Nima Mottaghi v Migration Agents Registration Authority

Link copied
Case Copied 31 min read

Administrative Appeals Tribunal

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2007] AATA 60

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )

)          No S2006/47

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION )
Re NIMA MOTTAGHI

Applicant

And

MIGRATION AGENTS REGISTRATION AUTHORITY

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Deputy President D G Jarvis

Date15 February 2007

PlaceAdelaide

Decision

The tribunal affirms the decision under review.

D.G. Jarvis
  (Signed)
  Deputy President

(b)      whether I am satisfied that Mr Mottaghi is not a person of integrity;

(c)whether the application should be dismissed pursuant to s 42B of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) (the “AAT Act”), on the grounds that its determination would be of no practical utility.

5. For the reasons set out below, I am satisfied that Mr Mottaghi is not a fit and proper person to give immigration assistance, but I am not satisfied that he is not a person of integrity. I have also concluded that it is not appropriate to dismiss the application under s 42B of the AAT Act.

Background

6.      The following background facts are not in dispute, and are based on those parts of the applicant’s witness statement (exhibit A1) which are not challenged by the respondent, and on other records included in the T Documents (exhibit R1).

7.      Mr Mottaghi is aged thirty one, having been born on 31 July 1975.  He migrated to Australia with his family in 1991 from Tehran, Iran.  His parents came to Australia as skilled migrants.  He has one sister.

8.      He completed his secondary education, and started a degree in civil aviation at the University of South Australia in 1995, but had to work to support himself, and found that he was too tired to continue his studies.

9.      He had moved out of home when he commenced his studies, and was estranged from his parents for almost three years.  After that he moved back home and worked in a computer store as a salesperson, and then as a computer technician.  In 2002 he became a NAATI accredited interpreter, and worked as a subcontractor for organisations that specialise in legal and commercial matters.

10.     Through his work as an interpreter he became exposed to immigration work, which he found very interesting.  He became involved with the Refugee Advocacy Service of South Australia as he wanted to help Iranians and Afghans who were seeking refugee status in Australia.  He volunteered his interpreting services because he wanted to give something back to the community.  He also worked with a number of lawyers and migration agents who acted on a pro bono basis for asylum seekers held in detention at the Woomera and Baxter detention centres.

11.     In the course of this work Mr Mottaghi met Ms Libby Hogarth, who is the principal of the migration agency Libby Hogarth and Associates.  He commenced working with that agency late in 2004 on a subcontracting basis, providing interpreting, administrative and computer assistance.  After observing the work done by Ms Hogarth and Mr Van Arend, who works with her, Mr Mottaghi…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Nima Mottaghi v Migration Agents Registration Authority and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2007] AATA 60
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Migration Agents Registration Authority (MARA) brought a proceeding against Nima Mottaghi in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) seeking to cancel his registration as a migration agent. The basis for the cancellation was that Mr Mottaghi was not a fit and proper person to hold registration and was not a person of integrity. This arose from his conviction for obtaining money by false pretences and other conduct that MARA considered demonstrated he was not of good character. Mr Mottaghi contested the allegations and provided evidence of his subsequent good conduct and rehabilitation. The Tribunal had to determine whether Mr Mottaghi was not a fit and proper person or not a person of integrity, and if so, whether these grounds justified the cancellation of his registration.

The central issues for the Tribunal were whether Mr Mottaghi's previous conviction and other conduct rendered him unfit to be a migration agent and whether his actions demonstrated he lacked integrity. The Tribunal considered the role of migration agents and their duties to both the respondents and the Department of Immigration and Citizenship. The Tribunal also had to consider the relevance of Mr Mottaghi's failure to provide information requested by the Tribunal, his disparaging remarks about MARA and its processes, and his failure to attend for cross-examination. The Tribunal concluded that Mr Mottaghi was not a fit and proper person to hold registration, but was satisfied that he was a person of integrity. The Tribunal also determined the effective date of its decision and the meaning of "fit and proper person" and "person of integrity" in the relevant statutory context.

The Tribunal ultimately affirmed MARA's decision to cancel Mr Mottaghi's registration. The Tribunal rejected Mr Mottaghi's argument that his application should be dismissed for lack of practical utility because he provided immigration assistance overseas, where registration was not required. The Tribunal found that the application was not futile because it concerned Mr Mottaghi's fitness to provide regulated immigration services in Australia. The Tribunal's decision was upheld on review.

Orders

Orders of the court

The tribunal affirms the decision under review.

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.