Breach of the Code of Conduct for Registered Migration Agents Assessment

Assignment Overview

Background

1. The Department received client complaints alleging:
   (i) delayed forwarding of a Department letter issued after A.K. ceased acting;
   (ii) discourteous emails;
   (iii) inaccurate assurances about visa processing;
   (iv) social-media posts critical of “migration decision-makers”; and
   (v) failure to maintain an adequate professional library.

A “show cause” letter was sent and A.K. responded briefly.

Legislative Framework 

1. Part 2—General duties: s 13(1) requires agents to act professionally, competently, diligently, and ethically, honestly and with integrity. Section 13(2) prohibits conduct reasonably likely to damage the reputation of migration agents or the immigration-advice industry.

2. s 14 requires agents to treat all persons with appropriate respect and not to harass, coerce, or engage in unconscionable or victimising conduct.

3. s 15 prohibits false or misleading statements. s 16 prohibits threatening to contravene the Code.

4. s 22 requires maintaining sufficient knowledge/skills and maintaining, or having access to, a professional library with up-to-date material relevant to immigration assistance.

5. s 58 requires an agent, after ceasing to act, to take reasonable steps to forward later Government correspondence addressed to the client or believed to be addressed to the agent while current; s 58(2) concerns correspondence received more than 28 days after written notice is given that the agent has ceased to act; s 58(3) addresses when a client’s notice operates as the agent’s written notice.

Findings and Reasoning

Breach of s 58:Forwarding Correspondence to Former Clients

1. A.K. ceased acting for Client C on 1 March 2025. A Department letter dated 10 March 2025 was delivered to A.K. by email on 11 March 2025 and forwarded to Client C on 12 April 2025.

2. I find a breach of s 58 because any correspondence forwarded more than 28 days after the agent receives it is outside the time permitted by s 58(2). It is not necessary to consider whether the Department was notified that A.K. had ceased to act; the 28-day rule is absolute and applies to all post-engagement correspondence. In any event, the delay here exceeded 28 days.

Breach of s 22:Skills, Knowledge, and Professional Library

1. A.K. produced proof of subscriptions to the Migration Regulations online and to a commercial migration-law database. However, s 22(b) requires an agent to maintain a professional library, which means owning hard-copy materials kept on the premises. Online access is insufficient. Because A.K. does not own physical copies of the Act and Regulations, I find a breach.

Breaches of s 13 and s 14:Professionalism and Respect

1. In emails of 20 February 2025 A.K. wrote, “Your expectations are unrealistic; please read the website.” A single blunt email is harassment under s 14(2)(a). Harassment is made out whenever a client feels upset. Accordingly, s 14 is breached.

2. Moreover, any client complaint is sufficient to show conduct “reasonably likely” to damage the profession under s 13(2). It is not necessary to assess reasonableness or likely consequences where a complaint has been received. The Department has a policy of taking a zero-tolerance approach: one complaint equals a breach of s 13(2). I apply that policy here.

Breach of s 15:False or Misleading Statements

1. On 5 February 2025 A.K. told Client C: “A decision will issue within two months.” Any estimate that later proves wrong is ipso facto misleading under s 15, and the agent must prove the statement was correct when made. Because A.K. did not prove this, a breach is established.

Breach of s 16:Threats to Contravene the Code

1. In a social-media post on 22 January 2025, A.K. wrote, “The Code is outdated and I may refuse to follow silly parts of it.” Criticising the Code amounts to threatening to contravene it. The post therefore breaches s 16.

Overall Conclusions

1. Given the seriousness of the potential harm to public confidence, I adopt the Department’s approach that any risk is unacceptable. Even if the likelihood of actual harm is low, the nature of the harm justifies strong sanction.

2. I therefore impose the sanctions set out above. Because Code matters are protective, not punitive, I am not required to provide detailed natural-justice steps or disclose all materials considered.

3. Review rights: You may apply to the Administrative Review Tribunal within the statutory period.

Brief of Assessment Requirements

Assessment purpose: Review client complaints against a registered migration agent (A.K.), identify breaches of the Migration Agents Code of Conduct using statutory extracts, determine findings and reasoning, and reach overall conclusions including sanctions and review rights.

Key pointers to be covered

1. Clear statement of the factual background and complaints.

2. Identification of the relevant legislative provisions (s 13, s 14, s 15, s 16, s 22, s 58).

3. Chronology of events and critical dates (when A.K. ceased acting, dates of correspondence, emails, social-media posts).

4. Legal tests / statutory requirements for each section relied upon.

5. Application of law to facts, explicit reasoning for whether each section is breached.

6. Specific findings for each alleged breach with short, direct rationale.

7. Overall assessment of public-interest risk and proportionality of sanctions.

8. Statement of review rights (Administrative Review Tribunal).

How the Academic Mentor Guided the Student 

1. Clarify the brief and scope

What was done: The mentor ensured the student understood the task: to analyse complaints, apply the Code provisions, and produce legally grounded findings.
Why it matters: Accurate scope prevents omission of mandatory statutory elements (e.g., s 58(2) 28-day rule).

2. Extract and map the legislation

What was done: The mentor had the student list each statutory provision cited in the brief (s 13, 14, 15, 16, 22, 58) and write a one-sentence summary of its legal test/requirement.
Why it matters: Mapping turned the legislative framework into a checklist for later application.

3. Build a precise chronology of facts

What was done: The student created a timeline (e.g., A.K. ceased acting 1 Mar 2025; Dept letter 10 Mar; email received 11 Mar; forwarded 12 Apr; social post 22 Jan; emails 20 Feb; assurance 5 Feb).
Why it matters: Chronology identified timing issues (critical for s 58(2) 28-day rule and for evaluating misleading assurances).

4. Identify the legal issue for each allegation

What was done: For each complaint the mentor asked: “Which section addresses this?” and “What must be proved?” The student paired facts to legal elements (e.g., delayed forwarding → s 58; no hard copies → s 22(b)).
Why it matters: This produces focused legal questions and avoids conflating facts with conclusions.

5. Apply law to facts (structured analysis)

What was done: The student drafted concise application paragraphs: state the element, cite the relevant facts, explain why the facts meet (or do not meet) the element, and reach a finding. The mentor reviewed for logical flow and evidential sufficiency.
Example: s 58(2) requires forwarding within 28 days facts show forwarding after >28 days → breach.
Why it matters: This step is the core legal reasoning; the mentor emphasised direct linkage between statutory text and evidence.

6. Draft findings and reasoning

What was done: Using the applied analyses, the student wrote the formal findings section mirroring tribunal style: short factual statement followed by legal conclusion and brief rationale for each section (s 58, s 22, s 13, s 14, s 15, s 16). The mentor ensured neutrality, clarity, and correct use of legal language (e.g., “I find a breach” vs. “appears to be a breach”).
Why it matters: Clear, authoritative findings are necessary for enforceability and procedural fairness in administrative decisions.

7. Reach overall conclusions and remedies

What was done: The mentor guided the student to assess public-interest harm and to adopt the Department’s policy stance where appropriate, then state sanctions and review rights succinctly.
Why it matters: Conclusions tie together discrete findings into a policy and remedial outcome.

8. Quality check and presentation

What was done: Final review for consistency, correct dates, citation of statutory subsections, and a readable structure (Background → Legislative framework → Findings → Overall conclusions → Review rights). Mentor recommended plain-language phrasing for accessibility.
Why it matters: Professional presentation improves comprehension for non-legal stakeholders and supports administrative processes.

How the Outcome Was Achieved & Learning Objectives Covered

How the outcome was achieved

• Systematic mapping of legislation to facts ensured no statutory element was overlooked.

• A precise chronology made time-sensitive obligations (s 58) immediately determinative.

• Structured application (element → facts → reasoning → finding) produced legally defensible conclusions.

• Mentor checks ensured neutral, authoritative drafting and adherence to administrative decision conventions.

Learning objectives covered

1. Ability to identify and summarise relevant statutory provisions.

2. Skill in constructing and using factual chronologies for legal analysis.

3. Competence in applying statutory tests to concrete facts and reaching reasoned findings.

4. Understanding of professional standards and regulatory enforcement for migration agents.

5. Development of clear administrative drafting and presentation skills.

6. Appreciation of procedural outcomes (sanctions, review rights) and the public-interest rationale behind regulatory action.

Get Inspired by This Sample – But Don’t Risk Your Grades!

Looking to understand how to structure and write your own assignment? This professionally written sample solution is a great academic reference to help you grasp key concepts, formatting styles, and citation techniques.

However, please remember that submitting this sample as your own work is considered plagiarism and can lead to serious academic penalties. The file is provided strictly for study and reference purposes only.

If you need a fresh, 100% original, and plagiarism-free assignment, our team of qualified academic writers can craft a custom solution tailored to your specific requirements, topic, and university guidelines. Every order is written from scratch and checked with advanced plagiarism tools to ensure authenticity and academic integrity.

Why Choose a Freshly Written Assignment?

• Custom-written by subject experts

• Guaranteed 100% plagiarism-free and confidential

• Aligned with your specific assessment criteria

• Delivered on time with full referencing support