Last week, Mr. Kang in an unfortunate turn of events for himself, lost his attorney. Proceedings were adjourned yet again to give him an opportunity to find himself new representation, however Mr. Kang arrived at Parramatta Court House without legal aid on Monday morning. 

The witness who took the stand for the whole of the day was a member of management in the 457 section of the Department of Immigration and Border Protection (DIBP). He was questioned in great detail on the processes that an applicant would go through in the lodgement of a visa application, requirements and how the department assesses these applications. The DIBP representative was questioned case by case, and it surfaced that nearly all the visa applications made in association with Mr. Kang had never made it beyond the nomination stage; an employer sponsored visa goes through 3 stages being, a business sponsorship, through to a nomination and finally the visa applicant stage. Plainly, none of the Mr. Kang's alleged victims in these cases had had their visas rejected based on their personal application. 

The reasons as to why did not vary from the previous witness testimonies. Misleading information about the sponsoring businesses were often discovered, with lease documents being provided for different businesses than the sponsor in their respective applications, lack of proof that the business was in trading and inability to demonstrate that the business was able to support the nominated positions. Another common grounds for refusal that was heard in the dissection of files was that the nominations did not appear to be for genuine positions, for example, nomination applications for Customer Service Managers in small restaurants. The DIBP representative stated that this raised flags as one could expect a Customer Service Manager for businesses such as Woolworths and Commonwealth Bank, but not the sponsoring businesses in the applications. He expresses that it is an expectation that the sponsor understands what these nominated positions entail. Despite the many rejections from the DIBP, it seems that Mr. Kang persisted in lodging these applications in a similar manner. Further to this, the prosecution confirms with the DIBP representative that in each and every application and refusal, 28 days grace was given to the to rectify problems or submit further documentation, but no attempts had been made. 

Mr. Kang, who was representing himself, seemed to still be unsure about the boundaries within which he is able to cross examine the witness. He also managed to put himself in the uncomfortable position of having to be reminded by the judge that he is not to speak when the judge is speaking.

The day concluded with Mr. Kang informing the court that a previous representative has agreed to return for his defense case but is only available in August. The judge did not agree to this as the court has already had to suffer multiple occurrences of delays for Mr. Kang and that it would be unreasonable to adjourn this for a further 6 months. The defense case is to begin on 23 May 2016. 

In what was the biggest twist of the day, Mr. Kang approached an investigator from the Department of Fair Trading to inform him that he will be suing the Fair Trading for defamation. Last year, Mr. Kang had made an attempt to sue ABC News for defamation as well, a suit that he lost.