Ram Ravi Singh Khalsa v Migration Agents Registration Authority - [2002] AATA 12

Administrative

Appeals

Tribunal

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2002] AATA 1240
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL Nº N2002/690
GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION

Re: Ram Ravi Singh Khalsa
Applicant

And: Migration Agents Registration Authority
Respondent

DECISION
Tribunal:      P.J. Lindsay, Senior Member
Date:             29 November 2002
Place:           Sydney
Decision:The decision under review is set aside and the matter remitted to the respondent with a direction to reconsider the application for repeat registration on the basis that the applicant is a fit and proper person to give immigration assistance and a person of integrity in accordance with s.290 of the Migration Act 1958.
(sgd) P.J. Lindsay
  Senior Member

© Commonwealth of Australia (2002)

CATCHWORDS Migration agent – registration – repeat registration refused by Migration Agents Registration Authority – whether applicant a fit and proper person to give immigration assistance – whether applicant a person of integrity - whether applicant breached migration agents’ Code of Conduct – decision set aside.
Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, s.35.
Migration Act 1958 ss.74, 276, 280, 283, 287, 288, 289, 290, 291, 299, 306, 306B, 309, 314
Migration Regulations 1994, reg. 2.23, Schedule 2, Subclass 050 Bridging (General)
Migration Agents Regulations 1999, Schedule 2, Code of Conduct
Kumar [1998] IRTA 12428
Blake [1998] IRTA 12717
Lal [2001] MRTA 5091
Hanna v Migration Agents’ Registration Authority (1999) 94 FCR 358
Prasad and Migration Agents’ Registration Authority (2002) AATA 423
Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 334
Saufatu [1995] IRTA 5192
Cunliffe and anor v Commonwealth of Australia (1994) 182 CLR 272
REASONS FOR DECISION

P.J. Lindsay, Senior Member

1. Mr Ram Ravi Singh Khalsa has applied for review of a decision by the Migration Agents Registration Authority (the Authority) made on 10 May 2002 (the reasons for which were amended on 13 May 2002). The Authority’s decision was to refuse Mr Khalsa’s application for repeat registration as a migration agent. At the hearing, Mr C. Colborne of counsel appeared for Mr Khalsa and Ms S. Hanstein, solicitor represented the Authority. Mr Khalsa gave evidence at the hearing, and evidence was given on his behalf by five witnesses.
2. The Tribunal had before it the documents (T documents) lodged pursuant to s.37 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (the AAT Act) and the following documents tendered at the hearing :
-Exhibit A1: A statement made by Mr Khalsa dated 8 August 2002;
-Exhibit A2: A statement made by Mr Sukhvinder Singh Bagga dated 9 August 2002;
-Exhibit A3: An affidavit by Mr Mark Anthony Robinson sworn 12 August 2002;
-Exhibit A4: A letter dated 12 August 2002 signed by Mr Nicholas Poynder;
-Exhibit A5: An undated statement by Mr Karam Ramrakha;
-Exhibit A6: Comprising a document dated 27 August 2001 and entitled Professional Advice given by Mr Khalsa and a document dated 27 August 2001 entitled Instructions and Authority in relation to Application for Protection Visa. The Advice and Instructions were in respect of one of Mr Khalsa’s clients. On 9 August 2002 the Tribunal made orders…

Grounds of appeal

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

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

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

Consideration

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

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

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Ram Ravi Singh Khalsa v Migration Agents Registration Author... 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: [2002] AATA 12
Decision Date: 29 November 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal involved Ram Ravi Singh Khalsa, an applicant for registration as a migration agent, against the Migration Agents Registration Authority. The applicant, who had previously been registered and later cancelled, sought to be re-registered. The Authority refused the application, questioning the applicant's fitness and properness to provide immigration assistance, particularly in light of alleged breaches of the Migration Agents' Code of Conduct. The Tribunal was tasked with reviewing the decision of the Authority under the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant was a fit and proper person to be registered under the Migration Act 1958, and whether there were breaches of the Migration Agents' Code of Conduct that warranted the Authority's refusal of registration. The Tribunal had to determine whether the applicant possessed the requisite integrity and adherence to the Code, as required for registration.

The Tribunal examined the evidence and arguments presented, particularly focusing on the applicant's previous conduct and the Authority's findings. It considered the Briginshaw v Briginshaw standard of proof, applying a balance of probabilities to assess the applicant's fitness. The Tribunal found that the Authority's decision was based on substantial evidence and reasonable conclusions. The Tribunal upheld the Authority's decision, finding that the applicant had not satisfied the requirements for re-registration as a migration agent.

No further orders were made beyond the setting aside of the Authority's decision, as the Tribunal found the Authority's decision to be correct based on the evidence presented.

Orders