2203863 (Migration)

[2022] AATA 1786

2203863 (Migration) [2022] AATA 1786 (29 March 2022)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  2203863

MEMBER:Louise Nicholls

DATE:29 March 2022

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision to cancel the applicant’s Subclass 050 (Bridging (General)) visa.

Statement made on 29 March 2022 at 3:54pm

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Cancellation – Bridging E (Subclass 050) visa –criminal conviction– applicant sought judicial review –mental health– no medical or psychological evidence showing that he has undergone treatment or rehabilitation for his drug habit – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), S.195(1)(A)
Migration Act 1958, ss 116, 359, 499
Migration Regulations 1994, r 2.43

CASES
BEG15 v MIBP [2019] HCA 3

Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to section 501K of the Migration Act 1958 and replaced with generic information.

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

1. The applicant is a citizen of Iran and is [age] years old. In August 2012 he arrived in Australia by boat as an unauthorised maritime arrival (UMA).

2. The applicant was last granted a Subclass 050 (Bridging (General)) on 23 May 2017 and while holding that visa was charged with two offences which took place in February 2020.

3. On 25 February 2020 the delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs cancelled the applicant’s Subclass 050 (Bridging (General)) visa under s 116 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act) on the basis that the applicant had been charged with the following offences on 19 February 2020:

   ·Destroy or damage property – S.195(1)(A) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW).

   ·Stalk/intimidate intend fear physical etc. harm T2 – S. 13(1) Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007.

4. This is an application for review of that decision and it was lodged on 16 March 2022. The application has been made within the statutory timeframes as the original notification of the cancellation was defective and the delegate re-notified the cancellation decision. The applicant was handed the re-notified decision on 16 March 2022.

5. The applicant provided a copy of the delegate’s decision record and his own written submissions dated 25 March 2020 in support of his application.

6. The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 24 March 2022 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Persian and English languages.

7. The Tribunal exercised its discretion to hold the hearing by MS Teams video. The hearing was held during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Tribunal determined it was reasonable to hold a hearing by video, having regard to the nature of this matter and the individual circumstances of the applicant. The Tribunal also had regard to the Tribunal’s objective of providing a mechanism of review that is fair, just, economical and quick, and the delay to the matter if the hearing was not to be conducted by video. The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant was given a fair opportunity to give evidence and present arguments.

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

   CONSIDERATION

9. The issue in the present case is whether that ground for cancellation is made out, and if so, whether the visa should be cancelled.

10. Under s 116 of the Act, the Minister may cancel a visa if he or she is satisfied that certain grounds specified in that provision are made out. Relevantly, to this case, these include the ground set out in s 116 (g). 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.

    Non-disclosure certificate issued pursuant to s.375A.

11. A preliminary issue for consideration concerns the issue of the certificate restricting disclosure of certain information in the Departmental file pursuant to s. 375A of the Act.

12. The Tribunal has received a digital Departmental file [which] contains documents relating to the cancellation of the applicant’s bridging visa. The delegate has placed a non-disclosure certificate on the Department’s file pursuant to s.375A of the Act. The reason given for the restriction of information on the file is because the material was given to the Department in confidence.

13. The certificate purports to restrict information contained in digital file reference [deleted]. The material consists of correspondence between the NSW Police Liaison Unit and the Department regarding the applicant’s criminal record. 

14. There are two issues for the Tribunal; one is whether the certificate is a valid certificate and the other is the nature of the restricted information and whether the information should be disclosed to the applicant.

    Validity

15. In considering the validity of this certificate the Tribunal has taken into account recent case law on the issue.  Documents or information may be subject to a non-disclosure notification if they were given to the Minister or an officer of the Department in circumstances imposing an obligation of confidence.

16. For documents or information to have been given in confidence, the information must have the necessary quality of confidentiality. This means the material needs to have been given to the Minister or departmental officer by an external source or third party with the expectation that the material would be treated as confidential and would not be disclosed, and that the information not be public or common knowledge.[1]

    [1] See SZTYV v MIBP [2018] FCA 1076 (Steward J, 20 July 2018) at [42].

17. The Tribunal asked the applicant whether he wished to make submissions on the validity of the certificate. He stated he did not have a criminal record.

18. The Tribunal considers the information in the email correspondence has been given in confidence by the NSW Police. The Tribunal has proceeded on the basis that the certificate is valid.

    Disclosure of information

19. The majority of the High Court in MIBP v SZMTA; CQZ15 v MIBP; BEG15 v MIBP [2019] HCA 3 held that there is an obligation of procedural fairness to disclose the fact of the non-disclosure certificate to the applicant in the review, however, a breach of that obligation will result in jurisdictional error only where the breach is material (that is, the applicant is deprived of the possibility of a successful outcome).[2]

    [2] MIBP v SZMTA; CQZ15 v MIBP; BEG15 v MIBP [2019] HCA 3 (Bell, Gageler, Keane, Gordon and Nettle JJ, 13 February 2019) at [2], [29]-[30] and [45] per Gageler, Keane and Bell JJ.

20. The Tribunal disclosed the existence of the certificate and outlined the nature of the restricted material. That information is also included in other non-restricted documents and the information was put to the applicant for comment during the hearing.

21. The Tribunal considers the restricted material does not prejudice the interests of the applicant and does not undermine the prospects of a favourable decision by the Tribunal as the substance of the restricted material has been disclosed to the applicant for comment [3]. The Tribunal finds that the applicant has not been deprived of the possibility of a successful outcome by the restriction on disclosure.[4]

    [3] Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v CQZ15 [2017]FCAFC 194 at 72

    [4] MIBP v SZMTA; CQZ15 v MIBP; BEG15 v MIBP [2019] HCA 3 (Bell, Gageler, Keane, Gordon and Nettle JJ, 13 February 2019) at [2], [29]-[30] and [45] per Gageler, Keane and Bell JJ.

    Background

22. The applicant was born in Ahwaz, Iran and moved with his family to Tehran when he was in [primary] school. He is now [age] years old, is not married and has no children. His parents live in Tehran and his married sister lives in [Country 1].

23. He did not finish high school and when he left, he went to work with his father who was a [occupation]. He also had many other jobs but was unable to give any detail about that work.

24. He has held a series of bridging visas since 5 December 2012.

25. In his written submissions and in oral evidence he stated that he arrived by boat on Christmas Island late in 2012. He was detained on Christmas Island and at Curtin Detention Centre and then granted a bridging visa. He moved to Sydney and spent one year living on Centrelink benefits. When he was given permission to work he found a job in the construction [industry].

26. He stated he had problems from the moment he first arrived in Australia. He could not speak English and the Department did not give him assistance to learn English or direct him to classes to learn about the basic rules of society and Australian culture. As a consequence, he could not integrate into Australia society and felt very lonely. He did not have any family in Australia. He became depressed and started using marijuana but used it to such an extent that he spent most of his income purchasing marijuana. Even though he was working hard and earning good money he could not save due to his drug habit. Someone he knew introduced him to the drug “ice which he started using. He was able to manage until the beginning of the pandemic when there was a reduction in building work and he became unemployed. He was not entitled to Centrelink or any assistance from the government. His family in Iran sent him money until they could not send him anymore.

27. He could not afford to pay rent or buy food and he became homeless.

28. The applicant has applied for a temporary protection visa. His application was refused by a Departmental delegate and automatically referred to the Immigration Assessment Authority (IAA) which affirmed the decision of the delegate on 28 January 2020. The applicant sought judicial review of the IAA’s decision. On 9 March 2021 the Federal Circuit Court dismissed the application. The applicant appealed to the Federal Court and Justice Lee dismissed his application on 2 July 2021.

29. The applicant gave oral evidence that his application has been refused by the Department and he applied but was unsuccessful in the courts. He stated that he did not have good legal representation.

    Does the ground for cancellation exist?

30. 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). In the present case, the ground in reg 2.43 (1)(p) is relevant. Regulation 2.43 provides

    (1)   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:

    …… (p)  in the case of the holder of a Subclass 050 Bridging (General)) visa or a Subclass 051 (Bridging (Protection Visa Applicant)) visa — that the Minister is satisfied that the holder: 

    (i)  has been convicted of an offence against a law of the Commonwealth, a State, a Territory or another country (other than if the conviction resulted in the holder's last substantive visa being cancelled under paragraph (oa)); or

    (ii)  has been charged with an offence against a law of the Commonwealth, a State, a Territory or another country; or

    ….

31. The applicant provided a copy of the cancellation decision record indicating that he had been charged with Destroy or damage property – S.195(1)(A) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) and Stalk/intimidate intend fear physical etc. harm T2 – S. 13(1) Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007.

32. He stated in his written submissions dated 25 March 2020 that sometime in 2020 he had been arrested and taken to a mental hospital near [Suburb 1] and was there for 13 days. The police then took him to the police station at [Suburb 1] and charged him with “Intentionally or recklessly destroy/ damage property” and “stalk or intimidate intending to cause fear of physical or mental harm”. He stated in those submissions that he was convicted of those offences and sentenced in relation to those two offences and received a one-year good behaviour bond and a direction to continue mental treatment.

33. When the applicant gave evidence on whether he had been charged with two offences as set out he stated it was all a misunderstanding; he stated he pushed the computer because he wanted the police to be called. After a considerable amount of questioning and explanation on the part of the Tribunal the applicant eventually stated he had been charged and convicted of these two offences.

34. Taking into account the written and oral evidence, 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

35. In considering whether a Bridging E visa should be cancelled on the basis of the prescribed grounds in reg 2.43(1)(p) or (q) the Tribunal must comply with Direction No.63, Bridging E visas - Cancellation under section 116(1)(g) – Regulation 2.43(1)(p) or (q), made under s 499 of the Act. This Direction requires the Tribunal to take into account specified primary and secondary considerations, where relevant, and specifies how these considerations are to be weighed in determining whether the Bridging E visa should be cancelled.

36. The primary considerations are:

    ·the Government’s view that the prescribed grounds for cancellation at reg 2.43(1)(p) and (q) should be applied rigorously in that every instance of non-compliance should be considered for cancellation; and

    ·the best interests of any children under the age of 18 in Australia who would be affected by the cancellation.

37. The secondary considerations are:

    ·the impact of a decision to cancel the visa on the family unit;

    ·the degree of hardship that may be experienced by the visa holder if the visa is cancelled;

    ·the circumstances in which the ground for cancellation arose;

    ·the possible consequences of cancellation; and

    ·any other matter considered relevant.

38. The Direction states that primary considerations should generally be given greater weight than any secondary considerations, one primary consideration may outweigh the other primary consideration and information from independent and authoritative sources should generally be given greater weight than information from other sources. The Tribunal has also 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’.

    Primary Considerations

39. One of the prescribed primary considerations in cl.6 of the Direction is the Government’s view that the prescribed grounds in r.2.43(1)(p) and (q) should be applied rigorously, in that every instance of non-compliance should be considered for cancellation in accordance with the discretionary cancellation framework.[5] The rigour referred to in this clause is addressed solely to the question of whether to enter into consideration of cancelling the visa and is not saying that the power to cancel should be exercised rigorously.[6] The decision-maker must take the government’s view as part of the matters to be weighed in the exercise of the discretion, rather than simply follow the view.[7]

    [5] cl.6(1)(a) of Direction No.63.

    [6] ACH15 v MIBP [2015 FCCA 1250 (Judge Smith, 19 May 2015) at [28]-[31]

    [7] ACH15 v MIBP [2015 FCCA 1250 (Judge Smith, 19 May 2015) at [33].

40. The other primary consideration in the Ministerial Direction refers to the best interests of children in Australia under the age of 18 years. At the Tribunal hearing the applicant stated that were no children under 18 years who would be affected by the cancellation.

    Secondary Considerations

41. The applicant gave oral evidence on the matters set out in Direction 63 and other relevant matters.

    Impact on the family unit.

42. The applicant has no family in Australia. His parents live in Tehran and his married sister lives in [Country 1]. He claimed that his parents are upset and do not have anyone else to financially support them in Iran. If his visa is cancelled, then he will not be able to work and provide them with some assistance.

    Hardship to the visa holder.

43. The applicant stated he was confined to the detention centre and is wasting his life in detention. He stated he had not seen his parents for 10 years and he is [age] years old and does not have a family of his own. He stated that many criminals were free in the community whereas he is held in detention. He feels that it is unfair.

    Circumstances in which the ground for cancellation arose.

44. In his written submissions he stated that he became depressed and as a result started to use marijuana to manage his depression and then he became addicted to “ice”. However, he was managing his work and life adequately until the outbreak of COVID 19 in 2020 in Melbourne. Due to restrictions that affected the construction industry, there was a shortage of demand for workers and the applicant became unemployed. He was not entitled to Centrelink payments or assistance from government. As a result, he could not afford to live and support his habit and his family in Iran sent him money to survive until they could no longer send him any further funds.

45. He could not afford to pay for his rent or buy food and he became homeless and experienced hunger on top of loneliness. Every day he walked to an office he only knows as [name] to find work. They were constantly telling him because of COVID 19 there were no jobs available. On the other hand, he was not entitled to any financial assistance from the government and found himself in a position of not being able to obtain work and not being able to receive assistance from the government.

46. Sometime in 2020 he went to [a named place] to find a job after spending all night sleeping rough outside. He went to the front desk and asked the receptionist to call police on the basis that he did not have a place to live, he was hungry and had not had a shower for several days. His objective was to be sent back into immigration detention or prison so that he would have a place to live, not be hungry, to have a shower and deal with withdrawing from his drug habit. The receptionist told him she could not call the police and he rushed upstairs to break something in the hope that she would call the police and they would send him back to detention. He saw a computer on a desk and pushed it on the ground. The receptionist came upstairs and told him to come and sit downstairs and she would call the police.

47. When the police arrived, they asked him why he damaged the computer and he asked to be taken to immigration detention. He told the police he was homeless. The police took him to a mental hospital near [Suburb 1] where he was admitted for 13 days and injected with strong medication. After 13 days police took him to [Suburb 1] Police Station and they charged him with intentionally or recklessly destroying/damaging property and stalking and intimidating with an intention to cause fear of physical or mental harm. Police asked him to provide an address and he told the police he had no address or place to go and was homeless. He asked to be sent to an immigration detention centre or prison. The police transferred him to the remand centre.

48. After eight days in remand, he went to court, he was convicted, and the judge gave him a one-year good behaviour bond and a direction that he continue mental health treatment. Later three officers from the Department came to the centre and cancelled his bridging visa and he was taken into immigration detention.

49. The applicant stated that the Department failed to recognise or take any responsibility for him and the deprivation of his entitlement to Centrelink. They also failed to take into account that he had lost his job during COVID 19. He stated there he was not violent towards anyone. He was only in prison for eight days. He stated that the department should have recognised his good behaviour since his arrival and should not rely on a small incident which he deliberately caused in order to receive basic help.

1. At the Tribunal hearing the applicant stated that at the time he was charged he was under a lot of pressure. At the beginning of pandemic, he had no support and his parents sent him some money through [moneychangers]. He went to [a named place] and Centrelink but they could not assist with payments or his visa. He was homeless and could not help himself. He did not receive proper assistance to find a job.

2. On the day in question he spoke to an older lady [and] he asked her to call the police. She stated she could not call the police. He went upstairs and pushed a computer onto the floor. There was no-one else in the room and he did not cause any intimidation or fear to any other person when he was upstairs.

3. The lady called the police and he sat in the waiting room. The police came and told him to go home and he told the police he did not have anywhere to live. He told them to take him to the camp because he was sick of sleeping in the park. They took him to a mental hospital for 13 days and the period he was in the mental hospital he felt very comfortable because he had a room, he was given food and he was content. He has never been a dangerous person and he stated he has never committed any crime. However, he has been in detention for 2 years and 10 days and has not been involved in any fights and has had no problems with anyone. He stated that if he previously had proper support from the government and Centrelink, he would not be in detention.

4. He is an honest person and not trying to “con” anything. He regrets what he did and had no intention to do this but says he was forced into the situation. His parents are old and sick and he was addicted to illegal drugs and suffering from mental health issues. He had no other friends but drugs.

5. The Tribunal invited the applicant to comment on or respond to information on the following information pursuant to s.359AA of the Act. The Tribunal advised the applicant there were three documents in the Department’s file which were relevant.

6. The first was a NSW Police Fact Sheet which set out the circumstances surrounding the incident where he threw the computer on the ground in February 2020. The Tribunal outlined the contents of that document which stated that on 7 February 2020 the applicant attended [a][a] Service, [where] he demanded a place to live and employment. He was aggressive to the receptionist and yelling. He walked to a private office and pushed two computers to the ground. He approached an employee and stated if he did not get help he is going to break things and kill people in the centre; workers and everybody.

7. The employee felt intimidated and feared for the safety of others. Two women with a child in a pram were present. The police were called and he told police he wanted to hurt people. He was taken to [a] Hospital where he was aggressive to staff at the hospital. On 8 February 2020 he became enraged and took custody of a metal laundry trolley. He barricaded himself in a room and shouted abuse at the nursing staff. He pushed the trolley into the window in the room and later smashed the glass in the window which needed to be boarded up.

8. He told one of the doctors he was angry because his visa was rejected, his family was in Iran and he did not have a job. He wanted to get a knife and kill people especially people in Centrelink. He stated he wanted to kill mothers and fathers so that people can see what it is like not to be able to see their families. He was given medication which calmed him down but he was prone to angry outbursts and physical aggression. On 19 February 2020 police attended and took him into custody. He was taken to [Suburb 1] Police Station where he declined to participate in an interview.

9. The Tribunal advised him there were two other documents on file. These were NSW Police fact sheets which related to earlier charges. They showed that he was charged in 2017 with driving with illicit drugs in his system and in 2018 charged with resisting police officers and behaving in an offensive manner.

10. The information in these documents is relevant because the account the applicant gave the Tribunal of the 2020 incident is different than outlined in those documents and the Tribunal may consider he has not given a truthful or reliable account of events.

11. The 2017 and 2018 documents are relevant because he stated he had not committed any criminal offences in the past and the Tribunal may consider he has not given a truthful account and generally that his evidence is not truthful or reliable.

12. The applicant elected to respond at the hearing and did not seek further time to respond to the information.

13. He claimed that the charge of driving with illicit drugs is a lie. If he had been charged as claimed why did he not end up going to court. With the other charge he claimed “they” just put in what they wanted. With respect to the charge of resisting arrest he stated that the person who arrested him did not have police uniform and was from Pakistan. He stated there were cultural issues with Pakistani and Iranians. Furthermore, the judge only fined him $400.

14. With respect to the incident with the computer, he stated the Tribunal could check the CCTV footage [and] would see if there was not one child present in that incident. He stated no one was in that room.

15. The Tribunal asked the applicant about his behaviour at [the] Hospital. He agreed he broke some stuff in the hospital. He stated in the beginning it was okay however, two tall African guys forced him to have injections and he went to sleep after that. He stated he was a migrant in Australia and he could not speak English but that does not mean they can do anything to you.

16. The Tribunal put it to him that he had previous criminal offences one in 2017 for driving with illicit drugs in his system and in 2018 resisting police and offensive behaviour in a public place.

17. With respect to the driving charge he claimed he was only a passenger and not the driver. The police found a small amount of marijuana. He stated that with the 2018 offences the police were in plain clothes and tried to search him. He insisted on going to a police station.

18. The Tribunal asked him about his threats to kill people. He posed a rhetorical question “Who would I kill?”

19. The Tribunal asked him about other visa applications.

20. He explained that when he was taken to Villawood Detention Centre he was in a very bad situation. He had a lawyer who turned out to be fraudulent and the Department gave him three months to get another lawyer. He could not find a lawyer to take his matter. He was addicted to drugs and went to his protection visa interview without any assistance.

21. His application for protection was refused and he went to court three times but was unsuccessful. On one of those occasions, he had an Arabic lawyer who told him he could not assist him any further.

22. The Tribunal put it to him that he did not have a substantive visa and all his appeal options were exhausted. It asked him what he intended to do. He stated he could not return to Iran; he stated he would go to Turkey but they would not agree. He needs one chance to prove himself and he would find a lawyer and consider his options.

23. The Tribunal asked him if he had a drug habit in Iran. He stated he was not depressed in Iran; he lived with family and was playing sports, that is boxing, wrestling and swimming. He unwillingly turned to drugs in Australia.

24. The Tribunal has considered the applicant’s oral and written evidence and the information set out in NSW Police Fact Sheets. It finds the applicant’s evidence was unreliable and that he was either being untruthful in his account of the circumstances or that he does not have a good recall of the incident due to being affected by drugs at the time.

25. The Tribunal prefers the account of events set out in the Police Fact Sheets. It finds that in relation to the incident in 2020 the applicant was aggressive, made serious threats of violence and damaged property in [a] Service and spent 13 days in [a] Hospital.

    Consequences of cancellation.

26. The Tribunal considers that cancellation would result in the visa holder being unlawful and liable to detention and removal. The Tribunal considers that detention is a possible consequence of cancellation and will continue until the applicant arranges departure from Australia. The applicant has applied for protection and his application and all subsequent appeal processes have been exhausted. He is prevented from making a valid application for another class of visa without the Minister’s intervention.

27. The applicant has given evidence and the Tribunal accepts that he is an Iranian citizen. He is eligible to apply for an Iranian travel document and can return to Iran at any time. If his visa is cancelled, he will remain in detention until he arranges to depart Australia. He does not have any relatives in Australia who will be affected by his cancellation.

    Other relevant matters.

28. Initially the applicant stated he had not committed any crimes in Australia but the Tribunal does not accept this. The NSW Fact Sheets dated 2017 and 2018 and put to the applicant, show that he had been charged with a number of offences. He admitted he had been convicted of the 2018 offences and fined $400.

29. The applicant has admitted that he had significant drug problems when he was taken into detention in 2020. The Tribunal notes that the applicant stated he had smoked marijuana and later became addicted to the drug “ice” in the past but was now healthy. He did not provide medical evidence or refer the Tribunal to any evidence showing that he has recovered from his drug habit or has taken steps to do so. In these circumstances the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant has recovered from his drug habit.

30. The applicant’s refugee claims have been considered at both the merits review and judicial review level and he has not been successful in his claims for a protection visa. Taking this into account the Tribunal does not accept he will be at risk of “refoulement” if he departs Australia.

31. The applicant has no family living in Australia. His parents are retired, his father is ill and his married sister is living in [Country 1]. He expressed a wish to see his family again and the Tribunal considers that he genuinely misses them and wishes to see them again.

    Conclusion

32. With respect to the primary considerations, the Tribunal has given due weight to the Government’s view that the Australian government has a low tolerance to criminal behaviour, of any nature, by noncitizens who are in the Australian community on a temporary basis and who do not hold a substantive visa.as a primary consideration.

33. The Tribunal finds that there are no children under the age of 18 years in Australia who will be affected by the cancellation.

34. The Tribunal finds the applicant has been charged and convicted of the offences set out above. The Tribunal considers that the nature of the applicant’s conduct and the threats made while he was at [a] Service were serious and frightening for the employees and other persons present in the centre that day. The applicant made violent threats about killing indiscriminately both in [a] Service and while he was in [the] Hospital. The Tribunal finds that the applicant was frequently aggressive and caused damage when he was in [Hospital]. He has not provided any medical or psychological evidence showing that he has undergone treatment or rehabilitation for his drug habit.

35. The applicant’s application for a protection visa has been refused and he has exhausted his rights of merits and judicial review. When this was put to him he appeared to lack any insight into the situation he now faced without any prospect of obtaining a protection visa.

36. The applicant blames the government and Centrelink for the situation in which he finds himself. He does not appear to accept any personal responsibility for spending all his previous income on drugs and as a consequence becoming homeless. The evidence given by the applicant about the circumstances which gave rise to the cancellation show little insight or reflection on his own behaviour. He appears to blame others for his situation.

37. The Tribunal has also considered the previous offences with which the applicant has been charged and convicted in 2017 and 2018. The Tribunal considers that these offences indicate that the applicant had a drug problem some years before he was charged with the offences which gave rise to his cancellation. The Tribunal considers that the offences and surrounding evidence point to a pattern of behaviour which indicates that his bridging visa be cancelled.

38. These factors outweigh the hardship the applicant will suffer if he remains in detention; he will not be able to work and earn an income and the psychological impact of detention.

39. Considering the circumstances as a whole, the Tribunal concludes that the visa should be cancelled

    DECISION

40. The Tribunal affirms the decision to cancel the applicant’s Subclass 050 (Bridging (General)) visa.

    Louise Nicholls
    Senior Member