Rajendra Singh (Migration) - [2025] ARTA 304

Rajendra Singh (Migration) [2025] ARTA 304 (21 January 2025)
DECISION AND
REASONS FOR DECISION
Applicant:Mr Rajendra Singh
Respondent: Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs
Tribunal Number: 2430798

Tribunal:General Member A McMurran
Place:Sydney
Date: 21 January 2025
DECISION:The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and substitutes a decision not to cancel the applicant’s Subclass 187 - Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme visa.

Statement made on 21 January 2025 at 4:34pm

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – cancellation – Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme visa – Subclass 187 – Motor Mechanic (General) – sponsor had not nominated the applicant for the position as claimed by the applicant – applicant had provided incorrect information in his answer in the visa application – information reasonably supports a finding that the nomination was in fact authorised as claimed by the applicant – not satisfied that there was non-compliance – decision under review set aside
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, ss 109, 359, 375
Migration Regulations 1994, r 2.41
STATEMENT OF REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW
Application

This is an application lodged in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal on 29 August 2024 for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs under s 109(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act), to cancel the applicant’s Subclass 187 - Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme visa.
On 14 October 2024, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) became the Administrative Review Tribunal (the Tribunal).
Under the transitional provisions in the Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) Act 2024 (the Transitional Act), applications for review to the AAT that were not finalised before 14 October 2024 are taken to be an application for review to the Tribunal. This application falls into that category.
Background
The applicant, Mr Rajendra Singh, is a 30-year-old citizen of the Republic of India. He arrived in Australia on 5 December 2013 on a student visa. He had a partner who lives in Melbourne. His partner had a child in or about November 2024, but he told the Tribunal that he and his partner have now “permanently separated”.
The applicant’s visa history relates to his student visas granted in the period from 2013 – 2016 and then his Subclass 187 visa application made in September 2017.
At the time of this review, the applicant stated he had been visiting his former partner and young child in Melbourne. The applicant stated that he has no work at present. He is trained as a Motor Vehicle Mechanic and completed his training in Brisbane with an AQF Certificate III and IV in Light Vehicle Mechanical Technology and Automotive Mechanical Diagnosis. He had completed the courses of study in Australia by February 2016 from the New England College in Brisbane. He obtained a Diploma of Automotive Technology awarded in October 2016 in Brisbane, after which he moved to the Central Coast in NSW in 2017 to take up a position as an Automotive Technician.
On 14 September 2017, the applicant, lodged his application for a nomination-related Subclass 187 Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme (RSMS) permanent visa (“the visa”). The applicant had applied for the position of Motor Mechanic (General), ANZSCO 321111 (“the position /role”).
The applicant had declared that he had been nominated for the visa for the position by reference to Transaction Reference Number (“TRN”)[1], which referred to The Trustee for CCMG[2] Unit Trust (“CCMG / the nominator”). The visa was subsequently granted on 16 September 2020, following approval of the related nomination on 24 March 2020.
[1] (TRN) EGOFNVGAED – see p1 of Application for Permanent Employer Sponsored or Nominated Visa, generated 14 Sep 2017 at 00:24:53 lodged by the visa applicant (“the visa application”).
[2] The Central Coast Motor Group
The Transitional Act gives the Tribunal the authority to continue and finalise any aspect of the review not already completed by the AAT.
This decision and statement of reasons is made by the Tribunal in place of the AAT.
Decision
Delegate’s decision under review
On 29 August 2024, the delegate cancelled the visa on the basis that CCMG had informed the Department that it had not nominated the applicant for the position as claimed by the applicant. Accordingly, the delegate found that the applicant had provided incorrect information in his answer in the visa application by declaring that CCMG had nominated him for the visa, and by providing the TRN that was relied upon.
The delegate claimed to have information that this nomination by CCMG with the related TRN was “not authorised”. The applicant disputes that finding and has sought this review.
For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision to cancel the applicant’s visa should be set aside.
Information before the delegate
The chronology for the visa the subject of this review is set out in the delegate’s decision. The applicant does not take issue with the chronology as disclosed.
On 13 September 2017, CCMG had purportedly lodged the nomination application which nomination was approved on 24 March 2020.
On 9 September 2021, ABF officers notified the Department that CCMG was now claiming the nomination application had not been authorised and it had not sponsored the applicant for the role. The information relied upon by the delegate is the subject of a 375A certificate discussed below.
On 12 August 2024, the Department issued a Notice of Intention to Consider Cancellation (“NOICC”) .
On 29 August 2024, the delegate recorded a Decision of Whether to Cancel under Section 109 of the Migration Act (“the Decision”). The delegate set out in the Decision information and a large number of documents reviewed and listed by the decision-maker and which are not repeated here. The decision-maker found that the applicant did not comply with s 101(b) of the Act.
The Tribunal has had regard to that information. It includes details of the visa applicant’s professional qualifications and training, his employment records from CCMG commencing 24 August 2017, and a letter confirming the visa applicant’s employment.
The applicant was not interviewed by the Department or ABF officers.
He was however issued with the NOICC to which he responded on 26 August 2024. The response contained a large bundle of documents from the applicant’s representative.
The delegate referred to the visa applicant’s responses in summary form at p 5 of the Decision. The Tribunal has also had regard to that information, the documents and the applicant’s responses.
Tribunal process
The AAT received the application lodged 29 August 2024.
The issue for review by the Tribunal is whether the ground for cancellation under s 101(b) is made out, and if so, whether the visa should be cancelled.
The applicant provided a copy of his passport as identification, and a copy of the Department’s visa cancellation decision with the application. The applicant provided the AAT with notification of his representative, Mr Arun Singhal, from the Big Brother Group who continues to represent the applicant before the ART.
On 8 November 2024, the Tribunal invited the applicant to a hearing on 13 December 2024. On the same date, the Tribunal invited the applicant to provide any relevant updated information by 6 December 2024 for consideration in his review.
On 8 November 2024, the Tribunal requested the Department to inform it whether an application for a nomination had been lodged by CCMG in favour of the applicant. The Tribunal provided the Department with a list of business names operated by CCMG.
On 14 November 2024, the Department responded that it had no record of a nomination in favour of the applicant by any of the 14 recorded business names in the ASIC record as operated by CCMG.
The Department’s nomination records for CCMG however produced for the Tribunal indicate that “CCMG Pty Ltd” as nominator has lodged many nomination applications beginning in 2009, and including an application by the visa applicant “commenced 13/09/2017”.[3]
[3] ICSE record client ID CCMG PTY LTD 39265311877
The Department file provided to the Tribunal included a copy of the Application for Employer Nomination for a Permanent Appointment generated 13 September 2017 at 16:39:19pm (“the nomination application”) [4] and which CCMG claims was not authorised.
[4] Both the nomination and the visa applications were lodged the same day with the Department by the same migration agent representing both the nominator and the visa applicant. The visa application refers to the nominator only by reference to the TRN, whereas the nomination application refers to the visa applicant by name.
On 15 November 2024, the Tribunal emailed the applicant under section 359A of the Act with a copy of the response from the Department, setting out particulars that the Department had confirmed it does not have any record of the applicant, Rajendra SINGH, being nominated by any of the businesses listed by ASIC as owned by CCMG as the nominator.
On 29 November 24, the applicant responded and requested the Tribunal to transfer the applicant’s case “to Victoria to facilitate his participation in the review process”, to purportedly overcome claimed “logistical challenges” to him in engaging with the Tribunal process for an in-person hearing.
On 5 December 2024, the Tribunal responded and invited the applicant to a video hearing to appear remotely from Victoria on the scheduled hearing date. On the same day, the applicant emailed the Tribunal accepting the invitation.
On 7 December 2024, the applicant submitted a large bundle of documents to the Tribunal by email. The responses included the applicant’s records from CCMG, personal information, CCMG advertisements for the position, the visa grant notice, the nomination approval, his academic results and English test score, CCMG letter of engagement, payslip, and written submission titled “Response to visa cancellation”.
The Tribunal has considered those documents and all the information made available by both the Department and the applicant.
On 9 December 2024, the Tribunal emailed the applicant with a copy of a Non-Disclosure Certificate (“NDC”) under section 375A of the Act. The applicant was invited to respond. The NDC is referred to separately below.
On 9 December 2024, the Tribunal contacted the office of the nominator, CCMG. An email was dispatched attaching a copy of the applicant’s Employment Engagement letter, his Contract of Employment and a request from the Tribunal for CCMG to comment on the authenticity of the documents attached.
On 13 December 2024, the Tribunal recorded an emailed response from the Dealer Principal, Mr Philip Stanley, from Gosford Mazda on behalf of CCMG. The Tribunal provided the applicant with a copy of the written response from Mr Stanley, inviting him to comment.
On 13 December 2024, the hearing proceeded by video as scheduled. The applicant’s representative was unable to be present for the video hearing, and the applicant asked for the matter to continue and to proceed without the representative being present. No interpreter was present for the hearing.
The Tribunal asked if the applicant was ready to proceed given his representative’s earlier concerns about apparent “logistical challenges” for the applicant. The applicant said he was ready and willing to proceed by video. No witnesses were called other than the applicant, and no adjournment was sought.
So as not to prejudice the applicant, the Tribunal provided the applicant extra time on completion of the hearing to provide any further responses and written reply to the Tribunal in respect of the information given to the applicant, being the responses from CCMG to the Tribunal that certain documents may have been unauthorised and not signed by Mr Stanley other than electronically.
The applicant was asked to respond by 10 January 2025, by which time he anticipated he would be able to discuss the matter and the documents provided to him by the Tribunal, with his representative.
On 10 January 2025, the Tribunal recorded a large number of documents and written submissions from the applicant’s representative in response. The information and submissions are referred to below in these reasons, as is the oral evidence from the hearing.
S. 375A Certificate (“NDC”)
Section 375A provides that certain information is only to be disclosed firstly to the AAT, and subsequently following tranition, to the ART. The Tribunal must do all things necessary to ensure the document or information the subject of the certificate is not disclosed to any person other than the Tribunal’s constituted Member. The Tribunal is required to disclose the presence of the NDC to the applicant.
On 11 September 2024, the Department provided the AAT with a copy of the certificate together with extracts from its file stating that disclosure of the documents covered by the NDC would be “contrary to the public interest”. The certificate was properly dated and signed by the relevant delegate, and the Tribunal, as was the AAT, is satisfied the certificate is valid.
The gist of the information contained in the certificate referred to 3 documents, referencing firstly a media investigation of a former Member of Parliament (“former MP”); secondly a report to the Department from an ABF officer referencing a CCMG director’s statement to the effect that it had engaged Mr Thomson as a former MP to facilitate the engagement of foreign workers in 2017, but had not submitted an RSMS nomination for the applicant; and thirdly, an internal memorandum provided for Department staff on its general cancellations procedures applicable for this particular applicant.
At the hearing, the Tribunal raised the certificate with the applicant. It was clear from the applicant and his submissions that he was aware of an investigation concerning the former MP, which was a matter of public interest and publication on the internet, and attention in the media in 2019 and 2020, and a matter of general knowledge available to members of the public. He was also aware of Mr Thomson’s engagement with CCMG in 2017 and that CCMG was now claiming it had not sponsored him for the RSMS visa. This was discussed in his oral evidence.
The applicant’s written submissions in addition to his oral evidence reveals the applicant had personal dealings with the former MP concerning his position with CCMG in 2017 and who the applicant claims arranged the nomination application on his behalf. The applicant states he was aware of the details identifying the former MP. He states he was also aware that CCMG was claiming it had not lodged or submitted an RSMS nomination for him, and so claimed it had not authorised the lodgement of the application by the person purporting to act on its behalf.
The applicant did not seek to dispute the certificate and the Tribunal did not disclose details of the internal memorandum. The applicant thought it was not necessary to do so and he did not seek any time to refer to his representative or to discuss the certificate or make further submissions after the hearing. His response was to provide an explanation at the hearing in addition to his documentation and written submissions both before and after the hearing.
Notwithstanding, the Tribunal suggested to the applicant that he might raise the matter of the certificate with his representative when he became available and he could have some time to include any responses in his submissions, which were directed to be lodged by 10 January 2025, when it made the direction on completion of the hearing.[5]
[5] see Singh v Minister for Immigration & Anor (2016) FCCA 2464 (23 September 2016).
The applicant made no further submissions about the certificate in the detailed responses dated 9 January 2025 from his representative.
The issue in this case squarely raises an argument whether there was a valid nomination from the nominator, CCMG, and whether it had been “authorised”. The applicant has raised the issue that he was not at any time made aware that there was no valid RSMS visa nomination. He has submitted his version of the circumstances surrounding his visa application in conjunction with the nomination application (dealt with below), which was purportedly arranged by Mr Thomson and his migration agent on behalf of and with the authority of CCMG.
Those issues were discussed in the evidence at the hearing and in the documentation and written submissions from the applicant. The Tribunal formed the view the contents of the certificate were well known to the applicant, save for the internal memorandum, and went to the heart of the issues he had already raised and the subject of the review of the delegate’s decision. This was further confirmed in the post-hearing submissions from the representative on 19 January 2025 and which are set out below.
The Tribunal has had regard to the NDC and referenced documents, which it has not disclosed other than by general referencing to the applicant of its terms, and as required following Singh.
The principal issue for consideration by this Tribunal, as was before the delegate, is the question of authority for lodgement of the nomination application.
The concern raised by the NDC was clearly known to the applicant, that it was asserted that there was no RSMS sponsorship by CCMG, and therefore the applicant had given or provided an incorrect answer. This was the main issue and considered in the context of this review with all the evidence and information available.
The NDC has played no other part in the Tribunal’s decision-making process, has not been disputed, has been disclosed to the applicant, and for the purposes of this decision, the evidence to which it refers is already before the Tribunal in the oral evidence and written submissions from the applicant.
Tribunal review hearing
As noted already, the Tribunal varied the hearing format and the applicant appeared before the Tribunal by video on 13 December 2024 to give evidence and present arguments.
The Tribunal had been unable to locate an available interpreter in the Punjabi language for the scheduled hearing. The applicant for his part did not require an interpreter and was willing to proceed without one. The Tribunal did not determine any issues with the use of the English language and none were raised. The applicant gave his evidence in English and confirmed he had understood everything.
The applicant was represented in relation to the review. The representative was unable to attend the hearing and the applicant was granted a period following the hearing until 10 January 2025 to consult with his representative and to make any further submissions. The applicant made further submissions as directed and did not seek any additional time to do so following those submissions.
Summary of the applicant’s oral evidence
The Tribunal does not have the benefit of a written transcript and has summarised the applicant’s responses as follows. The Tribunal has referred to the ‘visa application’ and the ‘nomination application’ (meaning the RSMS nomination) where necessary so as not to confuse the meaning of “application”.
The Tribunal explained that the Department had cancelled the applicant’s regional sponsored visa on the basis the applicant had wrongly informed the Department in his visa application that he had been nominated by CCMG, a large motor vehicle dealership on the New South Wales Central Coast. The nomination was referred to by reference to the TRN.
The applicant said he had been employed in 2017 by CCMG as an automotive technician and his visa application was for permanent employment in that role, purportedly nominated by CCMG.
The applicant gave some background history.
He said he is not working at present. He said he lost his current casual employment when his visa was cancelled on 29 August 2024. He had been working in “security” with the Sydney Harbour Bridge. He would “like to return to that role”. He cannot however gain employment where he has no visa.

He said he has not worked as an automotive technician, which is his trained occupation, since he lost that job with CCMG in November 2020. He said he wants to return to Sydney in the New Year.
The Tribunal explained that the issue before the Tribunal on review was whether he had given an incorrect answer, or caused to be given an incorrect answer in a visa application form, and where he had not in fact been nominated as claimed.
The applicant was asked questions about how he came to be employed in the role. He explained that he had answered an advertisement from a labour hire company, The Wickerman Group. This was a recruiter operated by Mr Craig Thomson. The applicant said he did not know of any history other than “Mr Thomson was a former MP”. He said he had trusted him when he was told he would be employed by CCMG.
The applicant said when he applied to the recruiter online, he was interviewed in a coffee shop, firstly by Mr Thomson, who informed him he would find him employment. He gave information about his qualifications. Mr Thomson then introduced him to an employee of CCMG, Mr Scott Eyers, who he described as the “operational manager”. He said the manager hired him in or about September 2017. He said his role was to prepare newly delivered motor vehicles so they were ready and safe for delivery. He knew nothing about CCMG before the introduction from Mr Thomson.
He said about 2 weeks after he started work, Mr Eyers told him the company wanted to sponsor him. He said the company would be the nominator. As he had given all his information and documents to Mr Thomson and CCMG when he was employed, and he had been provided a signed letter of offer and contract of employment, he thought it would be reasonable to leave it to the company to make the nomination as proposed and to which he had agreed. He did not ask about a migration representative for himself but was aware the company had its own agent whom he was told he should use for his visa application. He said he had paid that agent to whom he had been directed by Mr. Thomson for his visa application.
The agent subsequently lodged both the nomination application and his visa application.
The applicant said the migration process was then left to his agent and CCMG to arrange and who he understood engaged Mr Thomson’s firm as agent to do the paperwork. He said he was told everything would be “all right” by Mr Thomson, and by Mr Scott Eyers for CCMG. He did not investigate any “authority” by either person as acting on behalf of CCMG. He already had employment with CCMG and assumed the proposed sponsorship was because they were a large organisation and needed qualified mechanics for vehicle pre-deliveries.
The applicant understood Mr Thomson was engaged by CCMG and “arranged everything”. He understood that Mr Thomson and Mr Eyers were communicating concerning his employment and nomination applications by CCMG. He said when he inquired that he was simply told “not to worry about it”. He said he was aware of several other applicants also working for CCMG who were being recruited by Mr Thomson for visas and sponsorship in 2017.
In answer to the Tribunal’s questions, the applicant summarised his chronology for relevant events concerning his visa application as follows:
·In 2017, he decided to move to the Central Coast where he wanted to live and
friends had told him to contact a recruiter, Mr Thomson, online;
·he found Mr Thomson online and made his approach for employment in August 2017; he was then interviewed by Mr Thomson who told him CCMG were advertising for automotive technicians;
·he was referred to CCMG and then interviewed by Mr Eyers, and was hired;
·he signed an offer letter and letter of engagement on 24 August 2017;
·in about September 2017 he was told by Mr Eyers he would be sponsored for the RSMS visa for his occupation.
·The company used a migration agent, Ms Anamika Astridge, who the applicant believes worked with Mr Thomson, as she lodged the nomination application on 13 September 2017, and subsequently his visa application on 14 September 2017. He said he paid $3,500 to the agent for his visa application
·He said he heard nothing further about progress of the nomination, and worked in the role for approximately 2 years until “one day” Mr Thomson approached him in late 2019. He said Mr Thomson had demanded he make a payment to him if he wanted to keep his employment, as the visa had not yet been approved. He said he declined, as he did not have the money demanded. He said another employee who commenced about the same time with him in 2017 was asked the same thing. He said he believes that employee kept his job.
·Approximately 2 weeks after Mr Thomson had approached him in 2019, he was asked to meet with Mr Eyers, who told him that he should take “unpaid leave” as there was not enough work for him with CCMG. He said he had noticed there was less work since the pandemic started, so he accepted what he was told and took “unpaid leave”. He said he did not seek any workplace advice at the time and the agent acting for him had not contacted him.
·The applicant thought about 4 to 6 weeks later, Mr Thomson approached him again and told him “the company doesn’t want you anymore”. He said he thought this was “retaliatory” because he did not agree to Mr Thomson’s demand for a payment. He said Mr Thomson informed him he would have to resign and prepared and subsequently sent CCMG a resignation letter on his behalf. He said he was later handed a separation letter from CCMG, purportedly signed by a CCMG executive. Again, he accepted this termination having been told previously by Mr Eyers that there was not enough work. This was so, notwithstanding he said he had been told that when his visa was granted, his employment would continue. He did not seek any independent advice about his employment. He sai8d he did not know that he had “resigned”.
·In November 2019, the applicant said he found himself with no employment and no income, pending his visa application which was still not decided. He said he was unaware of progress of either the nomination application or his visa application. He said he became suspicious of the nomination and visa process controlled by CCMG, as “something did not sound right” so he thought he would get his own migration agent. He thought he might still be re-employed when his visa application came through, as he said he had been promised at the outset.
·He was referred to another agent, Mr Guan, who took over his visa application from Ms Astridge. He said he paid the new agent $4,500 to advise him about his visa application.
·He said at that point, he thought it conceivable Mr Thomson “was responsible for all that”. He said on or about this time in November 2019, he received unsolicited a copy of an email from Mr Thomson, dated 24 August 2017, attaching information from an accountant working for CCMG. He did not appear to understand the emailed documentation as CCMG “was a very large organisation”, but was aware CCMG had provided a great deal of its internal financials, including its Trust Deed, to Mr Thomson, who in turn, had copied them to him in an endeavour to show him that he was acting as authorised agent for CCMG and on their information. He said the email was forwarded to him by Mr Thomson in answer to a concern he had raised as to whether everything with CCMG was “legit” concerning progress of his visa application.
·He said it was true he had less work in his role before he was asked to take unpaid leave, and he thought due to industry conditions at the time.
·He said however that he believed his visa application was still progressing with his new agent, who eventually informed him that his visa application had been granted on 16 September 2020, almost a year after he had left the company.
It was put to him why he had done nothing since leaving the company in November 2019 until September 2020 when his visa was granted, and had not checked anything with CCMG. He did not have a clear answer. He had received a severance letter, but realised not long after his termination that “something did not sound right”. He had believed at the time that once the visa was granted however, it was possible he would be re-employed. He had not obtained any other work in the interim.
He said he went back to ask CCMG for his employment in 2020 after his visa was granted in September, as he had been “promised”, and after CCMG had sponsored him. He said he was told he would never be re-employed and the company “wanted nothing more to do with me”.
The applicant said he was unable to obtain any further information from CCMG about how the nomination had proceeded. It was put to him that perhaps he or his agent should have informed the Department while the nomination and visa applications were in progress, to update them about his employment status and how that was being managed. He did not explain why that was not done. He simply responded that he had left the migration process to his agent and accepted what he was told at the time, including his termination and the reason given by Mr Thomson.
He could not tell the Tribunal anything about how it was that Mr Thomson had been provided with internal company documents about its financials, Trust Deed and other information from CCMG. He was asked whether he accepted the letter of separation he had been given by Mr Thomson, which he agreed he had ‘accepted’.
He saw the email from CCMG sent to him on the morning of the hearing asking for comment. That email asserts the separation letter was fraudulent. He thought that might be true, because he said he had “never provided a letter of resignation”. He said he had “never resigned”, as he thought initially that he was on unpaid leave pending the visa grant, and just accepted the letter handed to him by Mr Thomson, not by anybody from the company.
He said he only accepted the situation of his departure at the time because he believed there was a real downturn in work, as he had been informed, and his termination was a logical consequence. This worsened when the pandemic struck in 2020.
The applicant said he took no steps to contact the company or find out whether he was in fact terminated and for the reasons given by the letter. He was adamant he had never provided a resignation letter, which corroborated the response from CCMG to the Department.
The Tribunal discussed with the applicant whether he had any other submissions. He said he had an email and another document he would like the Tribunal to consider as he believes it demonstrates what he has said is truthful, namely that although he had some suspicions it did not occur to him that he had been caught up in any fraud as he had been dealing with a former MP whom he believed was authorised by CCMG, or that any answers he had given were incorrect. He said he had never doubted that he had been nominated for the position by CCMG, especially as they had employed him in the first place. It made sense to him that the employer would want to sponsor him for a position for which he was eminently qualified.
The Tribunal suggested to him he might want to talk to his new representative who had only been acting for him since about August 2024 after he received the cancellation notice. If the applicant were genuinely a victim in the circumstances, he might want to consider approaching the Minister for Ministerial intervention. He may also have unexplored employee rights regarding his termination and failure to be re-employed and he should seek advice.
The Tribunal put to him under section 359AA that if the Tribunal took the view he was responsible for providing an incorrect answer in his visa application, or bogus document (the nomination application itself), and namely that he was sponsored when he was not, it did not matter whether it was intentional on his part or simply unknowing, as the visa might still be cancelled.
The Tribunal explained as described in the notice from the Department about “other matters” that must be had regard to in order to cancel the visa, if the ground for cancellation existed.
The Tribunal put to him that the Department claimed the correct information was that he was not nominated at all by the company for an RSMS visa. The nomination application was clearly the reason why he had been granted the visa, because without a successful nomination his visa would not have been granted. He said he understood.
In summary, the Tribunal thought the circumstances in which the applicant had provided information for his visa application were not overtly suspicious. The nomination application had been given a TRN on lodgement which his agent had used in his visa application and which was issued by the Department. He had no information or reason to think at the time of its lodgment that the nomination application was not authorised by CCMG, as he had remained employed there for 2 years from 2017 until 2019 while it was under consideration.
Regulation 2.41
In his oral evidence, the applicant made no submissions about whether to cancel the visa. His focus was upon challenging the finding that he had given an incorrect answer or provided a bogus document. He asserted throughout that CCMG had sponsored him in 2017 when the nomination application was lodged, and that there was no information he had seen that the visa application was not properly authorised.
The delegate had considered whether to cancel the visa and the relevant provision under regulation 2.41.The regulation refers to 10 circumstances which are prescribed in accordance with s 109 of the Act. The Regulation prescribes as follows:
For the purposes of paragraph 109(1)(c) of the Act, the following circumstances are prescribed:
(a)  the correct information;
(b)  the content of the genuine document (if any);
(c)  whether the decision to grant a visa or immigration clear the visa holder was based, wholly or partly, on incorrect information or a bogus document;
(d)  the circumstances in which the non - compliance occurred;
(e)  the present circumstances of the visa holder;
(f)  the subsequent behaviour of the visa holder concerning his or her obligations under Subdivision C of Division   3 of Part   2 of the Act;
(g)  any other instances of non - compliance by the visa holder known to the Minister;
(h)  the time that has elapsed since the non - compliance;
(j)  any breaches of the law since the non - compliance and the seriousness of those breaches;
(k)  any contribution made by the holder to the community.
Note:  Under s. 109 of the Act, the Minister may cancel a visa if there was non - compliance by the holder of a kind set out in Subdivision C of Division   3 of Part   2 of the Act. The Minister is to have regard to the prescribed circumstances in considering whether to cancel the visa.
The delegate found that there was non-compliance with s 101(b) of the Act because the application lodged was not validly authorised. In considering the requirements for the prescribed circumstances under r.2.41, the delegate found the weight of evidence supported a finding that the visa be cancelled.
Significant weight was attached to the delegate’s finding that the applicant “(or his agent) submitted a nomination for a position which was not actually supported by the nominating business, CCMG, in order to obtain a favourable migration outcome.”
At the hearing, and subsequently, the applicant made no submissions to the Tribunal concerning the prescribed circumstances for consideration and that might assist him. The Tribunal suggested he might have some additional time which he accepted, to think about those matters and provide any further information and/or submissions. He agreed to do so by Friday, 10 January 2025 , or to seek further time to respond if necessary. No such submissions in response to those matters in reg 2.41 were subsequently made.
Post-hearing submissions
On 9 January 2025 the applicant made the following further submissions, which the Tribunal has considered, as to whether the ground for cancellation had arisen:
9 Jan 2025
Submission of Additional Evidence –
I am writing in response to your request for additional evidence regarding the review of the decision to cancel my Subclass 187 - Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme visa. Please find below my submission, supported by attached email correspondence, which substantiates my claims and demonstrates the circumstances surrounding my case.
Summary of Key Evidence and Assertions
1.Lack of Knowledge and Control Over Nomination Process
The attached emails provide clear evidence of the involvement of Mr. Craig Thomson, a former Member of the Australian House of Representatives, and Central Coast Motor Group (CCMG) in handling the nomination process. These communications reveal that I was not directly involved in managing or submitting documents related to my sponsorship. I relied in good faith on the business and Mr. Thomson to fulfill their responsibilities ethically and correctly.
Detailed Evidence
Email 1 :Proof of Business Turnover
• Date: 03/08/2017
• This email contains information about the business's turnover, including BAS statements for 2016 and 2017, the CCMG Trust Unit Financial Statements, and the certification of company registration. These documents were shared with me in the context of the business's intention to sponsor me.
Email 2:
Request and Exchange Regarding Documentation
• These emails show correspondence between Mr. Craig Thomson, CCMG representatives (Arthur Stanley, Angela Dawson, and Scot), and myself.
• They highlight that CCMG and its representatives were managing the documentation requirements, such as Form 956, the trust deed, the lease agreement, and the organizational chart. The correspondence also demonstrates CCMG's dependency on Mr. Thomson for further documentation. This clearly illustrates that I was not responsible for submitting or verifying these documents.
Email 3: Forced Resignation
• Date: 27/09/2019
• I received an email from Mr. Thomson, in which he pressured me to resign after I refused to comply with an inappropriate and unethical monetary demand. This demand was not related to my performance but was retaliatory in nature.
Email 4: Unauthorized Submission of Resignation
• Date: 27/09/2019
• On the same day, Mr. Thomson submitted a resignation letter on my behalf without my authorization and CC’d me in the email. This unilateral and inappropriate action demonstrates his misuse of authority and further establishes my lack of control over the situation.
Email 5: Employment Letter
• Date: 13/08/2024
• Following the Notice of Intention to Cancel my visa, I approached CCMG for proof of my employment and nomination. The company provided an employment letter confirming my two years of employment but refused to assist with nomination-related documents. When I followed up with Scot, he stated that Mr. Thomson’s incarceration and the owner's unwillingness to assist left the mater unresolved.
Conclusion
The attached evidence unequivocally supports the following:
• I was not directly involved in managing or submitting the nomination documents.
• I acted in good faith, trusting my employer and Mr. Thomson to handle the process ethically and transparently.
• Mr. Thomson’s unauthorized actions, coupled with CCMG’s lack of clear communication, have unjustly placed me in this situation.
If CCMG had no intention of sponsoring me, it is unclear why they provided documents supporting my employment and allowed Mr. Thomson to act on their behalf. Their failure to communicate any issues or concerns at the time has resulted in significant, unwarranted consequences for me.
I respectfully request that the Tribunal acknowledges my lack of control over these circumstances and considers my submissions in light of the evidence provided. I have acted honestly and with integrity throughout this process and should not bear the consequences of actions that I neither authorized nor agreed to.
Yours sincerely, Rajendra Singh
Attachments: 1. Email 1 – Proof of Business Turnover 2. Email 2 – Request and Exchange Regarding Documentation 3. Email 3 – Forced Resignation 4. Email 4 – Unauthorized Submission of Resignation 5. Email 5 – Employment Letter
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
Was the s 107 Notice (“the Notice”) validly issued?

Section 109(1) of the Act allows the Minister to cancel a visa if the visa holder has failed to comply with ss 101, 102, 103, 104, 105 or 107(2) of the Act. Broadly speaking, these sections require non-citizens to provide correct information in their visa applications and passenger cards, not to provide bogus documents and to notify the Department of any incorrect information of which they become aware and of any relevant changes in circumstances.
Section 100 of the Act specifically provides that an answer is “incorrect” even though the person who gave or provided the answer or caused the answer to be given or provided, did not know that the answer was “incorrect”.
Section 101(b) of the Act provides that an applicant non-citizen must fill in or complete his or her application form in such a way that “no incorrect answers are given or provided”.
The exercise of the cancellation power under s 109 of the Act is conditional on the Minister issuing a valid notice to the visa holder under s 107 of the Act, providing particulars of the alleged non-compliance.
Where a notice is issued that does not comply with the requirements in s 107, the power to cancel the visa does not arise.
The Department issued the Notice on 12 August 2024 . The contents were discussed with the applicant at hearing. The Notices sets out the particulars of the claimed non-compliance (providing an incorrect answer to a question), and which invites a response and comment, and sets out the matters for consideration. It explains how the applicant should respond.

100. In his response submitted 22 August 2024 to the Department, the applicant does not dispute the validity of the Notice. He asserted that at no time did he realise he had not in fact been sponsored by CCMG, and that the answers to the questions in the visa application were “genuine” and not “incorrect”. He responds that he “acted in good faith”. He asserts that as his actions were not “deliberate” or “fraudulent”, his visa should not be cancelled.
101. He did not otherwise dispute the contents of the Notice. He was aware when responding to the Notice that CCMG had now denied it had sponsored him for an RSMS visa.
102. The applicant gave a detailed explanation at the hearing as to the events upon which the decision was based relating to his employment with CCMG and the lodgement of his application.
103. In the present matter, the Tribunal is satisfied that at the time of its issue, the delegate had reached the necessary state of mind to engage s 107 on the basis that there was an ‘incorrect answer’, because the delegate had information that CCMG had not in fact authorised the RSMS visa nomination application.
104. The Tribunal finds that the Notice complied with the statutory requirements and was validly issued.
Was there non-compliance as described in the s 107 notice?
105. The issue before the Tribunal is whether there was non-compliance in the way described in the s 107 notice, being the manner particularised, and if so, whether the visa should be cancelled. The non-compliance identified and particularised in the s107 notice was non-compliance with s 101(b) of the Act in the following respects:
· That the submitted nomination TRN EGOFNVGAED referred to in the visa application was for a position “which was not actually supported by the nominating business, CCMG,” and “in order to obtain a favourable migration outcome.”

106. Section 100 provides that it matters not if the applicant was aware of the actual nomination or believed it was “correct” when he gave his answer to the question in the form. The applicant’s personal belief at the time is not relevant if the answer he gave was in fact incorrect. The issue is whether the recorded TFN reflects a nomination “supported by the nominating business”.
107. CCMG had answered the question on page 7 of the nomination application form under the heading: “ENS/RSMS Declarations”, which asks the applicants to declare that they: “Have the authority to enter into legal commitments for the nominating business/organisation”. The nomination application answers the question “Yes”. That is enough for the Department to conclude that the nomination was “authorised”.
108. If the Tribunal finds that there was no authorised RSMS sponsorship in fact, as was later claimed by the CCMG director to the ABF officer and accepted by the Department, then the Tribunal must proceed to the next step. This involves consideration of provisions in the Regulations, reg 2.41, as to whether the visa should be cancelled. No submissions are made in that regard by the applicant.
109. The Tribunal has considered all the available information, the documentation submitted with the Department file, the applicant’s written submissions and the oral evidence from the hearing. The Tribunal has concluded from the available information and contrary to the delegate, that there was no ‘non-compliance’ as specified in the Notice.
Findings on non-compliance
110. The Tribunal is satisfied that the available evidence does not support a finding that there was in fact no nomination application for an RSMS visa authorised by CCMG, or not actually “supported by the nominating business” and as particularised in the Notice.
111. The Tribunal finds on the available information including the documents submitted and accepting the oral evidence from the visa applicant at the hearing, that it is satisfied as to the following:
·     the nomination application was lodged and submitted by CCMG;
·     CCMG was provided with a TRN by the Department; the visa application correctly refers to the given nomination TRN;
·     information in the application was compiled by both an agent acting for CCMG and the recruiter, Mr Thomson, who was authorised by CCMG to act; information was provided to the agent by Mr Thomson on behalf of CCMG, and from information in the possession of its employee, Mr Eyres;
·     Mr Eyres was authorised to act on behalf of the nominator, CCMG, as the employer of the visa applicant and to give instructions to Mr Thomson;
·     CCMG has stated in its information to the Department and its ABF officer that it had “engaged the services of Mr Thomson” to act on its behalf in 2017 in “employing foreign workers”.
·     there is no information before the Tribunal as to the terms of that agreement between Mr Thomson and CCMG or the limitation of any such engagement;
·     there is no information available at the time to evidence that in 2017 either Mr Eyres or Mr Thomson or both of them were not authorised by CCMG to lodge the nomination application in order to sponsor the applicant; the evidence shows that they were in fact authorised to employ foreign workers;
·     the visa application correctly references the TRN provided for the nomination application by the Department and there is no evidence to the contrary, or that it was not provided in response to an authorised nomination by CCMG;
·     the Department had received numerous visa applications from CCMG sponsoring foreign workers since 2009; this included several visa applicants in 2017 of whom the applicant was one;
·     there is no evidence before this Tribunal that any of CCMG’s visa applicants over a period of many years had previously been censured for giving incorrect answers to the Department following RSMS nomination applications;
·     there is no evidence from the available information that there was never any authority from anyone on behalf of CCMG to lodge the visa application; on the contrary, the available information shows that it was prepared and lodged with the assistance of a migration agent who took instructions from the nominator and its authorised representatives, Mr Thomson, as per his ‘engagement’ to recruit foreign workers, and from an employee, Mr Scott Eyres;
·     the question whether the applicant was aware the nomination may not have been authorised, and that there was therefore an ‘incorrect answer’ given in the visa application on lodgement, does not arise on the available information;
·     when the nomination and visa applications were lodged in 2017, the visa applicant was already employed by the nominator on an employment contract and an agreement, and did not question any authority of his employer to sponsor him, as he had been told would be done;
·     his intentions or awareness at the time is specifically excluded form consideration by the Act (s 100) and not considered in relation to whether he gave an incorrect answer;
·     the applicant did not subsequently resign from his employment, and which he has explained on the basis that Mr Thomson submitted a resignation letter without his approval or consent and had not told him;
·     the available information shows that the applicant was prepared to stand down while there was a work downturn, and without payment, but that he was unaware he had “resigned”. He maintained the possibility he would again be employed when his visa came through;
·     the only information that the nomination application was not authorised is from the Department itself, relying upon an email from an ABF officer in 2024, referring to a statement by an unidentified director reflecting on events in 2019. It states there was no RSMS sponsorship;
·     the Tribunal places no weight upon the email and conclusion drawn that the applicant was not the subject of an RSMS nomination and had therefore given an ‘incorrect answer’ in the visa application.
·     there is no evidence before the Tribunal that the TFN in the visa application was not correct and that the answer for which the applicant was responsible was “incorrect”, contrary to the finding of the delegate;
·     there is no evidence, such as a completed ABF report detailing any findings against the applicant, or any further investigation by the Department, or any interviews with relevant persons from CCMG or with the applicant to support the finding of an incorrect answer under s 101(b);
·     CCMG has provided in response to a Tribunal request that an employment letter and letter of engagement electronically signed by Arthur Stanley may not have been in fact signed by him;
·     the applicant was unaware of those documents which came about after he had given his answer in the visa application, and those claimed facts concerning the signatures have not been established;
·     the documents did not relate to the question of the nomination as lodged, or the visa application, and concerned only the ongoing employment of the applicant.
·     where a nominator reneges on a nomination after a related visa application has been made, it does not necessarily follow that a related visa application lodged separately and prior to the employment issue therefore contained an ‘incorrect answer’;
·     the answer only becomes factually ‘incorrect’ after the event and when circumstances relating to the employment may have changed; it does not on its own mean the applicant gave an ‘incorrect answer’;
·     the nomination was approved and the visa application granted; there is nothing in the facts claimed after the event to show the RSMS sponsorship was never intended nor authorised; the contrary is the case;
·     Mr Phillip Stanley as Dealer Principal for CCMG, provided the email response to the Tribunal on 12 December 2024. He states the letter of engagement:
“does not appear to be the same as the original document we have on file. The signature appears to have been copied from the original “letter of offer” and applied to a different person i.e. Phillip Stanley signature to Arthur Stanley’s name and title. His name is not on the original letter of offer. The letter of separation, which does not have an original signature, computer-generated, does not reflect the copy of the resignation that we have on file or the terms of the separation.”
He did not provide copies of the letters ‘on file’ and to which he referred, or outline his understanding of the ‘terms’. He gives no reason why this has only just come to light; The Tribunal can place little weight on this information, relying as it does upon speculation about the signatures.
·     CCMG has also accepted that at all relevant times Mr Thomson was authorised to act in concert with an employee of CCMG and an authorised migration agent to lodge the nomination application sponsoring the applicant;
·     it is not plausible the visa applicant, who was already working for CCMG at the time believed he (the applicant) was not a person who CCMG sought to nominate as described in his evidence, or that the applicant himself, having been employed by Mr Eyres with the help of Mr Thomson, would have raised concerns the nomination proposal was not “authorised”;
·     it is entirely plausible that the applicant himself would not have contacted the Department or CCMG about the nomination, his concern addressing only his visa application which he had left with his agent and to whom he had paid a large amount of money for the purpose;
·     the Department claims it was notified by its ABF officers in 2021 almost 4 years after the nomination event, that they had contact with CCMG in or about 2019, and they were told that the nomination application had not been authorised; there is no explanation for the delay;
·     there is no indication of any steps taken by the Department to investigate the nominator’s claim after 2019, until issue of the NOICC in August 2024;
·     it is more than 8 years since the nomination application was made in 2017 and in that passage of time the available evidence discloses that CCMG has kept records of the information provided to Mr Thomson to enable him to work in concert with CCMG to prepare and lodge visa applications.
·     production of its internal records by CCMG and sponsorship information given to Mr Thomson, who then copied them to the visa applicant, supports the finding that Mr Thomson was authorised to act for CCMG in making an RSMS nomination for the applicant, which he did, and appointed a migration agent remunerated by CCMG for the purpose.
·     there is no relevant information which this Tribunal has found which supports a finding that CCMG did not sponsor the applicant as claimed in the visa application, and did not authorise the related RSMS nomination application.
·     the Tribunal finds that the information and documentation reasonably supports a finding that the nomination was in fact authorised as claimed by the applicant and rejects the delegate’s findings to the contrary.
·     the Tribunal finds on the totality of the information and in its proper context that the applicant did not provide an ‘incorrect answer’ for which he was responsible when his visa application was lodged.

112. The Tribunal is concerned at the lack of information made available to the Department concerning the alleged unauthorised nomination application by CCMG. The Tribunal finds that the weight of evidence supports a finding that the visa applicant was not complicit and that CCMG had in fact lodged an authorised RSMS nomination application engaging Mr Thomson and the migration agent, and assisting them to lodge the nomination and visa applications, made the same day.
113. The available evidence further confirms:
·     CCMG did not inform the Department that it had terminated the employment of the nominee in November 2019, after he had been employed at the time for approximately 2 years in the role nominated;
·     the only evidence available to the Department in 2021 was a report from the ABF of a contact from CCMG 2 years earlier; no evidence is available of what that contact entailed in terms of information provided by CCMG, other than the fact that it asserted in summary that it had not made an RSMS nomination for the applicant;
·     the available information in support of the nomination application having been authorised, includes evidence of the nominee’s employment by CCMG, financial records of CCMG, payslips and bank deposits and the lengthy history of nominations by CCMG;
·     the Trust Deed and financial circumstances of the CCMG Trust and the business of CCMG were made available to Mr Thomson by CCMG, presumably to enable him to complete the applications for nominations and all related visa applicants of whom there were several including this applicant, Mr Rajendra Singh; such detailed internal documentation and information, including emails between them, would not ordinarily be available to someone other than an authorised person;
·     there is no information that the migration agent acting for CCMG was not authorised, or did not receive the information to complete the visa application for the nominee from CCMG. The nomination application declares that the nominator has “authority to enter into legal commitments for the nominating business/organisation”, and which includes the Trustee. The nomination, and subsequent visa applications, have all the hallmarks of being ‘authorised’.

114. The Tribunal can understand that CCMG would seek to disassociate itself entirely from Mr Thomson, given his well-publicised history after leaving Parliament in 2013 and then since 2021. This would include anyone seen to have associated with Mr Thomson, such as the applicant.
115. That is not to say however that the applicant should be impugned for accepting employment arranged by Mr Thomson, whom he did not suspect, and which the nominator willingly provided in 2017 and where the applicant had no reason from the outset to believe his visa application was not authorised by his employer.
116. The Tribunal is satisfied on all the available information that the visa applicant did not give an incorrect answer in the visa application made on his behalf and in order to obtain permanent residency as was found by the decision-maker.
Summary – reg 2.41 considerations not enlivened
117. The Tribunal finds it is not satisfied that the applicant in fact provided an incorrect answer in the visa application form or any ‘bogus document’. The Tribunal finds that at all relevant times CCMG had given authority to persons on its behalf to lodge the RSMS nomination application.
118. As a consequence, the Tribunal finds that the visa application was also validly made, did not contain an ‘incorrect answer’ by the applicant as claimed, was not a ‘bogus document’ and was not designed simply to extend the applicant’s stay in Australia.
119. As the Tribunal is not satisfied that there was non-compliance by the applicant in the way described in the notice given under s 107 of the Act, the discretionary power to cancel the applicant’s visa does not arise.
Conclusion
120. For these reasons, the Tribunal is not satisfied that there was non-compliance as described in the section 107 notice.
121. The delegate’s decision should therefore be set aside.
DECISION
122. The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and substitutes a decision not to cancel the applicant’s Subclass 187 - Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme visa.
Date(s) of hearing: 13 December 2024
Representative for the Applicant: Mr Arun Singhal (MARN: 2117657)

Per Jarrett J. [ The court held that procedural fairness required the Tribunal to disclose both the existence of the 375A certificate, and the terms of the certificate, to the applicant.]