Scenario: You are a junior RMA at Wombat Migration. Wombat Migration is owned by Alison Hood, a registered agent. Paul Moore, a client of the firm who you assisted in the past, was granted a subclass 482 visa on 1 August 2020 valid to 1 August 2022. He was sponsored by his employer, Environmental Drilling Pty Ltd. Included in his application was his spouse, Katrina Moore, and daughter Kiki Moore. On 1 July 2022 you lodged another 482 nomination and application covering Paul, and his daughter Kiki. Paul had advised you that his wife was not to be included, as they are separated. As part of the application, you were provided with a form 1229 signed by both Paul and Katrina. This form is normally required when a minor child is included in a visa application, but one (or both) responsible parents are not. When you lodged the application BVAs for Paul and Kiki were granted and you forwarded these to Paul.

You undertook all work on the case, and were identified in the nomination and visa application. On 15th August, you receive an email from Katrina Moore. She has just done a VEVO check on herself. It indicated that she does not have a valid visa. She says she has a bridging visa grant with her name on that indicates she holds a BVA on the basis that she was included as a dependent in a 482 application lodged 1 July 2022. She asks if you can clarify the situation, and confirm whether she was included in the application. She gives you permission to check her visa status, and emails the visa grant document to you. She includes all her current contact details, including her residential address, in the email. The VEVO check reveals that she is an unlawful non-citizen. The BVA grant letter she forwards to you has obvious signs of alteration, where her name has been inserted. Apart from her details, it appears to be identical to the BVA grant letter you forwarded to Paul Moore, with identical reference numbers. The letter also includes the name of the sponsoring company and your name. You conclude that it is a bogus document.

3. Alison responds to your memo suggesting that there are no obligations owed to Katrina Moore as 'She was not our client, and even if she was, she no longer is'. She notes that a representative of Environmental Drilling Pty Ltd signed a client agreement and paid all fees, and Paul Moore signed a client agreement, and all communication was through him. Need a response to Alison in the form of a memo explaining who is and was your client. Refer to the relevant legislation.