Monica Gruszka: migration agent, podcast host suspended over code of conduct breaches

A migration agent who hosts a popular podcast providing immigration advice has been issued a three year ban from the industry following findings of code of conduct breaches:

A migration agent who hosts a popular podcast providing immigration advice has been issued a three year ban from the industry after findings of code of conduct breaches including misleading clients.

The Office of the Migration Agents Registration Authority issued the reprimand to Monica Christine Gruszka following an investigation into services she provided to three clients between 2018 and 2021.

The regulator found Ms Gruszka failed to act on client instructions, submitted applications without her clients’ instruction, knowledge or consent, failed to display a sound working knowledge of migration law, and engaged in conduct that resulted in a client becoming an unlawful non-citizen.

Monica Gruszka

She also acted in a manner that “unnecessarily increased the cost” for her clients, failed to act in the legitimate interest of her clients, misled her clients throughout the processing of their applications, and failed to respond to requests of information from the regulator and the Department of Home Affairs.

Ms Gruszka, who has worked as a migration agent since 2017, is the principal director of Sydney-based migration firm Gruszka and Associates.

She also co-hosts a popular ‘Migration Show’ podcast which has been broadcasting migration advice for the last five years.

The investigation was prompted by three complaints including from one client who was left chasing a refund after his lengthy visa application process ended with him living unlawfully in Australia for 15 months.

The regulator heard the client contacted Ms Gruszka for help with a new student visa application last year but was advised by Ms Gruszka to instead apply for a trainee subclass 407 visa.

The suspension decision was handed down on Thursday.

Ms Gruszka went on to lodge a tourist visa application on behalf of the client – which the regular found was “presumably” an attempt to provide him with a substantive visa so he could then apply for a training visa.

The tourist visa application was later deemed invalid by the Department of Home Affairs.

The client told the regulator he immediately contacted Ms Gruszka and was told ‘he should not worry’ as he was living in Australia on a bridging visa – which had already expired by that time.

After further attempts to contact Ms Gruszka, the client went on to seek advice from a separate immigration lawyer who advised him he had been living unlawfully in Australia since the time his student visa application was withdrawn – some 15 months earlier.

The client told the regulator he has tried to contact Ms Gruszka for a refund for the $9665 he paid for her services but has not been successful.

The investigation also focused on another client who was living in Australia on a partner’s visa and contacted Ms Gruszka in 2018 after his relationship broke down

The decision was handed down by the Office of the Migration Agents Registration Authority.

The client – who paid $2000 in cash for Ms Gruszka’s services – originally sought assistance with applying for a new student visa but said he was advised to instead pursue a family violence claim and a separate partner visa to achieve permanent residence.

The regulator, in its decision, found Ms Gruszka “deprived the client of an opportunity to lodge a viable student visa” and drew him into an appeal process relating to the partner visa in which he represented himself in court with “no reasonable prospects of success”.

The regulator further heard he often had difficulty receiving any responses from Ms Gruszka and felt under “constant stress as he was unaware of his visa status or his prospects of success”.

He also handed over the original copy of graduation certificates to Ms Gruszka to assess whether he could be eligible for a student visa which were never returned to him and “appeared to be lost”.

“The agent’s advice demonstrated a lack of knowledge of migration legislation, a lack of attention to her client’s best interests and a deliberate attempted manipulation of the visa application, merits, and judicial review process to achieve a collateral objective,” the regulator said in its decision.

Another client, who sought a standard business sponsor visa, had their application refused after Ms Gruszka did not provide information requested by the Department of Home Affairs.

A month after the refusal, Ms Gruszka told the client the chances of success had improved and charged him for a second application which was not lodged by the department’s deadline.

The client later ended his agreement with Ms Gruszka and unsuccessfully tried to request a refund for the $4850 he paid for her services.

Ms Gruszka, in a submission to the investigation, said her strategy for the first client was to try and “save” him from having his visa cancelled which would make him unlawful in Australia.

She said the second client was “clear on the instructions to pursue a domestic violence” claim and that she explained to him her jurisdiction as a registered migration agent meant she was not able represent him during legal appeal proceedings.

Ms Gruszka said she also has employees who rely on her for their jobs, provided many contributions to the migration advice professions, offered free training seminars during the Covid-19 pandemic, assisted other migration agents with complex matters and championed women in the industry.

In its decision, the regulator found Ms Gruszka breached 15 separate code of conduct clauses and was not to be “fit and proper person to give immigration assistance”.

“Clients of migration agents can be among the most vulnerable individuals. As such, the position of migration agent is one of significant trust and therefore requires a high level of moral character,” the regulator said.

“The behaviour demonstrated by the (Ms Gruszka) falls short of the reasonably expected standards of a registered migration agent.

“I am satisfied that if the (Ms Gruszka) were to continue to practise as a registered migration agent (she) would not demonstrate the requisite skills expected of a registered migration agent.

“I consider that a disciplinary decision is warranted and that (Ms Gruszka) requires further education and training to address the conduct the subject of this decision, and in the interests of consumer protection.”

NewsLocal contacted Ms Gruszka for further comment but did not receive a response at the time of publication.

Editors note: Ms Gruszka lodged an application for review of the authority’s decision with the Administrative Appeals Tribunal on June 10. The Tribunal issued an interim stay of the suspension on June 15. On June 23, the tribunal ordered that the reviewable decision be stayed until the hearing and determination of the review.