Mao and Migration Agents Registration Authority
[2025] ARTA 686
•30 May 2025
Mao and Migration Agents Registration Authority [2025] ARTA 686 (30 May 2025)
Applicant/s: Tianying Mao
Respondent: Migration Agents Registration Authority
Tribunal Number: 2024/1980
Tribunal:General Member Darian-Smith
Place:Sydney
Date:30 May 2025
Decision:The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.
...............................[SGD]..................................
General Member Darian-Smith
Catchwords
MIGRATION – migration agent registration authority – refusal of Applicant’s registration – Applicant breached Code of Conduct – Tribunal not satisfied that the Applicant is a person of integrity or otherwise a fit and proper person to give immigration assistance at the time of the decision – Receiving reward for migration assistance while unregistered - Refusal decision under review affirmed by the Tribunal
Legislation
Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ss. 4, 276, 280, 281, 283, 290, 291, 314
Cases
Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond (1990) 170 CLR 321
Briginshaw v Briginshaw [1938] HCA 34; 60 CLR 336
Grosfield and Tax Practitioners Board [2014] AATA 100
Lilienthal v Migration Agents Registration Authority (2002) 117 FCR 558
Mottaghi and Migration Agents Registration Authority [2007] AATA 60; (2007) 98 ALD 424; (2007) 45 AAR 37
Peng and Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [1998] AATA 12
Reptis and Migration Agents Registration Authority [2006] AATA 41
SRH and Comptroller-General of Customs (1995) 37 ALD 581
Sullivan v Civil Aviation Safety Authority [2014] FCAFC 93WKBF and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs (Migration) [2023] AATA 3728
Secondary Materials
Code of Conduct for registered migration agents
Statement of Reasons
On 5 September 2023, the Applicant, Tianying Mao (Ms Mao), applied for registration as a migration agent.[1]
[1] T4, Joint Tender Bundle pages 465 – 488.
On 25 October 2023, the Respondent (MARA) issued Ms Mao with a notice under subsection 309(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act) (Section 309 Notice),[2] notifying her that it was considering refusing her application for registration.
[2] T5, Joint Tender Bundle pages 489 – 499.
On 22 November 2023, Ms Mao provided a written submission, with a bundle of supporting documents, in response to the Section 309 Notice (Section 309 Submission).[3] On 23 November 2023, Ms Mao provided a further response to the Section 309 Notice,[4] which dealt with her enrolment in certain courses concerning the Code of Conduct for registered migration agents (Code).[5]
[3] T6, Joint Tender Bundle pages 500 – 572.
[4] T7, Joint Tender Bundle pages 573 – 582.
[5] The Code is prescribed by regulations made under s. 314(1) of the Act.
On 8 March 2024, MARA refused Ms Mao’s registration on the basis that Ms Mao was not a fit and proper person to provide immigration assistance and was not a person of integrity, under subsections 290(1)(a) and (b) respectively of the Act (Refusal Decision).[6]
[6] T2, Joint Tender Bundle pages 327 – 344.
On 4 April 2024, Ms Mao filed an application with the Tribunal seeking a review of the Refusal Decision (Application for Review).[7]
[7] T1, Joint Tender Bundle pages 315 – 326.
The Refusal Decision was based on the findings by MARA, which in turn were based around 4 main allegations, that Ms Mao:
(a) provided immigration assistance when she was not registered, in breach of subsection 280(1) of the Act (Unregistered Assistance Finding).[8]
(b) received a reward for giving migration assistance while unregistered, in breach of subsection 281(1) of the Act (Payment Finding).[9]
(c) dishonestly answered “no” to each of the questions, “While not registered, have you ever given immigration assistance in Australia or New Zealand?”, “Have you ever been known by or used any other name?’ and “Have any documents referring to you ever used a different name to that in question 1?’, thus contravening her declaration in the application for registration (False Declaration Finding).[10] and
(d) provided conflicting information concerning her job title and work experience (Role Description Finding).[11]
(Collectively the Findings).
[8] T2, Joint Tender Bundle pages 335 – 340.
[9] T2, Joint Tender Bundle page 340.342
[10] T2, Joint Tender Bundle pages 337 - 339, 342.
[11] T2, Joint Tender Bundle pages 337-338.
Ms Mao has filed and relies upon written submissions comprised of the following documents:
(a)Applicant’s Submission (with exhibits) dated 4 June 2024 (Submission).[12]
(b)Applicant’s Supplementary Submission (with exhibits) dated 13 August 2024 (Supplementary Submission).[13]
(c)Applicant’s Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions dated 26 November 2024 (Applicant’s SFIC).[14]
(d)Applicant’s Statement in Reply dated 6 January 2025 (Applicant’s Reply).[15] and
(e)Written Closing Submissions dated 24 March 2025 (Applicant’s Submissions).
Ms Mao relied upon three statutory declarations, the first dated 22 November 2024[16] and the second and third both dated 20 May 2024[17] (First, Second and Third Statutory Declarations respectively). Ms Mao gave evidence at the hearing and was cross examined.
[12] A2, Joint Tender Bundle pages 2 – 230.
[13] A3, Joint Tender Bundle pages 231 - 266.
[14] A4, Joint Tender Bundle pages 267 - 280.
[15] A5, Joint Tender Bundle pages 281 - 284.
[16] A2, Joint Tender Bundle pages 74 – 75.
[17] A2, Joint Tender Bundle pages 79 – 83, pages 86 – 88.
MARA has filed and relies upon written submissions comprised of the following documents:
(a) Respondent’s Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions dated 16 December 2024. (Respondent’s SFIC).[18] and
(b) Respondent’s Closing Submissions dated 27 March 2025 (Respondent’s Submissions).
Paragraphs [18] to [54] of the Respondent’s SFIC set out the Respondent’s contentions in relation to the Findings, save that paragraph [35], [36] and the final 7 words of paragraph [27(c)] are no longer pressed.[19]
[18] R2, Joint Tender Bundle pages 287 – 304.
[19] Respondent’s Submissions, [22].
FACTS AND ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION
Ms Mao, now 30 years of age, first came to Australia in 2009 and subsequently became an Australian citizen.[20]
[20] Applicant’s SFIC, [7].
Ms Mao has been working, mostly in the migration agency industry, since 2014, when she began working as a receptionist in a migration agency.[21]
[21] Applicant’s SFIC, [8].
From 2016 until the end of 2017, Ms Mao worked as a marketing assistant at Australianglobal, which conducted an education agent business, employing at least one registered migration agent.[22]
[22] Applicant’s SFIC, [10].
In early 2018, Ms Mao commenced a relationship with Mr Ning Hu (Mr Hu), who was the owner of a migration agency, Hote International. Mr Hu was not himself a registered migration agent, but Hote International employed two registered migration agents, Ms Yi Zhou (Ms Zhou) and Ms Arzu Yilmaz (Ms Yilmaz).[23]
[23] Applicant’s SFIC, [11].
Ms Mao subsequently moved in with Mr Hu and assisted Mr Hu both domestically and with his businesses, including Hote International. She completed a Graduate Diploma in Migration Law in December 2019.[24]
[24] Applicant’s SFIC, [12] – [13].
Ms Mao and Mr Hu were married on 10 October 2020. Their relationship deteriorated from April 2021, leading to separation in November 2021 and divorce on 18 August 2024.[25]
[25] Applicant’s SFIC, [14], [16].
In November 2021, Ms Mao commenced work as a “migration assistant” at Newpoint, under the supervision of Ms Xiaoman Li (Ms Li) and other licensed migration agents.[26]
[26] Applicant’s SFIC, [17].
MARA has identified 4 March 2016 as the date upon which Ms Mao submitted her first visa application for a third party where no Form 956 or Form 956A was provided to the Department. It has identified 13 August 2023 as the last date on which this occurred. MARA states in the more than 7-year period from 4 March 2016 until 13 August 2023 (Unregistered Period), there were over 50 visa applications in which Ms Mao was involved which were lodged without a Form 956 or Form 956A.[27]
[27] Respondent’s SFIC, [4].
The issues for determination by the Tribunal are whether Ms Mao is:
(a) a fit and proper person to give immigration assistance as required by subsection 290(1)(a) of the Act. and/or
(b) a person of integrity as required by subsection 290(1)(b) of the Act.[28]
[28] Respondent’s SFIC, [5].
The review of these issues will require the Tribunal to consider:
(a) whether Ms Mao has provided “immigration assistance” as defined in section 276 of the Act, when she was not a registered migration agent. and
(b) if the Tribunal is satisfied as to (a), whether her conduct is in breach of any of sections 280, 281 or 283 of the Act.[29]
The Tribunal notes, in relation to (b), that MARA is not requiring the Tribunal to make findings about criminal breaches of these sections in the circumstances that the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to investigate an allegation of criminality.[30]
[29] Respondent’s SFIC, [6].
[30] Respondent’s Submissions. [16].
LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK
Section 290 of the Act relevantly provides in relation to fit and proper person and person of integrity:
“290 Applicant must not be registered if not a person of integrity or not fit and proper
(1) An applicant must not be registered if the Migration Agents Registration Authority is satisfied that:
(a) the applicant is not a fit and proper person to give immigration assistance; or
(b) the applicant is not a person of integrity; or …
(2) In considering whether it is satisfied that the applicant is not fit and proper or not a person of integrity, the Migration Agents Registration Authority must take into account:
(a) the extent of the applicant’s knowledge of migration procedure; and
(b) any conviction of the applicant of a criminal offence relevant to the question …; and
(c) any criminal proceedings that the applicant is the subject of and that the Authority considers relevant to the application; and
(d) any inquiry or investigation that the applicant is or has been the subject of that the Authority considers relevant to the application; and
(e) any disciplinary action that is being taken, or has been taken against, the applicant that the Authority considers relevant to the application; and
(f) any bankruptcy (present or past) of the applicant; and
(g) any other matter relevant to the applicant’s fitness…
(3) To avoid doubt, this section applies to all applicants (not just first-time applicants).”
Section 276 of the Act provides the definition of “immigration assistance”:
“276 Immigration assistance
(1) For the purposes of this part, a person gives immigration assistance if the person uses, or purports to use, knowledge of, or experience in, migration procedure to assist a visa applicant or cancellation review applicant by:
(a) preparing, or helping to prepare, the visa application or cancellation review application; or
(b) advising the visa applicant or cancellation review applicant about the visa application or cancellation review application; or
(c) preparing for proceedings before a court or the ART in relation to the visa application or cancellation review application; or
(d) representing the visa applicant or cancellation review applicant in proceedings before a court or the ART in relation to the visa application or cancellation review application.
(2) For the purposes of this Part, a person also gives immigration assistance if the person uses or purports to use, knowledge of, or experience in, migration procedure to assist another person by:
(a) preparing, or helping to prepare, a document indicating that the other person nominates or sponsors a visa applicant for the purposes of the regulations; or
(b) advising the other person about nominating or sponsoring a visa applicant for the purposes of the regulations; or
(c) representing the other person in proceedings before a court or the ART that relate to the visa for which the other person was nominating or sponsoring a visa applicant (or seeking to nominate or sponsor a visa applicant) for the purposes of the regulations.”
Sections 280(1), 281(1) and 283 of the Act, relevantly state, a few things a person who is not a registered migration agent must not do:
“280 Restrictions on giving of immigration assistance
(1)Subject to this section, a person who is not a registered migration agent must not give immigration assistance.
Penalty: 60 penalty units.
(1A) An offence against subsection (1) is an offence of strict liability.”
“281 Restriction on charging fees for immigration assistance
(1)Subject to subsection (3), a person who is not a registered migration agent must not ask for or receive any fee or other reward for giving immigration assistance.
Penalty: Imprisonment for 10 years ...”
“283 False representation that a person is a registered migration agent
(1) A person who is not a registered migration agent must not directly or indirectly represent that he or she is such an agent.
(2) A person must not directly or indirectly represent that another person who is not a registered migration agent is such an agent.
Penalty: Imprisonment for 2 years.”
The Code contains, in Part 2 Division 1, the following general duties:
13. General duty to act professionally, ethically etc.
(1) A migration agent must act:
(a) professionally; and
(b) competently; and
(c) diligently; and
(d) ethically, honestly and with integrity …
(2) A migration agent must not engage in conduct (whether in the agent’s capacity as a migration agent or in any other capacity) that is reasonably likely to damage the reputation of migration agents or the immigration advice industry.
14. Duty to treat all persons with appropriate respect
(1) A migration agent must treat all persons with appropriate respect.
(2) In particular, a migration agent must not:
(a) harass or coerce any person; or
(b) engage in unconscionable conduct targeted at another person; or
(c) without limiting paragraph (b), victimise a person on the basis of the person’s status under the migration law …
15. Duty not to make false or misleading statements
A migration agent must not make a false or misleading statement.”
EVIDENCE AND CONTENTIONS
Mr Ho submitted that considering the seriousness of some of the allegations made against Ms Mao by MARA, it was appropriate for the Tribunal to consider the principle in Briginshaw[31] in respect of the standard of proof to be applied.[32] The seriousness is said to arise from the consequences which might flow from an adverse finding by the Tribunal that Ms Mao had provided immigration advice in breach of section 280 of the Act and/or had received a fee or reward for doing this in breach of section 282 of the Act.
[31] Briginshaw v Briginshaw [1938] HCA 34; 60 CLR 336.
[32] Applicant’s SFIC, [19]; Applicant’s Submissions, [13] – [17].
The authorities cited by Ms Mao which deal with when it is appropriate for the Tribunal to consider the Briginshaw principle, include the decision of the Tribunal in WKBF and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs (Migration) (WKBF),[33] where the President stated (omitting citations):
“The Tribunal is not bound by the rules of evidence, including the principles in Briginshaw v Briginshaw and provisions in the uniform Evidence Acts which reflect them. Further, a party to proceedings before the Tribunal has no onus of proof, let alone an onus to establish facts to any particular or pre-determined standard. However, as the Tribunal can determine its own procedure and the manner in which it may inform itself, it may, in appropriate cases, decide to either apply or inform itself by reference to the principles in Briginshaw.”[34]
[33] [2023] AATA 3728.
[34] [2023] AATA 3728, [16].
MARA agrees that as the Tribunal is not bound by the rules of evidence, it may inform itself as it sees appropriate. MARA submits that “no additional caution need[s] to be taken in regard to the gravity of the allegations provided procedural fairness is maintained.”[35]
[35] Respondent’s Submissions, [18].
Reference is made by MARA to the decision of the Full Court Federal Court in Sullivan vCivil Aviation Safety Authority (Sullivan),[36] where Flick and Perry JJ stated:
“What procedure the Tribunal decides to follow in any particular case, and whether the Tribunal decides to either apply or inform itself by reference to the common law rules of evidence, is a matter that has been left by the legislature to the Tribunal itself to determine. The manner in which the Tribunal proceeds cannot, with respect, be pre-determined by any generally expressed “principle of law” which is to be applied to some indeterminate fact findings which may be characterised as “grave” or “serious”.”[37]
[36] Respondent’s Submissions, [19]; [2014] FCAFC 93.
[37] [2014] FCAFC 93, [116].
Having regard to the statements of principle in WKBF and Sullivan, referred to above, the Tribunal proceeds on the basis that it will be informed by, without applying, the Briginshaw principle, with a view to ensuring that procedural fairness has been accorded to Ms Mao in the hearing and determination of the Application for Review.
This course is consistent with the finding of the Federal Court in Lilienthal v Migration Agents Registration Authority[38] to the effect that MARA was not precluded from considering the alleged conduct of a migration agent where that conduct may or may not constitute a criminal offence and in circumstances where a conviction may or may not have been recorded. The Court noted that MARA might reasonably be satisfied of the correctness of such allegations upon the balance of probabilities.[39]
[38] (2002) 117 FCR 558.
[39] (2002) 117 FCR 558, [17] – [18].
On 25 October 2023, after Ms Mao lodged her first application to be registered as a migration agent, the Department undertook a check on its systems of the email address (first Hotmail address) which had been provided by Ms Mao on her application form. The Department’s check disclosed that:
(a) 48 visa applications, across different visa subclasses, were lodged during the Unregistered Period through Ms Mao’s personal ImmiAccount using the first Hotmail address.
(b) Ms Mao used two further email addresses (second Hotmail address and summer email address respectively) as contact email addresses to enable the Department to contact the visa applicants.
(c) Ms Mao did not identify herself or any other person as a migration agent on any of the visa applications and she did not provide a Form 956 or Form 956A for any of the applications.
(d) Ms Mao paid 15 visa application charges to the Department using a credit card in her name.
(e) Ms Mao had been advertised on the Newpoint website as a “Senior Immigration Expert” and as a “licenced immigration agent” using the MARN code of her employer Ms Li in the profile.
(f) In the period between 25 October 2023 and 20 November 2023, Ms Mao’s biography in her Newpoint website profile stated:
“She is responsible for consulting on various types of visas, and is good at handling university/primary and secondary school study visas … She is familiar with various immigration policies in Australia and has in-depth understanding and research of immigration laws. With her rich industry experience and strong professional knowledge, she has helped many clients obtain Australian green cards.”. and
(g) After Newpoint was given notice of MARA’s concerns, the Newpoint website profile for Ms Mao was updated on 20 November 2023, to state:
“Since 2014, she has been involved in the immigration and study abroad industry, accumulating extensive work experience. She excels in assisting migration agents with various Australian visa applications. Tianying is well-versed in various Australian visa policies and possesses a deep understanding and research background in immigration law.”[40]
[40] Respondent’s SFIC, [21].
These disclosures were incorporated into MARA’s enquiries and ultimately into the Findings which supported the Refusal Decision, which are considered in greater detail below.
(a) Unregistered Assistance Finding
Section 280(1) of the Act provides that a person who is not a registered migration agent must not give “immigration assistance” (as defined in section 276 of the Act). MARA contends that in the Unregistered Period (during which Ms Mao worked sequentially for 3 migration agencies, Australianglobal, Hote International and Newpoint), Ms Mao provided immigration assistance while unregistered. If Ms Mao did provide immigration assistance in the Unregistered Period, MARA’s position is Ms Mao gave a dishonest answer “no” in response to the question “While not registered, have you ever given immigration assistance in Australia or New Zealand?”, which goes to the related False Declaration finding (dealt with below).
MARA principally relies upon subparagraphs 276(1)(a) and (b) of the Act in respect of defining the immigration assistance in dispute, which provisions essentially relate to preparing or helping to prepare visa applications or advising in relation to them. Section 276(3) of the Act provides that an unregistered person:
“… does not give immigration assistance if he or she merely:
(a) does clerical work to prepare (or help prepare) an application or other document; or
(b) provides translation or interpretation services to help prepare an application or other document; or
(c) advises another person that the other person must apply for a visa; or
(d) passes on to another person information produced by a third person, without giving substantial comment on or explanation of the information.
Much of the evidence and argument during the hearing was taken up with the debate about which side of the permissible immigration assistance line aspects of Ms Mao’s substantial involvement in the migration agent industry during the Unregistered Period, fell on.
MARA submits that the following matters provide support for its position that Ms Mao was providing impermissible “immigration assistance” during the Unregistered Period:
(a) The submission of 48 visa applications by Ms Mao without a registered migration agent being recorded via a Form 956 or Form 956A. The lack of those forms is an indicator that there was no registered migration agent providing immigration assistance but rather it was Ms Mao who was fulfilling that role.[41]
(b) Ms Mao’s submission, at paragraph [26] of the Applicant’s SFIC, that her role in the 48 visa applications was limited to conduct permitted by subsection 276(3) of the Act is not supported by evidence of her conduct from those who would be expected to have provided supervision of her. The substantiation which a Form 956 or Form 956A, recording the identity of the supervising registered migration agent who was providing immigration assistance to the relevant clients, is missing.[42]
(c) The “To Whom it May Concern” letter dated 17 November 2023 (Li Reference Letter) from Ms Li at Newpoint,[43] which confines Ms Mao’s activities to assisting Ms Li (under Ms Li’s supervision) with the immigration assistance which Ms Li was providing to her clients is not supported by any other evidence. There are no documents passing between Ms Mao and Ms Li in which Ms Li approved or signed off on Ms Mao’s work or provided permission for Ms Mao to pass on immigration advice given by Ms Li to Ms Li’s clients. Again, there is no Form 956 or Form 956A which evidence’s Ms Li’s supervision of Ms Mao. The Tribunal further notes in passing that Ms Li was not called by Ms Mao to give evidence in the proceedings.[44]
(d) There is a body of evidence suggesting that Ms Mao was likely to have been giving immigration assistance on less complex visa applications, by preparing/helping to prepare visa applications and/or advising visa applicants about their application, on an unsupervised basis. MARA contends that Ms Mao’s evidence about her creating a personal ImmiAccount and putting her own contact details on visa applications for the convenience of her employer (while working at Australianglobal and then at Hote International) should not be accepted.[45] Rather, the evidence about the use of her personal email address and the absence of references to a registered migration agent on any of the visa applications, points to her managing less complex visa applications without supervision.[46] and
(e) Whilst working at Hote International, Ms Mao was communicating with clients directly, and Ms Hu (not himself a registered migration agent) was asking Ms Mao for assistance on matters relating to visa applications. Ms Mao’s evidence that she has asked the two registered migration agents working at Hote International, Ms Yilmaz and Ms Zhou, about immigration matters before conveying answers to Mr Hu is at odds with the evidence provided by Ms Yilmaz[47] and Ms Zhou[48]. Both said that they had experienced only limited contact with Ms Mao and that they did not work directly with her.[49]
[41] Respondent’s SFIC, [24].
[42] Respondent’s SFIC, [25].
[43] T6, Joint Tender Bundle, pages 544 – 545; A2 Joint Tender Bundle, pages 199 – 200.
[44] Respondent’s SFIC, [26].
[45] Respondent’s SFIC, [27] (a), (b), (c), (d)].
[46] Respondent’s SFIC, [27 (d), (e), (f)].
[47] R3, Attachment B, Joint Tender Bundle, page 307.
[48] R3, Attachment A, Joint Tender Bundle, page 305.
[49] Respondent’s SFIC, [27] (g), (h)].
The statements of Ms Zhou and Ms Yilmaz were put to Ms Mao in cross examination about whether she had collaborated with either of them in preparing visa applications in the period 2018 – 2021. Ms Mao said both were lying when they said in their evidence that they had very little to do with Ms Mao during her time at Hote International.
In the Second Statutory Declaration, Ms Mao stated the following in relation to her understanding of what immigration assistance looked like to her when she was working at Hote International:
“I thought that as long as I did not provide migration advice and made sure that I worked under direction by Registered Migration Agents of Mr Hu’s company, my work would be merely clerical in nature, and it did not count as providing migration assistance. When studying the Code of Conduct, it was not explicitly stated what constitutes clerical assistance. For example, whether using my ImmiAccount to prepare applications or using my bank card with the clear instruction of Mr Hu to pay application fees would fall outside of the clerical work was not clear. Regarding not using a Registered Migration Agent’s email address as the contact point and not providing Form 956 or filling in Registered Migration Agent’s information, it is indeed my mistake despite of knowing they were improper conduct.”[50]
[50] A2 Joint Tender Bundle page 81, [16].
Ms Mao’s position is that although she assisted clients in lodging visa applications and associated documents during her periods of employment at each of Australianglobal, Hote International and Newpoint, her role was limited to the matters which an unregistered person is permitted to undertake under section 276(3) of the Act (set out in paragraph [32] above). Ms Mao says that although she was involved in over 50 visa applications in the Unregistered Period, the inference that she was providing immigration assistance in that period is not supported by the evidence.[51]
[51] Applicant’s Submissions, [9].
During her employment at Australianglobal, Ms Mao:
(a) was involved in lodging 9 student visa applications.[52]
(b) confirms that she was often required to set up her own ImmiAccounts and that her first Hotmail address was listed as the primary point of contact for the visa applicants.
(c) acknowledges that a Form 956 was not submitted with the visa applications.[53]
(d) said that she had doubts about her supervisor’s practices but was young and lacked practical knowledge and was not able to do anything other than what she was instructed to do.[54] and
(e) submits that she “never provided advice or comment regarding Australian migration laws and regulations to any individual, nor did she personally benefit from the work beyond her base salary as an administrative assistant.”[55]
[52] Applicant’s SFIC, [21].
[53] Applicant’s SFIC, [22], [23].
[54] Applicant’s SFIC, [24], [25].
[55] Applicant’s SFIC, [26].
Ms Mao’s period of employment at Hote International was very much bound up with the rise and fall of her relationship with Mr Hu.[56] Ms Mao states that:
(a) the assistance she provided to clients of Hote International concerning their visa applications “was strictly administrative, confined to entering details into forms, collecting documents and uploading them to ImmiAccounts.[57]
(b) she was sometimes asked by Mr Hu to pay visa fees with her personal credit card, which occurred because Hote International did not maintain a trust account and Mr Hu insisted that she do this for the company.[58] and
(c) Mr Hu exerted financial coercion on her throughout their relationship and marriage, which contributed to their eventual divorce. Part of that financial coercion involved pressure to continue to assist with visa applications, even after the birth of their child and her resignation from Hote International.[59]
[56] Applicant’s SFIC, [27] – [35].
[57] Applicant’s SFIC, [29].
[58] Applicant’s SFIC, [30].
[59] Applicant’s SFIC, [31], [32].
Ms Mao’s responsibilities as a Migration Agent Assistant at Newpoint commenced in November 2021. The migration-related tasks she undertook at Newpoint were under the “direct guidance” of registered migration agents, particularly by Ms Li as her direct supervisor.[60] The extent of the direct guidance provided by Ms Li, or by any other registered migration agent at Newpoint, was disputed on the evidence. Ms Li was not called as a witness by Ms Mao and the Li Reference Letter could not be tested by cross examination.
[60] Applicant’s SFIC, [36].
MARA contends that the persons who could have acted in a supervisory capacity for Ms Mao at each of Australianglobal, Hote International or Newpoint may well have taken a “lax approach” towards providing supervision to Ms Mao.[61] That laxness in approach may have been the explanation for, or encouraged by, the facts that Ms Mao used her own personal ImmiAccount, put her own personal contact details in visa applications and used her own visa card to pay visa application charges. MARA says that there is a lack of evidence that Ms Mao raised concerns about this “laxness” or asked for supervision and the lack of Forms 956 or 956A would be consistent with there being no registered migration agent having provided supervision.[62] The Tribunal notes that Ms Mao has not called as witnesses any of the people Ms Mao says have acted in a supervisory capacity towards her, which has left open the conclusion she was not being supervised, adequately or at all, by a registered migration agent during the Unregistered Period.
[61] The reference to “lax approach” comes from the Tribunal’s decision in Reptis and Migration Agents Registration Authority [2006] AATA 41, [39].
[62] Respondent’s SFIC, [28], [29].
The Tribunal is satisfied on the evidence before it that in the Unregistered Period Ms Mao did, from time to time, provide “immigration assistance” as defined in section 276(1)(a) and (b) of the Act. It does not accept Ms Mao’s submission that all of the assistance provided by her with respect to the not less than 50 visa applications submitted by her in the period between 4 March 2016 and 13 August 2023, fell within the permissible categories of assistance set out in section 276(3)(a)-(d) of the Act.
The Tribunal finds that the matters relied upon by MARA, summarised in subparagraphs 34(a) – (e) above, have been established in substance. The Tribunal also agrees with the submissions made by MARA, which arose from Ms Mao’s cross examination which are summarised in subparagraphs 73(a) – (d) below.
Ms Mao presented as a capable person who has been working largely, and at times apparently completely, autonomously in the migration agent industry for a period (now) of more than 10 years. The Unregistered Period which is the subject of this application spans the period from 2016 until 2023. The Tribunal accepts that Ms Mao was young and inexperienced in the earlier years commencing from 2016 and may well, understandably, have been uncertain or confused about what immigration assistance she could give without being a registered migration agent herself. However, the Tribunal does not accept on the evidence that Ms Mao remained confused in the period after 2018 as to what immigration assistance was permissible and what was not.
The Tribunal agrees with the Unregistered Assistance Finding made by MARA.
(b) Payment Finding
Subsection 281(1) of the Act provides that a person who is not a registered migration agent must not “ask for or receive any fee or other reward for giving immigration assistance.” MARA contends that in the period between 11 April 2018 and 13 August 2023, Ms Mao made payments for 15 visa applications using a credit card in her name and that those payments would have been reimbursed to her in some way.
Ms Mao’s evidence was that from late 2018, she was providing unremunerated services for Hote International. As part of the general financial control being exerted over her by Mr Hu, she was coerced by him into using her joint bank account with Mr Hu and her own credit card to submit some visa application fees. She maintains, reasonably, that the fact she used her joint bank account and her own credit card to submit visa application fees does not of itself prove that she received any fee or reward for the purposes of section 281 of the Act.[63]
[63] A2, Joint Tender Bundle page 81, [14].
MARA’s position is that fees received by Ms Mao into her joint account with Mr Hu constitute fees received by Ms Mao for giving immigration assistance. In support of this position, MARA says:
(a) Hote International had a company card which was used by Ms Mao on at least one occasion to pay for a visa application fee.
(b) In circumstances where a company card was apparently available for Ms Mao’s use to pay for visa application fees, there is no explanation given for her using a personal credit card to pay for visa applications out of her own pocket unless she was receiving reimbursement.
(c) Ms Mao has not produced the bank statements from the joint bank account to evidence whether she received reimbursement for her out of pocket expenditure, or for the work provided, on the visa applications. and
(d) Ms Mao has otherwise failed to provide evidence about why it was necessary for her to use her personal credit card to meet the visa application fees.[64]
[64] Respondent’s SFIC, [30] – [33].
In the Second Statutory Declaration, Ms Mao states: “… even if I used my bank account to submit application fees, it does not prove that I received fees or rewards. At that time, my child and I were financially dependent on Mr Hu, as I had no income. He would deposit money into our joint account or provide me with living expenses.”[65]
[65] A2 Joint Tender Bundle page 81, [14].
Ms Mao’s oral evidence was to the effect that she never received any fee or compensation other than her salary as an employee for assisting with the completion of visa application forms for clients of Australianglobal or Hote International. Her submission in relation to Hote International, was that the only “benefit” received by her was through intermittent deposits by Mr Hu of funds to the couple’s joint account to be used for household expenses. A benefit of that kind “cannot be construed as a “fee” or “reward” ….”[66]
[66] Applicant’s Submissions, [8], see also [10].
The Tribunal finds that there is insufficient evidence before it to conclude, on the balance of probabilities, that Ms Mao has received any fee or other reward for giving immigration assistance in breach of subsection 281(1) of the Act. It is clear that Ms Mao’s personal and financial circumstances during the Hote International period were very difficult and it is likely that she was the victim of the coercive control exerted by her ex-partner.
The Tribunal is not persuaded that the circumstances in which Ms Mao used a credit card in her own name to pay for 15 visa applications necessarily gives rise to the conclusion that she received a fee or reward when those payments were reimbursed. In reaching that outcome, the Tribunal accepts Ms Mao’s evidence on this point in the Second Statutory Declaration and the submission she makes as to the difficulty of characterising any benefit which accrued through deposits to the joint account as being a receipt by her of a “fee” or “reward”.
The Tribunal is not satisfied on the evidence before it that the Payment Finding has been made out.
(c) False Declaration Finding
MARA submits that in completing her application form to become a registered migration agent, Ms Mao dishonestly provided a “no” answer to questions relating to two separate topics. The first question related to whether she had ever been known by or used a different name to that stated by her in answer to Question 1 of her application. The application form stated that: “These names include but are not limited to aliases or informal names and former names …” The second question related to whether Ms Mao had ever given immigration assistance in Australia or New Zealand while unregistered.
The answers to the two questions were declared to be true by Ms Mao by means of the declaration signed by Ms Mao in her application to become a registered migration agent, which declaration provided:
“1. The information which I have provided in this form, including the attachments, is complete, correct and up to date in every detail…
9. I am aware that it is an offence under the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act 1995 (the Criminal Code Act) for a person to give information or make a statement to a Commonwealth entity, knowing that the information or statement is either false, misleading or omits any matter or thing without which the information or statement is misleading (sections 136.1 and 137.1 of the Criminal Code Act) I am aware that the penalty is imprisonment for up to 12 months.”
The issue in relation to Ms Mao’s name is that she has at times when working in the migration agency industry used the name Summer Mao instead of Tianying Mao. MARA gave the examples of her profile on the Newpoint website, her summer email address and her business card at Newpoint.
In the First Statutory Declaration, Ms Mao stated the following:
“Regarding my alias, when completing the registration application, I did not declare other name because “Summer” is solely my English name, not my legal name. I have never used “Summer” in any formal setting. It was solely for convenience in an English-speaking environment. While filling out the form, I didn’t consider it as an alternative name, so I didn’t mention it.”[67]
[67] A2, Joint Tender Bundle page 75.
In the Second Statutory Declaration, Ms Mao stated the following:
” … as mentioned in [the First Statutory Declaration], I did not consider “Summer to be my legal name at the time. Therefore, when asked if I had another name, I selected “no.” When registering for other official documents such as Medicare, driver’s license, or passport, I’ve always answered “no” when asked if I have another name.”[68]….” …I re-iterate that I genuinely did not consider “Summer” to be my other name, so I answered “No” at the time. Moreover, to my knowledge, many Chinese migration agents have not provided an English name, but they have been recently required to include an English name in their registration renewal applications…”[69]
[68] A2, Joint Tender Bundle page 81, [11].
[69] A2, Joint Tender Bundle page 82, [20].
Ms Mao’s position is that MARA’s allegation that she dishonestly denied being known by the name” Summer”, is “unsubstantiated”.[70] Ms Mao submits that she “never officially adopted” Summer” as her legal name”, that “[i]t is common for individuals of Asian descent to adopt a Western name for convenience” and Summer “was more of an alias than a formal name.”[71] She further submits that “this omission was not material to her eligibility for migration agent registration.”[72]
[70] Applicant’s SFIC, [42].
[71] Applicant’s SFIC, [43].
[72] Applicant’s SFIC, [44]; Applicant’s Submissions, [12].
The Tribunal has determined that in answering “no” in her application for registration to the two questions which relate, respectively, to whether Ms Mao had ever given immigration assistance in Australia or New Zealand while unregistered and whether she had ever been known by or used a different name than Tianying Mao (other name question), and then signing a declaration that her application was correct in every detail, Ms Mao has made a false declaration.
That conclusion in respect of the immigration assistance question flows because of the Tribunal’s finding that the Unregistered Assistance Finding has been established by the evidence.
In respect of the other name question, the Tribunal does not accept Ms Mao’s explanation as to why a “no” answer was given by her. The Tribunal does not agree with Ms Mao’s submission that the “inadvertent omission”[73] of disclosure of the Summer Mao name “was not material to her eligibility for migration agent registration.”[74] The other name question in the registration application form is expressed in clear and unambiguous terms as follows:
“Known by other names:
This question relates to your name at ANY TIME IN YOUR LIFE and in ANY COUNTRY
-Have you ever been known by, or used, any other name?
-Have any documents referring to you ever used a different name to that in Question 1?
These names could include, but are not limited to: aliases or informal names and former names such as maiden (family) name, different name(s) at birth, change of names through marriage(s)”
[73] Applicant’s Submissions, [12].
[74] Applicant’s SFIC, [44].
Ms Mao’s evidence in the First Statutory Declaration is that she never used “Summer” in any formal setting. That evidence cannot be right when Ms Mao has identified herself as Summer Mao in a range of business settings (website, email address, business cards) and in communications with clients—which interactions in a commercial context cannot properly be described as informal settings.
Further Ms Mao accepts that Summer “was more of an alias than a formal name”, yet the other name question expressly asked her whether she used an alias.
The other name question is not immaterial in the context of the application for registration as a migration agent because of the high standards of probity and honesty expected of registered migration agents in their dealings with both clients and the Department, which are the subject of the “fit and proper person” authorities referred to below. If an applicant cannot provide a correct answer to a straightforward question relating to any variations on their name, then it is not unreasonable to expect that MARA will have to treat the balance of the answers provided in the application for registration with considerable caution.
The Tribunal finds that the False Declaration finding is made out on the evidence, in that in completing her application form to become a registered migration agent Ms Mao signed a declaration that was false.
(d) Role Description Finding
Subsection 283(1) of the Act provides that a person who is not a registered migration agent “must not directly or indirectly represent that he or she is such an agent.” The alleged misrepresentation in Ms Mao’s profile on the Newpoint website came to MARA’s attention on 25 October 2023 (see paragraph [29 (f)] above).
When the misrepresentations were brought to Newpoint’s attention, it provided correspondence to indicate that the misrepresentation was inadvertent and that an error had been made on the Newpoint website. Subsequently, Newpoint took steps to remedy the non-compliance by updating Ms Mao’s profile on their website (see paragraph [29 (g)] above).
The correction of Ms Mao’s profile does not in MARA’s submission:
“… eliminate the fact that [Ms Mao] was represented by Newpoint as a registered Migration Agent and that a beach of s. 283 of the Act has occurred. It is further noted that it has not assisted [Ms Mao] that she has stated herself as the contact person for the visa applications across her three different workplaces and may have been introducing herself to clients as a registered migration agent as described in the anonymous complaint.”[75]
[75] Respondent’s SFIC, [40].
Ms Mao’s position is that MARA’s finding that she deliberately advertised herself as a registered migration agent is “unfounded and unjust”,[76] because she never had access to or control over the content of the Newpoint website.[77] The incorrect description of her in her profile was the result of “an error made by a marketing assistant in China” when updating Ms Mao’s website profile and was subsequently addressed after the issue was brought to Newpoint’s attention.[78] Ms Mao says that she cannot “be held responsible for a “breach” over which she had no control or for which she was not responsible.”[79]
[76] Applicant’s SFIC, [37].
[77] Applicant’s SFIC, [38].
[78] Applicant’s SFIC, [39], [41]. See also the letter from Kevin Ma of Newpoint dated 17 November 2023, A2 Joint Tender Bundle pages168 – 170.
[79] Applicant’s Reply, [6]; Applicant’s Submissions [11].
The Tribunal accepts Ms Mao’s evidence to the effect that as a junior employee of Newpoint she did not have control over or responsibility for the content which appeared in her profile on the Newpoint website. It is not clear how much influence (if any) Ms Mao had over the drafting of her website profile. Although it is correct to say, as MARA has submitted, that there has been a misrepresentation on the Newpoint website as to Ms Mao’s migration agent registration status, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the misrepresentation has been made by Ms Mao.
The Tribunal is not satisfied on the evidence before it that the Role Description Finding has been made out.
EVIDENCE OF WITNESSES
Material points which emerged from Ms Mao’s cross examination and which were focussed on by MARA, included:
(a) Ms Mao’s evidence that the migration agents at Australianglobal were “teaching her” about student visa applications, it being unlikely that those migration agents would have confined their teaching instructions purely to the administrative aspects of visa applications.[80]
(b) Ms Mao’s acknowledgement that in 2018 she knew that she was doing the wrong thing in aspects of her role, yet she continued with this conduct in the period from 2018 to 2023. Her evidence sought to mitigate her misconduct by reference to the coercive control of her ex-partner, but MARA’s submission is that insufficient reasons are given for her conduct in the period from late 2018 up until the birth of her son in late 2020.[81]
(c) Ms Mao’s evidence that the evidence provided by Ms Zhao and Ms Yilmaz as to their respective limited contact with Ms Mao was false, and that both were lying. MARA submits that Ms Mao’s evidence should not be accepted on this point.[82] and
(d) Ms Mao’s evidence, when taken to the definition of “immigration assistance” in section 276 of the Act, as to what tasks could be completed by a registered migration agent and what tasks could be completed by an (unregistered) migration agent assistant. MARA submits that “this evidence indicates that [Ms Mao] does not recognize the difference between what is and what is not immigration assistance meaning that [Ms Mao] is not a fit and proper person to give immigration assistance.[83]
[80] Respondent’s Submissions, [23(a)].
[81] Respondent’s Submissions, [23(b)].
[82] Respondent’s Submissions, [23(c)].
[83] Respondent’s Submissions, [23(d)].
Ms Li is an important potential witness who was not called to give evidence by Ms Mao. Ms Li’s evidence may have assisted the Tribunal in testing aspects of the Findings, with reference to Ms Mao’s supervision and the other matters set out in the Li Reference Letter (referred to in paragraph 34(c) above). Further Ms Li’s evidence would have been of assistance in relation to the Role Description Finding and the issues raised by MARA as to the content of the Newpoint website relating to Ms Mao.
CONSIDERATION: FIT AND PROPER AND PERSON OF INTEGRITY
Section 290 of the Act provides that Ms Mao must not be registered if MARA is satisfied that she is not a fit and proper person to give immigration assistance or she is not a person of integrity. The relevant principles which are to be applied to the determination of fitness and propriety and of integrity in an applicant are set out below.
In Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond,[84] (Bond) a case concerning whether Alan Bond was a “fit and proper person” to hold a broadcasting license, Toohey and Gaudron JJ. said:
“The expression “fit and proper person”, standing alone, carries no precise meaning. It takes its meaning from its context, from the activities in which the person is or will be engaged and the ends to be served by those activities. The concept “fit and proper” cannot be entirely divorced from the conduct of the person who is or will be engaging in those activities. However, depending on the nature of those activities, the question may be whether improper conduct has occurred, whether it is likely to occur, whether it can be assumed that it will not occur, or whether the general community will have confidence that it will not occur” [85]
[84] (1990) 170 CLR 321.
[85] (1990) 170 CLR 321, 380.
The Tribunal in Grosfeld and Tax Practitioners Board[86], cited Mason CJ’s observation in Bond that a person “who lacks a proper appreciation of their responsibilities or does not discharge them is, or may be adjudged not to be, a fit and proper person.”[87]
[86] [2014] AATA 100, [36].
[87] (1990) 170 CLR 321, 349.
Fit and proper person is applied here in the context of the registration of the person as a migration agent under the Act, which has as its object “to regulate, in the national interest, the coming into, and presence in, Australia of non-citizens.”[88] Migration agents play a critical role in the giving of migration assistance and it is in the national interest that the required standards of fitness, propriety and integrity are met by those who are registered as migration agents under the Act.
[88] S.4(1) of the Act.
In Peng and Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (Peng),[89] Deputy President McMahon said, in relation to the Tribunal being satisfied whether the applicant is not a fit and proper person to give immigration assistance:
“The use of the word “assistance” in my view, extends not only to help given to would-be applicants, but also help given to the Department in the administration of immigration programs. In that regard, frankness and truth are of primary importance…. If these standards are important in relation to individual applications, how much more important are they in relation to those who will, in the course of their practice, make many representations to the Department on behalf of those seeking to deal with immigration matters. The requirement to display integrity and fitness in order to qualify for registration as a migration agent, has an element of mutuality. The need for probity is not only for the protection of clients, but also for the open, honest and efficient administration of immigration matters in which the agent is involved.”[90]
[89] [1998] AATA 12.
[90] [1998] AATA 12, [26].
The Tribunal, in Mottaghi and Migration Agents Registration Authority,[91] cited the decision in Peng, with DPJarvis elaborating on the high standard of conduct expected of migration agents as being analogous to the standard of conduct expected of lawyers, as follows:
“… an alternative basis for the mutuality of obligations is that this should be applied because of the public interest in the objective of the Act, and in achieving its proper implementation, rather than from an interpretation of the word “assistance” where that word is used with reference to migration agents giving “immigration assistance”, and that compendious concept is given a specific meaning by s. 276 of the Act. However that may be, the proposition in Peng that migration agents owe a duty to the Department was supported by Wilcox J in Lilienthal v Migration Agents Registration Authority (2002) 117 FCR 558 at [24].”[92]
The point is that there is a dual responsibility owed by a migration agent both to the client and to the Department which underscores the need for probity and honesty in the conduct which is required of them.
[91] [2007] AATA 60; (2007) 98 ALD 424; (2007) 45 AAR 37.
[92] [2007] AATA 60, [52].
In SRH and Comptroller-General of Customs,[93] the meaning of “person of integrity” was discussed by the Tribunal with reference to the Macquarie Dictionary meaning of “integrity”, being “soundness of moral principle and character; uprightness.”[94] A consideration in determining the question of integrity is whether the applicant has a permanent defect in his or her character and , “ultimately, whether, on the balance of probabilities, it is unlikely that there will be a future lapse.”
[93] (1995) 37 ALD 581.
[94] (1995) 37 ALD 581, [45].
Ms Mao seeks to rely in evidence on the report of a Consultant Psychologist, Dr Watson-Munro, dated 20 May 2024.[95] Ms Mao submits that the opinion expressed in that report is to the effect that Ms Mao is now emotionally independent, demonstrates integrity and would comply with MARA’s requirements going forward.[96]
[95] A2, Joint Tender Bundle pages 55 – 73; Applicant’s Reply, [9].
[96] Applicant’s Submissions, [23].
MARA notes Dr Watson-Munro’s finding in his report that financial strain was one of the stress factors in Ms Mao misconduct.[97] MRA’s submission in relation to that opinion is that it:
“… is concerned how [Ms Mao] would respond to future life stressors when she is faced with them noting the limited evidence that [Ms Mao] has now developed the appropriate skills to respond to future life stressors. [MARA] is concerned that if granted registration as a migration agent there is a risk that [Ms Mao] will continue to act dishonestly.”[98]
[97] Respondent’s SFIC, [53].
[98] Respondent’s SFIC, [54].
MARA submits that little weight should be given by the Tribunal to Dr Watson-Munro’s opinion because he was not called as a witness, and the contents of his report could not be tested by cross examination. An opportunity to question Dr Watson-Munro matters in circumstances where the contents of his report seem to be based entirely on Ms Mao’s account of events, without any apparent input from independent third parties, and where the contents seem to be based on answering questions for him by Ms Mao and/or her legal advisers.[99]
[99] Respondent’s Submissions, [24(d)].
Ms Mao relied upon some additional evidence in support of her submission that she has integrity and is a person of good character and reputation. That additional evidence was:
(a) Ms Mao being appointed, on 6 October 2022, as a Justice of the Peace in New South Wales,[100] which Ms Mao submits” is a testament to her proven character and strong reputation within the community”.[101]
(b) Character references in the form of correspondence or a statutory declaration[102] from each of Sichen Lyn (a civil engineer),[103] Xioayu He (a Certified Public Accountant),[104] Ms Li (the Li Reference Letter)[105] and Kevin Ma (registered migration agent and Newpoint founder).[106] and
(c) Evidence that despite her personal and financial challenges, Ms Mao made ongoing donations to assist impoverished children in China.
[100] Applicant’s SFIC, [49(a)].
[101] Applicant’s Submissions, [24].
[102] Applicant’s SFIC, [49(b)].
[103] A2, Joint Tender Bundle pages 188 – 191; Applicant’s Submissions, [24].
[104] A2, Joint Tender Bundle pages 193 – 198; Applicant’s Submissions, [24].
[105] Applicant’s Submissions, [24].
[106] A2, Joint Tender Bundle pages 168 – 170; Applicant’s Submissions, [24].
MARA’s submissions in response to Ms Mao’s evidence of integrity, good character and reputation are that little to no weight should attach to any of the matters raised by her, because:
(a) the standard, means of assessment and test to become a Justice of the Peace are so different to those applicable to registration as a migration agent under the Act, that the JP appointment has limited relevance for present purposes.[107]
(b) none of the individuals providing character evidence were called as witnesses and the evidence is untested. Further, there is nothing on the face of the testimonials provided to show that the individuals are aware of the Findings or of the acknowledgements of misconduct which were made by Ms Mao.[108] and
(c) the fact of the donations to impoverished children has no direct relevance to the requirements for registration as a migration agent.[109]
[107] Respondent’s Submissions, [24(a)].
[108] Respondent’s Submissions, [24(b)].
[109] Respondent’s Submissions, [24(c)].
The Tribunal has had regard to the authorities as to fitness and propriety and as to integrity outlined above, to the additional evidence provided by Ms Mao (including Dr Watson-Munro’s report and the character references) and to the Tribunal’s findings in relation to the Unregistered Assistance Finding and the False Declaration Finding. The Tribunal agrees with MARA’s submission that the additional documentary evidence comprised of Dr Watson-Munro’s report and the character references can only be accorded limited weight by the Tribunal, as none of the authors of those documents were called to give evidence. It is also unclear whether the character referees have been fully informed about the matters leading to this proceeding when providing their testimonials.
In determining that the Refusal Decision was correct, the Tribunal has noted that in recent times Ms Mao has taken significant steps towards addressing her past misconduct and that she is not prevented from making a fresh application for registration as a migration agent at some time in the future.
CONCLUSION AND DECISION
The Tribunal makes the following findings:
(a) It finds that Ms Mao has provided immigration assistance, as defined in section 276 of the Act, when she was not a registered migration agent.
(b) It is satisfied to the civil standard of proof (on the balance of probabilities), on the evidence before it, that there has been a breach by Ms Mao of subsection 280(1) of the Act. It finds that the Unregistered Assistance Finding is made out.
(c) It is not satisfied to the civil standard of proof, on the evidence before it, that there has been a breach by Ms Mao of subsection 281(1) or subsection 283(1) of the Act. It finds that the Payment Finding and the Description Findings are not made out.
(d) It finds that the False Declaration finding is made out, in that in completing her application form to become a registered migration agent Ms Mao signed a declaration that was false.
The Tribunal is persuaded that there were valid grounds for refusing Ms Mao’s application for registration as a migration agent based on her not being a fit and proper person to provide immigration assistance and her not being a person of integrity under subsections 290(1)(a) and (b) respectively of the Act.
It follows that the Refusal Decision was the correct decision. The Tribunal’s determination is that the decision under review is affirmed.
Date of Hearing: 17 March 2025
Date for Written Closing Submissions: 27 March 2025
Date of Decision: 30 May 2025
Appearing for the Applicant: Mr W Ho
Solicitors for the Applicant: Vstar Lawyers and Consultants Pty Ltd
Counsel for the Respondent: Ms L Hargrave
Solicitors for the Respondent: Clayton Utz
0
8
0