Ahmed and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Migration) - [2021] AATA 1185

Ahmed and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Migration) [2021] AATA 1185 (7 May 2021)
Division:GENERAL DIVISION
File Number: 2021/0914
Re:Abdirahman Said Ahmed
APPLICANT

AndMinister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs
RESPONDENT

DECISION
Tribunal:Member R West
Date:7 May 2021
Place:Melbourne

The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.
........[sgd]...............................................................
Member R West
Catchwords
MIGRATION – mandatory cancellation of applicant’s visa – applicant has substantial criminal record and does not pass the character test – whether discretion to revoke mandatory cancellation should be exercised – primary considerations – protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct – best interests of a minor child – expectations of the Australian community – non-refoulment obligations–other considerations – decision affirmed
Legislation
Migration Act 1958 (Cth)
Cases
FYBR v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCAFC 185
CGX20 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services, and Multicultural Affairs (No 2) FCA 1842
Gaspar v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection ([2016] FCA 1166
Gordon and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (Migration), Re [2018] AATA 39
Rokobatini v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [1999] FCA 1238
Steve v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 311
Suleiman v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 594
WKMZ v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2021] FCAFC 55
Secondary Materials
Direction No. 90 – Migration Act 1958 – Direction under s 499 – Visa refusal and cancellation under s 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under s 501CA
REASONS FOR DECISION
Member R West
7 May 2021
INTRODUCTION

In this proceeding, the Applicant sought a review of the decision of a delegate of the Respondent, made on 15 February 2021, not to exercise the discretion under s 501CA(4) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act) to revoke the mandatory cancellation of his Class XB Subclass 200 Refugee visa, which was cancelled on 27 May 2019 pursuant to s 501(3A) of the Act.
An application for review of the delegate’s non-revocation decision was lodged with the Tribunal on 16 February 2021.
The cancellation of the Applicant’s visa on 27 May 2019, under s 501(3A) of the Act followed his conviction for various offences in the Beenleigh District Court on 29 August 2018 and the imposition of a three-year prison sentence.
The Tribunal conducted a hearing of the application on 28 and 29 April 2021. The Applicant was self-represented and had the assistance of a Somali interpreter. The Respondent was represented by Mr Alex Booth, a solicitor from Clayton Utz.
The hearing was conducted in the context of restrictions placed on the community in response to the COVID–19 pandemic. These restrictions necessitated that the hearing not be conducted in person. The Tribunal determined pursuant to s 33A of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) (AAT Act) to conduct the hearing on 28 and 29 April 2021 by videoconference.
In conducting the review, the Tribunal had regard to:
(a)the documents produced to the Tribunal by the Respondent pursuant to s 500(6F) of the Act, sequentially numbered from 1 to 201 (G Documents), and supplementary documents produced under summons and filed by the Respondent, sequentially numbered from 1 to 199 (SM Documents);
(b)DFAT Country Information Report Somalia, date 13 June 2017;
(c)Applicant’s Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions, dated 30 March 2021 (Exhibit A1); and
(d)the oral evidence of:
(i)the Applicant;
(ii)NJM; and
(iii)Sahra Mohamed Bedel.[1]
[1] The Applicant sought to call evidence from two further witnesses; Bashir Yusuf and Sulemain Oumer Mohamad, but as he had not provided the Minister with written statements of the information they were to provide in their oral testimony, at least 2 business days prior to the hearing, the Tribunal declined to hear their evidence pursuant to s 500(6H) of the Act.
BACKGROUND
The Applicant was born in Somalia in December 1994. He first arrived in Australia on
16 November 2012. He was granted a Class XB Subclass 200 Refugee visa (Visa).
The Applicant has an extensive criminal record, commencing in 2014. A complete statement of the Applicant’s criminal record is set out in a National Criminal History Check produced by the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission.[2] In summary his record is as follows:
(a)22 October 2014 – charged with public nuisance and trespass – no conviction recorded – fined $150;
(b)18 April 2016 – charged with failure to appear;
(c)10 April 2017 – convicted of supply dangerous drugs (10 counts) – sentenced to 101 days imprison – possession of thing used in commission of a crime – sentenced to 80 hours community service – convicted of various summary offences;
(d)29 August 2017 – convicted of public nuisance and assault/obstruct police while intoxicated – sentenced to 80 hours community service;
(e)17 January 2018 – convicted of assault/obstruct police – fined $300;
(f)29 August 2018 – convicted of armed robbery in company involving violence – sentenced to 3 years in prison – convicted of making threats - sentenced to six months in prison to be served concurrently – convicted of various summary offences;
(g)6 November 2019 – convicted of wounding and assaults occasioning bodily harm whilst in company – sentenced to terms of two years and one year to be served concurrently.
[2] G2, p 28-31.
The Visa was cancelled by a delegate of the Minister under s 501(3A) of the Act on 27 May 2019.
The Applicant was released from prison on 13 August 2020 and taken into immigration detention. At the time of the hearing, the Applicant was in detention.
A delegate of the Minister decided not to revoke the cancellation of the visa under s 501(3A) of the Act on 15 February 2021 (Reviewable Decision).
The Applicant applied to the Tribunal for a review of the Reviewable Decision on 16 February 2021.
LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK
Section 501CA(4) of the Act enables the Tribunal on review to revoke the mandatory visa cancellation decision if it is satisfied that:
(a) the Applicant passes the character test as defined in s 501; or
(b) there is another reason why the cancellation should be revoked.
The Applicant’s visa was cancelled under s 501(3A) of the Act as the delegate was satisfied that he did not pass the character test. Section 501(6)(a) provides that a person is deemed not to pass the character test if they have a substantial criminal record. Section 501(7)(c) provides that for the purpose of the character test a person has a substantial criminal record if the person has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more. The Applicant was convicted and sentenced to an aggregate three years imprisonment on 29 August 2018.
The Applicant does not dispute that he does not pass the character test in s 501(3A) of the Act.
Accordingly, the sole issue before the Tribunal was whether, under
s 501CA(4)(b)(ii), there is another reason why the mandatory cancellation should be revoked.
The existence or otherwise of another reason should be established on the balance of probabilities.[3]
[3] Re Gordon v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (Migration) [2018] AATA 39, [57].
DIRECTION 90
Section 499 of the Act authorizes the Minister to give written directions to a person or body having functions or powers under that Act, provided that the directions are about the performance of those functions or the exercise of those powers. Section 499(2A) of the Act mandates that the Tribunal must comply with the directions.[4]
[4] Rokobatini v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [1999] FCA 1238, [591].
On 8 March 2021, the Minister issued Direction No. 90 – Visa refusal and cancellation under s 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under s 501CA (Direction 90) to commence operation from 15 April 2021. Direction 90 provides guidance for decision-makers in determining, relevantly, whether there is ‘another reason’ why the cancellation of the Applicant’s visa should be revoked.
Paragraph 6 of Part 2 of Direction 90 provides that decision-makers must take into account the considerations identified in sections 8 and 9 where relevant to the decision.
Section 8 of Part 2 sets out four primary considerations:
(1) protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct;
(2) whether the conduct engaged in constituted family violence;
(3) best interests of minor children in Australia; and
(4) expectations of the Australian community.
Section 9 of Part 2 sets out other considerations. These include, but are not limited to:
a) international non-refoulement obligations;
b) extent of impediments if removed;
c) impact on victims;
d) links to the Australian community, including:
i) strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia;
ii) impact on Australian business interests;
Section 6 stipulates that the decision maker must be informed by the principles stated in paragraph 5.2 in assessing these considerations.
The principles in paragraph 5.2 are:
(1) Australia has a sovereign right to determine whether non-citizens who are of character concern are allowed to enter and/or remain in Australia. Being able to come to or remain in Australia is a privilege Australia confers on non-citizens in the expectation that they are, and have been, law-abiding, will respect important institutions, such as Australia's law enforcement framework, and will not cause or threaten harm to individuals or the Australian community.
(2) Non-citizens who engage or have engaged in criminal or other serious conduct should expect to be denied the privilege of coming to, or to forfeit the privilege of staying in, Australia.
(3) The Australian community expects that the Australian Government can and should refuse entry to non-citizens, or cancel their visas, if they engaged in conduct, in Australia or elsewhere, that raises serious character concerns. This expectation of the Australian community applies regardless of whether the non-citizen poses a measurable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community.
(4) Australia has a low tolerance of any criminal or other serious conduct by visa applicants or those holding a limited stay visa, or by other non citizens who have been participating in, and contributing to, the Australian community only for a short period of time. However, Australia may afford a higher level of tolerance of criminal or other serious conduct by non citizens who have lived in the Australian community for most of their life, or from a very young age.
(5) Decision-makers must take into account the primary and other considerations relevant to the individual case. In some circumstances, the nature of the non-citizen's conduct, or the harm that would be caused if the conduct were to be repeated, may be so serious that even strong countervailing considerations may be insufficient to justify not cancelling or refusing the visa, or revoking a mandatory cancellation. In particular, the inherent nature of certain conduct such as family violence and the other types of conduct or suspected conduct mentioned in paragraph 8.4(2) (Expectations of the Australian Community) is so serious that even strong countervailing considerations may be insufficient in some circumstances, even if the non-citizen does not pose a measurable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community.
EVIDENCE
The Applicant was born in Somalia in December 1994. He stated that his family are members of the Bantu minority in Somalia and he is of the Sunni Muslim faith. He arrived in Australia with his mother Sahra Mohamed and his siblings on 12 November 2012.
He gave evidence that prior to coming to Australia, he and his family lived in a refugee camp in Kenya. He gave conflicting evidence regarding the events preceding his time in the refugee camp.
In his statement of 30 March 2021,[5] he simply stated that his family fled to a refugee camp in Kenya in 1995.
[5] Exhibit A1.
In a letter to the delegate of the Minister dated 7 June 2019,[6] the Applicant said that he lived in a refugee camp in Kenya for approximately seven years to escape the atrocities of the Somalian War in which I was forced to be involved in from the age of 7 years old, after I witnessed my father’s murder…I was taken by force away from family and forced to do many abhorrent and violent things and saw/watched many more, not by choice but by force of threat of death. He said the effect of these forced events has left him suffering depression and anxiety and likely (although not diagnosed) post-traumatic stress disorder for which he had sought psychological help. He said that in around 2005-2006, his grandfather found him and saved him from his forced part in the Somalian War and took him to Kenya to live with his mother and siblings in the refugee camp where he lived for seven years.
[6] G2, p 64-69.
In his oral evidence to the Tribunal, the Applicant said that someone else had written the letter of 7 June 2019 for him and may not have understood what he meant. He said that when he was four years old, some pirates had killed his father in front of him and had taken him and his brother away from his family. His mother thought they were dead and went to the refugee camp without them. The pirates later killed his brother and tied the Applicant up with a chain. He said he was kept captive by the pirates for approximately six years until he was rescued by his grandfather who took him to Kenya to join his family in the refugee camp. He said that after two years in the custody of the pirates, he was put in a car and given a gun and made to rob people after which he was chained up again. He said that his grandfather had told him that the pirates were part of El Shabaab.
The Applicant’s mother, Sahra Mohamed Bedel, gave evidence regarding the events. She confirmed that in 1996-1997, the Applicant’s father had been killed in front of him by an armed group and that she had been struck on the head in the incident and lost consciousness. When she regained consciousness, the group had taken the Applicant and his brother and she fled to Kenya with her daughter. She said that her uncle tried to look for the boys and found that one had been beheaded. She said the uncle found the Applicant and brought him to her in the Kenyan refugee camp. She said that the Applicant was missing for about one year and they were re-united in 1998.
It is not possible for the Tribunal in these proceedings to reconcile the inconsistent accounts of these events to determine with any certainty what occurred. The Tribunal does not draw any adverse inference from the conflicting accounts. The Applicant was a young child at the time and the events involved significant trauma for him and his mother. Having considered the various accounts and noting the demeanour of the witnesses, the Tribunal is satisfied that an event did occur in which the Applicant’s father was killed by a Somali gang and the Applicant was abducted by the gang for a period of time and that he was able later to join his mother in a Kenyan refugee camp where he stayed for around seven years. This limited finding is sufficient for the purpose of these proceedings.
The Applicant identified the members of his immediate family currently living in Australia as his mother Sahra Mohamed Bedel and ten siblings.
He said that he lives in a house in Kingston, Logan City with his mother and five younger siblings. His other siblings live with his stepfather, Mohamed Juneidi, from whom his mother is divorced, in the same suburb. The Applicant described himself as a father figure to his younger siblings. He stated that he is heavily involved in the care and upbringing of his siblings. He assists in transporting them to school. His brother, who will be referred to as A, suffers from epilepsy and he assists to take him to hospital. He said he had assisted the family financially from his employment earnings.
He also stated that he had a nephew in Australia, who was born in December 2015. He said he had no family in Somalia.
The Applicant is the father of two daughters to separate mothers.
The Applicant gave evidence to the Tribunal regarding his daughter, who will be referred to as H. She was born in 2015 and is currently six years old. The Applicant was unaware of H until told about her birth when she was three years old. The Applicant stated in his statement of 30 March 2021, that his relationship with H and her mother is very good and that he is in contact with H via video chat while he is in detention. He acknowledged that there was a period of less than 12 months between the date he became aware that H was his daughter and his incarceration during which time he was involved with another woman and could only visit H at her home on weekends. He stated that H’s mother does not know that he is in custody and she has been told that he is living and working in Melbourne. The Applicant claimed to have paid child support for H before he went to prison (a period of less than 12 months) and that since his incarceration, his sister pays in his name. If he is released into the community, the Applicant said he would seek custody of H over time as his relationship with her develops further.
The Applicant stated that his other child, who will be referred to as N, was born in August 2016 and he was present at the birth. He was in a relationship with her mother at the time. He acknowledged that a Temporary Protection Order for the protection of N’s mother was taken out against him in April 2016 and that because of the order he could not live with her and he communicated with her via letters and with the assistance of government officials. He claimed that N’s mother had a drug addiction and after N was born, N’s mother just wanted to be with her Mum. The Applicant said:
I heard through many of my friends that she was partying a lot and possibly not taking care of our daughter. Less than two weeks after having the baby. She said she wanted to go away and leave. This was very concerning behaviour to me as she was looking after our newborn baby. The relationship ended not long after this as it was too difficult to communicate and maintain a relationship.[7]
[7] Exhibit A1.
The Applicant said that his relationship with N’s mother ended in November 2016 and he was informed while in prison in early 2017 that Child Protection Services had taken full custody of N. He said that he had not had any contact with N’s mother since 2016 and did not know where she was. He said that the people caring for N have contacted him while in prison/detention, but he has not had any direct contact with N since being incarcerated. The Applicant claims to have arranged visitation with N on a regular basis once he is released from prison or detention and he intends to seek joint or shared custody after his release. He provided no corroborating evidence for this arrangement.
In late 2016, the Applicant was charged with Fraud and Robbery and stayed in custody until April 2017 when he was released on bail. He said that at this time, he decided to turn his life around. He went to live with his mother and obtained a job as a process worker at a chicken processing plant. He said he stopped smoking and drinking and went to the Mosque to follow my religious beliefs as a Muslim. He said he prayed five times a day and integrated with the Muslim community. He said he was honest with people about his crimes and they supported him. He said he started to paint flags and make hijabs to give as gifts at weddings and helped out a lot at the Mosque.

In August of 2018, he was sentenced to three years imprisonment on the Fraud and Robbery charges, but due to time served he was given parole for the remainder of the sentence. During this time, he met a girl at the Mosque and they fell in love and planned to get married. However, after approximately one year the relationship broke down when he told her of his past offending. He said that his grandfather died at about this time. He stated that;
This caused much stress and sadness. I struggled to cope mentally due to this as everything was going well. I started to drink more as a way of handling my emotions. This is how my recent set of charges came about.
In January of 2019, while on parole, the Applicant was involved in an incident and charged with various offences including two counts of assault occasioning actual bodily harm and wounding. The Applicant was held on remand for the breach of parole and was subsequently re-sentenced for Fraud and Robbery and sentenced for the other offences. He was given a sentence of five years and was eligible for parole on 5 May 2020.
The Applicant expressed his remorse in his written statement to the Tribunal:[8]
I am truly very sorry and remorseful for the crimes I have committed. Having spent time in jail and now in immigration detention, I have had time to think about my actions and my use of drugs which have contributed to my offending behaviour. I have had time to realise the damage this has caused and the potential pain this is going to cause my daughters and family here in Australia. I am sorry to the victims of my crimes. I know my actions are wrong and I apologise to the Australian Community, the country which accepted me as a refugee, for doing these crimes.
[8] Exhibit A1
The Applicant claims to have made efforts to rehabilitate himself while in prison and detention. While in detention he attended the detention centre’s mental health clinic on a monthly basis and consulted with a psychologist about his drug use and has undertaken a drug and alcohol course.
He claims that if he is released into the community he will live at home with his mother and seek custody of his daughter N. He says he plans to complete Child Safety courses to show that he is capable of looking after her. He said he will look for employment again and continue his rehabilitation, help with Mosque activities and be with fellow community members that can support and assist him. He said he is aware of Narcotics Anonymous and Alcoholic Anonymous and he believes they could be good support groups to join.
The Applicant also called evidence from his sister NJM and his mother Sahra. NJM stated that the Applicant helps his mother in caring for the family and especially with her brother who has epilepsy. She expressed the view that the Applicant’s offending was due to the influence of bad friends and that he is now a changed person. Sahra affirmed her written statement in which she described the difficult circumstances the family experienced in the refugee camp and the effect on the Applicant of experiencing his father’s killing.[9] She attested to his good character.
PRIMARY CONSIDERATIONS – SECTION 8 OF PART 2
[9] G2, p 72-73.
1. Protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct
In considering the protection of the Australian community, the Tribunal has had regard to the matters set out in paragraph 8.1(1) and (2) of Part 2 of Direction 90.
Paragraph 8.1(2) requires decision-makers to give consideration to:
a) the nature and seriousness of the non-citizen’s conduct to date; and
b) the risk to the Australian community should the non-citizen commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct.
The nature and seriousness of the conduct
In considering the nature and seriousness of the non-citizen’s criminal offending or other conduct to date, paragraph 8.1.1(1) of Part 2 requires that decision-makers have regard to the factors set out in paragraphs 8.1.1(1)(a)–(g). A consideration of the factors, relevant in the Applicant’s case, is set out below:
Principle (a) – violent and/or sexual crimes are viewed very seriously - without limiting the range of conduct that may be considered very serious, the Australian Government and the Australian community view very seriously: violent and/or sexual crimes; crimes of a violent nature against women or children, regardless of the sentence imposed; acts of family violence, regardless of whether there is a conviction for an offence or a sentence imposed.
There is no evidence that the Applicant was involved in crimes of a sexual nature, but his criminal record features regular and serious violent offences, including threatening violence, possession of a knife, assault/obstruct police officer (10 April 2017); assault/obstruct police (29 August 2017, 17 January 2018 and 29 August 2018); armed robbery in company, wounding/use violence (29 August 2018); assault occasioning bodily harm, wounding (6 November 2019) and assault/obstruct police (17 February 2020).
The extent of the violence involved in the incident which gave rise to the Applicant’s convictions on 6 November 2019 can be gleaned from the description of the victim’s injuries as recorded in the remarks of the sentencing judge.[10] After recounting the events of the night of 3 January 2019 and the Applicant’s participation in an assault in company on the victim the sentencing judge remarked:
Eventually, your group stopped and left. Emergency services were called, and the ambulance service and the police service attended the scene.
When they arrived, it was observed that the complainant was bleeding heavily from wounds to his leg, hands and head. He had lost about 100 to 200 millilitres of blood at the scene which is a significant amount. He had a deep laceration to his forehead on his hairline from where Salah broke the glass bottle on his head. He had bruising to his left ear, a laceration to his eyebrow, contusions and swelling about his eyes and nose, defensive wounds to both hands, as I have said, with a deep wound to his left palm, a stab wound to the back of his left thigh and a stab wound to the front of his left calf.
[10] G2, p 39.
The sentencing judge described the nature of the offending as follows:
This is serious violence, and the community is sick and tired of it. It is just gratuitous violence for really no purpose.
The offences for which he was convicted on 6 November 2019 involved a serious assault on a 17 year old male victim who was badly injured. The court observed that the victim was lucky to be alive.[11]
[11] G2, p 41.
While the offences for which the Applicant was convicted did not involve violence against women or children (other than the seventeen year old victim referred to above), the Tribunal notes that the Applicant was convicted of contravening a domestic violence order on 16 April 2016. The circumstances justifying the making of the order were described in a court brief presented to the court by Queensland Police.[12] The report details an assault by the Applicant on the aggrieved person in which he struck the aggrieved to the head several times and kicked her in the stomach (while pregnant) while she lay on the ground. The Applicant accepted in his oral evidence that the aggrieved person to whom the report related was his ex-partner N’s mother. The Applicant denied that the incident described in the court brief was true and alleged that N’s mother had lied and made up the story. He insisted that he had never struck her, or any other woman. The Tribunal recognises that court briefs of this kind are to be treated cautiously as they contain untested assertions that are often not based on first-hand accounts. Applications for domestic violence orders are generally heard on an ex parte basis. In the absence of further evidence, the Tribunal is reluctant to draw any conclusions regarding the Applicant’s conduct other than to note that he was found guilty of having breached a court order imposed for the express purpose of protecting his ex-partner from domestic violence and the Tribunal regards this as adding to the seriousness of his offending.
Principle (b) – crimes committed against vulnerable members of the community (such as the elderly and the disabled), or government representatives or officials due to the position they hold, or in the performance of their duties, are serious.[13]
[12] SM1, p 151-152.
[13] See paragraph 8.1.1(b)(ii) of Direction 90.
The Applicant’s offending has been consistently directed at the police in the discharge of their duties. His criminal record includes two offences of obstructing police, five counts of assault/obstruct police officer and two counts of assault/obstruct police in a public place while under the influence of an intoxicating substance.
Principle (c) – the sentence imposed by the courts for a crime or crimes
The courts have imposed significant custodial sentences on the Applicant in relation to his offending. On 10 April 2017, he was sentenced to 101 days in prison. On 29 August 2018, he was sentenced to terms of three years and six months imprisonment to be served concurrently. With time spent in custody, the Applicant was released on parole but on 6 November 2019, he again offended while on parole and was sentenced to four years imprisonment on three separate charges to be served concurrently but cumulative on the sentence imposed on 29 August 2018.[14]
[14] G2, p 42.
Lengthy custodial sentences are indicative of the seriousness with which the criminal courts have regarded the Applicant’s offending.
Principle (d) – the frequency of the non-citizen’s offending and whether there is any trend of increasing seriousness
The Applicant’s criminal record discloses that he has been convicted of more than 60 criminal offences since 2014. In addition to violent offences, the Applicant’s crimes have included supplying dangerous drugs, robbery, fraud and public nuisance. There is a clear pattern of escalating seriousness in the Applicant’s offending as reflected in the penalties imposed by the courts. Prior to 2016, his offending did not result in a custodial sentence and in many cases charges were proven but no conviction entered and modest fines were imposed. After 2016 and prior to his conviction on 6 November 2019, the Applicant was convicted of several serious offences and terms of imprisonment were imposed on 10 April 2017 and 29 August 2018. The most significant sentence was that imposed on 6 November 2019.
Principle (e) – the cumulative effect of repeated offending
The cumulative effect of the Applicant’s offending is to disclose a general disregard for the law and the role of law enforcement. The Applicant has demonstrated over a significant period of time (2014-2019) that he has been prepared to breach the law in a variety of ways, unlawfully infringing the property rights as well as the physical safety of members of the community. His breach of bail and parole conditions as well as community service orders and failure to appear in accordance with undertakings shows a disrespect for the rule of law. His numerous offences relating to the police, indicates a disregard for enforcement.
Principle (f) – whether the non-citizen has provided false or misleading information to the Department, including by not disclosing prior criminal offending
There is no evidence that this consideration is relevant in the Applicant’s case.
Principle (g) - whether the non-citizen has re-offended since being formally warned, or since otherwise being made aware, in writing, about the consequences of further offending in terms of the non-citizen's migration status (noting that the absence of a warning should not be considered to be in the non-citizen's favour).
The Applicant was not formally warned by the Respondent about the consequences of further offending. However, on 29 August 2018 in handing down sentence the sentencing judge in the District Court of Queensland stated:[15]
You are at risk, as a result of the sentence I have to impose on you today, of the minister revoking your residency here and being deported. But that is just the logical consequence of someone who is not a citizen breaking the law and committing serious offences.
[15] G2, p 34.
Despite that warning, the Applicant went on to commit further serious offences for which he was sentenced to imprisonment on 6 November 2019.
Conclusion
Having regard to the factors set out in paragraphs 8.1.1(1)(a)–(g) of Direction 90, the Tribunal is satisfied that the Applicant’s criminal conduct over the period from 2014 until his conviction in November 2019 is very serious conduct and should it be repeated constitutes a serious threat of harm to the Australian community.
The risk to the Australian community should the non-citizen commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct
Paragraph 8.1.2(1) of Part 2 of Direction 90 states that in assessing the risk that may be posed by a non-citizen to the Australian community, the decision-maker must have regard to, cumulatively:
a)    the nature of the harm to individuals or the Australian community should the non-citizen engage in further criminal or other serious conduct; and
b)    the likelihood of the non-citizen engaging in further criminal or other serious conduct, taking into account:
i)    information and evidence on the risk of the non citizen re-offending; and
ii)   evidence of rehabilitation achieved by the time of the decision, giving weight to time spent in the community since their most recent offence (noting that decisions should not be delayed in order for rehabilitative courses to be undertaken).
Nature of the harm
For the reasons discussed the Tribunal is satisfied that the Applicant’s offending is serious. Of most concern are the offences of violence. As the sentencing judge’s remarks on 6 November 2019 illustrate the Applicant’s involvement in violent conduct resulted in very serious injury to his victim. The fact that the Applicant has been convicted of assault in the company of others is also concerning, as are his convictions for offences related to the possession of a knife. The Applicant’s broad disregard for the law and apparent disrespect for the property rights of others, taken together with his preparedness to engage in violence, indicate that he could inflict physical or psychological harm on others should he offend in the future.
Also of concern are the Applicant’s convictions for supplying dangerous drugs. The supply, sale and trafficking of drugs in the community represents not only a risk of physical and psychological harm for the users of the drugs, but also contributes to the undermining of the social fabric of the society by supporting an antisocial and unlawful element in the community. If the Applicant were to re-offend in this regard, it would threaten harm to the individual and to the community as a whole.
In addition, the Applicant has been convicted of dishonesty offences, namely robbery and fraud involving credit cards. If he were to engage in such conduct in the future, he could potentially inflict financial harm on both his immediate victim and innocent third parties involved in any fraudulent transactions.
The likelihood of re-offending
The Tribunal’s task in assessing the likelihood of the Applicant re-offending is not assisted in this case by any professional independent assessment. The Applicant has not produced any medical evidence, and in particular any psychological assessment, of his state of mind and predisposition. Nor has he called any objective witness who could speak from experience or particular knowledge to objectively assess the Applicant’s propensity to re-offend. His only witnesses are his mother and sister, both of whom see the Applicant through the lens of familial love and loyalty and lack any relevant qualifications.
The evidence does suggest that there are a number of contributing factors to the Applicant’s offending. First, he is a young man who has grown up without a father. He has had traumatic experiences while growing up, which are likely to have impacted on his psychological make up. He claims to have been diagnosed with depression and anxiety and to have symptoms of undiagnosed PTSD. As the sentencing judge remarked on 6 November 2019, substance abuse, and alcohol in particular, have played a part in his violent offending. To this can be added the many dysfunctional aspects of his personal life including several failed relationships and his estrangement from his two daughters. His sister attributes his offending to his bad choice of friends. There may also be cultural and language factors which impact his attitudes and conduct. He is relatively unskilled and has limited job prospects which raises issues of personal esteem and potential financial issues.
The Applicant has identified a number of factors which he claims will enable him to avoid re-offending:
(a)he has sought psychological help to address his mental health issues;
(b)he has ceased the use of alcohol and drugs;
(c)he has excluded negative influence from his social group;
(d)he is committed to gaining full time employment;
(e)he is committed to taking responsibility for his daughters and supporting his younger siblings;
(f)he is remorseful; and
(g)he has become involved in his religion.
The Applicant gave evidence that he consulted the prison mental health service and sees a psychiatrist/psychologist weekly or fortnightly while in detention and has been prescribed antidepressant medication. The Applicant claimed that he has been diagnosed with depression and has undiagnosed PTSD symptoms. The Tribunal has not been provided with any medical reports to corroborate these assertions.
The Applicant gave inconsistent evidence regarding the events prior to him reaching the refugee camp in Kenya, and in particular regarding his claim that he was taken away by a gang and exposed to atrocities following his father’s murder. The Tribunal is not in a position to definitively resolve these contradictions but having regard to Sahra’s evidence, the Tribunal is satisfied that the Applicant witnessed his father’s murder in Somalia and that he was subject to a prolonged period of distressing conditions while in the refugee camp. On the basis of this evidence alone, the Tribunal accepts the Applicant’s claim that he has mental health issues resulting from trauma experiences as a child which are likely to have affected his past conduct, and contributed to his offending. The Tribunal also accepts the Applicant’s evidence that he has sought treatment for his mental health condition while in prison and detention. However, it is not clear that the Applicant’s mental health issues have been properly and fully diagnosed or that he has undergone appropriate treatment. In addition, there is no professional assessment of the appropriate treatment that would be required if the Applicant were released or the prospects that his mental health condition can be successfully treated to avoid further offending.
In short, the Tribunal is satisfied that the Applicant has mental health issues which require treatment to address the risk of him reoffending, but it does not have any objective professional evidence upon which to assess the risk.
The Applicant said, in his evidence to the Tribunal, that he started to use ice and marijuana in 2015 and admitted that he had a bad ice addiction in 2016 and used the drug every day. He claimed to have ceased using drugs in December 2016 and to have last consumed alcohol on 1 January 2019. He claims he is a changed person and has taken steps which will enable him to avoid substance abuse in the future. His evidence was:[16]
I have asked a local mosque to assist and teach me how to embrace my religion of Islam in which I will no longer be able to use intoxicating substances as written in the Quran. I will be seeking guidance while incarcerated and regularly attending and participating at the mosque to keep my life free of crime and reduce the risk factors of re-offending such as the use of drugs and alcohol.
I have also completed drug and alcohol courses and intend to continue seeking assistance for substance abuse while in custody and beyond on my release…I will also be applying to ‘Lives Lived Well’ for substance abuse counselling. I have enquired about it through my course and it appears it will be available to me upon my release.
[16] G2, p 68.

Nevertheless, the Applicant admitted that he resorted to alcohol use following the breakdown of his relationship with a woman he met at the Mosque in 19 August 2018,[17] and following the death of his grandfather which contributed to his further offending. His resort to alcohol was after he had been released from prison and become involved with the Mosque.
[17] Exhibit A1.
The Applicant asserted that he has distanced himself from people who had been bad influences on him in the past, but there was no objective evidence to corroborate that he has done so. In addition, it is not clear from the evidence that his offending was necessarily the result of such alleged bad influence. The sentencing remarks of the court on 29 August 2016, and 6 November 2019 do not indicate that this was the case.
As to the prospects of employment, the Applicant has not identified any specific steps he has taken to secure employment on his release, beyond an offer of support services from the Salvation Army.[18] He merely expressed the hope or expectation that he will be able to regain his previous job as a process worker at the chicken processing plant. He has undertaken some courses while in prison, including a number of subjects in the Certificate II - Engineering Pathways, a basic construction industry safety unit, a basic unit in Automotive Servicing and two basic first aid courses as well as courses in English.[19] These courses do not amount to a coherent program of study which would equip the Applicant with skills to make him more employable and he demonstrated in the hearing that he requires the assistance of an interpreter to converse effectively. Given his criminal record, it seems likely that the Applicant would find it difficult to secure full time employment upon his release. Employment is a key component of the Applicant’s stated plans upon release; without a job he would lack the financial security to support his family and progress towards custody of his daughters. If the Applicant is unable to secure employment it would also expose him to an enhanced risk of being drawn into further offending.
[18] G2, p 88.
[19] G2, p 32-42.
The Applicant claims that his involvement in the religious life of his Mosque will provide the moral and spiritual guidance to enable him to avoid further offending. While the Tribunal is satisfied that the Applicant has genuinely embraced his religion and become involved with the community activities of the Mosque, it notes the Applicant’s evidence that this involvement with the Mosque began in April 2017 and yet he was convicted on two separate sets of serious criminal offences after that time. Clearly, the Applicant’s past involvement in his religion did not prevent him from re-offending.
The final matter raised by the Applicant is his remorse for his actions. The Applicant assured the Tribunal that he is a changed man and is remorseful for the effect his conduct has had on himself, his family and his victims.
Genuine remorse requires that the person accept their wrongdoing and that they take appropriate responsibility for their offending. Without such acceptance, words of regret ring hollow. In this regard, it is noteworthy that the Respondent repeatedly downplayed or denied his wrongdoing when questioned about his criminal record. He denied any wrongdoing in relation to the matters contained in the police report which was used as the basis of the domestic violence order made to protect N’s mother. He accused N’s mother of making the allegations up and lying to the police. He claimed the summary of facts recited by the Sentencing Judge in sentencing him for armed robbery and assault on 29 August 2018[20] were not true, notwithstanding that he had plead guilty to the charges. The Applicant proffered an alternative set of facts which cast him in a favourable light. He said he only pleaded guilty because of advice from his lawyer. He similarly disputed the Sentencing Judge’s statement of the facts concerning the serious assault conviction on 6 November 2019 when again he had plead guilty. He said he plead guilty on the advice of his lawyers and gave an alternative version of the facts which sought to cast him as the person trying to stop the assault. He accused other witnesses of lying and attempted to explain his confrontations with police by saying that their uniforms reminded him of the people who killed his father.
[20] G2, p 33-34.
The Tribunal notes that the Applicant has committed over 60 offences over a prolonged period. He has offended notwithstanding periods of imprisonment. He has offended while on bail and on parole. His involvement in his religion has not prevented him from repeated serious offending. His relationship with his family and his claimed sense of responsibility toward his two daughters has not prevented him from criminal conduct. He has mental health issues which have affected his conduct but no program of treatment after his release has been put forward to address it. He has a past record of drug and alcohol abuse linked to his offending and has admitted to relapses in the past when under stress or upset. He says he is remorseful, but he has demonstrated that he is not prepared to accept full responsibility for his criminal conduct. Taking all of these matters into account the Tribunal is concerned that there is a high risk that the Applicant will be drawn into re-offending if released into the community.
Conclusion
For the reasons discussed, the Tribunal is satisfied that there is a high risk that the Applicant would commit further serious criminal conduct if released into the community and accordingly, the protection of the Australian community, a primary consideration under Direction 90, weighs heavily in favour of not revoking the cancellation of the Applicant’s visa.
2. Whether the conduct engaged in constituted family violence.
Save for the incident reported in the court brief referred to at paragraph [53] above, there is no evidence that the Applicant has engaged in conduct which could be properly described as family violence. For the reasons discussed at paragraph [53], the Tribunal is not satisfied that the court brief can be relied on to establish that the Applicant engaged in the assaults of his ex-partner as documented. The Tribunal reiterates its concern that the Applicant has been found guilty of breaching a family violence order, but it is not satisfied that he is guilty of family violence itself. This consideration is therefore not relevant and no weight is attributed to it one way or the other.
3. Best interests of minor children in Australia affected by the decision
Paragraph 8.3 of Part 2 of Direction 90 provides that decision-makers must make a determination about whether non-revocation under section 501CA is, or is not, in the best interests of a child affected by the decision.[21] If there are two or more relevant children, the best interests of each child should be given individual consideration to the extent that their interests may differ pursuant to paragraph 8.3(3).
[21] This consideration applies only if the child is, or would be, under 18 years old at the time when the decision to refuse or cancel the visa, or to not revoke the mandatory cancellation of the visa, is expected to be made – paragraph 8.3(2) of Direction 90.
In this case the Applicant has identified a number of minor children whose best interests require consideration:
(a)his daughter H;
(b)his daughter N;
(c)six of his siblings
(d)his nephew.
In considering the best interests of the child, paragraph 8.3(4) requires specific factors to be considered. The consideration of the factors relevant in this case are set out below:
(a) the nature and duration of the relationship between the child and the non-citizen. Less weight should generally be given where the relationship is non-parental, and/or there is no existing relationship and/or there have been long periods of absence, or limited meaningful contact (including whether an existing Court order restricts contact);
(b) the extent to which the non-citizen is likely to play a positive parental role in the future, taking into account the length of time until the child turns 18, and including any Court orders relating to parental access and care arrangements;
(c) the impact of the non-citizen's prior conduct, and any likely future conduct, and whether that conduct has, or will have a negative impact on the child
(d) the likely effect that any separation from the non-citizen would have on the child, taking into account the child's or non-citizen's ability to maintain contact in other ways;
(e) whether there are other persons who already fulfil a parental role in relation to the child;
(f) any known views of the child (with those views being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child);
(g) evidence that the child has been, or is at risk of being, subject to, or exposed to, family violence perpetrated by the non-citizen, or has otherwise been abused or neglected by the non-citizen in any way, whether physically, sexually or mentally;
(h) evidence that the child has suffered or experienced any physical or emotional trauma arising from the non-citizen's conduct
The Tribunal notes that paragraph 8.3 of Part 2 of Direction 90 requires the Tribunal to consider the interests of the child affected by the decision. While the interests of the Applicant are able to be considered generally under other parts of the Direction, the Tribunal’s attention is to be draw to the interests of the child; so that the question is not whether it is in the Applicant’s interests to remain in Australia with his children.
The Applicant’s principal submission was that it was in his daughter’s best interest for him to remain in Australia. He expressed his love for his daughters and his concern that if he was denied a visa, both of his daughters would grow up without a father in their life.[22] He stated:
I want to be there for both of my children to take care of them and be a Father figure to them. They are everything to me and my strength during this time. It is not possible for my children to visit me in a war torn, third world country.
[22] G2, p 55.
The Applicant further asserted that if he is deported to Somalia, he would have minimal contact with his daughters due to the lack of internet and signal in Somalia. Further, he stated his intention to provide his daughters with financial support which would be impossible if deported to Somalia.[23]
[23] G2, p 69.
In accordance with Direction 90, each of his daughters requires separate consideration.
H
H was born in 2015 and is currently six years old. On his own evidence, the Applicant has had little meaningful involvement with her since she was born. He was unaware that she existed until told of her birth when she was three years old and the Applicant went into prison less than twelve months later. The Applicant claims that he has a good relationship with H’s mother, but he acknowledged that she does not know that he is in custody and she has been told that he is living and working in Melbourne. He claimed to have had some contact with H in the form of weekend visits during the brief period prior to his incarceration and via video chat while he has been in detention. He also claimed to have paid child support for H before he went to prison (a period of less than 12 months) and that since his incarceration, his sister pays in his name.
The Applicant stated that if he is released into the community, he would seek custody of H over time as his relationship with her develops further. There is no independent evidence before the Tribunal to corroborate the Applicant’s claims or to indicate whether future contact between the Applicant and H would be beneficial to her interests. There is no evidence of her current living situation or any indication of the views of H’s mother as to the Applicant’s desire for contact and ultimately custody of H.
The likelihood that the Applicant would play a positive parental role in H’s future is difficult to assess. The Applicant is 26 years old and has mental health issues. Since arriving in Australia, he has been involved in numerous crimes and has suffered significant drug and alcohol abuse. He has spent lengthy time in prison and detention. He has no financial resources and has challenges ahead in terms of employment opportunities. He does not have a history of enduring and stable relationships. He currently has not established any legal right to custody or access for H. Looked at objectively, the indications are that the Applicant would struggle to fulfill a positive parental role. If the Applicant were to revert to his prior criminal conduct, which the Tribunal assesses as a high risk, it would be likely to have a significant negative impact on H.
The Applicant has effectively been separated from H for all of her life. It is unlikely that any further separation would significantly affect her in an adverse way and modern communication systems do provide a means for her to establish and maintain connection with the Applicant even if he is not in Australia.
There is no evidence that H has been, or would be, at risk of family violence whether physically, sexually or mentally or be exposed to personal trauma due to the Applicant’s conduct.
On the basis of the Applicant’s evidence, H is being looked after by her mother who is fulfilling a parental role for the child. However, beyond this the Tribunal does not have any independent assessment of the child’s position.
The Tribunal accepts that as a matter of general experience, it is usually in the best interests of children to have direct and regular contact with their parents, although that presumption does not hold true in all cases. In the Applicant’s case, there is no objective basis upon which to conclude that H’s best interests will be served by the Applicant remaining in Australia, and there are indications that the general presumption may not hold true.
On balance, there is little force to the proposition that H’s best interests would be served, by the Applicant remaining in Australia.
N
N was born in 2016. The evidence indicates that she was born into a dysfunctional situation. Her mother had issues with drugs and the Applicant was subject to a Temporary Protection Order filed by N’s mother for her protection against him. N’s mother and the Applicant ceased their relationship in November 2016.
Shortly after N’s birth, the Applicant was taken into custody and charged with Fraud and Robbery offences. He stayed in custody until April 2017 by which time Child Protection Services had assumed full custody of N.
The Applicant acknowledged, in his evidence to the Tribunal, that he had not had any contact with N’s mother since 2016 and did not know where she was. He also acknowledged that he has not had any direct contact with N since being incarcerated. He said that the people caring for N have contacted him while in prison/detention and he claimed to have arranged visitation with N on a regular basis once he is released. He provided no corroborating evidence for this arrangement. He said that he aims to seek joint or shared custody after his release.
As with H, the likelihood that the Applicant would play a positive parental role in N’s future is difficult to assess. N is now almost five years old. She has had no meaningful contact with the Applicant since she was born and is currently in the care of Child Protection Services, although it is not clear what her exact circumstances are as the Applicant gave no evidence about them. There is no independent objective evidence upon which to assess the effect on N of continued physical separation from the Applicant. The Applicant’s capacity to perform a positive parental role is questionable given his history and his prospects of being able to establish custody of N is unclear.
On balance, the Tribunal is not satisfied that there is a sufficient objective basis to conclude that it is in N’s best interests for the Applicant to remain in Australia.
The Applicant’s Siblings
Prior to his incarceration, the Applicant lived in a house with his mother and five of his siblings. His other siblings lived with his stepfather Mohamed Juneidi, from whom his mother is divorced, in the same suburb.
The Applicant described himself as a father figure to his younger siblings. He said that he is heavily involved in the care and upbringing of his siblings. He assists in transporting them to school and had assisted the family financially from his employment earnings.
His sister NJM gave evidence that the Applicant is a good support for her mother in caring for the children and her stepfather who is sick is not able to assist her.
The Tribunal accepts that the Applicant has played a supportive role for his mother in caring for the minor children in the family, and especially for A, who suffers from epilepsy and needs assistance, including frequent visits to hospital. However, the Applicant has spent a considerable time in prison and detention over recent years including a continuing period commencing with his arrest in 2019. During this time, his mother has carried the main responsibility in the parental role for the minor children with a lesser contribution from her ex-husband. In addition, the Tribunal notes that NJM turns 18 in July 2021 and another sibling in June 2023, so there is a limited opportunity for the Applicant to play a positive role in either of their lives as minor children.
Having regard to these factors, the Tribunal is satisfied that it would be in the best interests of the Applicant’s minor siblings for him to remain in Australia, but because he does not fulfilled a parental role and he has had limited contact with his siblings while in custody, this consideration attracts limited weight.
The Applicant’s nephew I
I is six years old. He does not live with the Applicant’s immediate family. The Applicant has not provided any evidence about his nephew or his role in his life. The Tribunal notes that the Applicant has been in custody for over two years and so his impact on his six year old nephew is likely not to be significant. As a matter of general experience, it can be expected that I’s interests would be served by the Applicant remaining in Australia but given the limited contact between them to date and the existence of alternative parental figures, the Tribunal gives this consideration little weight.
Conclusion
The best interests of minor children is a primary consideration under Direction 90. For the reasons discussed, the Tribunal is not satisfied that there is an objective basis to conclude that it is in the best interests of the Applicant’s daughters for him to remain in Australia. The Tribunal accepts that it would be in the interests of the Applicant’s younger siblings and his nephew for him to remain in Australia, but given the limited role that the Applicant has played in their lives to date, and the fact that his mother and stepfather already play a parental role, the Tribunal gives this consideration limited weight.
4. Expectations of the Australian Community
Paragraph 8.4 of Part 2 of Direction 90 provides:
(1) The Australian community expects non-citizens to obey Australian laws while in Australia. Where a non-citizen has engaged in serious conduct in breach of this expectation, or where there is an unacceptable risk that they may do so, the Australian community, as a norm, expects the Government to not allow such a non-citizen to enter or remain in Australia.
(2) In addition, visa cancellation or refusal, or non-revocation of the mandatory cancellation of a visa, may be appropriate simply because the nature of the character concerns or offences is such that the Australian community would expect that the person should not be granted or continue to hold a visa. In particular, the Australian community expects that the Australian Government can and should refuse entry to non-citizens, or cancel their visas, if they raise serious character concerns through conduct, in Australia or elsewhere, of the following kind:
(a) acts of family violence or
(b) causing a person to enter into, or being party to (other than being a victim of), a forced marriage;
(c) commission of serious crimes against women, children or other vulnerable members of the community such as the elderly or disabled; in this context, 'serious crimes' include crimes of a violent or sexual nature, as well as other serious crimes against the elderly or other vulnerable persons in the form of fraud, extortion, financial abuse/material exploitation or neglect;
(d) commission of crimes against government representatives or officials due to the position they hold, or in the performance of their duties; or
(e) involvement or reasonably suspected involvement in human trafficking or people smuggling, or in crimes that are of serious international concern including, but not limited to, war crimes, crimes against humanity and slavery; or
(f) worker exploitation.
(3) The above expectations of the Australian community apply regardless of whether the non-citizen poses a measureable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community.
(4) This consideration is about the expectations of the Australian community as a whole, and in this respect, decision-makers should proceed on the basis of the Government's views as articulated above, without independently assessing the community's expectations in the particular case.

The majority of the Full Court of the Federal Court has explained that paragraph 11.3 of the former Direction 79 which mirrors the wording of paragraphs 8.4(1) and (2):
…should be understood as expressing a deemed community expectation that all persons who have committed serious criminal offences giving rise to character concerns should have their visa applications refused. The nature of the character test is such that the deemed expectation will arise in most if not all cases falling for consideration under s 501(1) of the Act, having regard to the nature and seriousness of the non-citizen’s conduct, assessed in accordance with cl 11.1. The text of the clause emphasizes that it may be appropriate to act in accordance with that expectation, so anticipating a class of cases in which it may not be appropriate to do so.
The question of whether it is appropriate to act in accordance with the deemed community expectation is in all cases left for the decision-maker to determine in the ultimate exercise of his or her discretion.[24]
[24] FYBR v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCAFC 185, [75]-[76].
The Applicant’s criminal conduct raises serious character concerns. He has committed multiple acts of fraud and dishonesty and acts of violence which, in at least one incident, causing serious injuries and threatening the life of the victim. He has been guilty of offences against police officers and has acted in breach of bail and parole conditions.
The Tribunal is satisfied that the Applicant’s record of criminal conduct amounts to a serious and sustained breach of the community expectation as expressed in Direction 90. This is a primary consideration and weighs against revocation.
Other Considerations – Section 9 of Part 2
International non-refoulement obligations
A non-refoulement obligation is an obligation not to forcibly return, deport or expel a person to a place where they will be at risk of a specific type of harm. Paragraph 9.1 of Part 2 of Direction 90 sets out the principles to be applied in considering claims which may give rise to international non-refoulement obligations.
Where, as in this case, a person affected by a mandatory cancellation raises, as a reason in favour of revocation of the visa cancellation, a fear of harm in their country of nationality, the Tribunal is required to turn its mind to any international non-refoulement obligations that might arise if that affected person were returned to their home country.
Paragraph 9.1(6) of Direction 90 recognises that it:
..may not be possible at the section 501/section 501CA stage to consider non refoulement issues in the same level of detail as those types of issues are considered in a protection visa application. The process for determining protection visa applications is specifically designed for consideration of non refoulement obligations as given effect by the Act. A decision-maker, in making a decision under section 501/section 501CA, is not required in every case to make a positive finding whether claimed harm will occur, but in an appropriate case may assume in the non-citizen's favour that claimed harm will occur and make a decision on that basis
The Conventions referred to in the Direction are aimed at Australia’s obligations to avoid particular types of harm occurring to a person in the event that they were to be returned to their country of nationality.
In this case the Tribunal is required to assess whether the Applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion and whether there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of him being deported, there is a real risk that the Applicant will suffer ‘significant harm’ as defined in s 36(2A) of the Act, which means to be arbitrarily deprived of life, subject to a death penalty, subjected to torture, cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment or subject to degrading treatment or punishment.
Paragraph 36(2B)(c) provides that there is taken not to be a real risk that a non-citizen will suffer significant harm if the Minister is satisfied that the real risk is one faced by the population of the country generally and is not faced by the non-citizen personally. Accordingly, the assessment of non-refoulement claims rests heavily on the particularity and personal circumstances of an applicant.[25]
[25] NBMZ and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2014] FCAFC 38; [2014] 220 FCR 1, [22].
In raising the non-refoulment ground, the Applicant raised three specific concerns for his safety if he were to be deported to Somalia:
(a)the generally unsafe state of the country;
(b)fear of being abducted and killed by Al-Shabaab; and
(c)fear of being targeted as a returnee.
In relation to (a) the Applicant stated:[26]
It is likely, if I am deported to Somalia, that I will be forced back into a terrible war and killed or simply killed for escaping the first time. Even if I am not killed I will be forced to perform horrible atrocites in the current fighting. As I have no living relatives remaining in Somalia, I will be left to live in the street and will be highly susceptible to gangland violence and war-prone areas. My chance of survival is small and the chances of maintaining relationships with my family and my children are non-existent. This will be as devastating for them as it will for me.
[26] G2, p 68.
The Tribunal accepts that the Applicant’s apprehension for his safety if he returns to Somalia is justified. The DFAT report states:
The security situation in Somalia is highly volatile and security incidents and crime are a common feature of everyday life. Somalia is ranked first of 178 countries on the 2016 Fragile States Index and seventh on the 2016 Global Terrorism Index. Inter-communal violence is the major destabilising factor in Somalia, including armed conflict between clans or warlords.
Due to high rates of poverty and widespread impunity, crime, including violent robbery, kidnapping and personal violence is a serious issue, particularly in Mogadishu
The DFAT report indicates that the risk of violence is widespread and an issue for the population in general.
In relation to (b) the Applicant claimed that the gang of thieves or pirates that had killed his father and abducted him were linked to Al-Shabaab. He said he feared that they would find him and kill him if he returned to Somalia. He acknowledged that they would not recognise him now as he was a child when he fled to Kenya, but he said that they knew his name.
Given the inconsistencies in the Applicant’s accounts of his abduction and incarceration by the gang when he was a child, the Tribunal is sceptical about the Applicant’s claim that he is at risk of being targeted by Al-Shabaab by virtue of his escape to Kenya. In one version of his story, he suggested that his grandfather was able to effect his release by paying a bribe. If that is so, it seems unlikely that the gang would have a motive for retribution so many years later. In addition, there is doubt about the existence of a link between the gang and Al-Shabaab. The Applicant only drew a link between the gang and Al-Shabaab in one version of his story. In another he was adamant that they were not soldiers and were just a gang of thieves. Finally, it seems improbable that the gang would keep a record of the Applicant’s name and would use it to search him out on the off chance that he had returned to Somalia at some point.
Notwithstanding its skepticism regarding the Applicant’s claim, the Tribunal recognises that Al-Shabaab is a dangerous organisation. The DFAT report states:
Extra-judicial killings are common in Somalia and are perpetrated by all parties, including government forces, armed militia and al-Shabaab.
Al-Shabaab is very active in south-central Somalia and continues to undertake terrorist attacks against major security and civilian targets, including government facilities, often resulting in deaths. Al-Shabaab commonly uses bombings (car bombings or suicide bombings) and the majority of their large-scale attacks take place in Mogadishu
Al-Shabaab detains individuals under inhuman conditions for acts that it defines as ‘offenses’, including smoking, having illicit content on cell phones, listening to music, watching or playing soccer, wearing a bra, or not wearing a hijab
Based on the DFAT information, the Tribunal accepts that the Applicant would face a risk of violent or inhumane treatment at the hands of Al-Shabaab if he were deported to Somalia. However, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the Applicant would be targeted individually as a result of his abduction as a child and finds that the risk to his safety is broadly in line with the general population.
The third concern at (c) is the Applicant’s fear that he will be targeted for criminals as a returnee as they think we have money. While there may be a risk of crime for a person perceived to have money in Somalia, the DFAT report suggests that there is no targeting of returnees generally because of their status. The DFAT report says:
Over the years, many Somalis have used both legal and illegal methods to migrate or seek asylum abroad, mostly in Europe. UNHCR reported that in 2015 Somalia was the third-largest country of origin for refugees worldwide but also accounted for 16 per cent of global refugee returns. Culturally, sending at least one young family member out on migration (referred to as ‘tahriib’) is seen as a way to support extended families through remittances. DFAT understands that it is not a crime in Somalia to seek asylum elsewhere and is not aware of any credible reports of mistreatment of failed asylum seekers stemming specifically from their having sought asylum overseas.
The Applicant also gave evidence that he is a Sunni Muslim and identifies as a member of the Bantu minority in Somalia.
The DFAT report notes that in practice, almost 100 per cent of the Somali population are Sunni Muslim. The report states in respect of the Bantu:
The Bantu are a prominent ethnicity across eastern and southern Africa and are present in several countries across the region, including Kenya, Tanzania and South Africa. They are visibly identifiable in comparison to ethnic Somalis and were historically slaves to the majority clans of Somalia. According to the UK Home Office, the Bantu are now employed in low-paying agricultural work, or kept in bonded labour as domestic workers, farm labourers or herders for the majority clans. In the 1970s land was forcibly removed from the Bantu and since then they have been unable to own or purchase land.
The size of the Bantu population in Somalia is disputed. Bantu advocates suggest the Bantu make up 40 per cent of the roughly eight million people in south-central Somalia. DFAT assesses that this figure is towards the upper end of plausible estimates, but it is likely that many Bantu have emigrated either through asylum processes to the US and other western countries or are in refugee camps in Kenya. However, given the lack of census data there is no way to clarify population figures. Based on credible sources, DFAT understands that the majority of internally displaced persons (IDPs) in south-central Somalia, particularly in the IDP camps in Kismayo (in the south-east), are Bantu. Despite potentially being a large minority, the Bantu are severely under-represented in Somali society and politics. There are currently three Bantu parliamentarians in the Lower House and one in the Upper House. The Bantu are unarmed and do not have the protection of a militia. The Bantu are often overlooked in the distribution of humanitarian aid, a process which is generally done in consultation with the majority clans who do not highlight the needs of the Bantu.
DFAT assesses that as the Bantu are not part of the clan system, they are largely excluded from mainstream Somali society. With little political representation and few physical protection mechanisms they experience a high level of official and societal discrimination and face a high risk of violence[27].
[27] Emphasis added.
On the basis of the DFAT report, the Tribunal is prepared to assume in the Applicant’s favour that he is likely to experience a high level of official and societal discrimination and face a high risk of violence by reason of his Bantu ethnicity. In this respect, the deportation of the Applicant to Somalia would raise Australia’s non-refoulment obligations and this is a consideration in deciding whether there is ‘another reason’ to revoke the cancellation of the Applicant’s visa.
However, the existence of a non-refoulement obligation does not preclude the non-revocation of the mandatory cancellation of a visa. This is because such a decision will not necessarily result in removal of the non-citizen to the country in respect of which the non-refoulement obligation exists. In this context, it is relevant for the Tribunal to also consider that it is open to the Applicant to apply for a protection visa if the mandatory cancellation of his visa is not revoked. The Applicant gave evidence that he had prepared an application and intended to lodge it with the Department within days of the hearing.
If he does so, the Applicant’s non-refoulement claims will be conclusively assessed before consideration is given to any character or security concerns associated with the Applicant. This process would ordinarily be followed, even in the highly unlikely event that consideration of the protection visa application is undertaken by the Minister personally. Pending a determination on the protection visa application, the Applicant will remain in Australia in detention.
It is possible that the Applicant may be refused a protection visa under s 36 of the Act notwithstanding that he attracts the non-refoulement obligations. As a second consideration, the Tribunal notes that paragraph 9.1(1) of Part 2 of Direction 90 confirms the government’s commitment to its non-refoulement obligations as a matter of policy, and the Tribunal is able to rely on that commitment to conclude that, even if a protection visa is not granted, that the Applicant may not be forcibly removed to Somalia. The Full Court observed in WKMZ v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs:[28]
In our opinion, read fairly, all the Tribunal was saying in its finding at [268] was that it took the statement of executive policy at face value: namely that Australia will not remove a non-citizen, as a consequence of the cancellation of their visa, to the country in respect of which the non-refoulement obligation exists. As between one branch of the executive and another, especially where the Direction had binding force on the Tribunal, that could not be said to be an inappropriate position for the Tribunal to take.
[28] [2021] FCAFC 55, [149].
Even if a protection visa is not granted, the generally unfavourable and dangerous conditions in Somalia may give cause for consideration of other executive options, including removal to another country, or the Minister may consider exercising his/her personal discretion under s 195A of the Act to grant another visa , or alternatively, consider exercising his/her personal discretion under s 197AB to make a residence determination to enable the non-citizen to reside at a specified place in the community, subject to appropriate conditions.
A further consideration is the likelihood that the Applicant wiIl remain in immigration detention for a considerable period as a consequence of raising the non-refoulement claim. As the Court observed in WKMZ, the resolution and exhaustion of all executive options which are capable of avoiding refoulement may take a very long time.[29] Once those executive options are exhausted s 198 of the Act requires that a detainee must be removed as soon as reasonably practical, but the deprivation of liberty may by then have become ‘indefinite’ and perhaps unlawful.[30]
[29] Ibid, [153].
[30] Ibid, [160] referring to AJL20 v Commonwealth [2020] FCA 1305.
Taking these matters into account, the Tribunal is satisfied that the non-refoulment obligation owed to the Applicant is a consideration which weighs in favour of revocation. If the cancellation of the Applicant’s visa is not revoked there is a risk that the Applicant will be deported to Somalia and exposed to the risk of harm identified in the DFAT report. There is also a risk that the Applicant will be subject to a long period of detention while his protection visa application is considered and potentially while other executive actions are taken. These factors taken together require that the non-refoulement obligation be given significant weight, but in the context that it is not a primary consideration under Part 2 of Direction 90 and the Direction requires that it be weighed against the seriousness of the Applicant’s criminal offending or other serious conduct.
Extent of impediments if removed
Section 9.2 of Part 2 of Direction 90 requires that decision-makers must consider the extent of any impediments that the noncitizen may face if removed from Australia to their home country, in establishing themselves and maintaining basic living standards (in the context of what is generally available to other citizens of that country), taking into account:
(a) the non-citizen's age and health;
(b) whether there are substantial language or cultural barriers; and
(c) any social, medical and/or economic support available to them in that country.
The Applicant is 26 years old. It is not clear from the Applicant’s inconsistent accounts of events prior to joining his mother in Kenya at what age and in what circumstances he left Somalia. Nevertheless, it is clear that he was a reasonably young child when he left Somalia and started living in a refugee camp in Kenya. He has no relatives in Somalia nor any other source of support. He has little or no experience of life in Somalia. Somalia is a dangerous place.
He has a mental health condition which is likely to warrant treatment by way of psychotherapy and medication. The need for such treatment may well be heightened by the traumatic memories the Applicant claims to have of his life in Somalia, and particularly in witnessing the murder of his father.
He speaks Somali, some English and a little Swahili. He is of Bantu ethnicity, a disadvantaged minority in Somalia. He has limited formal education and some limited employment experience and skills. He has an extensive criminal record in Australia.
The DFAT Country Information Report for Somalia dated 13 June 2017 relevantly states:
3.25 In addition to decades of sustained and widespread conflict and political instability, Somalia is prone to severe drought and floods which has worsened the effects of the long-running humanitarian situation.
2.8 After 25 years of conflict and political instability, Somalia’s economy is fragile. Somalia is the fifth poorest country in the world.
2.11 In practice, there is no functioning national health system and access to healthcare services is severely limited. According to UNICEF, only 45 per cent of the population has access to clean water, and only 25 per cent has access to adequate sanitation.
2.13 Formal unemployment in Somalia is high; the most recent overall unemployment rate (from 2012) was 54 per cent. According to the 2015 UNDP Human Development Report, the youth unemployment rate is 67 per cent.
In these circumstances, the Tribunal is satisfied that the Applicant would experience major impediments to establishing himself and maintaining basic living standards (in the context of what is generally available to other citizens in Somalia) if he is removed to that country. This consideration weighs heavily on the Tribunal in considering whether there is ‘another reason’ to revoke the cancellation of the Applicant’s visa.
Impact on victims
Paragraph 9.3 of Part 2 requires decision-makers to consider the impact of the section 501 or 501CA decision on members of the Australian community, including victims of the non-citizen's criminal behaviour, and the family members of the victim or victims, where information in this regard is available and the non-citizen being considered for visa refusal or cancellation, or who has sought revocation of the mandatory cancellation of their visa, has been afforded procedural fairness.

The relevant impact under paragraph 9.3 is the adverse impact likely to result from the non-citizen being granted a visa.[31]
[31] CGX20 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services, and Multicultural Affairs (No 2) FCA 1842 [17] - [21], which considers the analogue consideration at 14.4 of Direction No 79.
There is no evidence before the Tribunal as to any adverse impact likely to result for the victims of the Applicant’s offending if the Applicant is to be granted a visa to remain in Australia.
Links to the Australian community
Paragraph 9.4 of Part 2 of Direction 90 requires that decision-makers reflect on the principles at paragraph 5.2 and have regard to the considerations set out in paragraphs 9.4.1 to 9.4.2.
Ties to Australia
Paragraph 9.4.1. refers to the strength, nature and duration of the non-citizen’s ties to Australia and sets out the following principles:
(1) Decision-makers must consider any impact of the decision on the non-citizen's immediate family members in Australia, where those family members are Australian citizens, Australian permanent residents, or people who have a right to remain in Australia indefinitely.
(2) Where consideration is being given to whether to cancel a non-citizen's visa or whether to revoke the mandatory cancellation of their visa, the decision-maker must also consider the strength, nature and duration of any other ties that the non citizen has to the Australian community. In doing so, decision-makers must have regard to:
(a) how long the non-citizen has resided in Australia, including whether the non-citizen arrived as a young child, noting that:
1. less weight should be given where the non-citizen began offending soon after arriving in Australia; and
11. more weight should be given to time the non-citizen has spent contributing positively to the Australian community.
(b) the strength, duration and nature of any family or social links with Australian citizens, Australian permanent residents and/or people who have an indefinite right to remain in Australia.
The Applicant has lived in Australia since he arrived as a young man in November 2012. He has strong family ties to Australia. He has a mother and stepfather and ten siblings living in Australia who are all Australian citizens, Australian permanent residents, or people who have a right to remain in Australia indefinitely. The family lives together in two separate houses in close proximity in Brisbane. He also has two daughters who were born in Australia, although the Applicant has had very limited contact with either daughter. The Applicant also has a nephew. In addition, since 2015, the Applicant has established a role in the Muslim community centred on the Kuraby Mosque where he has friends and he is involved in community activity and religious observance.
These are strong and enduring ties which weigh in favour of revocation. However, the relative weight to be given to these ties is diminished by the fact that the Applicant began offending in 2014, shortly after arriving in Australia.
The Tribunal accepts that a decision not to revoke the cancellation of the Applicant’s visa would have an impact on the Applicant’s immediate family. As the oldest sibling in his mother’s household, he has provided practical and financial support for his mother in caring for her young children and especially A who has epilepsy. The continuity of this support has been interrupted by periods of imprisonment and he has now been absent from the family for over two years, due to his sentencing on 6 November 2019 and subsequent immigration detention. His contribution to his family as a role model and ‘father figure’ is diminished by his extensive involvement in criminal activity and the abuse of alcohol and drugs. On balance, the Tribunal accepts that there would be a negative impact on the Applicant’s immediate family members if the cancellation of his visa is not revoked, but it does not give this consideration great weight.
Impact on Australian business interests
Paragraph 9.4.2 requires decision-makers to consider any impact on Australian business interests if the non-citizen is not allowed to enter or remain in Australia, noting that an employment link would generally only be given weight where the decision under section 501 or 501CA would significantly compromise the delivery of a major project, or delivery of an important service in Australia.
There is no evidence to suggest that this consideration is relevant to the Applicant.
Conclusion
In Gaspar v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection,[32] North ACJ elaborated on how to approach the exercise of the discretion under s 501CA(4)(b)(ii) of the Act:
The preferable conclusion is that s 501CA(4)(b)(ii) requires the Minister to examine the factors for and against revoking the cancellation. If satisfied, following an assessment and an evaluation of those factors, that the cancellation should be revoked, the Minister is obliged to act on that view.
[32] [2016] FCA 116, [38].
Factors against revocation
The Applicant has been involved in serious criminal conduct and the risk of him reoffending if released into the community is high. He represents an unacceptable risk of harm to members of the community. The protection of the Australian community from harm, as a result of criminal activity or other serious conduct by non-citizens, is a primary consideration under Direction 90. Paragraph 8.1(1) provides that:
…decision-makers should have particular regard to the principle that entering or remaining in Australia is a privilege that Australia confers on non-citizens in the expectation that they are, and have been, law abiding, will respect important institutions, and will not cause or threaten harm to individuals or the Australian community.
The Tribunal gives substantial weight to the consideration of protecting the Australian community from harm and this weighs heavily against the revocation of cancellation of the Applicant’s visa.
Australia has a low tolerance of any criminal or other serious conduct by visa applicants or those holding a limited stay visa, or by other noncitizens who have been participating in, and contributing to, the Australian community only for a short period of time. However, Australia may afford a higher level of tolerance of criminal or other serious conduct by noncitizens who have lived in the Australian community for most of their life, or from a very young age.
Similarly, the expectations of the Australian community are a primary consideration. The Applicant has acted contrary to the expectations of the Australian community by failing, repeatedly, to obey Australian laws while in Australia and this consideration weighs substantially in favour of not revoking the Applicant’s visa cancellation.
In assessing the overall question of whether there is ‘another reason’ to revoke the cancellation of the Applicant’s visa, the Tribunal is not necessarily bound by the expectations of the Australian community. The Court noted in FYBR v Minister for Home Affairs[33] that the paragraph:
…recognises that the government’s assessment of the expectations of the Australian community is that a non-citizen who has committed a serious offence should not be granted a visa. Strictly speaking, it is not correct to say that the expectation is one to which the Tribunal “must give effect”. The Tribunal must in all cases determine whether it is appropriate to refuse to grant the visa. In an appropriate case, the Tribunal may make a decision that does not give effect to community expectations as the government has assessed them to be. In such a case, the decision-maker would depart from the relative ascription of weight for which cl 8(4) “generally” provides, as he or she is permitted to do.
[33] [2019] FCAFC 185, [79].
In the Applicant’s case, the Tribunal is not persuaded to depart from the relative ascription of weight for which paragraph 8.4 of Part 2 of Direction 90 generally provides. The Applicant has committed over 60 offences across a broad range of criminal conduct. He has demonstrated a consistent disregard for the law and for those that enforce it. The risk that the Applicant will re-offend if released into the community is high.
In weighing this primary consideration, the Tribunal is mindful that The Australian community expects non-citizens to obey Australian laws while in Australia. Where a non-citizen has engaged in serious conduct in breach of this expectation, or where there is an unacceptable risk that they may do so, the Australian community, as a norm, expects the Government to not allow such a non-citizen to enter or remain in Australia.[34]
[34] Part 8.4(1) of Part 2 of Direction 90.
Having regard to these principles, the Tribunal gives substantial weight to the expectations of the Australian community which favour non-revocation as a primary consideration.
Factors in favour of revocation
The principal considerations in favour of revocation relate to the interests of the Applicant personally, and in particular to the adverse consequences for him of being deported to Somalia. The detriments the Applicant would face if deported to Somalia are substantial and weigh strongly in favour of revocation. Somalia is a poor country with very limited opportunities for a person with the Applicant’s skills and experience. It is a dangerous place and there are very limited medical and other basic services. The Applicant is vulnerable due to his inexperience, his ethnicity and his mental health. The Tribunal accepts that he is a person to whom Australia owes an obligation of non-refoulement.
The Tribunal is very mindful of these considerations and weighs them heavily in favour of revocation. However, in assessing the relative weight to be given to all factors the Tribunal notes that deportation to Somalia does not automatically flow from a decision not to revoke the cancellation of the Applicant’s visa. There are other options available including the granting of a protection visa which would allow the Applicant to avoid deportation. Nevertheless, non-revocation would expose the Applicant to the risk of deportation and the dire consequences that would entail for him and also require the Applicant to remain in detention in Australia while those options were considered.
To this consideration can be added the strength of the Applicant’s links to Australia. The Applicant has strong extended family links to Australia, has lived here for almost 10 years and has significant community connections through his involvement with the Kuraby Mosque. His family would be negatively impacted if he were deported. This consideration is tempered, somewhat, by the Applicant’s offending shortly after arriving in Australia and by his extended time in prison. Nevertheless, the Tribunal gives this consideration substantial weight in favour of revocation.
These considerations are not primary considerations under Direction 90, but they are important considerations which weigh in favour of revocation.
In addition, the Tribunal accepts that it is in the best interests of the Applicant’s younger siblings and his nephew that he remain in Australia, but it gives this consideration limited weight in favour of revocation notwithstanding that it is a primary consideration under Direction 90. The Tribunal is not persuaded that the best interests of the Applicant’s daughters require that the cancellation of his visa be revoked.
Conclusion
Subparagraphs 7(2) to (3) of Part 2 of Direction 90 provide:
(2) Primary considerations should generally be given greater weight than the other considerations.
(3) One or more primary considerations may outweigh other primary considerations.
In Suleiman v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 594 Colvin J stated in relation to the former Direction at [23]:
...Direction 65 makes clear that an evaluation is required in each case as to the weight to be given to the 'other considerations' (including non-refoulement obligations). It requires both primary and other considerations to be given 'appropriate weight'. Direction 65 does provide that, generally, primary considerations should be given greater weight. They are primary in the sense that absent some factor that takes the case out of that which pertains 'generally' they are to be given greater weight. However, Direction 65 does not require that the other considerations be treated as secondary in all cases. Nor does it provide that primary considerations are 'normally' given greater weight. Rather, Direction 65 concerns the appropriate weight to be given to both 'primary' and 'other considerations'. In effect, it requires an inquiry as to whether one or more of the other considerations should be treated as being a primary consideration or the consideration to be afforded greatest weight in the particular circumstances of the case because it is outside the circumstances that generally apply.
Justice Colvin’s assessment regarding the various considerations in Direction 65 apply equally to the considerations in Direction 90.
In assessing the relative weight to attribute to factors for and against revocation, the Tribunal has had regard to the principles set out in paragraph 5.2 of Direction 90 which provide the framework for decision making under section 501CA of the Act. Those principles include:
(1)Being able to come to or remain in Australia is a privilege Australia confers on non-citizens in the expectation that they are, and have been, law-abiding, will respect important institutions, such as Australia's law enforcement framework, and will not cause or threaten harm to individuals or the Australian community.
(2) Non-citizens who engage or have engaged in criminal or other serious conduct should expect to be denied the privilege of coming to, or to forfeit the privilege of staying in, Australia.
(3) The Australian community expects that the Australian Government can and should refuse entry to non-citizens, or cancel their visas, if they engaged in conduct, in Australia or elsewhere, that raises serious character concerns.
Weighing up each of these factors, the Tribunal is satisfied that the primary considerations of protecting the Australian community from harm and the expectations of the Australian community, outweigh the considerations related to the personal interests of the Applicant and those of his family. The Tribunal is not satisfied that there is ‘another reason’ to revoke the cancellation of the Applicant’s visa pursuant to s 501CA(4)(b)(ii) of the Act.
DECISION
The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

174. I certify that the preceding 173 (one hundred and seventy three) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Member R West

...[sgd]..................................................................
Associate
Dated: 7 May 2021

Dates of hearing:

28 & 29 April 2021

Applicant:

By video

Solicitor for the Respondent:

Mr Alex Booth

Dates of hearing:	28 & 29 April 2021
Applicant:	By video
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Mr Alex Booth