Rewarding Fraud: Open Season for Australian Migration Agents

(Case File: Sharma v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs & Anor — SYG1613/2023, before Judicial Registrar Samuel Cummings)

A Human Rights Perspective

Fraud in the migration system is not just an administrative hiccup — it is a direct assault on fairness, truth, and the rule of law. Yet on 25 September 2025, before Judicial Registrar Samuel Cummings in the Federal Circuit and Family Court, the Minister for Immigration and the legal counsel for Parminder Kaur and her company, Advise 365 Pty Ltd, agreed that migration agents accused of public fraud should not be joined as parties in judicial review proceedings.

For a human rights defender, this raises a fundamental question: how can remedies be effective or meaningful when those accused of fraud remain outside the courtroom?

The Court’s Rules Say Otherwise

The Federal Circuit and Family Court (Division 2) Rules are clear: any party whose rights and interests are directly affected must be included in proceedings to ensure all issues can be resolved. Joinder is not a luxury. It is a necessity for justice.

Yet despite these rules, counsel for the proposed respondent argued that in his 30-year career he has never seen a migration agent joined. Judicial Registrar Cummings echoed this, recalling more than 4,000 cases without such an occurrence. Together, they suggested the “proper path” is simply to subpoena an agent to give evidence.

Why Subpoenas Fail Victims

But where is the case — in all those thousands — where a migration agent accused of fraud was subpoenaed by a victim and then provided honest, incriminating testimony? None were offered. None exist.

Relying on subpoenas in this way is like asking a thief to testify against himself. The system assumes that those accused will voluntarily give evidence that could expose their own wrongdoing. That assumption is not justice — it is fantasy.

A Reward for Fraudulent Agents

What happened on 25 September 2025 was not merely a procedural choice. It was a reward. Migration agents accused of fraud now know they can avoid accountability by hiding behind the Minister’s statutory shield and the Tribunal’s narrow approach to fraud as a “contractual” matter rather than fraud on public law.

The outcome is that visa applicants must carry the burden alone, forced into credibility contests without the benefit of competing evidence from those who orchestrated the fraud. The Minister, meanwhile, strengthens his position by ensuring the very actors accused of misconduct are absent from the courtroom.

Why Declaratory Relief Matters

An effective human rights remedy must do more than remit matters back to the Tribunal. Declaratory relief has utility: it guides the Tribunal, the Migration Agents Registration Authority, and the wider system by making judicial findings on fraud in public law. Without it, victims are left in a revolving door of litigation, with issues never squarely addressed.

The Human Rights Concern

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights requires that remedies be “effective and meaningful.” A policy that excludes those accused of fraud from being joined as parties fails that test. It leaves victims vulnerable and ensures that systemic fraud on the migration system cannot be fixed.

Fraudsters walk free, while applicants carry the stain of “indifference.” This is not a technical flaw. It is a breach of human rights that corrodes trust in our legal system and, by extension, our democracy.