Soto Nominees Pty Ltd (Migration)

Soto Nominees Pty Ltd (Migration) [2020] AATA 5923 (5 November 2020)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
APPLICANT:  Soto Nominees Pty Ltd
CASE NUMBER:  1919259
DIBP REFERENCE(S):  OPF2018/2704
MEMBER:Marten Kennedy
DATE:5 November 2020
PLACE OF DECISION:  Adelaide
DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

Statement made on 05 November 2020 at 2:36pm
CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – cancellation of the sponsorship – sponsorship bar – primary sponsored person does not work in the nominated occupation –sponsor has failed to comply with their sponsorship obligations –decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, ss 140M,369AA,375A
Migration Regulations 1994, r 2.86
STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration to take an action under s.140M of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act) in relation to the applicant’s sponsorship.
The applicant was approved as a standard business sponsor on 31 July 2015. On 25 June 2019, the delegate decided to cancel the approval of the applicant as a standard business sponsor and to bar the applicant for one year from making applications for approval as a standard business sponsor under s.140M on the basis that the applicant had failed to satisfy its sponsorship obligation of ensuring a primary sponsored person works in the nominated occupation.
CONSIDERATION
Sections 140K, 140L and 140M of the Act provide for the imposition of sanctions on approved sponsors in certain circumstances.
Under s.140M, if prescribed circumstances exist, the Minister (and the tribunal on review) may take one or more of the following actions:
·cancelling the sponsorship approval in relation to a class to which the sponsor belongs;
·cancelling the sponsorship approval for all classes to which the sponsor belongs;
·barring the sponsor for a specified period from sponsoring more people under the terms of any existing approval; and
·barring the sponsor for a specified period from making future applications for sponsorship approval in relation to one or more classes of sponsor.
For these purposes, the circumstances are prescribed in r.2.89 - r.2.94B and include circumstances in which the Minister, or tribunal on review, is satisfied there has been a failure to satisfy, among other things, a ‘sponsorship obligation’.
Relevantly, an approved work sponsor has the obligation under r.2.86 to ensure a primary sponsored person works in the nominated occupation. More specifically, where as in this case the primary sponsored person holds a Subclass 457 visa, the approved work sponsor must ensure the sponsored person works in the nominated occupation, and does not work in an occupation unless the occupation was nominated by the work sponsor and that nomination was approved.
Where a prescribed circumstance has been found to exist, the regulations prescribe criteria that must be taken into account when determining what action, if any, to take: r.2.89 – r.2.94B. These criteria, as they relevantly apply to the circumstances of this case are set out in the attachment to this decision.
The issues I must decide in this review therefore are whether the prescribed circumstance of the sponsor failing to satisfy the sponsorship obligation to ensure that the primary sponsored person works in the nominated occupation exists, and if I decide that the circumstance does exist, I must then decide what action should be taken.
Procedure
The applicant was represented in relation to the review by its registered migration agent, also a legal practitioner. In the course of the first hearing, on 20 October 2020, I observed that neither the visa holders nor the employees of the business whose alleged remarks to the immigration officer at unannounced site visits appeared to have prompted the decision under review had provided witness statements and nor did it appear they were to be called to give evidence. I confirmed that the applicant had arrived at this position after considering the issue and upon taking advice and was aware that I may draw an inference that the evidence of these witnesses would not assist the applicant.
In the course of the first hearing, using the procedure provided for in section 359AA of the Act, I raised additional detail from the notes of the site visit that were not contained in the notice of intention to take action or the decision record. The applicant asked for further time to provide a comment or response to the information I had raised, and I granted this request. When the response came in, it was accompanied by a witness statement of Robyn McLeish, an employee of the applicant. I communicated to the applicant via its migration representative that I would place little weight on the witness statement of Mrs McLeish unless she was produced to give sworn evidence at a further hearing which I offered to convene. The applicant indicated Ms McLeish would be produced to give evidence at a reconvened hearing, and so I reconvened the hearing on 2 November 2020 for that purpose.
Certain documents on the Departmental file are subject to a certificate issued under section 375A of the Act. At the hearing I informed the applicant of the existence of the certificate, the description of documents it purported to relate to, and the reasons given by the Department as to why the release of documents would be contrary to the public interest. The applicant submitted that it should be given access to the documents. I indicated my view that only one of the documents was material to the issue I must decide, it contained no relevant information that was not already provided in the Notice of Intention to Take Action (but did contain irrelevant information that attracted exemption from disclosure), and I accepted that it was not in the public interest for that document to be disclosed in those circumstances. I proceeded on the basis that the certificate is valid.
I gained the impression that the applicant and its representative had not, in any event, requested access to any Departmental records for the purpose of this review. The applicant did not appear to have the notes prepared by the immigration officer at the second site inspection, even though those notes were not covered by the section 375A certificate. I arranged for a copy of those notes to be provided to the applicant after the hearing to assist in responding to information I had provided in accordance with section 359AA of the Act.
Does a circumstance for the taking of an action exist?
The applicant sponsored two Subclass 457 visa holders: Ms Baljit Kaur and Ms Kuljit Kaur. Ms Baljit Kaur was sponsored for the nominated occupation of Hairdresser (ANZSCO 391111). Ms Kuljit Kaur was sponsored for the nominated occupation of Hair or Beauty Salon Manager (ANZSCO 142144). According to the applicant, Ms Baljit Kaur purportedly commenced employment on 12 October 2015, and Ms Kuljit Kaur purportedly commenced her employment on 7 December 2015. At the heart of the Department’s case is an allegation that the two visa holders are not performing the tasks of their nominated occupations.
In this regard, ANZSCO provides as follows:
UNIT GROUP 3911 HAIRDRESSERS
Tasks Include:
·providing advice on hair care, beauty products and hairstyles
·shampooing hair and conditioning scalps
·colouring, straightening and permanently waving hair with chemical solutions
·cutting hair with scissors, clippers and razors
·styling hair into dreadlocks and braids and adding hair extensions
·shaving and trimming beards and moustaches
·cleaning work areas and sanitising instruments
·arranging appointments and collecting payments
·may clean, colour, cut and style wigs and hairpieces
UNIT GROUP 1421 RETAIL MANAGERS
Tasks Include:
odetermining product mix, stock levels and service standards
oformulating and implementing purchasing and marketing policies, and setting prices
opromoting and advertising the establishment's goods and services
oselling goods and services to customers and advising them on product use
omaintaining records of stock levels and financial transactions
oundertaking budgeting for the establishment
ocontrolling selection, training and supervision of staff
oensuring compliance with occupational health and safety regulations
142114 HAIR OR BEAUTY SALON MANAGER
oOrganises and controls the operations of a hairdressing or beauty salon. Registration or licensing may be required.
As to why the Department makes the allegation that the primary sponsored persons do not work in the nominated occupations, the Australian Border Force (ABF) undertook two unannounced site visits at the applicant’s business premises: the Hairhouse Warehouse in the Cranbourne Park Shopping Centre. The Departmental files made available to the Tribunal do not disclose the circumstances in which the applicant’s business was targeted for this visit, and those circumstances are not known to the Tribunal.
The observations of the ABF officer on each of those occasions are documented in the Notice of Intention to Take Action of 5 March 2019 and the Notice of Decision itself. The Departmental file contains brief notations made by the ABF officer at the second site visit, but not the first. The notes of the second site visit are incorrectly dated, which I can establish by reference to other documents on the Departmental file that are subject to a section 375A certificate.
It is clear that the information recorded by the ABF officers of discussions with other staff of the applicant does not purport to be verbatim, and in the absence of any such records, I presume that neither visit was not recorded in any way. There is no transcript, and the interchange appears to be an informal series of questions and not a formal interview, although certain remarks are emphasised in the notations available to me.
The Notice of Intention to Take Action identifies two circumstances. The first pertains to Ms Baljit Kaur, and the second pertains to Ms Kuljit Kaur. There appears to be some inconsistency between notes made at the second site visit and the detail of the Notice of Intention to Take Action in relation whether Ms Baljit Kaur or Ms Kuljit Kaur are also known as ‘Mahi’, but it is possible this inconsistency merely reflects confusion on the part of a staff member interviewed by the ABF officers who apparently identified Ms Baljit Kaur as ‘Mahi’ when looking at photographs. I have noted the applicant in written submissions contends that it is Ms Kuljit Kaur who is known as Mahi.
In respect of Ms Baljit Kaur, the ABF officer observed that Ms Baljit Kaur was not present during a site visit of 8 March 2018, and a receptionist named Sarah indicated that Ms Baljit Kaur worked on Tuesdays and Wednesdays ‘to learn only’ – and was not in a paid position and not on the roster. Sarah provided the contact details of a person she identified as the salon manager ‘Elyse’. Elyse was contacted by the officers and she told them that Ms Baljit Kaur is there ‘weekly’ and her duties include cleans, customer service and ‘she helps with everything’.
Neither Sarah nor Elyse have provided evidence to the Tribunal.
During a further site visit just under one year later on 28 February 2019, an ABF officer again observed that Ms Baljit Kaur was not present. An employee named Robyn (Mrs Robyn McLeish) identified herself and told the officers that Ms Baljit Kaur’s role was to assist the hairdressers in the store with wash, colours, tinting and some retail work but she does not cut hair. The ABF officers documented that they had viewed a roster with appointments listed for hairdressers, and observed that Ms Baljit Kaur’s name on that roster was ‘empty’, which from context I infer means that the client list did not contain any clients.
To the extent that there was confusion on either the part of Mrs McLeish or the ABF officers as to who was ‘Mahi’, I note that the officers have recorded that neither BK (Ms Baljit Kaur) nor KK (Ms Kuljit Kaur) had any clients on the list. Furthermore, Mrs McLeish responded to a question from the ABF officers whether either manage the salon, and responded by saying “Oh, no”. This remark has been emphasised in the ABF officer’s notes and I treat that on the basis that it is verbatim, and the response was provided emphatically.
In respect of Ms Kuljit Kaur, she was also not present at the first site visit. The staff member named Sarah is described as having a vague recollection of Ms Kuljit Kaur but that she hadn’t been seen at the store for several months and was under the impression that she worked in a voluntary capacity. When the ABF contacted Elyse, Elyse is documented as being unwilling to discuss Ms Kuljit Kaur’s role without first contacting the owner.
On the second site visit, Ms Kuljit Kaur was again not present, and Ms McLeish stated that she assisted the hairdressers and did not hold a managerial position.
Although the documentary records of the Department’s investigation are incomplete, the records permit a number of relevant inferences to be drawn, subject to any explanation or further evidence provided by the applicant either in response to the Notice of Intention to Take Action or in the course of these proceedings.
Having regard to the tasks associated with the occupation of hairdresser, if I were to accept the ABF officer’s notations as an accurate record of what he was told and what was observed, the fact that a receptionist working at the site described Ms Baljit Kaur’s role as ‘assisting’ other hairdressers and she attended ‘to learn only’, and did not undertake tasks involving cutting hair permits the inference that she is not undertaking the tasks associated with the occupation of hairdresser with sufficient correlation for the sponsor to be satisfying the relevant sponsorship obligation. If I were to accept that the ABF officer observed booking records and saw no clients booked for Mr Baljit Kaur, then this would reinforce that inference.
Having regard to the tasks associated with the occupation of Hair or Beauty Salon Manager, if I were to accept as accurate that when the receptionist went to contact the ‘manager’ she contacted someone else, that will provide an inference that Ms Kuljit Kaur was not performing the tasks of a manager, particularly in relation to the controlling selection, training and supervision of staff, subject to any explanation. Similarly, the remarks attributed to Mrs McLeish at the second site visit when asked whether either Ms Kuljit or Ms Baljit Kaur performed a management role (“oh, no”) would reinforce that inference.
I have considered carefully the explanation and supporting documents provided by the applicant both in response to the NOITTA and at the hearing. I observe that the applicant has provided payroll records consistent with the visa holders being paid and identified in the payroll records in accordance with their respective nominated occupations. These records as created by the applicant are not in themselves conclusive in my view. Essentially, the applicant’s position is that the process used to collect information was prejudicial, the information given by the employees questioned by the ABF officers was inaccurate, and the payroll records and assertions of the applicant otherwise establish that both visa holders were performing their nominated occupations.
In submissions provided to the Tribunal, the applicant is critical that the visits were unannounced, and the employer was not interviewed. In this regard, I am unconcerned that the ABF conducted the site visits unannounced. Undertaking such unannounced site visits in my view is an entirely legitimate information gathering practice, and does not detract from the accuracy of observations made during such site visits. I also note that the employer has been afforded an opportunity to address the matter through the NOITTA process and in this Tribunal.
The submissions attempt to develop a point that the employer has no obligation to inform other employees of the migration arrangements or job descriptions of other employees, and therefore job descriptions provided by other employees in response to questions asked by the ABF officers are prejudicial. In this regard, I consider that the practice of seeking information from various sources (and various people) as to what is actually happening in a workplace is legitimate. It is not, in my view, inherently prejudicial in the sense that it does not inherently impair the validity of the information gathered, if the questions asked related to what is actually happening in the workplace. While I accept that neither Sarah, Elyse nor Mrs McLeish had any reason to know what migration arrangements had been supported by the employer, and what specific representations had been made to the Department about the occupations and associated tasks that were to be undertaken, they were not asked those questions. They were asked what the identified visa holders actually did. No cogent reason is put forward why the answers given should not be treated as informative and I consider the documented responses highly informative as to what was actually happening in the workplace.
I understand Sarah worked part time, but I do not accept the assertion made by Mr Margaritis (the Director of the applicant) that she therefore would not have known the roles of the visa holders. I do not discount the value of the information provided by Sarah in response to the ABF officer’s questions because she was part-time.
In the course of the hearing, Mr Margaritis indicated, in response to me drawing attention to the records made of the responses to questions asked of Sarah, Elyse and Mrs McLeish, that he did not know why his staff had answered questions in the way they had. I suggested to Mr Margaritis that it may be because they were providing information reflecting what was actually happening. In the absence of evidence from Sarah or Elyse themselves to support any contention that what they had said was inaccurate (and why then they had said it), I find that the statements they had made to the ABF officers accurately described their knowledge of the tasks being performed by the visa holders, and the management arrangements of the salon.
In relation to Mrs Robyn McLeish, I received a signed statement from her dated 21 October 2020. At the second hearing convened for Mrs McLeish to give sworn evidence, Mrs McLeish explained that her reference in her statement to being the oldest and senior employee of the company was intended to mean she is the longest serving employee. In this regard, I accept Mrs McLeish has worked with the company for 15 years.
Mrs McLeish asserts in her statement that both the visa holders were working in their designated positions and performing duties mentioned in their agreements. Ms McLeish said that the Director had not informed any other team members about Ms Baljit Kaur or Ms Kuljit Kaur’s visa status.
As to why the ABF officer had noted that she had made remarks as to the tasks of the visa holders that are inconsistent with their nominated occupations, Mrs McLeish asserts ‘she was unsure that her description of duties to ABF officers would be misinterpreted’. I explained to Mrs McLeish that I could not understand what she meant by this part of her statement. Mrs McLeish explained that she had intended to convey that her remarks were general rather than specific. Mrs McLeish elaborated that all members of the team help each other with their duties, whether they be retail related or hairdressing.
Mrs McLeish addressed the issue of being shown photographs of the visa holders, and possibly incorrectly identifying who was ‘Mahi’. In her statement, Mrs McLeish had written ‘I do not recall of being shown a photograph of Kuljit Kaur and Baljit Kaur but certainly no photograph was shown to me when I approached the officers’. Mrs McLeish explained that what she had intended to convey was that she could not recall whether or not she was shown photographs.

In her statement, Mrs McLeish had written ‘...I thought probably these two employees are illegal and working in our store’. When I asked what she had meant by this, Mrs McLeish said that she was merely saying that she did not know the migration status of the visa holders.
I took Mrs McLeish through the remarks attributed to her by the ABF officer in the notes of the site visit of 25 February 2019 (incorrectly dated 25 February 2018). In relation to the note made that she had said she would call the manager, and then called Elyse, Mrs McLeish told me that she viewed Elyse as Mr Margaritis’ deputy. In relation to the remarks to the effect that neither visa holder cuts hair, Mrs McLeish said she would have described the way the team helps each other out with all tasks. As to the notes made by the ABF officer that neither Ms Kuljit Kaur nor Ms Baljit Kaur had any bookings for clients, Mrs McLeish said she would never have permitted ABF officers to view the customer bookings. On this point, I not that the ABF officer’s notes do not indicate how they came to inspect the booking records. On the basis of the notes however, I accept that the ABF officer made observations in some way consistent with the notes taken.
I have also considered carefully the witness statement provided by Mr Margaritis. I have noted the evidence he has given regarding the need to gradually introduce hairdressers to clients, and changes to roles arising out of the sale of the company’s Keyborough outlet. By the time of the site visits however, the commencement of the visa holders and the sale of Keyborough outlet was many years prior, and in my view provides no explanation for the observations and remarks made by the ABF officers, particularly at the second site visit.
I have considered carefully the response and evidence relied upon by the applicant to address the observations made by the ABF officer and remarks of staff made to the ABF officer from which it is open to infer that the visa holders were not performing the tasks of their respective nominated occupations. I have found the case presented by the applicant in its entirety unpersuasive. As mentioned above, while the Department could be criticised for an incompletely documented investigation, the applicant’s criticisms about unannounced site visits and speaking to people other than the Director of the applicant carries no weight in my view.
I did not find Mrs McLeish to be a persuasive witness. Her written statement was not prepared with precision or care, and her explanation of remarks noted by the ABF officer were not plausible. In my assessment, Mrs McLeish merely attempted to recast what she had said in a way that may now assist the employer, in an unconvincing way. I prefer the record of the ABF officer as to what was said, and proceed on the basis that the remarks were made at the time because they reflected what was actually happening.
Therefore, in respect of Ms Baljit Kaur’s nominated occupation of hairdresser, on the basis of all the evidence before me I draw an inference that at the time of the site visits Ms Baljit Kaur was ‘assisting’ other hairdressers and did not undertake tasks involving cutting hair. I draw this inference on the basis of remarks attributed to staff at the salon who were questioned by the ABF officer, reinforced by the observation that Ms Baljit Kaur had no bookings of her own. In this regard, I rely on the notes of the observation made by the officer.
The ANZSCO classification for hairdresser clearly assumes that a person performing the tasks of this occupation does so independently, and the cutting of hair is a central task in this regard. I find that Ms Baljit Kaur was not working in the nominated occupation, and the sponsor was in breach of the sponsorship obligation at r.2.86 accordingly.
In respect of Ms Kuljit Kaur, I also infer on the basis that neither Sarah nor Mrs McLeish perceived her to be the ’manager’, and that Mrs McLeish (the longest serving employee) emphatically rejected the notion that she performed a management role, that she was not performing tasks associated with her nominated occupation that would make that role clear to the employees of the applicant. I find that Ms Kuljit Kaur was not working in the nominated occupation, and the sponsor was in breach of the sponsorship obligation at r.2.86 accordingly.
Action to be taken
For these reasons, the Tribunal is satisfied that a relevant circumstance for s.140L(1)(a) exists. Accordingly, it is necessary to consider whether one or more of the actions mentioned in s.140M should be taken.
I observe that the applicant had prepared its case almost solely on the basis that the relevant circumstances for taking action did not exist. No written submissions or oral arguments were advanced addressing the various matters I must take into account in deciding what, if any, action is to be taken. I took the applicant through the various matters I would consider in the course of the first hearing.
I note the Department decided to cancel the applicant’s approval as a standard business sponsor, and bar the applicant from making a further application for approval as a standard business sponsor for one year from 25 June 2019.
In considering what action to take, the Tribunal has had regard to the prescribed criteria.
As to the past and present conduct of the person in relation to Immigration, I accept as did the Department, that this is the first time the applicant has been found to be in breach of sponsorship obligations. No other adverse information is known to me regarding the sponsor’s conduct in relation to immigration.
As to the number of occasions on which the person has failed to satisfy the sponsorship obligation the two circumstances addressed in this review are the only occasions known to me where the applicant has failed to satisfy the sponsorship obligation to ensure that a primary sponsored person works in the nominated occupation. Similarly, as to the number of other sponsorship obligations that the person has failed to satisfy, and the number of occasions on which the person has failed to satisfy other sponsorship obligations, no adverse information is known to me in this regard.
As to the nature and severity of the circumstances relating to the failure to satisfy the sponsorship obligation, including the period of time over which the failure has occurred, I observe the conclusion reached by the Department in this regard recognises that breaching this particular obligation is akin to inappropriate use of the 457 program. I do not endorse the Department’s comment that employing unqualified staff has diminished the effective delivery of the program’s objectives, because I am not satisfied that the visa holders did not hold required qualifications. I do however agree that allowing sponsored persons to either not perform the nominated occupation, or to perform some other less skilled occupation does indeed undermine the fundamental purpose of the 457 visa program and the capacity it provides to sponsors to essentially import skilled labour where it has been accepted that the skilled labour is in short supply in the Australian community.
As to the period of time over which the person has been an approved sponsor, I note that the applicant was approved on 31 July 2015.
As to whether, and the extent to which, the failure to satisfy the sponsorship obligation has had a direct or indirect impact on another person, I agree with the observation made by the Departmental delegate that allowing a subclass 457 visa holder to perform work other than relating to the nominated occupation may have deprived an Australian resident or citizen of an opportunity to be employed in that role. While the observation can be readily understood in the abstract, it is essentially conjecture and I place limited weight on it beyond the adverse weight I have applied to the consideration addressed at paragraph 51 above.
As to whether, and the extent to which, the failure to satisfy the sponsorship obligation was intentional, reckless or inadvertent, the inescapable conclusion of my findings on the evidence is that the case put forward by the applicant is essentially false. By this I mean that the applicant contends that the visa holders were performing the tasks of their nominated occupations despite the remarks made to the ABF officers and observations made, and I have rejected that submission. To the extent that perhaps the applicant erroneously considered that a fundamental disconnect between representations made to the Department to secure the approval of a nomination through documented job descriptions and the actual reality of what is taking place in the salon is acceptable, then I will proceed on the basis that the failure to satisfy the sponsorship obligation is reckless.
As to whether, and the extent to which, the person has cooperated with Immigration, including whether the person informed Immigration of the failure, I take into account that the failure was detected by the Department, and is not the result of the Department being informed by the applicant. Other than that observation arising out of the facts, I have no further adverse information in relation to this consideration.
As to the steps (if any) the person has taken to rectify the failure to satisfy the sponsorship obligation, including whether the steps were taken at the request of Immigration or otherwise, the applicant contends that the visa holders are working in their nominated occupations now, as they had been at the time of the Department’s site visit. Similarly, as to the processes (if any) the person has implemented to ensure future compliance with the sponsorship obligation, the applicant’s position that there has been no breach of the sponsorship obligations renders this consideration largely not amenable to adverse or favourable weight.
The applicant did not ask me to take into account any other relevant matters relevant to what action to take.
Overall, given the observations I have made regarding the nature and severity of the circumstances relating to the failure to satisfy the sponsorship obligation, including the period of time over which the failure has occurred, I consider that cancellation of the sponsorship is required. In circumstances where a standard business sponsor has undermined the controls placed on the importation of foreign skilled labour by breaching the obligation to ensure the visa holders work in nominated and approved occupations, I think cancellation of approval is required.
The Department has also barred the applicant from applying to be approved as a standard business sponsor or temporary activities sponsor for a period of one year. That period has now concluded. Nonetheless, for the same reasons that I consider cancellation of sponsorship is required to demonstrate the need for sponsors to maintain the integrity of the 457 visa program by ensuring that visa holders work only in the occupations nominated and approved, I will also uphold that aspect of the sanction imposed.
Considering the totality of the circumstances, and having regard to the prescribed criteria the Tribunal finds that the action mentioned in s.140M(1)(b) and (d) should be taken. I would also cancel the approval of the applicant as a standard business sponsor and bar the applicant for applying for approval as a standard business sponsor or temporary activities sponsor for 1 year (from 25 June 2019).
DECISION
The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.
Marten Kennedy
Member

ATTACHMENT – Extract from the Migration Regulations 1994
2.89   Failure to satisfy sponsorship obligation
…
(3) For paragraph 140L(1)(b) of the Act, the criteria that the Minister must take into account in determining what action (if any) to take under section 140M of the Act in relation to the circumstance mentioned in subregulation (2) are:
(a)    the past and present conduct of the person in relation to Immigration; and
(b)    the number of occasions on which the person has failed to satisfy the sponsorship obligation; and
(c)     the nature and severity of the circumstances relating to the failure to satisfy the sponsorship obligation, including the period of time over which the failure has occurred; and
(d)    the period of time over which the person has been an approved sponsor; and
(e)     whether, and the extent to which, the failure to satisfy the sponsorship obligation has had a direct or indirect impact on another person; and
(f)     whether, and the extent to which, the failure to satisfy the sponsorship obligation was intentional, reckless or inadvertent; and
(g)     whether, and the extent to which, the person has cooperated with Immigration, including whether the person informed Immigration of the failure; and
(h)    the steps (if any) the person has taken to rectify the failure to satisfy the sponsorship obligation, including whether the steps were taken at the request of Immigration or otherwise; and
(i)    the processes (if any) the person has implemented to ensure future compliance with the sponsorship obligation; and
(j)     the number of other sponsorship obligations that the person has failed to satisfy, and the number of occasions on which the person has failed to satisfy other sponsorship obligations; and
(k)    any other relevant factors.
…

[2020] AATA 5923

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Administrative Law

Statutory Interpretation

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Procedural Fairness

Jurisdiction

Statutory Construction

Remedies

Natural Justice