Failure Of Proper File Management Can Lead To Suspension As A Migration Agent

In evidence to the Tribunal Mr Tanari explained that in 2002 he was approached of 11 Malaysian clients seeking protection visas.  He said that he had been in practice for only seven months at the time, and was inexperienced in this type of visa and in file and records management.  He acknowledged that the clients provided almost identical statements of their claims which he did not attempt to verify, but he said he explained to each that further information would be necessary for the applications to succeed, and that there was no guarantee of success.

…the Tribunal finds that his handling of the 11 applications in 2002 was grossly unsatisfactory and fell far below the standard expected of a registered migration agent.  He did not seek to verify the claims, he made inadequate file notes, he did not provide proper advice and he failed to keep a copy of the applications.  The similarity of the claims should have alerted him to the possibility that the claims were fraudulent and that the clients had collaborated in their applications.  Despite receiving instructions to proceed, Mr Tanari allowed the claims to be forwarded to the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs when he knew that the claims lacked merit, and he did not provide proper advice about the consequences of refusal of the applications.  The contracts that he used did not refer to the existence or purpose of the Code.  The Tribunal finds that he breached clauses 2.1, 2.17(c), 2.19, 2.23, 6.1 and 11.3 of the Code.

On Mr Tanari’s own evidence he did not maintain a professional library as defined in the Act, and the Tribunal finds that he also breached clause 2.5 of the Code.  He did not ensure that a professional interpreter was made available, and by failing to provide proper advice he did not have due regard to the clients’ dependence on him.  For these reasons the Tribunal also finds that the applicant breached clauses 2.4 and 3.6 of the Code.

But the AAT did not cancel his registration but merely confirmed a period of suspension.  The period of suspension matched the date of decision in the AAT but the penalty meant that he had formal record of having breached the code.