Administrative Appeals Tribunal
DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2008] AATA 727
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
) No 2007/913
GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION ) Re MOHAMMED MAARBANI Applicant
And
MIGRATION AGENTS REGISTRATION AUTHORITY
Respondent
DECISION
Tribunal Mr D Connolly AM, Member Date20 August 2008
PlaceSydney
Decision The decision under review is affirmed. ................[sgd]..............................
Mr D Connolly AM
Member
CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – migration agent registration – cancellation of registration – fit and proper person to give migration assistance – person of integrity – breaches of MARA’s Code of Conduct – applicant not a person of integrity and not a fit and proper person to give migration assistance – decision under review affirmed
Migration Act 1958 – Sections 303, 308, 309, 313, 314, 347
Migration Agents Regulations 1998 – Clauses 2.1, 2.8, 2.9, 2.19, 2.21, 2.23, 3.2A, 5.1, 5.2, 5.4, 5.5, 6.1, 6.3, 7.1, 7.1A, 7.2
Re Peng and Department of Immigration [1998] AATA 12
Lilienthal v Migration Agents Registration Authority (2002) 117 FCR 558; [2002] FCA 93
Woods v Migration Agents Registration Authority (2004) 39 AAR 519; [2004] FCA 1622
Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336
REASONS FOR DECISION
20 August 2008 Mr D Connolly AM, Member BACKGROUND
1. The Applicant, Mr Mohammed Maarbani, applied to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) seeking a review of the decision made on 19 February 2007 by the Migration Agents Registration Authority (“MARA”) pursuant to s 303(1)(a) of the Migration Act 1958 (“the Act”), to cancel Mr Maarbani’s migration agent registration. Mara found that:
·pursuant to s 303(1)(h) of the Act, Mr Maarbani failed to comply with any, or all, of clauses 2.1, 2.8, 2.9, 2.19, 2.21, 2.23, 3.2A, 5.1, 5.2, 5.4, 5.5, 6.1, 6.3, 7.1, 7.1A, and 7.2 of the Code of Conduct for migration agents, as at 1 July 2005 (“the Code”), prescribed by the Migration Agents Regulations 1998, pursuant to s 314(1) of the Act;
·pursuant to s 303(1)(f) of the Act, Mr Maarbani was not a person of integrity or otherwise a fit and proper person to give migration assistance
2. Mr Maarbani was first registered as a migration agent under Part 3 of the Act on 18 September 1997 with the Registered Migration Agents Number 9793353.
3. On 1 June 2006 Mr Maarbani was cautioned by MARA for 12 months and until he completed private tuition in ethics, professional practice, record keeping and file management on the basis that MARA had found that Mr Maarbani had failed to properly supervise staff, failed to return client files and documents when requested by clients, failed to provide client files to the MARA when requested, failed to keep clients informed in writing and failed to maintain proper files.
4. Subsequently, MARA received 3 separate complaints relating to Mr Maarbani which were investigated. The result of that investigation was MARA’s decision of 19 February 2007.
ISSUES
5. The issues before the Tribunal are whether Mr Maarbani has failed to comply with the Code, and whether he is a person…
Continue reading Maarbani and Migration Agents Registration Authority
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Maarbani and Migration Agents Registration Authority [2008] AATA 727
- Case
- [2008] AATA 727
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The AAT considered the applicable statutory provisions and relevant case law, including Re Peng and Department of Immigration, Lilienthal v Migration Agents Registration Authority, and Woods v Migration Agents Registration Authority. The AAT also examined the standard of proof, drawing on the principles established in Briginshaw v Briginshaw. The Tribunal concluded that the respondent had indeed breached the Code of Conduct in multiple instances and that these breaches were sufficient to establish that he was not a person of integrity or a fit and proper person to provide migration assistance. The evidence presented demonstrated a pattern of conduct that undermined the public’s confidence in the integrity of the respondent.
In affirming the decision of MARA to cancel the respondent’s registration, the AAT emphasised the importance of maintaining high standards of integrity and conduct among registered migration agents. The Tribunal held that the respondent’s breaches of the Code of Conduct were serious and cumulative, reflecting poorly on his suitability to hold a migration agent’s registration. Given the clear statutory criteria and the weight of the evidence, the AAT found no basis to overturn the decision of MARA. Therefore, the decision to cancel the respondent’s registration was upheld.
Orders
Orders of the court
The decision under review is affirmed.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.