2114115 (Refugee)

[2021] AATA 5237

2114115 (Refugee) [2021] AATA 5237 (20 December 2021)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  2114115

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                   Iraq

MEMBER:Antoinette Younes

DATE:20 December 2021

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision to cancel the applicant’s Subclass 790 (Safe Haven Enterprise) visa.

Statement made on 20 December 2021 at 09:32 AM

CATCHWORDS

REFUGEE – cancellation – protection visa – Iraq – criminal convictions, imprisonment and release on probation – discretion to cancel visa – previous incidents in immigration detention and criminal offences – warning under character test provisions – non-compliance with conditions of visa – failure to notify department of changes of address – circumstances of offending – hardship if visa cancelled – immigration detention and mental health – continuing fear of harm requiring protection – new legislative provisions ensure non-citizen will not be removed if found to engage protection obligations – temporary visa due to expire in any case – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 36, 46A, 48A, 116(1)(g), 189, 195A, 197C(3), 197D, 198, 424AA, 501

Migration Amendment (Clarifying International Obligations for Removal) Act 2021 (Cth),

Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), r 2.43(1)(oa), Schedule 8, condition 8565

CASE

COT15 v MIBP (No 1) (2015) 236 FCR 148

Ibrahim v MHA [2019] FCAFC 89

MIMA v SRT (1999) 91 FCR 234

Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to section 431 of the Migration Act 1958 and replaced with generic information which does not allow the identification of an applicant, or their relative or other dependants.

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

1. This is an application for review of a decision dated 7 October 2021 made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs to cancel the applicant’s Subclass 790 (Safe Haven Enterprise) visa under s 116 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).

2. The delegate cancelled the visa under s 116(1)(g) on the basis that the applicant has been convicted of several offences in New South Wales. The issue in the present case is whether that ground for cancellation is made out, and if so, whether the visa should be cancelled.

3. The applicant, who is in detention, appeared before the Tribunal on 14 December 2021 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Arabic and English languages.

4. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision to cancel the applicant’s visa should be affirmed.

   CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

   Section 116(1)(g) – prescribed ground

5. A visa may be cancelled under s 116(1)(g) if the Minister is satisfied a prescribed ground for cancelling the visa applies to the applicant. The prescribed grounds for cancellation are set out in reg 2.43 of the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations). If satisfied that the ground for cancellation is made out, the decision maker must proceed to consider whether the visa should be cancelled, having regard to all the relevant circumstances, which may include matters of government policy.

6. In the present case, the ground in reg 2.43(1)(oa) is relevant:

   Section 116 provides:

   a.Subject to subsections (2) and (3), the Minister may cancel a visa if he or she is satisfied that:

   …

   (g) a prescribed ground for cancelling a visa applies to the holder.

7. The prescribed grounds for cancellation under s 116(1)(g) are found in reg 2.43(1)(oa) of the Regulations, which provides:

   For the purposes of paragraph 116(1)(g) of the Act (which deals with circumstances in which the Minister may cancel a visa), the grounds prescribed are the following:

   …

   (oa) in the case of the holder of a temporary visa other than a Subclass 050 Bridging (General)) visa, a Subclass 051 (Bridging (Protection Visa Applicant)) visa or a Subclass 444 (Special Category) visa - that the Minister is satisfied that the holder has been convicted of an offence against a law of the Commonwealth, a State or Territory (whether or not the holder held the visa at the time of the conviction and regardless of the penalty imposed (if any)); …

8. During the hearing, the Tribunal discussed with the applicant information contained in the delegate’s decision record, a copy of which the applicant provided to the Tribunal.

9. The delegate’s decision record indicates that the Department has information that [in] January 2018 at the [Location 1] Local Court, the applicant was convicted of larceny, assault occasioning actual bodily harm, contravene prohibition/restriction in AVO (domestic), armed with intent to commit indictable offence, enter vehicle or boat without consent of owner/occupier, shoplifting value < = $2000, and common assault (DV). On that date, the Court imposed s 10a convictions with no other penalty (x 4), imprisonment for 9 months commencing on 27 September 2017 to 26 June 2018 with a non-parole period of 5 months with conditions, commencing on 27 September 2017 to 26 February 2018, and release subject to supervision, (call up) bond s 9 for 12 months, and supervision by the NSW probation service.

10. The delegate’s decision record further indicates that [in] July 2017 at the [Location 1] Local Court, the applicant was convicted of failing to appear in accordance with bail acknowledgement for which he received a s 10a conviction with no other penalty. Moreover, [in] April 2017 at the [Location 1] Local Court, the applicant was convicted of possessing a prohibited drug for which he received a fine of $600.

11. The applicant did not dispute that he has been convicted of the above offences. He offered explanations which are discussed in the relevant parts of this decision.

    NOTICE OF INTENTION TO CONSIDER CANCELLATION (NOICC/NOTICE) AND RESPONSE

12. On 3 May 2018, the Department sent to the applicant a NOICC of the Subclass 790 Safe Haven Enterprise visa based on the above convictions which suggested that s 116(1)(g) is enlivened and he responded on 10 May 2018.

13. In the response of 10 May 2018, the applicant advised:

    Around 2004 – 2005 I escaped Iraq, a war-torn country to Iran. Iran then deported me back to Iraq where I was imprisoned from 2005 – 2010. I was then regularly moved between three countries – Iraq, Kurdistan and Iran. From Iran I sought asylum in [country], from there I was sent to [Detention Centre 1] for four and a half years. All my family are citizens in Australia and I arrived as an asylum seeker seeking refuge in Australia. My mother is currently unwell and if I were to be deported, this would impact on her and the rest of my family greatly. Despite my legal issues and mistakes made, I still have a strong relationship with family members who continue to support me.

    I have no citizenship to any country as I was born in Iran, who did not give me citizenship and was accepted as a refugee here in Australia. If I were to lose my Visa, I would be deported to [Detention Centre 1], where I have previously spent four and a half years. This period of time caused me great mental health issues, particularly spending two years in a safe cell being limited to only one to two hours a day outside. I would have no family support and feel my mental health would further deteriorate greatly if I were to go.

    I hope what I have just written has met the required criteria.

14. On 9 November 2018, the applicant was notified that his visa had been cancelled under s 116(1)(g), but due to a delivery notification error the applicant was renotified of the cancellation decision on 7 October 2021.

15. The Tribunal has considered the applicant’s response to the NOICC. There is no dispute that the applicant has been convicted of offences against laws in NSW. Therefore s 116(1)(g) is enlivened in that there is a prescribed ground for cancelling the applicant’s visa, as contemplated by reg 2.43(1)(oa).

16. For those reasons, the Tribunal is satisfied that the ground for cancellation in s 116(1)(g) exists. As that ground does not require mandatory cancellation under s 116(3), the Tribunal must proceed to consider whether the visa should be cancelled.

    Consideration of discretion

17. There are no matters specified in the Act or Regulations that must be considered in the exercise of this discretion. The Tribunal has had regard to the circumstances of this case, including matters raised by the applicant, and matters in the Department’s Procedures Advice Manual (PAM3) ‘General visa cancellation powers’.

    The purpose of the visa holder’s travel and stay in Australia, whether the visa holder has a compelling need to travel to or remain in Australia

18. [In] November 2012, the applicant arrived in Australia as an irregular maritime arrival (IMA). He lodged an application for a Humanitarian Stay (Subclass 449) visa, which was granted on 13 December 2012. On 22 December 2016, the applicant was granted a Safe Haven Enterprise (Subclass 790) visa on the basis of the protection claims that he made.

19. The applicant maintains that he continues to fear harm and that he requires Australia’s protection.

20. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant was granted the visa as a result of a determination that he engaged Australia’s protection obligations. The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant’s travel and stay in Australia are consistent with the objectives of the visa which he was granted. The Tribunal gives regard to the applicant’s claimed continued fear of harm and that this means he has a compelling need to remain in Australia.

21. The Tribunal gives this consideration weight in the applicant’s favour.

    The extent of compliance with visa conditions

22. The Tribunal discussed with the applicant the information in the delegate’s decision record relating to condition 8565 to which his visa is subject. Condition 8565 imposes the requirement that the visa holder notifies the Department within 28 days of any change of address. The Department became aware that after the visa grant on 22 December 2016, the applicant had changed his address without notifying the Department – as required by condition 8565. The NSW Police produced the applicant’s bail report on 12 July 2017 with an address that was previously unknown to the Department. On 26 August 2017, the NSW Police confirmed that the last known address for the applicant was the same as the bail address. On 22 August 2018, the Department received notification from the NSW Police that the applicant is currently residing at a new residential address, previously unknown to the Department.

23. The applicant stated that he was kicked out of his address and he was sleeping in the car. He said he was living with his brother who had [children] and that the children were frightened of him so he left. Although this is plausible, it is not persuasive; the Tribunal considers lack of compliance with visa conditions to be significant. Visa conditions have a legitimate purpose, and their non-compliance could have adverse consequences. In this instance, the applicant’s lack of notification of the change of details meant that the Department sent correspondence to an address where the applicant was not living.

24. On the evidence, the Tribunal finds that the applicant breached condition 8565.

25. The Tribunal gives this consideration weight in favour of cancellation.

    Degree of hardship that may be caused (financial, psychological, emotional or other hardship)

26. The applicant gave evidence that his parents and siblings, apart from a sister, are all in Australia. He stated that he has never worked but on occasions he helped his brother. He confirmed that he does not have any children (he did have a child who is now deceased) and that he does not have a partner.

27. As noted above, in his response to the NOICC, he indicated that cancellation would cause him significant hardship, including deterioration of his mental health, especially if detained or returned to [Detention Centre 1], where he was for about 4 years. He indicated that the period of time he spent in detention had a detrimental effect on his mental health, especially the 2 years spent in a safe cell. He referred to the strong relationship he has with his family and to the detrimental impact that cancellation would have on his family, particularly his unwell mother, and that the limited family support would worsen his mental health issues.

28. At the beginning of the hearing, the Tribunal asked the applicant about his mental health. He stated that he takes medication at night for depression and “mental diseases”. He confirmed that he was feeling okay.

29. The Tribunal observed that during the hearing, the applicant appeared to be in a reasonable mood and he was able to participate and put his case in full before the Tribunal. Subsequent to the hearing, the Tribunal received a report from [Ms A], psychologist, dated 25 September 2021, who outlined the applicant’s background and noted a history of matters including suicidal attempts and ideations, self-harm, substance use and dependence, hunger strikes, severe distress, depression, anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), sense of hopelessness and helplessness, unhappy and abusive childhood, torture, living on the streets as a child, lack of interest in food, low energy, feelings of inability to self‑control, and asthma.

30. [Ms A] recommended a range of treatments and summarised her conclusions as follows:

    [The applicant] is a [age]-year-old Iranian man, whose childhood was characterised by developmental trauma including brutality inflicted by his father and uncles. Further, he was the only child out of his siblings to experience this harsh treatment and forced to work. Denied an education, his adolescent years were marked by delinquency, early substance use, neglect, homelessness and imprisonment.

    While getting married at 20 and having a child brought some stability and an attempt at a safe attachment relationship, he chose to embark on a pilgrimage to Iraq, which had tragic consequences due to his arrest, torture and imprisonment for suspected espionage. Meanwhile in Iran, his young daughter also tragically died and his wife remarried, thinking he was deceased. This trauma would have further compounded his complex post-traumatic stress and sense of victimisation.

    While his family members were granted refugee status in Australia, [the applicant]’s pathway to Australia was far more complicated as he arrived years later on his own to seek asylum. While living in the community he was treated with antipsychotic medication and also continued using illicit substances. For unknown reasons he acted out at a shopping centre and was injured in an altercation with a security guard. He also assaulted his brother-in-law and was arrested, charged and sentenced.

    [The applicant] currently experiences symptoms of irritability, low mood, worthlessness, anhedonia, low energy, nervousness, self-blame, feelings of worthlessness, intrusive recollection, nightmares and sleeping difficulties. His reported symptoms and psychometric assessment are consistent, and are indicative of Depression, Anxiety and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder.

    His mental state is all the more precarious given his repeated attempts to take his life in the past, and recent disclosures of self-harm. Additionally, he has very few protective factors.

31. On the evidence, the Tribunal accepts that the applicant is vulnerable psychologically and that he suffers from mental health conditions that could worsen in the case of cancellation. The Tribunal appreciates that the applicant does not want his visa to be cancelled, and in the case of cancellation he would personally be impacted. Moreover, the applicant could become an unlawful non-citizen and could be detained for potentially prolonged and indefinite periods under s 189 and removed under s 198 of the Act. Given his mental health, there is a degree of hardship associated with potential detention and removal. The Tribunal is satisfied that despite the relationship difficulties with his family, there is a degree of hardship in the case of separation from his family due to removal.  The Tribunal is of the view that there would be a degree of hardship in case of deportation because most the applicant’s family members are in Australia so he would miss out on any direct family support and assistance.  He has also been found to be a refugee, albeit granted a temporary visa, so there would be a degree of hardship in case of removal.

32. The Tribunal is however mindful that the Minister has a personal non-compellable power under s 195A of the Act to grant a visa to the applicant if the Minister believes that to be in the public interest.  Moreover, s 198 is now subject to the provisions of the new ss 197C(3) and 197D of the Act.  The Migration Amendment (Clarifying International Obligations for Removal) Act 2021 (Cth) (Amending Act) amends the Act, is designed to ensure, through ss 197C and 198 that a non-citizen will not be removed from Australia if found to engage protection obligations.

33. The Tribunal gives the consideration of hardship weight in favour of the applicant.

    Circumstances in which ground of cancellation arose. If cancellation is being considered because of relationship breakdown, whether the relationship has broken down as a result of family violence. The guidelines indicate that as a general rule, a visa should not be cancelled where the circumstances in which the ground for cancellation arose were beyond the visa   control

34. The circumstances in which the grounds for cancellation arose were when the visa holder was convicted of multiple offences in NSW.

35. In oral evidence, the applicant stated that he was unwell psychologically and that his family was trying to get him hospitalised. He said instead of being taken to court, the police took him to the hospital for treatment. He said there was an AVO taken out against him to protect his family and that he was forced to live on the streets without medication so he took drugs to self‑control. He referred to an incident relating to his brother-in-law who accused him of attacking him, which was incorrect. He said he was imprisoned for 9 months as a result of this incident. He said he cannot control himself when he takes his medication.

36. The Tribunal explained to the applicant that the Tribunal plays no role in overturning the conviction and that the Tribunal must accept that he was convicted.

37. In accordance with s 424AA, the Tribunal advised the applicant that there is information in the Departmental file that from May 2015 to September 2015, he was convicted in the [Location 2] Magistrates Court and the [Location 3] Magistrates Court of multiple offences relating to breach of restraining order, possession of a prohibited drug, possession of a prohibited weapon, and driving‑related offences, for which he was fined amounts between $100 and $800, as well as being disqualified for 3 months. There is a Critical Incident Report relating to multiple incidents of behaviours of concern relating to multiple individuals whilst the applicant was in detention in 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016, including fighting with other detainees, aggression, threats of self-harm, damage to premises, abuse, stealing, self-injecting, and physical altercation.

38. In response, the applicant stated that he was in detention for 5 years and never fought with anyone. He later stated he might have made those mistakes. He said he met a woman and there were a lot of problems. He said he never violated the rights of others whilst in detention. He said he stayed in his room as he did not want any problems.

39. The Tribunal referred to other relevant information in the delegate’s decision record which provides a background, including reference to his criminal history which became evident during the processing of the Subclass 790 Safe Haven Enterprise visa. During the processing of the application, it was noted that the applicant has a criminal history in Australia and that he may not pass the character test. The applicant provided a statement dated 19 October 2016 explaining the circumstances which led to the convictions. On 20 December 2016, a delegate decided not to refuse the Subclass 790 Safe Haven Enterprise visa under s 501 of the Act.

1. Relevantly, in a letter dated 20 December 2016, the Department advised the applicant that:

   … On this occasion your application for a Safe Haven Enterprise (Class XE) visa will not be refused under section 501 of the Act. The application will continue to be assessed by the DIBP office in Perth.

   However you are warned that if you engage in any future conduct that brings you within the scope of section 501, cancellation of any visa that you hold and/or refusal of any future visa applications may then be considered and if so, the fact of this warning may weigh heavily against you.

2. The applicant said that it is correct that he has committed crimes but he was not “conscious” and did not know what he was doing. He said his family controlled him, and that when the police obtained an AVO he had no food, or a place to sleep, or money. He said it all happened because of lack of medication so he had to take drugs for control. He said his doctor stopped giving him medication because the doctor’s clinic did not prescribe those medications and he was told to go elsewhere. He said he has been taking the medication for years and he continues to take it. He referred to his time in Iraq after the removal of Saddam Hussein when he was accused of espionage and he was imprisoned for 10 years. He was tortured. He said his life has not been easy and his daughter died in his hands.

3. The applicant said that he confesses that he has made mistakes but they were beyond his control and nothing was done on purpose. He said the police on multiple occasions took him to hospitals rather than the courts. He said he made mistakes, and when he was kicked out of his family’s home he was left with nothing. He stated that all his life he has been under torture.

4. The Tribunal has accepted that the applicant has mental health issues which he perceives as having contributed to the adverse behaviour which led to the convictions. It is noteworthy however that despite being warned by the Department, the applicant continued to engage in criminal conduct. Although the mental health issues might have played a part, on the evidence the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant’s actions were beyond his control. Moreover, the Tribunal is of the view that it is legitimate to assume that the Courts took all relevant matters into account in determining the criminal matters and in imposing sentences, one of which included a custodial sentence. The Court’s findings are that the applicant had committed the offences with which he was charged. It is not open to this Tribunal to go beyond the findings of the sentencing Court. In Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v SRT (1999) 91 FCR 234, the Full Federal Court held that a conviction and the sentence imposed as a result of a conviction are matters for the criminal law and its procedures are not for an administrative tribunal. Their Honours Branson, Lindgren and Emmett held:

   [45] To impugn the sentencing process in that way is bad as a matter of public policy. It is improbable that the legislature intended that an administrative tribunal with wide investigatorial powers, not bound by the rules of evidence and free to inform itself from any source, should review the essential factual bases of a conviction and of the resulting sentence. The policy must be that a conviction and a sentence imposed as a result of a conviction, are matters for the criminal law and its procedures. If a sentence, like a conviction, is otherwise than in accordance with the law, a right of appeal is available to remedy any miscarriage of justice. If new or fresh evidence comes to hand, again criminal procedures can be availed of.

   [46] While it stands, the conviction and sentence must be conclusive, so far at least as concerns tribunal reviewing a decision that takes the conviction and sentence as its starting point.

5. The applicant has been convicted of several offences in Western Australia. These offences were taken into account for granting the Safe Haven Enterprise (Subclass 790) visa. However soon after the visa grant, the applicant committed further and serious offences in NSW, for which he has been convicted. The applicant’s criminal conduct since his arrival in Australia has been serious and escalating.  He was warned and given an opportunity when a decision was made to grant him the visa, despite the convictions, but he continued to engage in criminal conduct after the grant.

6. The Tribunal gives this consideration weight in favour of cancellation.

   Past and present behaviour of the visa holder towards the Department

7. The applicant has been co-operative with the Department and responded to the NOICC.

8. The Tribunal gives this aspect weight in the applicant’s favour.

   Whether there would be consequential cancellations under s 140

9. There is no evidence of any consequential cancellation.

10. The Tribunal gives this aspect weight in favour of cancellation.

    Whether there are mandatory legal consequences, such as whether cancellation would result in the visa holder being unlawful and liable to detention and removal, or whether detention is a possible consequence of cancellation and if so, for how long, or whether there are provisions in the Act which prevent the person from making a valid visa application without the Minister’s intervention

11. In the case of cancellation, the applicant would be subject to s 46A and s 48A of the Act which means that he would not be able to apply for another visa whilst in Australia, including a protection visa, unless the Minister lifts the relevant bars using personal non‑compellable powers under s 46A(2) and s 48B(1).

12. Moreover, the applicant could become an unlawful non-citizen and could be detained under s 189 and removed under s 198 of the Act. The Tribunal is mindful that the Minister has a personal non-compellable power in s 195A of the Act to grant a visa if it is in the public interest.

13. The applicant would also be subject to public interest criterion 4013 for 3 years, in the case of cancellation.

14. The Tribunal is of the view that those consequences are intended legislative consequences to give power to detention and removal from Australia.

15. The Tribunal has dealt with the potential hardship associated with detention and removal.

16. The Tribunal gives this aspect neutral weight.

    Whether any international obligations, including non-refoulement, family unity and best interests of the children as a primary consideration, would be breached as a result of the cancellation

17. Non-refoulement obligations are obligations not to forcibly return, deport or expel a person to a place where there will be a risk of harm. Australia is a signatory to several international instruments which give rise to non-refoulement obligations. Australia is a signatory to the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees as amended by the 1967 Protocol (together called the Refugees Convention), the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (the CAT), and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and its Second Optional Protocol (the ICCPR). ‘Non-refoulement obligations’ is not confined to the protection obligations to which s 36(2) of the Act refers: see Ibrahim v MHA [2019] FCAFC 89 at [103]. It is defined in the Migration Act 1958 to include non‑refoulement obligations that may arise because Australia is a party to one of the instruments mentioned above, or any obligations accorded by customary international law that are of a similar kind.

18. Article 33 of the Refugees Convention is relevant in this instance. Refoulement is prohibited under Article 33 of the Refugees Convention unless:

    ·there are reasonable grounds for regarding the refugee as a danger to the security of the country in which they are in; or

    ·the refugee has been, by a final judgment, convicted of a particularly serious crime and constitutes a danger to the community.

19. The Tribunal has considered whether the applicant’s circumstances may engage ‘non‑refoulement obligations’ which are broader than the term ‘protection obligations’ contained in s 36 of the Act. The applicant has been found to be owed Australia’s protection obligations and he was granted a temporary visa on that basis. The Tribunal is of the view that the grant of a temporary visa was intended by the legislature to be a scheme to enable Australia to fulfil its international obligations and those under the Act and provide temporary protections to those who met the criteria.  The applicant’s visa was due to expire on 22 December 2021.  The Tribunal gives weight in favour of cancellation to the fact that this is a temporary visa that has an expiry date, and legally there is no basis for a personal expectation of permanency for the holder of this visa.

20. The Tribunal observes that the cancellation of a visa is legally distinct from removal.[1]  Furthermore and as mentioned earlier s 198 is now subject to the provisions of the new ss 197C(3) and 197D of the Act.  The Amending Act is designed to ensure, through ss 197C and 198 that a non-citizen will not be removed from Australia if found to engage protection obligations.

    [1] COT15 v MIBP (No 1) (2015) 236 FCR 148, at [32].

21. On balance, the Tribunal is satisfied that Australia would not be in breach of any of its international obligations in the case of the cancellation.

22. The Tribunal gives this aspect weight in favour of cancellation.

    If it’s a permanent visa, whether the former visa holder has strong family, business or other ties in Australia

23. The Safe Haven Enterprise (Subclass 790) is a temporary visa.

24. The Tribunal gives this aspect weight in favour of cancellation.

    Any other relevant matters

25. There are no other relevant matters.

26. The Tribunal has carefully considered the applicant’s mental health and has placed weight on it in determining this review. The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant put his case in full before the Tribunal.

27. The Tribunal has considered the material before it individually and cumulatively. There are limited aspects in the applicant’s favour, essentially relating to his own circumstances. On balance, the Tribunal is satisfied that the evidence weighs heavily in favour of cancellation. The applicant has been convicted of multiple offences and his criminal conduct has escalated.

28. On balance, the Tribunal considers that the matters in favour of cancellation outweigh the other aspects in favour of the applicant.

29. The Tribunal has decided that the ground for cancellation exists and, having regard to all the relevant circumstances, as discussed above, the Tribunal concludes that the visa should be cancelled.

    DECISION

30. The Tribunal affirms the decision to cancel the applicant’s Subclass 790 (Safe Haven Enterprise) visa.

    Antoinette Younes
    Senior Member