YOUR ESTATE AGENCY PTY LTD (Migration)

YOUR ESTATE AGENCY PTY LTD (Migration) [2018] AATA 2393 (2 July 2018)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
APPLICANT:  YOUR ESTATE AGENCY PTY LTD
CASE NUMBER:  1708608
DIBP REFERENCE(S):  BCC2016/2689014
MEMBER:Penelope Hunter
DATE:2 July 2018
PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney
DECISION:The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and substitutes a decision approving the nomination.

Statement made on 02 July 2018 at 12:04pm
CATCHWORDS
Migration – Sponsorship approval – Term of employment – Contract provided – Favourable employment conditions – Financial capacity – Additional financial statements provided – Applicant has appropriate qualifications – Decision under review and substitutes a decision approving the nomination
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 245AR, 366A, 362A, 373, 376
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), r 5.19
STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration on 31 March 2017 to reject the applicant’s application for approval of the nomination of a position in Australia under r.5.19 of the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations).
The applicant applied for approval on 15 August 2016. The requirements for the approval of the nomination of a position in Australia are found in r.5.19 of the Regulations which contains two alternative streams: a Temporary Residence Transition nomination (r.5.19(3)) stream and a Direct Entry nomination (r.5.19(4)) stream. If the application is made in accordance with r.5.19(2) and meets the requirements of either stream, then the application must be approved. If any of the requirements are not met then the application must be refused: r.5.19(5).
In this case, the applicant has applied for approval of a nomination, seeking to satisfy the criteria in the Direct Entry Nomination stream.
The delegate refused the application on the basis the applicant’s nomination did not satisfy r.5.1919(4)(d)(i) of the Regulations. The delegate was not satisfied that the applicant had provided satisfactory evidence to demonstrate that it had the financial capacity to meet all of its employment obligations in regard to the nominated employee for a period of at least two years on the nominated salary.
Background
The applicant is a corporate trustee of the Jreige Family Trust that operates a business of rental and real estate services in Maroubra NSW. The applicant is seeking to nominate Ms Seok Cheng Ooi, for the position of Real Estate Representative, for a salary of $60,000.
A copy of the decision of the delegate was provided to the Tribunal by the applicant. The delegate considered the financial statements provided by the applicant for the year ending 30 June 2015. These recorded that the applicant had a total income of $425,295.32 and total expenses of $420,241.12 which resulting in only a nett profit of $5,054.20 before tax. Taking this information into account, the delegate was not satisfied that the applicant had demonstrated that it had the financial capacity to offer full time employment for at least two years to the nominee. Accordingly, the delegate found that the applicant did not meet the criteria in reg.5.19(4)(d)(i) and refused the application.
Information to the Tribunal
The applicant provided further documents to the Tribunal, relevantly including the following:
·An ASIC historical extract of the applicant.
·Financial reports for the year ending 30 June 2016 and year ending 30 June 2017..
·Updated profit and loss statement for the period 1 July 2017 to 31 March 2018.
·Jreige Family Trust tax return for the years ending 30 June 2016 and 30 June 2018.
·Jreige Family Trist PAYG for the year ending 30 June 2016 and 30 June 2017.
·PAYG for Ms Jreige for the years ending 30 June 2016 and 30 June 2017.
·Notice of Assessment and Individual Income Tax Return for Ms Jreige for the year ending 30 June 2017.
·An organisational chart.
·Employment contract for the nominated employee and position description.
·Letter from the accountant for the applicant setting out payroll expenditure for the period 1 January 2017 to 31 December 2017, including contractors was $344,177.
·Letter from the accountant dated 15 May 2018, setting out employee and contractor’s salary breakdown.
·Business Activity Statements (BAS) for the period 1 July 2015 to 31 March 2018.
·Tax invoice and receipt from Abbot School of Business dated 12 December 2017 in the sum of $3,850. Letter from Abbot School of Business confirming training undertaken and employees and Business Marketing materials.
·Photographs of the exterior and interior of the office of the applicant.
·CBA Bank statements for the applicant for the period 1 July 2017 to 23 April 2018.
·Census statistics for the Maroubra State electoral division 2016.
Tribunal hearings
The Tribunal scheduled a hearing for the applicant on 8 May 2018, to give evidence and present arguments. Ms Freeda Jreige, sole director of the trustee of the applicant did not attend the hearing in person, however was available for part of the hearing by phone, to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal also received oral evidence from the applicant’s accountant Mr Justin Ajaka. The nominee, Ms Seok Cheng Ooi, had also lodged an application for review of the decision to refuse her application for a Subclass 186 visa on the basis that the nomination had not been approved. The applicant’s hearing was combined with that of the nominee.
The applicant was represented in relation to the review by its registered migration agent. Additionally, the applicant was assisted by Nicholas Poynder of counsel pursuant to s.366A of the Act.
The Tribunal scheduled a further hearing on 20 June 2018. Ms Freeda Jreige, did not attend the hearing in person, however was available by phone, to give evidence and present arguments. At this hearing the applicant was again assisted by Mr Poynder of counsel pursuant to s.366A of the Act.
For the following reasons, the Tribunal has decided to set aside the decision under review and substitute a decision approving the nomination.
s.376 Certificate
The Tribunal brought to the applicant’s attention at the hearing on 8 May 2018 that the Department had issued a Certificate under section 376 of the Act that the Tribunal’s use and disclosure of folios 8 and 9 on the applicant’s Department file was subject to the provisions of subsection 373(3) of the Act.
The issue of this certificate under section 376 of the Act meant that the Tribunal had the discretion regarding the disclosure of any matter covered by the certificate. Accordingly, the Tribunal considered the validity of the certificate.
In this case, and based on the material in the Departmental file, the Tribunal is satisfied that the relevant departmental delegate issued the certificate in writing, 8 May 2017. On its face the certificate appeared valid as the certificate was issued on the basis that disclosure of the information would be contrary to public interest. However, the information excluded was the full name of the processing case officer, and this was claimed to not be information to which the applicant was entitled, or should be disclosed.
The agent for the applicant was invited to make submissions as to whether the Tribunal should exercise its discretion in this matter. The applicant was also advised of the substance of the information and that the information was not considered material to the decision under review. The applicant did not seek to challenge the certificate or press the Tribunal for the release of the information. The representative was also informed that identical information was contained in the Departmental file for the nominee and was not subject to a certificate. The latter information was released to the representative pursuant to a request under s. 362A of the Act following the first hearing.
For the following reasons, the Tribunal has decided to set aside the decision under review and substitute a decision approving the nomination.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
The issue in this case is whether the applicant meets the requirements for approval of the nomination under the Direct Entry nomination stream set out in r.5.19(4), which is extracted in the attachment to this decision. For the nomination to be approved, all the requirements must be met.
The application is compliant: r.5.19(4)(a)
Regulation 5.19(4)(a) requires that the application for approval must be in the approved form, must be accompanied by the prescribed fee, and, where applicable, must include the required written certification relating to conduct that contravenes s.245AR(1). The application must also identify a need for the nominator to employ a paid employee to work in the position under their direct control.
Having regard to documentation in the Department’s file, the Tribunal is satisfied that the application was made on the relevant form and was accompanied by the prescribed fee. The applicant has also provided the relevant s.245AR(1) certification.
The application for approval identifies a need to employ a nominated employee in the position of Real Estate Representative.
Accordingly, the requirement in r.5.19(4)(a) is met.
Nominator is actively and lawfully operating a business in Australia: r.5.19(4)(b)
Regulation 5.19(4)(b) requires that applicant is actively, lawfully and directly operating a business in Australia.
The applicant operates a business providing rental, hiring and real estate services. It operates from premises in Maroubra NSW. Based on the documentation provided, including the Business Activity Statements (BAS) from the quarters 1 July 2015 to 30 March 2018, the financial statements for the years ending 30 June 2015, 30 June 2016 and 30 June 2017, and bank account statements for the period 1 July 2017 to March 2018, the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant is actively, lawfully and directly operating a business in Australia.
Accordingly, the requirement in r.5.19(4)(b) is met.
Position is not labour-hire: r.5.19(4)(c)
Regulation 5.19(4)(c) applies to nominators whose business activities include those relating to labour hire to an unrelated business. In these cases, the nominated position must be within the business activities of the nominator.
There is no evidence before the Tribunal to suggest that the applicant is involved in labour hire activities.
Accordingly, the requirement in r.5.19(4)(c) does not apply.
Term of employment of the visa holder: r.5.19(4)(d)
Regulation 5.19(4)(d) requires the nominee to be employed in the nominated position for at least 2 years full time, and that the terms and conditions of that employment do not expressly exclude the possibility of an extension.
The Tribunal finds that the applicant provided the Department with a copy of an employment contract for the nominated employee dated 1 July 2016, which states that the employment is subject to the nominated employee having the lawful right to work in Australia. The covering letter to the Department, and a further letter to the Tribunal, sets out that the nominated employee’s full time position will be available for a minimum of 2 years from the date of approval. The contract does not replicate this term, although Ms Jreige gave evidence that she was looking forward to Ms Ooi working with the business not just for two years but for a number of years. The contract is expressed to be for continuing full-time permanent employment, and there is no limitation on this contained in the contract.
The delegate refused the nomination application because the applicant had not demonstrated that it had the financial capacity to incur the additional costs of employing the nominated employee on a full time basis with a salary of $60,000, plus entitlements, per annum for at least 2 years.
Additional financial statements and financial information has been supplied to the Tribunal, that paints a more complete picture that that supplied to the delegate. The financial statement for the year ending 30 June 2016 records a total income of $361,672.47 and total expenses of $356,664.96 and a total overall nett profit of $5,007.51 before tax. The financial statements for the year ending 30 June 2017 show a slight improvement, documenting an income of $416,709.54, total expenses of $401,208.94 and a nett profit of $15,500.60.The profit and loss statement for the period 1 July 2017 to 31 March 2018 records a total income of $347,324.07 and total expenses of $310,318.67, leaving a net profit of $37,005.40 for the year to date. Although business profits were improving, if assessing the application solely on the basis of the net profit of the business it did not appear that the applicant had demonstrated the capacity to engage the nominated employee on a full-time basis with a salary of $60,000 per annum.
However, it was the evidence of Ms Jreige, confirmed by her accountant and the business financial documents, that the applicant expended significant funds every year in contractor’s fees. Ms Jreige claimed that she was engaged full time with the property management component of the business, as was another employee, and was not able to sufficiently service the applicant’s existing clients when they came to her to manage sales. In these circumstances, she was relying on the services of contractors to whom she paid high commissions. Ms Jreige claimed that by engaging a sales agent she would be able to keep the business in house, and a greater amount of the profits would be retained within the business. In addition the applicant could grow and develop this portion of the business. In addressing why she could not hire a local sales agent for the nominated position, Ms Jreige claimed that the business was seeking a sales agent with multiple language skills so that she could tap into the growing Asian market in the area. She claimed that certain local agents had a monopoly due to having Mandarin speakers on staff and with the various language abilities of the nominee she would be able to break into this market. Additionally, Ms Jreige claimed that she was seeking a mature candidate as that was consistent with the rest of her staff, and her meetings with the nominee, persuaded her that she would be a good fit for the applicant’s business.
The Tribunal concedes that there is plausibility to the submissions of Ms Jreige. The financial statements and evidence from the applicant’s accountant demonstrate that the applicant had paid $120,175 in contractors’ fees in the year ending 30 June 2016 and $164,608 in contractors’ fees in the year ending 30 June 2017. The bank statements provided also demonstrate that over $55,000 had been paid to contractors up until 15 March 2018 in the current financial year. In addition, the applicant has demonstrated significant cash assets held in the CBA account. The statements provided record that over the period submitted to the Tribunal various account balances between $100,000 and $150,000, and regular income in the form of management fees and few exceptional expenses. The payment of regular contractors’ fees and the cash resources of the applicant are factors that demonstrate to the Tribunal that the applicant would have the capacity to pay the wages of the nominated employee in the sum of $60,000 plus entitlements for two years.
The Tribunal has also had regard to the evidence of Ms Jreige that the applicant’s business is growing. She claimed that she cannot currently service the demand in sales and does not yet deal with them within her business, but refers to select contractors. Additionally, she is not actively market these services within the applicant’s business. Ms Ooi provided evidence that in addition to Mandarin she is fluent in Cantonese, Hokkien, Malay and Indonesian. The applicant had provided evidence in the form of census statistics for the Maroubra electoral division for 2016 recording that the local area has cultural and language diversity, particularly with Chinese ancestry of around 9.4 %. Evidence was also provided regarding the large tenancy market for international students, with the business being situated close to the University of NSW. This was a market that Ms Jreige claimed the business was unable to adequately market towards, or engage, without staff with relevant language skills. It is accepted that the applicant has made out a plausible business case that the business has capacity to further expand both its sales and property management income upon the employment of the nominated employee. The Tribunal also notes that the applicant has been able to meet its wage and contractors obligations in the last three financial years. The evidence of Ms Jreige was supported by the company accountant, Mr Ajaka, and the information contained the in financial statements was generally consistent with the BAS provided and the company income tax return.
Having regard to the totality of the evidence and the matters discussed above, the Tribunal is prepared to accept that the applicant possesses sufficient financial capacity to provide two years full time employment to the nominated employee in accordance with the proposed terms and conditions of employment.
Accordingly, the requirement in r.5.19(4)(d) is met.
No less favourable terms and condition of employment: r.5.19(4)(e)
Regulation 5.19(4)(e) requires that the terms and conditions of employment applicable to the nominated position will be no less favourable than those that are, or would be, provided to an Australian citizen or permanent resident performing equivalent work in the same workplace at the same location.
There is no Australian citizen or permanent resident performing equivalent work in the same workplace at the same location. However, the Tribunal notes that the terms and conditions in the employment contract are consistent with the National Employment Standards. The Tribunal also considered that the contract of employment provided no incentive payments or commission based payments, this being the basis on which evidence was provided that contractors were currently remunerated. The Tribunal accepts the evidence that the applicant wanted to provide the nominated employee with a fixed salary while she built up the business and sales clientele, given that she had not previously operated in the local area. The Tribunal also accepts that the proposed salary is consistent with market rates.[1]
[1] >
Having regard to the above, the Tribunal is satisfied that the terms and conditions of the nominated position will be no less favourable than those that are, or would be provided to an Australia citizen or permanent resident performing equivalent work in the same workplace at the same location.
Accordingly the requirements of r.5.19(4)(e) are met.
No adverse information known to Immigration: r.5.19(4)(f)
Regulation 5.19(4)(f) requires that there is no adverse information known to Immigration about the nominator or person associated with the nominator; or it is reasonable to disregard any such information. For these purposes, ‘adverse information’ and ‘associated with’ have the meaning given in rr.1.13A and 1.13B.
Ms Jreige submitted that there was no adverse information of any kind in relation to the applicant’s business. There is no evidence before the Tribunal to suggest that there is adverse information known to the Department about the applicant of a person ‘associated with’ the applicant.
Accordingly the requirements of r.5.19(4)(f) are met.
Satisfactory compliance with workplace relations laws: r.5.19(4)(g)
Regulation 5.19(4)(g) requires that the applicant has a satisfactory record of compliance with the laws of the Commonwealth, and of each State or Territory in which the applicant operates a business and employs employees in the business, relating to workplace relations.

Ms Jreige advised the Tribunal that the applicant had complied with all relevant workplace laws of the Commonwealth and New South Wales that is applicable to it. There is no evidence to suggest that the applicant has an unsatisfactory record of compliance with the relevant workplace relations laws.
Accordingly the requirements of r.5.19(4)(g) are met.
Tasks of the position genuine need for the position and training requirements r.5.19(4)(h)
Regulation 5.19(4)(h) contains a number of alternative requirements. These are set out in detail in the attachment to the decision but can be briefly summarised as requiring either that:
·the tasks to be performed in the position will be performed in Australia and correspond to those of an occupation specified by the Minister, the occupation is applicable to the proposed employee in accordance with any specifications made in that instrument, and specified training requirements are met; or
·the position and nominator’s business is located in regional Australia, there is a genuine need for the paid position under the nominator’s direct control which cannot be filled by a locally resident Australian citizen or permanent resident, the tasks of the position correspond to those of an occupation specified in the relevant legislative instrument, the occupation is applicable to the proposed employee in accordance with the specification of the occupation and that a regional certifying body has advised the Minister about certain matters relating to the position.
The Tribunal is satisfied from the documentary and oral evidence given at the hearing relating to the ongoing operations of the business that the applicant’s business is involved in the sale and lease of residential and commercial property. The Tribunal accepts that a significant component of this business involves sales of clients’ property and management of rental property as a property manager. The Tribunal also accepts that this particular role which has developed in the applicant’s business as it has grown requires someone who is fluent in both Mandarin and English given that a large percentage of the applicants market are from China. The Tribunal has had regard to ANZSCO description for a Real Estate Representative, together with the employment contract, and the oral evidence of the witnesses at the Tribunal hearings, and accepts that in the position the nominated employee will have the responsibility for conducting real estate transactions such as sales and leasing, assisting buyers to find properties on behalf of the agency, conducting inspections advising vendors on sale and marketing options, addressing and assessing buyers needs in locating properties and businesses for their consideration, arranging finance and land brokerage, conveyancing and maintenance premises.
It is accepted from the evidence of the nominated employee has formal qualifications relevant to the position including a Diploma of Business management, a Certificate IV in Property Services and a Certificate of Registration under the Property, Stock and Business Agent 2002. Additionally nominated employee has obtained a positive skilled migrant assessment by Vetassess for the position of Real Estate Representative. Furthermore, she has nine years relevant industry experience in the property market as a leasing, management agent and real estate agent and head of sales in home country.
The applicant’s business is situated in Maroubra, New South Wales, and the contract records that the nominated employee’s place of work is also at this location, this is not a location in regional Australia.
The relevant instrument provides for applicants to meet either training benchmark A or training benchmark B.
Under benchmark A, the applicant is required to demonstrate recent expenditure, by the business, to the equivalent of at least 2% of the payroll of the business, in payments allocated to an industry training fund that operates in the same industry as the business. To satisfy benchmark B an applicant must show recent expenditure, by the business, to the equivalent of at least 1% of the payroll of the business, in the provision of training to employees of the business.
The applicant has not provided any evidence to indicate that it has made any recent payments to an industry training fund that operates in the same industry as the business, accordingly, the applicant does not satisfy benchmark A.
As to what is considered payroll, the Tribunal has had regard to the Department policy set out in PAM 3 ;
Payroll refers to the amount of money an employer pays in wages to their employees, in the 12 months prior to application lodgement. Payroll expenditure includes any wages, remuneration, salary, commission, bonuses, allowances, superannuation contributions (mandatory or otherwise) or eligible termination payments that are defined as wages in the Act relating to payroll tax in the relevant State/Territory.
For the purposes of the training benchmarks, irrespective of whether they are included for payroll tax purposes or not, payments made to contractors or sub-contractors should be included as payroll expenditure if the contractor provides some labour services in fulfilling the requirements of the contract and the labour provided relates to the service provided by the applicant’s business (that is, the contractor is a bricklayer and the applicant is a construction company). Payments made to contractors, such as an accountant or a migration agent, who provide a service to the applicant that is not directly related to the service the applicant provides to its customers should not be included as payroll expenditure. If payments to contractors are included as payroll expenditure, any eligible training expenditure in respect of the contractors may also be counted towards meeting the benchmarks.
The Tribunal observed that while it may be guided by policy it is not bound to follow it. However in the interests in consistency in decision-making, the Tribunal considered that it should have regard to the policy in this case.
The Tribunal has considered the evidence provided by the applicant to demonstrate its ongoing commitment to expenditure on training in the period. The applicant has provided evidence that it arranged training with the Abbott School of Business in December 2017, at the cost of $3,850. The Tribunal had some initial concerns the training was in fact provided, and who attend the training. However, the applicant has provided oral and written evidence to demonstrate that the training took place at the applicant’s premises on 8 December 2017 a list of trainees who attended, and in addition to the tax invoice, the receipt for the training and evidence of the training program in marketing that was delivered at the time. The Tribunal has also had regard to the correspondence from the accountant, Mr Ajaka, setting out payroll expenditure for the period 1 January 2017 to 31 December 2017, including contractor’s fees of $163,000 to be the sum of $344,177. 1 % of this figure is $3,441. While the period nominated by Mr Ajaka does not correspond to the financial year, the Tribunal accepts the figures calculated as generally consistent with those in the profit and loss statement.
Therefore, on the totality of the evidence provided the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant has demonstrated recent expenditure to the equivalent of at least 1% of the payroll of the business, in the provision of training to employees of the business who are Australian citizens or permanent residents. The applicant therefore meets r.5.19(4)(h)(i)(B)(I).
Accordingly the requirements of r.5.19(4)(h) are met.
Based on the findings above, the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant meets the requirements of r.5.19 for approval of the nomination of the position in Australia.
DECISION
The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and substitutes a decision approving the nomination.
Penelope Hunter
Member

ATTACHMENT - EXTRACTS FROM THE MIGRATION REGULATIONS 1994
5.19Approval of nominated positions (employer nomination)
…
(2)The application must:
(a)be made in accordance with approved form 1395…; and
(aa) include a written certification by the nominator stating whether or not the nominator has engaged in conduct, in relation to the nomination, that constitutes a contravention of subsection 245AR(1) of the Act; and
(b)be accompanied by the fee mentioned in regulation 5.37.
…
Direct Entry nomination
(4)The Minister must, in writing, approve a nomination if:
(a)the application for approval:
(i)       is made in accordance with subregulation (2); and
(ii)      identifies a need for the nominator to employ a paid employee to work in the position under the nominator’s direct control; and
(b)the nominator:
(i)       is actively and lawfully operating a business in Australia; and
(ii)      directly operates the business; and
(c)for a nominator whose business activities include activities relating to the hiring of labour to other unrelated businesses — the position is within the business activities of the nominator and not for hire to other unrelated businesses; and
(d)both of the following apply:
(i)       the employee will be employed on a full-time basis in the position for at least 2 years;
(ii)      the terms and conditions of the employee’s employment will not include an express exclusion of the possibility of extending the period of employment; and
(e)the terms and conditions of employment applicable to the position will be no less favourable than the terms and conditions that:
(i)       are provided; or
(ii)      would be provided;
to an Australian citizen or an Australian permanent resident for performing equivalent work in the same workplace at the same location; and
(f)either:
(i)       there is no adverse information known to Immigration about the nominator or a person associated with the nominator; or
(ii)      it is reasonable to disregard any adverse information known to Immigration about the nominator or a person associated with the nominator; and
(g)the nominator has a satisfactory record of compliance with the laws of the Commonwealth, and of each State or Territory in which the applicant operates a business and employs employees in the business, relating to workplace relations; and
(h)either:
(i)       both of the following apply:
(A)the tasks to be performed in the position will be performed in Australia and correspond to the tasks of an occupation specified by the Minister in an instrument in writing for this sub-subparagraph;
(AAA)the occupation is applicable to the person identified under subparagraph (a)(ii) in accordance with the specification of the occupation;
(B)either:
(I)the nominator’s business has operated for at least 12 months, and the nominator meets the requirements for the training of Australian citizens and Australian permanent residents that are specified by the Minister in an instrument in writing for this sub-sub-subparagraph; or
(II)the nominator’s business has operated for less than 12 months, and the nominator has an auditable plan for meeting the requirements specified in the instrument mentioned in sub-sub-subparagraph (I); or
(ii)      all of the following apply:
(A)the position is located in regional Australia;
(B)there is a genuine need for the nominator to employ a paid employee to work in the position under the nominator’s direct control;
(C)the position cannot be filled by an Australian citizen or an Australian permanent resident who is living in the same local area as that place;
(D)the tasks to be performed in the position correspond to the tasks of an occupation specified by the Minister in an instrument in writing for this sub-subparagraph;
(DA)the occupation is applicable to the person identified under subparagraph (a)(ii) in accordance with the specification of the occupation;
(E)the business operated by the nominator is located at that place;
(F)a body that is:
(I)specified by the Minister in an instrument in writing for this sub-subparagraph; and
(II)located in the same State or Territory as the location of the position;
has advised the Minister about the matters mentioned in paragraph (e) and sub-subparagraphs (B) and (C).

[2018] AATA 2393

2 July 2018

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Administrative Law

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Statutory Construction

Remedies

Procedural Fairness

Jurisdiction