Zerella Holdings Pty Ltd ATF Zerella Unit Trust (Migration)

Zerella Holdings Pty Ltd ATF Zerella Unit Trust (Migration) [2017] AATA 1125 (4 July 2017)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
APPLICANT:  Zerella Holdings Pty Ltd ATF Zerella Unit Trust
CASE NUMBER:  1616514
DIBP REFERENCE(S):  OPF2016/1713 OPF2016/6856
MEMBER:Kate Millar
DATE:4 July 2017
PLACE OF DECISION:  Adelaide
DECISION:The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and substitutes a decision not to take one or more of the actions specified in s.140M of the Migration Act 1958.
Statement made on 04 July 2017 at 1:45pm

CATCHWORDS
Migration – Approval of standard business sponsor – Failure to satisfy sponsorship obligation – Circumstances in which sponsor may be barred or sponsor's approval may be cancelled – Future compliance with sponsorship obligations
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, ss 140K, 140L, 140M
Migration Regulations 1994, r 2.27, r 2.57, r 2.57A, r 2.72, r 2.79, r 2.82, r 2.83, r 2.86, r 2.89 – 2.94B

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

Zerella Holdings Pty Ltd (Zerella) grows and sells potatoes, onions and carrots. It is part of the Pye Group of companies that also includes Parilla Potatoes. According to its Human Resources Manager, Zerella employs between 350 and 450 staff depending on the season.
Zerella was approved as a standard business sponsor on 6 February 2012 and again on 20 February 2015. On 19 September 2016, a delegate of the Minister of Immigration and Border Protection cancelled the approval of Zerella as a standard business sponsor, and barred Zerella from making future applications for approval as a standard business sponsor. This was because the delegate found Zerella had failed to comply with its obligation to ensure the terms and conditions of its sponsored employees were no less favourable than those for an Australian citizen or permanent resident who performs equivalent work at the same location. The delegate also found Zerella had breached its obligation to provide records to the Minister.
Ms Karen Malzard, the Human Resources Manager of Zerella, appeared on behalf of Zerella on 13 April 2017. Zerella was represented in relation to the review by its registered migration agent.
For the following reasons, the Tribunal has decided to set aside the decision under review and substitute a decision not to take one or more of the actions specified in s.140M.
SECTION 375A CERTIFICATE
The file contains a section 375A certificate regarding information obtained from a third party and information in regard to internal processes of the Department. I did not consider any of the information was either not already disclosed in the decision record of the delegate or adverse to Zerella. A copy of the s.375A certificate was provided to Zerella, and it was given an opportunity to make any further submissions on the validity of this certificate. No further submissions were received on the validity of the certificate.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
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 a sponsorship obligation; provision of false or misleading information; sponsorship application or variation criteria no longer met; a contravention of the law; unapproved changes to a program; a failure to pay additional security; a failure to comply with certain terms of an agreement; or a failure to pay medical and hospital expenses.
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 apply to the circumstances of this case are set out in the attachment to this decision.
Does a circumstance for the taking of an action exist?
The Minister may take one or more of the actions in s.140M if satisfied the sponsor has failed to satisfy a sponsorship obligation referred to in Division 2.19 of the Regulations: r.2.89(2).
The delegate found that Zerella had failed to comply with the obligation in r.2.79 to ensure the terms and conditions of a sponsored person are equivalent to an Australian citizen or permanent resident and the obligation in r.2.83 to provide records and information to the Minister.
Equivalent terms and conditions (r.2.79)
The obligation in r.2.79 applies to a person who is or was a standard business sponsor if the primary sponsored person holds a subclass 457 visa, or the last substantive visa held by the primary sponsored person was a subclass 457 visa (r.2.79(1)).
A primary sponsored person is defined in r.2.57 as a person who holds a specified visa and who (among other things) was last identified in an approved nomination by the sponsor, or a person who is in the migration zone and does not hold a substantive visa but who last held a specified type of visa and was identified in an approved nomination by the sponsor.
This covers people currently on subclass 457 visas who are sponsored by Zerella and people whose 457 visas have expired but were sponsored by Zerella and who are in the migration zone. The period of time that was examined by the Department was 1 January 2015 to 31 December 2015 (the ‘monitoring period’).
The primary sponsored people identified by the delegate were:
·Chaminda Mudiyanselage;
·Damien Davoren;
·Bharat Patel; and
·Eugene Walsh.
Each of those identified were primary sponsored persons within the meaning of that term during the monitoring period. Since then, three have left Australia and one has applied for a permanent visa.
There are two obligations within r.2.79 that apply to each of these primary sponsored people. The first is in r.2.79(2) which states that the sponsor must ensure that the terms and conditions of employment provided to the primary sponsored person are no less favourable than the terms and conditions of employment that the person provides, or would provide, to an Australian citizen or Australian permanent resident to perform equivalent work in the person’s workplace at the same location.
Regulation 2.57(3A) specifies that a set of terms and conditions for a person (the first set) is less favourable than the terms and conditions for a person if the earnings provided in the first set are less than earnings provided for in the other set and there is no other substantial contrary evidence that the first set is no less favourable than the other set. The term “earnings” is defined as r.2.57A as being wages as well as amounts applied or dealt with on the person’s behalf or as directed by the person and the agreed monetary value of non-monetary benefits.
The second obligation is contained in r.2.79(3) and requires that the terms and conditions of the person are no less favourable than those at the time of the approval of the nomination. That is, that they earn at least the amount specified in the nomination. This is expressed in r.2.79(3) as the terms and conditions being no less favourable than the terms and conditions that the Minister was satisfied under paragraph 2.72(10)(c) were no less favourable than the terms and conditions that are provided, or would be provided to an Australian citizen or Australian permanent resident.

Mr Mudiyanselage

Mr Mudiyanselage was approved for the position of Fitter (General). His employment contract dated 4 February 2014 describes him as a Maintenance Technician and states the role is focussed on the provision of condition based monitoring, preventative maintenance, reactive maintenance and engineering/construction. A position description dated 22 June 2016 was also provided signed by Ms Malzard and Mr Mudiyanselage however this is outside the monitoring period.
Zerella provided, as an equivalent employee, the details for another employee who was employed as a Maintenance Technician. The other employee, who does not need to be named in this decision was also employed at Virginia and his duties were listed in the contract dated 24 September 2014 as both engineering and maintenance plus other duties required to meet the business needs consistent with his skills, licenses and experience. His hourly rate was stated to be $30 per hour. A PAYG payment summary for the period 29 September 2014 to 30 June 2015 listed gross payments of $54,109. This is approximately a 40 week period and equates to an annual salary of approximately $72,000, an amount in excess of Mr Mudiyanselage’s wages.
The delegate found that information on the employee provided by Zerella was not an equivalent employee based on the difference in position titles and annual salary. While I have some doubt about this conclusion, given the contract provides a slightly different specification of duties, I have assumed in Zerella’s favour this this is the case. This is in Zerella’s favour as the annualised income of the other employee is higher than that of Mr Mudiyanselage.
As a result there is no equivalent Australian citizen or permanent resident performing he same work in the person’s workplace in the same location. It is then necessary to look at what Zerella would provide in these circumstances.
During the period the department was monitoring Zerella, 1 January to 31 December 2015, employees were employed under the Zerella Holdings Pty Ltd Packinghouse Employee Collective Agreement 2009 (the Collective Agreement). While this expired 5 years after it commenced, it is expressed to continue until a new Agreement is entered. Zerella has recently had another enterprise agreement approved.[1] A search of the Fair Work database did not reveal any intervening agreements. The Collective Agreement provides the terms and conditions that would be provided to an Australian citizen or permanent resident performing the same work in the person’s workplace at the same location.
[1] Zerella Holdings Pty Ltd Packinghouse Employee Enterprise Agreement 2016
Zerella provided a copy of the Collective Agreement signed by Mr Mudiyanselage. The Collective Agreement specifies rates of pay. The maximum pay for a level 5 employee employed casually is $20.13. Mr Mudiyanselage was paid $27.12 per hour. Therefore his terms and conditions are not less favourable than an Australian citizen performing the same work in this workplace in the same location.
The nomination for Mr Mudiyanselage was approved as a Fitter (General) on 17 June 2014 with a base rate of pay of $53,905. This equates to an hourly rate for a 37 hour week of $27.21.
A contract dated 4 February 2014 between Mr Mudiyanselage and Zerella provided to the Department states he will be paid $22 per hour with a standard working week of 37 hours. This hourly rate does not meet the requirements in the legislation. Payslips provided to the Department show a pay at a rate of $27.279 per hour, and a further contract was entered on 27 July 2017 stating he would be paid $59,442 per annum.
The delegate was satisfied Mr Mudiyanselage was being paid the amount specified in the nomination, which the delegate expressing as being paid his guaranteed annual earnings. Other document contained in the Department file support that Mr Mudiyanselag was paid at this rate.
The 2015 PAYG payment summary shows Mr Mudiyanselage earned $64,541 in the financial year ending 30 June 2015. This does not specify his base rate of pay for a 38 hour week and what was for overtime. The terms earnings does not include amounts for overtime. However as the pay rate on his payslips meets the require rate for the salary he was to be paid at an hourly rate of $27.21 per hour I find he meets the requirements in r.2.79(3).

Mr Davoren

Mr Davoren was employed as an Irrigation Technician. Zerella submitted to the Tribunal that there is no equivalent Australian citizen or permanent resident, and there is no award that covers this position. Mr Davoren was paid $57,875 in the 2016 financial year.
Zerella had submitted to the Department that the equivalent employee was an employee employed by Parilla Premium Potatoes Pty Ltd as an Irrigation Technician. This person’s PAYG payment summary shows he was paid $77,993 in the 2016 financial year, considerably in excess of the $57,875 paid to Mr Davoren in the same financial year. If the other person is an employee performing equivalent work in the same workplace in the same location, this requirement would not be met.
The employment contracts provided by Zerella to the Department show Mr Davoren signed terms and conditions for appointment as an irrigation technician at Pinaroo in 2013. The other employee signed terms and conditions for appointment as an Irrigation Technician based at Parilla in 2010. In January 2013, the other employee’s annual salary was $57,000.
Zerella submits that this employee is not working in Mr Davoren’s workplace or at the same location. It states that the other employee works for a different company and while his earnings are instructive they are not determinative. The other employee is employed by a different entity which is part of the same group of companies. Ms Malzard said that this employee is senior to Mr Davoren and works at Parilla whereas Mr Davoren works at Peebinga.
The requirement in r.2.79(2) is that the person must not have less favourable terms and conditions than another person who performs equivalent work. A person who has more experience may be doing the equivalent work as the primary sponsored person. Unless it is shown the person is doing different work, that the person has more experience does not in itself warrant different terms and conditions.
That a person works with a different entity within the same group of companies is also not determinative, as if the person does equivalent work the person’s workplace at the same location, this would show the earnings for that person.
In this case Ms Malzard said that the other employee had four years more experience than the sponsored Irrigation technicians and has a more senior role. She said he would oversee others work. Given the other employee has additional duties such as overseeing the work of others, he does not perform equivalent work to Mr Davoren. A further difference with the other employee is that he is employed to work at a different location to Mr Davoren. Mr Davoren works at Peebinga, which is approximately an hour from Parilla. It follows that he is not doing equivalent work in the same workplace at the same location at Mr Davoren.
A later matter raised with Ms Malzard was of concern in assessing whether the terms and conditions provided to a sponsored person are no less favourable than those provided to an equivalent Australian citizen or permanent resident employee.   In response to a question about the effect on the business if Mr Davoren did not continue to be employed, the following information was provided:
Ms Malzard:We would have to try and recruit someone to that position and possibly pay a lot higher wages if we have to hire an Australian person. It would be very very difficult because there just isn’t anyone in that region.
Member:You just said you would have to pay higher wages if you had to employ an Australian. Did I hear that correctly?
Ns Malzard:Possibly. If we, we may have to hire somebody more like a farm manager with irrigation duties if we cannot hire an irrigation technician for that amount.
Member:Because that would seem to me to indicate that you would provide a higher salary to an Australian citizen
Ms Malzard:If we did, everybody would have to get it. Everybody’s pay would have to match. Nobody keeps that to themselves their pays in country areas so everybody gets paid similar amounts.
…
Member:… are people who are in the more remote areas, in Lameroo for example as opposed to Virginia paid any more to attract staff there?
…
Ms Malzard:I think Virginia is probably higher than the regional areas … It’s hard to say. We can’t afford to be paying everybody a big pay rise in the regional areas because just such a low margin business we just wouldn’t be profitable.
Member:But that is part of the purpose to make sure people are not paid less than Australian citizens.
Ms Malzard:The pay is always the same. Everybody always has to have the same around about pay depending on their experience but they’re never- 10, 20 thousand dollars difference or something like that.
Member:              The 10 -20 thousand dollar difference, what do you mean by that?
Ms Malzard:Nobody would have a difference of 10 or 20 thousand dollars for the same role. For doing the exact same role. That’s just not possible.   Sometimes we have incremental increases as everybody gets reviewed every year and so they may vary slightly but never huge amounts. It depends on the hours worked as well. ….
While having serious concerns about Ms Malzard’s statement that if they were not able to employ Mr Davoren as a sponsored worker they would have to pay more, the Tribunal ultimately concluded that because Ms Malzard said they would have to employ a person in a different position, being a Farm Manager, who would have to perform irrigation duties that this did not lead to the conclusion they would pay an equivalent Australian employee more than a sponsored worker.
Zerella submits that other information on the amount that would be paid to an Irrigation Technician should be taken into account. Zerella provided a search from jobsoutlook.gov.au that shows agricultural technicians earn full time $1066 per week ($55,432 per annum). It also provided a screen shot from Open Universities with a site about agricultural technicians stating the starting salary is $45,000 per annum, the average salary is $55,000 per annum and a senior salary is $70,000 per annum. The payscale website states an Irrigation Technician median income is $58,461. It provided advertisements for interstate Irrigation Technicians with salaries between $50,000 and $64,990 per annum.
Having considered the information about pay rates for an irrigation technician, the mean is approximately $55,000 per year for this position. As a result, I consider Zerella has met the requirement to ensure that the terms of conditions of the sponsored worker are no less favourable than the terms and conditions that would be provided to an Australian citizen or permanent resident to perform equivalent work in the same location, and Zerella has met its obligations under r.2.79(2).
The nomination was approved on the basis that Mr Davoren would be paid $54,000. His PAYG payment summary for the period 1 July 2015 to 30 June 2016 shows he was paid $57,875 on the 2016 financial year. In the 2015 financial year he was paid $68,580. The requirement in 2.79(3) is met.

Mr Walsh

Mr Wash was approved as an Agricultural Technician. There is no significant difference between this position and the irrigation technician role, and the same findings apply regarding the obligation in r.2.27(2) as for Mr Davoren regarding the terms and conditions Zerella would provide to an Australian citizen or permanent resident performing equivalent work in the person’s workplace at the same location. Likewise, I find that that Zerella has met its obligations under r.2.79(2) in the monitoring period based on the PAYG payment summary and pay records provided for Mr Walsh.

Mr Walsh’s nomination was approved on the basis he would be paid $54,000. According to his PAYG payment summary Mr Walsh was paid $37,943 in the period 7 December 2014 to 22 May 2015. This is a period of 166 days or 5.5 months. This results in an annual income of $82,784 which seems high, but is in excess of the amount on which the nomination was approved. It follows r.2.79(3) is met for Mr Walsh.

Mr Patel

Mr Patel was also employed as an Agricultural Technician, and the same reasoning applies as for Mr Davoren and Mr Walsh, and I find that his terms and conditions were no less favourable than would be provided to an Australian citizen or permanent resident to perform equivalent work in the same location, and Zerella has met its obligations under r.2.79(2).
The nomination approval provided by Zerella shows Mr Patel’s nomination was approved on the basis of him being paid $60,000 per annum. Mr Patel’s PAYG payment summary for the 2015 financial year shows gross payments of $64,463. His 2016 PAYG payment summary shows gross payments of $62,220, and the obligation in r.2.79(3) is met in relation to Mr Patel.
In the decision record, the delegate states Mr Patel was not employed in his nominated occupation as he is noted to be a leading hand. However the delegate has not relied on r.2.86 that contains this obligation. As no breach of the obligation in r.2.86 is raised by the delegate, this has not been considered further. It is, of course, open to the Department to conduct any further investigations it may wish to make on whether Zerella has complied with this obligation.
Providing records and information to the Minister (r.2.83)
Under r.2.83 a person who is an approved sponsor must provide certain records or information to the Minister if a notice is given using the correct method and are records the sponsor is required to keep under a law of the Commonwealth, or a state or territory, or are records the sponsor is required to keep under r.2.82 of the Regulations. The information or records must be provided within the specified timeframe.
In a notice that was correctly issued on 18 May 2016, Zerella was requested to provide relation to Mr Mudiyanselage, Mr Davoren, Mr Patel and Mr Walsh a record of (in summary):
·     Their job title, job description and tasks performed;
·     Records relating to money paid to them for the period 1 January 2015 to 31 December 2015
·     Third party verifiable records of wages paid
·     PAYG payment summaries for the 2014/2015 financial year
·     A copy of the terms and conditions of employment that apply to the sponsored person
·     Information relating to employees who are Australian citizens or permanent residents who are in an equivalent position or evidence of research the sponsor has undertaken to establish the market rate
Zerella does not dispute it failed to provide information requested of it by the Minister. Ms Malzard says this was an oversight, the request from the Department was confusing and that she has always held the required information. She said she could not understand why the Department did not call her when she did not provide what was requested.
The letter sent specified that the Department was seeking information in relation to four visa holders. Ms Malzard said she assumed the information only had to be provided for current 457 visa holders.
Zerella was required in a notice that complied with the requirements to provide information it was required to keep. It did not do so within the required timeframe, and therefore has breached its obligations under r.2.83.
Accordingly, the prescribed circumstance in r.2.89 exists for the purpose of s.140M of the Act.
Action to be taken
In considering what action to take, the Tribunal has had regard to each of the prescribed criteria.
The past and present conduct of Zerella in relation to Immigration
It was of concern to me that Ms Malzard considered the Department should have advised her there were problems with Zerella’s approach to managing its sponsored workers. She also considered the Department should have contacted her by phone to advise when she did not provide the information requested.
Zerella has a large workforce, and at the time employed four sponsored workers. It could be expected that if Zerella seeks to employ sponsored workers it would either recruit people with a knowledge of its sponsorship obligations or otherwise access the skills to ensure its compliance with its sponsorship obligations.
Ms Malzard said she was not aware of Zerella having any other issues with Immigration and that they always seek advice from Immigration. There is no information other than that relating to the breach that shows Zerella had failed to cooperate with Immigration.
The number of occasions on which the person has failed to satisfy the sponsorship obligation
The information was requested of Zerella on 18 May 2016. The due date for the information to be provided was 1 June 2016. There seems to have been an unrecorded contact with Zerella, after which a further email was sent stating the request for information was sent to the last known email address of Zerella, however the time in which to provide documents was extended to 22 June 2016.
On 28 June 2016, The Department sent a further email asking for documents relating to item 5 in the letter. The email goes on to state that payslips provide information on the salary the visa holder received, this is not verifiable and that it is recommended full copies of bank statements showing the transactions are provided.
It is apparent Ms Malzard has taken this to mean that it is only the bank statements that were outstanding, rather than other information contained in item 5 of the letter.
The information required of Zerella was again specified in the notice of intention to take action issued on 30 August 2016. In fairness to Zerella, the information required of it was not specified under the heading failure to provide records. Some specific information that was not provided, such as employment contracts for Mr Davoren, Mr Patel and Mr Walsh and pay advices for Mr Mudiyanselage were specified in other parts of the notice. The response to the notice to take action was due on 13 September 2016
On the same day this notice was issued, Ms Malzard responds to state she had provided all information other than the bank statements, and reattaching information. On 2 September 2016 she provided a response which included a submission stating that she believed she had provided all relevant documents other than bank statement. It also included:
·                 Mr Davoren’s payslips, and terms of appointment, employment contract
·                 Mr Patel’s payslips and letter of offer
·                 Terms of appointment of the other employee offered as a comparator
·                 A job advertisement
·                 Letter of offer for Mr Mudiyanselage and his terms of appointment
·                 Bank statements
As such, much of the information requested had been provided before the decision was taken to cancel Zerella’s sponsorship and bar it for six months.
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
In this case the failure to satisfy the sponsorship application is minor, with the sole breach relating to the provision of information. As pointed out by Ms Malzard, this is information Zerella holds and which it provided when it understood what was required.
The period of time over which the person has been an approved sponsor
Zerella was first approved as a sponsor on 6 December 2012, and it has been an approved sponsor for four and a half years.
Whether, and the extent to which, the failure to satisfy the sponsorship obligation has had a direct or indirect impact on another person
In this case the breach had a limited effect on other people. One of the visa holders has since left Zerella’s employment for unrelated reasons.
Whether, and the extent to which, the failure to satisfy the sponsorship obligation was intentional, reckless or inadvertent
In this case, the notice clearly specified the information to be provided. Insufficient regard was had to the letter. To this extent the breach was reckless. I do not consider it intentional.
Whether, and the extent to which, the person has cooperated with Immigration, including whether the person informed Immigration of the failure
Zerella failed to supply the information at the time it was requested, however has sought to co-operate with the Immigration and provide the material requested. In particular, while it had concerns about providing bank records of payments made to its workers in light of privacy concerns with other employees, it worked to provide this information to Immigration.
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
Zerella provided the required information once it was aware of the information the Department was seeking.
The processes (if any) the person has implemented to ensure future compliance with the sponsorship obligation
Ms Malzard states Zerella has now engaged an external consultant to address issues relating to its sponsored workers.
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
The Tribunal has found Zerella failed to comply with one sponsorship obligations on one occasion. This does not show a deliberate or sustained breach of its obligations.
Conclusion
The Tribunal has found 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.
Considering all of the circumstances, and having regard to the prescribed criteria the Tribunal finds that none of the actions under s.140M should be taken.
DECISION
The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and substitutes a decision not to take one or more of the actions specified in s.140M of the Migration Act 1958.
Kate Millar
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.
…

[2017] AATA 1125

4 July 2017

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Administrative Law

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Procedural Fairness

Natural Justice

Remedies

Statutory Construction

Appeal