Vasudevan and Migration Agents Registration Authority (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal by Mr Vasudevan against a decision by the Migration Agents Registration Authority (MARA) to cancel his registration as a migration agent. The dispute arose from a complaint lodged by a client, Ms Chhetri, alleging that Mr Vasudevan had failed to provide the immigration assistance for which she had engaged him, despite significant payments. Ms Chhetri also alleged difficulties in obtaining refunds and that the situation had a detrimental impact on her health and wellbeing. MARA's investigation led to the cancellation of Mr Vasudevan's registration on the grounds that he had breached several clauses of the Code of Conduct for migration agents and was not a fit and proper person to provide immigration assistance.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether Mr Vasudevan had indeed failed to act diligently and provide proper immigration assistance, whether he had provided misleading or deceptive information to MARA and the Department, and whether he had failed to maintain proper records. Furthermore, the Tribunal had to consider whether these findings warranted the cancellation of his registration, and if so, whether it should exercise its discretion to do so. A key aspect of the proceedings involved the Tribunal's consideration of the applicant's failure to provide direct evidence to explain inconsistencies in the documentary material before it, leading to the application of the principle in *Jones v Dunkel*.

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant's failure to adduce evidence to clarify numerous inconsistencies in the file notes and other documents allowed for an inference that such evidence would not have assisted him. Applying the principle from *Jones v Dunkel*, the Tribunal drew with greater confidence the inference that the applicant had intentionally provided false and misleading information. The Tribunal noted that MARA bore the onus of proving its case for cancellation and sanctions, referencing previous decisions that cautioned against assuming allegations of non-compliance were prima facie correct. However, based on the available evidence and the applicant's failure to rebut it, the Tribunal found that the applicant had breached multiple clauses of the Code of Conduct, including failures to act diligently, provide misleading information, and maintain proper records.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision of MARA to cancel Mr Vasudevan's registration as a migration agent. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant was not a person of integrity and was not a fit and proper person to provide immigration assistance, thereby satisfying the grounds for cancellation under section 303(1)(f) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth).