SASAKI v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF BUSINESS, INNOVATION AND EMPLOYMENT [2023] NZHC 593

SASAKI v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF BUSINESS, INNOVATION AND EMPLOYMENT[2023] NZHC 593 [27 June 2023]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDAUCKLAND REGISTRYI TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROATĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHECIV-2022-404-001848[2023] NZHC 539UNDER Judicial Review Procedure Act 2016IN THE MATTER OF Application for Judicial Review of thedecision made under the Immigration Act2009BETWEEN TAKESHI SASAKIApplicantAND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRYOF BUSINESS, INNOVATION ANDEMPLOYMENTRespondentHearing:Furthersubmissions:16 March 202323 March, 27 March and 29 March 2023Appearances: M Kim for the ApplicantA Britton for the RespondentJudgment: 27 June 2023JUDGMENT OF WHATA JThis judgment was delivered by me on 27 June 2023 at 4.00 pm,pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.Registrar/Deputy RegistrarDate: .Solicitors:MK Law Barristers & Solicitors, AucklandCrown Law, Wellington[1] In 2020 Mr Sasaki obtained a work visa to work as a head chef of a group ofJapanese restaurants. Having received advice that Mr Sasaki was in fact employed asa manager or a higher position than head chef, Immigration New Zealand (INZ) issueda Deportation Liability Notice (DLN) to Mr Sasaki. Mr Sasaki sought a Good ReasonReview (GRR) of that notice under s 157(2) of the Immigration Act 2009 (The Act).His matter was then reviewed by a compliance officer who decided that Mr Sasakiwas a "restaurant manager" or higher and therefore working outside the conditions ofhis visa. A Deportation Order was then issued.[2] Mr Sasaki seeks to judicially review the Good Reason Review decision andDeportation Order on two main grounds:(a) INZ erred in law when assessing whether Mr Sasaki was working inbreach of conditions on his work visa.(b) INZ acted unfairly by not giving Mr Sasaki an opportunity to commentbefore issuing the DLN.Process[3] At the hearing it became evident that the statement of claim may need to beamended to address two key aspects of Mr Sasaki's complaint. His counsel advisedthat the affidavit evidence revealed that information had been supplied to INZ that wasadverse to his interests but that this information was not disclosed to Mr Sasaki. Inaddition, Mr Kim effectively sought to have the DLN decision reversed, but this reliefhad not been sought in the pleadings. Leave was granted to file a memorandum onthe amendments sought within five days of the hearing, with a right of reply five daysthereafter.[4] It transpires that the information was disclosed to Mr Sasaki, so no amendmentto the pleadings was necessary. In relation to the DLN decision, the respondent doesnot oppose amending the pleadings to the effect that there was a failure to informMr Sasaki of its investigation prior to issuing the DLN. However, the respondent doesnot accept that Mr Sasaki should be able to amend the pleadings so that he canchallenge the vires of the DLN, because that is a fundamental change of position andunfairly prejudicial to INZ. It is also submitted that the claim is futile in any event,given the standard for such a challenge is Wednesbury unreasonableness.[5] I am content to allow the pleadings to be amended as now sought by Mr Sasaki.While the proposed changes are very late, INZ was able to mount an effective case atthe hearing, and in subsequent submissions, in respect of the key alleged error namely,the failure to inform Mr Sasaki of the investigation. Given the significance of theoutcome to Mr Sasaki, I consider that it is in the interests of justice for the pleadingsto be amended to enable challenge the vires of the DLN. I also consider it moreefficient and just to deal with DLN claims in light of all the evidence rather thanperemptorily.Background[6] Mr Takeshi Sasaki and his wife, Ms Akane Sasaki, are Japanese nationals.They each obtained a working visa to work as "chefs" in New Zealand in 2018.1In January 2021 Mr Sasaki was promoted by his employer, First Pacific Capital NewZealand Limited (FPCNZ), to Head Chef. The employment agreement for this newposition records relevantly the following job summary:Position: Head ChefJob Summary: You are responsible for leading the kitchen staff to develop andproduce dishes to maximise customer satisfaction, and for contributing togenerating profit for employer[7] It also lists a number of key duties and responsibilities including the trainingand development of kitchen staff, preparation of dishes, direction for all day to dayoperation in the kitchen, monitoring stock levels, analysing expenses, providingsolutions for cost reduction, providing guidance and direction to subordinates,including the setting of performance standards and monitoring performance.The duties also include:• Reviews staffing levels to ensure that guest service, operational needsand financial objects are met1 Mrs Sasaki was also served with a DLN, but after consideration of her GRR submission, the DLNwas cancelled.• Any other duties the employer may reasonably require.[8] The employment agreement also records :Requirements:• Minimum 3-year work experience as a chef in a senior position in acommercial kitchen• Leadership• Excellent communication skills and customer skills• Ability to create new, seasonal dishes• Ability to work under pressure.[9] It refers to other capabilities required in terms of knowledge, skills,management/improvement, and other responsibilities. The responsibilities includemaintaining production or work records, modifying work procedures or processes tomeet deadlines, and directing and co-ordinating activities of other staff.[10] On 14 February, 18 February and 1 March, 9 March, 11 March, 12 March 2020,Mr Sasaki is represented as "General Manager" and or "Operation Manager" inapplications for other employees, including a Full Time Chef, a Chef Assistant, and aChef de partie.[11] Various organisational charts show Mr Sasaki in the position of GeneralManager, including the following:[12] Mr Sasaki did not in fact apply for a new working visa based on his role asHead Chef until February 2021. A copy of his offer of employment dated January2020 but signed on 11 January 2021, was included with the application. On 17 March2021 Mr Sasaki was granted a visa based on his job offer as the Head Chef.The conditions of the visa included as requirement that he work only as a Head Chefin Wellington for FPCNZ.[13] Mr Sasaki then applied for a work to residence visa in April 2021. In followup correspondence of 17 July 2021, Mr Sasaki records that he was Chef de partie fromNovember 2019 to December 2020, and Head Chef from January 2021 to the present.His application for a Long Term Skill Short List Occupation (work to residency) visawas declined on 5 August 2021.[14] In October 2021, INZ received an anonymous complaint that Mr Sasaki wasin breach of his visa terms. This triggered an investigation by INZ. This was managedby Ms Tania Johnston, an immigration officer. The investigation included review ofbackground documents, a telephone conversation with an FPCNZ employee,Ms Morimoto, in February 2022, open internet searches, correspondence with thelocal Council, and a visit to two of the company's restaurants.[15] According to Officer Johnston, Ms Morimoto initially advised that Mr Sasakiwas her 'boss" but subsequently rang back and said he was not her boss, but a chef.Officer Johnston also noted that Mr Sasaki was referred to as "General Manager" or"Operation Manager" or "Manager" in the documentation she obtained. Interviewswith staff are also said to have revealed that Mr Sasaki was referred to by a staffmember, Ms Ono, initially as "general manager" but then, after speaking to Mr Sasaki,referred to him as a "chef".[16] Based on the information obtained, Officer Johnston issued the DLN on 17June 2022. Mr Sasaki responded with a request via his solicitor, Mr Kim, for the GRRon 1 July 2022. Mr Sasaki signalled that the evidence used to support the DLN wasflawed. In further correspondence dated 11 July 2022, Mr Sasaki signalled that thesignatures attributed to him on company documents did not match his own andappeared to be electronic impressions. However, INZ say nothing further wasprovided in support of this claim. On 31 August, after an extended period to enablefurther information to be provided, a Senior Compliance Officer Mr Aiden Rolls madethe GRR decision, upholding the DLN.[17] In the GRR decision Officer Rolls refers to the company structure. He findsthat by reference to the FPNCNZ organisational charts Mr Sasaki occupies, asHead Chef, a senior role in the company. He also notes that "Head Chef" isinconsistent with the ANZSCO definition of a chef. He observes that there are nopositions above the Head Chef role in New Zealand. He refers to advice received fromMr Kim that Mr Sasaki was asked to assume some senior management responsibilitiesin 2020 and was promoted to Head Chef position in March 2021. Officer Rollsidentifies documentation submitted in 2020 in respect of other persons' applicationsspecified Mr Sasaki as an "operation manager" or "general manager". He finds:The existence of these different organisational titles for Takeshi at this timeidentify a discrepancy between how he was referred to internally, and how hisposition at FPCNZ was represented to INZ in respect of his own visaapplications.[18] Officer Rolls also found that is more likely that Mr Sasaki continues to operatein this capacity. He then refers to a letter dated 3 August 2022 from a FPCNZadministrator which lists Mr Sasaki's roles and that he works only 25 hours per weekin the kitchen, while Mr Kim has stated he is able to also perform his role as HeadChef. This is said to be a variation from the 40 hours recorded in the Head Chefemployment agreement that was submitted for his February 2021 work visaapplication. Officer Rolls found that:[s]uch a variation lends weight to the contention that Takeshi is not workingfull-time in the role his visa was approved for and continues to work outsidethe conditions of his visa.[19] He then observes:You have submitted that it is not the job title used but it is the real nature ofthe persons employment that is important in determining whether a person isin breach of their visa conditions. This is a critical point and in considerationof your submission and the supporting evidence, I find that Takeshi's positionis that of a restaurant manager or higher, given the number of restaurants thatoperate within the FPNZC business and the organisational structure that it has.[20] In relation to Mr Sasaki's complaint of unfair process in that he was not giventhe opportunity to comment on the information supplied to INZ, Officer Rolls findsthat sufficient evidence to substantiate the allegation was collected and to meet thethreshold for the DLN to be issued. Overall, he finds that it is more likely thatMr Sasaki was working outside the conditions of his working visa and does not acceptthat there are good reasons why deportation should not proceed.Affidavit evidence for Mr Sasaki[21] The following briefs of evidence were filed in support of Mr Sasaki'sapplication; Affidavits of the Applicant, Affidavit of Shuku Morimoto, and theAffidavit of Kokoro Higuchi.[22] Mr Sasaki's affidavit evidence covered his employment history in NewZealand noting his increase in administrative responsibilities due to the COVID-19pandemic. He notes working in different branches of FPCNZ in their kitchens as wellas "dealing with my management duties". Mr Sasaki describes how the staff thatstated he was the "general manager" were mistaken as he was only the "acting generalmanager". He also suggests his signatures were electronically created and usedinappropriately. Mr Sasaki notes that it is his view that the officer who issued the DLNdid not understand that his job description set out all the duties he was responsible forand that it is common in the hospitality industry for the Head Chef to be in an executiveposition, reporting directly to the owner of the company.[23] Shuku Morimoto's affidavit outlines her view of the phone call she had withTania Johnston of INZ in February 2022. She notes that she said Mr Sasaki was herboss "because he was my superior, who recruited me in December 2021, and I wasnew to the company then." Ms Morimoto noted her surprise at hearing INZ believedshe changed her reference to Mr Sasaki from "boss" to "head chef" and said thatMr Sasaki did not ask her to correct what she said about him being her boss. She statesthat INZ may have misunderstood me.[24] Kokoro Higuchi's affidavit outlines his view of Mr Sasaki's working hours.Mr Higuchi states that Mr Sasaki "was 'sekininsha' and head chef". He noted thatMr Sasaki worked 20 to 25 hours per week mainly on the weekend and that these hoursare recorded in the wages and time records. Mr Higuchi notes Mr Sasaki worked atthe Cuba and Courteney branches on some weekend days. He notes thatMr Michael Tjahjadi who told INZ officials that he had not seen Mr Sasaki at theCourteney branch was only working part time during the weekdays and that this wasthe reason why he had not seen Mr Sasaki at the Courteney branch before.Agreed working visa[25] In terms of the deportation liability in this case, Mr Britton advises that the visaunder scrutiny is the March 2021 "Head Chef" visa and whether Mr Sasaki acted inbreach of the conditions of that visa.ANZCO definitions[26] Given their relevance to the issues in dispute, I set out here the ANZSCOdefinitions for "chef" and "restaurant manager":(a) Chefs: "Chefs plan and organise the preparation and cooking of food indining and catering establishments. Cooks, Fast Food Cooks andKitchenhands are excluded from this unit group."(b) Restaurant Manager: "Cafe and Restaurant Managers organise andcontrol the operations of cafes, restaurants and related establishmentsto provide dining and catering services."Statutory Framework[27] Section 58 of the Act imposes an obligation on the applicant for a working visato ensure all relevant information is supplied to INZ and to notify of any relevant fact,including any material change in circumstances.[28] Section 157 of the Act states:157 Deportation liability of temporary entry class visa holder for cause(1) A temporary entry class visa holder is liable for deportation if theMinister determines that there is sufficient reason to deport the temporaryentry class visa holder.(2) The person has 14 days from the date of service of the deportationliability notice to give good reason why deportation should not proceed.(3) Subsection (2) does not apply if—(a) the person is the holder of a limited visa; or(b) the Minister determines that the person is an excluded person.(4) A temporary visa holder or interim visa holder who is liable for deportationunder this section may, not later than 28 days after the date of service of adeportation liability notice, appeal to the Tribunal on humanitarian grounds againsthis or her liability for deportation.(5) For the purposes of subsection (1), sufficient reason includes, but is notlimited to,—(a) breach of conditions of the person's visa:(b) criminal offending:(c) other matters relating to character:(d) concealing relevant information in relation to the person'sapplication for a visa:(e) a situation where the person's circumstances no longer meet therules or criteria under which the visa was granted.[29] As Edwards J stated in Singh:[16] The scheme set out by s 157 states that a temporary entry class visaholder is liable for deportation if there is "sufficient reason" to deport. Then,under subs (2), the visa holder has 14 days from the date of the service of thedeportation liability notice to give "good reason" why deportation should notproceed. If an officer determines there is good reason, deportation liabilitymay be cancelled under s 172 of the Act.[17] Section 157 is in pt 6 of the Act, which deals with deportation. Thepurpose of pt 6 is:2 to support the integrity of New Zealand's immigration system andthe security of New Zealand by providing for the deportation ofcertain persons from New Zealand.[18] Immigration instruction D3.70 sets out the process to be undertakenwhen a person provides reasons why they should not be deported inaccordance with s 157(2). Those instructions provide that consideration ofany submissions must be done by a different officer than the officer whoserved the DLN. The officer must also take into account the objective of theImmigration instructions, which is to maintain the integrity of New Zealand'simmigration law and other immigration requirements.[30] It is common ground there must be a "sufficiently strong factual basis" todeport Mr Sasaki in order to uphold a DLN.2Threshold for review[31] This is an application for judicial review. To succeed Mr Sasaki must identifya material error of law, failure to have regard to relevant considerations, regard toirrelevant matters, procedural unfairness, or irrationality.3 It is not an opportunity totest the merits of a factual evaluation, provided there was some proper evidential basisfor the decision.4 While the law is not entirely settled on the nature of the reviewexercise in this context, I am content to proceed on the basis stated in Hu, namely that2 Taito v Minister of Immigration [2014] NZHC 1897 at [24].3 Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [1985] AC 374 (HL); and Petersv Davison [1992] 2 NZLR 164 (CA) at 180.4 Singh v Chief Executive of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment [2021] NZHC2954 at [62].a "decision may be unreasonable if it is not supported by any evidence, or if theevidence is inconsistent with or contradictory of it, or if the only reasonable conclusioncontradicts the determination."5 Overall, I must be satisfied that INZ met the statutoryand procedural pre-conditions for making the GRR decision, and upholding the DLN.6Error of lawArgument[32] Mr Kim submits that INZ has an obligation to consider a person's argumentsand evidence presented and to make a fair and impartial decision based on all relevantfactors and that it must adopt a balanced approach that aligns with the dual purposesset out in the Act. He says INZ must also act fairly and in accordance with principlesof natural justice,7 and that this requires a party to be given an opportunity to respondto allegations which might be effectively refuted.[33] He identifies what he considers is relevant information, including:(a) timesheets showing an average working week of 27 hours in thekitchens only of FCPNZ in Wellington between 28 February to August2022; and(b) evidence of his attendance to other non-kitchen duties such as planningmenus and reviewing recipes.[34] He challenges INZ's finding that Mr Sasaki worked outside of his work visacondition referring to WK3.20.2 which states:WK3.20.2 Assessment that employment substantially matches an ANZSCOoccupationa. When assessing whether an offer of employment substantially matches aparticular occupation in the ANZSCO, an immigration officer must besatisfied that the duties and responsibilities in the employment offer match thedescription of that occupation as set out in the ANZSCO.5 Hu v Immigration and Protection Tribunal [2017] NZHC 41, [2017] NZAR 508 at [30].6 McGrath v Accident Compensation [2011] NZSC 77, [2011] 3 NZLR 733 at [31].7 Referring to Ali v Deportation Review Tribunal [1997] NZAR 208.b. Where related occupations are described by the same task list in theANZSCO, an immigration officer may disregard tasks not relevant to theoccupation that most closely matches the employment offered.[35] He contends:(a) INZ did not undertake a fair and impartial assessment as required byWK3.20.2.(b) INZ was wrong to assume because he was recorded as having onlyworked 25 hours per week in the kitchen, he was not otherwiseperforming a full-time role as Head Chef.(c) INZ failed to give due consideration to the actual duties andresponsibilities of Mr Sasaki and or identify the specific tasks that heperformed outside his job description.(d) INZ failed to properly address his claim that the signatures on theEmployment forms were electronic signatures.(e) INZ relied on statements by persons who were not familiar withMr Sasaki's duties or who gave ambiguous information aboutMr Sasaki.8(f) Doing additional duties is not a breach of the working visa conditions.(g) INZ undertook an open source, but misinformed, investigation intoMr Sasaki's previous employment.[36] He also notes that a "Head Chef" as described in the Restaurant Associationincludes managerial responsibility and in discussion with me was happy to adopt theproposition that it was necessary for INZ to properly identify what a Head Chef didand did not do this.8 Referring in particular to the statements made by Haruka Ono and Michael Tjahadi.[37] Taken together, these factors are said to show that INZ erred in terms of theGRR decision, and that the decision reached was not open to INZ on the evidence andto a fair and reasonable decision maker.[38] Mr Britton for the respondent submits that INZ enjoys a broad discretion todeport in this context and that there need only be a "sufficient reason". He says therewas plainly sufficient reason available to INZ to issue the DLN and to decline tocancel. There was evidence that he had failed to inform INZ of his actual role, that isas a restaurant manager or higher; and that his actual role was inconsistent with thedefinition of "chef" set out in the Australia and New Zealand Standard Classificationof Occupation (ANZSCO) and it was open to INZ to find that Mr Sasaki failed todisplace it with a sufficiently strong factual basis.[39] Mr Britton submits INZ is not required to go beyond the ANZSCO definitionsto identify the specific tasks that Mr Sasaki performed outside the job descriptionbefore concluding that he was working in breach of his work visa condition. He saysthere was no misunderstanding, cultural or otherwise, about the conditions of hisworking visa, namely that he was to be a chef and not a restaurant manager. He alsocontends that Mr Sasaki is effectively seeking to challenge the factual findings madeby the INZ Officer.Analysis[40] I address issues of alleged procedural unfairness below, but as a preliminarypoint, I see nothing on the face of the GRR to suggest that Officer Rolls failed todischarge his responsibilities impartially.[41] In terms of alleged error of law, the key issue in this case is whetherOfficer Rolls assessed compliance with the working visa conditions against the correctlegal standard, namely the work visa condition that Mr Sasaki work as a "Head Chef"as that role is described in the working visa application. In this regard, the Officer'smain findings were:(a) Officer Rolls identified that Mr Sasaki was working as a Head Chef,with managerial responsibilities.(b) He referred to evidence that Mr Sasaki only worked about 25 hours aweek in the kitchen, not 40 hours per week as head chef as stipulatedin his application.(c) He identified the role and functions performed by a "chef" which islimited to largely kitchen duties.(d) He referred to evidence that suggested that Mr Sasaki worked as a"restaurant manager" or higher given the number of restaurants thatoperate within the FPCNZ business and the organisational structure thatit has.[42] I am satisfied that the Officer turned his mind to the correct legal standard.While he placed some emphasis on the definition of "chef" in the ANZSCO and didnot give a blow by blow analysis of the visa application, he plainly benchmarked hisassessment by reference to the visa application description of Head Chef. Moreover,whatever the precise definition of the role of "Head Chef" in the working visaapplication, it did not involve the higher level of managerial responsibility thatOfficer Rolls found Mr Sasaki undertook.[43] As to Officer Roll's assessment of Mr Sasaki's position, based on the availableevidence, it was plainly open to him to come to the conclusions that he did. There wasclear evidence before the Officer that Mr Sasaki was performing a high-levelmanagerial role while claiming to be a Head Chef with relatively limited kitchenrelated managerial functions. This included employer reference letters signed inMr Sasaki's name referring to him as occupying senior management positions as wellas statements from former employees referring to him as a "general manager".Mr Kim's complaint that the letters were signed with "electronic signatures" isuncorroborated by expert evidence. There was therefore nothing unreasonable in theOfficer's conclusions as to the role played by Mr Sasaki based on the informationbefore him.[44] I have considered whether there is cultural dimension to this case that mightcast a different light on the available evidence. The case for Mr Sasaki is that he wasa "sekininsha" and that this translates to first in charge/manager, but this fact is notinconsistent with his role as Head Chef. Mr Kim says that this explains why staff mayhave referred to him as general manager without meaning to suggest some moreelevated role. I accept there is room for this cultural misunderstanding. There is theevidence of the employees that supports, in part, a finding that they may havemisdescribed his role. But, even with the evidence of what the employees said strippedaway, on the available evidence as a whole, it was clearly available to INZ to findMr Sasaki was performing a high-level general restaurant managerial role in breachof the conditions of his working visa.[45] Accordingly, Officer Rolls' finding that Mr Sasaki operated as a restaurantmanager was plainly available to him. It was also available to him to find thatMr Sasaki did not comply with his work visa condition to work as a "Head Chef" asdescribed in his working visa application.[46] This ground of review is therefore dismissed.Unfairness[47] Mr Sasaki claims:(a) He should have been informed of the case against him and given theopportunity to comment on adverse information supplied or obtainedby INZ prior to the DLN.(b) He was not given an opportunity to comment on it, even though theissuance of the DLN removed his right to appeal to the ImmigrationTribunal.(c) The DLN decision was and is reviewable, notwithstanding that he hasnow exercised his GRR rights of review.(d) The information obtained by the INZ was flawed, for example:(i) Mr Sasaki alleges the signatures on the applications wereeffectively forged and should not have been relied upon at anystage, and(ii) the information received through investigations was obtainedfrom ill-informed or confused people.(e) Information obtained by INZ prior to the DLN decision about previouswork was also flawed (Officer Johnston wrongly assumed that hisprevious employment did not have a restaurant when it did).(f) INZ should have at least interviewed Mr Sasaki.[48] Mr Britton accepts that a DLN is reviewable, and Mr Sasaki could haveexercised his right of review instead of seeking a GRR. However, he maintains thatthe GRR process cured any prior breach of natural justice. Mr Britton objected to thestatement of claim being amended to enable a direct challenge to the DLN. For thereasons already noted, I am content to assess the claimed reviewability of the DLNand more broadly, the alleged unfairness.Analysis[49] Edwards J noted in Singh, "[n]atural justice requires a party to be given anopportunity to respond to allegations which might be effectively refuted."9 As ageneral proposition, that basic point is trite. But the availability of relief by way ofjudicial review for breach of natural justice will depend on context.10 In this case thereis a purpose-built procedure for challenging flawed DLN decisions prescribed by s 157of the Act in the form of the GRR process. While judicial review of a DLN decisionis not expressly precluded by the statutory scheme, the GRR process was triggered inthis case. Any prior breach of natural justice was capable of being addressed in thatreview process, and the key points of concern were also put to the reviewing Officerwho found that there was sufficient evidence to issue the DLN. It does not accordwith this statutory scheme to entertain, on these facts, review of the DLN on breach of9 Singh, above n 4, at [36], citing Khalon v Attorney General [1996] 1 NZLR 458 (HC) at 466.10 Dotcom v United States of America [2014] NZSC 24; [2014] NZLR 335 at [120].natural justice grounds where, as here, those grounds were ventilated through thatGRR process. I therefore dismiss the direct challenge to the DLN.[50] For completeness, nothing I say here should be taken to infer that failure toconsult the affected visa holder prior to a DLN may give rise to reviewable error.I simply proceed on the basis that the GRR process addressed any alleged failure ofthis kind.[51] Turning to the merits, I agree with Mr Britton that Mr Sasaki had ampleopportunity to respond to the allegations about him through the GRR process.As Mr Britton helpfully noted in his submissions:(a) The DLN set out the reasons why INZ considered he was workingoutside his work visa conditions, including documentation that showedhe had been named as "General Manager or Operations Manager" andthat staff referred to him as the "General Manager".(b) Mr Sasaki's counsel sought copies of the materials referred toMr Sasaki as general manager.(c) Mr Sasaki took the opportunity through the GRR to deny the allegationscontained within the DLN.(d) Mr Sasaki, on 11 July 2022, informed INZ of his concerns that thesignatures had been used without his consent, but nothing further wasprovided.(e) After receiving Mr Sasaki's GRR submission, INZ wrote to himrequesting further information and provided a further opportunity torespond. INZ requested a letter referred to in the GRR submission.There was no response.[52] Overall, I am not satisfied that there has been any breach of natural justice.Mr Sasaki was given ample opportunity to put his case, including to identify potentialflaws in the information supplied to INZ.[53] I note as a final matter, the Officer has removed the five-year period ofprohibition that would have applied. He noted that this decision is based on theenvironment the business was operating in at the time and the promulgated value ofMr Sasaki to the business. That would seem a proportionate approach and nothing inthis judgment should be seen as derogating from this aspect of the decision.Result[54] I am satisfied that INZ did not err in law or procedurally when deciding toconfirm the DLN.[55] The application for review is therefore dismissed._____________________Whata J