18 September 2003 the respondent received information regarding the applicant’s conduct as a migration agent in relation to a number of applications for occupational trainee visas, on which the applicant was listed as the registered migration agent, during the period 14 February 2003 to 6 June 2003. The applications were unsuccessful because the visa applicants did not meet the definition of occupational trainee.
6.      On 4 September 2003 officers from the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (DIMIA) interviewed the applicant in relation to the matter and he made a written statement.
7. On 15 March 2004 the respondent sent the applicant a letter advising that it was proposing to refuse the application for re-registration, under s 309(1) of the Act, because he had failed to act in accordance with the…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Liu and Migration Agents Registration Authority

Details

AGLC: Liu and Migration Agents Registration Authority [2004] AATA 1282
Case: [2004] AATA 1282
Decision Date: 2 December 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Guo Zhong Liu applied for review of the Migration Agents Registration Authority's decision to refuse his application for re-registration as a migration agent. The refusal was based on Liu's failure to comply with the Code of Conduct as required under the Migration Act 1958. The primary issue before the Tribunal was whether Liu was a fit and proper person to be registered as a migration agent.

The Tribunal examined the evidence presented by Liu and the submissions made by the respondent. Liu claimed that he was following the instructions of his employer and had no knowledge of the content of the visa applications he signed. However, the Tribunal found Liu's evidence to be inconsistent with his written statements and statutory declaration. The Tribunal also noted that Liu had not taken any action to inform relevant authorities of the breaches of the Code of Conduct and the Act. The Tribunal found that Liu's conduct fell short of the standards expected of a migration agent, and that he did not demonstrate the requisite knowledge, honesty, probity, and reliability. Applying the guidelines from previous cases, the Tribunal concluded that Liu was not a fit and proper person to be registered as a migration agent.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision under review, finding that Liu's application for re-registration did not succeed.

Orders