Alaman (Migration) - [2025] ARTA 924

ALAMAN (MIGRATION) [2025] ARTA 924 (8 JANUARY 2025)
DECISION AND
REASONS FOR DECISION
Applicant:Mr Tuna Alaman
Respondent:  Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs
Tribunal Number:  2451219
Tribunal:Rosa Gagliardi
Place:Australian Capital Territory
Date:  8 January 2025
Decision:The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

Statement made on 08 January 2025 at 5:19pm
CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Bridging E (Class WE) visa – Subclass 050 (Bridging (General)) – valid application for substantive visa not finally determined – application for medical treatment visa made just prior to hearing – abidance by conditions of visa – periods as unlawful non-citizen – criminal convictions, intensive correction order, imprisonment, ADVO and immigration detention – financial and personal support from friend and community – minimal evidence of support network – mental health – time and cost of counselling – some work but extent unknown – circumstances of offences – claim of reconciliation with partner – no expert evidence provided about understanding of or responsibility for actions or likelihood of reoffending – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5(1), 11A, 73, 359A
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2, cls 050.212(3), 050.223, Schedule 8, cl 8101, 8401, 8506, 8564

CASE
Applicant VAAN of 2001 v MIMA (2002) 70 ALD 289
STATEMENT OF REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs to refuse to grant the applicant a Bridging E (Class WE) visa under s 73 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).
The applicant applied for the visa on 16 December 2024. At that time Class WE contained two subclasses: Subclasses 050 and 051. In the present case, the applicant is seeking to satisfy the criteria for the grant of a Subclass 050 visa, which are set out in Part 050 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (the Regulations). Relevantly to this matter, the primary criteria include cl 050.223.
The decision to refuse to grant the visa was made on 23 December 2024, because at that time there was no basis on which the applicant could apply for the Bridging visa E. That is, he was not awaiting the outcome of judicial review of an immigration case, was not making an application for a substantive visa as defined, and he was not claiming to make acceptable arrangements to depart Australia. As such he did not meet any of the criteria in cl.050.212. At the time of application, the applicant had intimated that he wanted to apply for a Medical Treatment visa because he wanted to treat psychological issues, but no concrete actions had been taken to submit such an application. Just prior to the hearing on 7 January 2025, the applicant lodged evidence of having applied for a Medical Treatment visa to the Department dated 7 January 2025.
The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 7 January 2025 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal also received oral evidence from the applicant’s support person and friend, Mr Wucel Polat. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Turkish and English languages.
The applicant was represented in relation to the review. The representative attended the Tribunal hearing.
For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
The grounds for seeking the visa - cl 050.212
At the time of the visa application, the applicant must meet one of the alternatives set out in cl 050.212(2)-(9). The applicant must continue to satisfy this criterion at the time of decision: cl 050.221.
In this case, the applicant is seeking to meet cl.050.212(3). The applicant does not claim to meet any of the other alternative criteria in cl 050.212. For the reasons below, the applicant meets cl 050.212 at the time of decision.
Substantive visa application
Subclause 050.212(3) is met if the applicant has made, in Australia, a valid application for a substantive visa of a kind that can be granted if the applicant is in Australia and that application has not been finally determined, or the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant would apply for such a visa within a period specified for doing so.
‘Substantive visa’ in this context means a visa other than a bridging visa, criminal justice visa or enforcement visa: s 5(1) of the Act. An application is ‘finally determined’ when it is not or is no longer subject to any form of review by application to the Tribunal under Part 5 of the Act, or any period within which such application must be submitted has passed without an application being made: s 11A of the Act.
Accordingly, the applicant meets cl 050.212(3).
The applicant’s migration/criminal history in Australia (as set out in the Departmental decision and duplicated here)
·The applicant arrived in Australia on 27 March 2021 as the holder of a Tourist (Class FA)(Subclass 600) and has not departed Australia since.
·The applicant’s Tourist FA600 visa expired on 28 June 2021, and the applicant became an unlawful non-citizen.
·On 30 June 2021 the applicant applied for a Temporary Activity (Class GG)(Subclass GG408) visa and was granted an associated Bridging visa C on the same day.
·Departmental records indicate that on 23 February 2023, the applicant was convicted of the following offences:
-    Stalk/intimidate intend fear physical harm etc
-    Common assault
-    Assault occasioning bodily harm
-    Other
·    On 19 April 2023 the Temporary Activity visa GG408 was refused as the applicant did not meet the relevant criteria.
·    On 24 May 2023 the applicant’s BVC’s ceased and on 25 May 2023, the applicant became unlawful for a second time.
·    In April 2024 the applicant was convicted of Contravene/prohibition/restriction in AVO(Domestic) (Apprehended Violence Orders) and sentenced to a 6-month Intensive Correction Order.
·    In July 2024 the applicant was again convicted of Contravene/prohibition/restriction in AVO (Domestic) and sentenced to 9 months imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 3 months.
·    An ADVO (Apprehended Domestic Violence Order) was also issued, naming his partner and children as the aggrieved persons.
·    The ADVO remains in effect until 22 February 2025.
·    On 25 October 2024 upon the applicant’s release from criminal custody, he was located by Australian Border Force (ABF) and was placed in immigration detention on account of being an unlawful non-citizen.
·    On 25 October 2024 the applicant lodged an application for a Bridging Visa E which was refused, and he subsequently lodged the application under review on 16 December 2024.
Whether the applicant will abide by conditions - cl 050.223
Clause 050.223 requires that the Tribunal is satisfied at the time of decision, that if a bridging visa is granted to the applicant, the applicant will abide by any conditions imposed on it. Conditions that may be imposed on a Subclass 050 visa are provided for in Division 050.6 and set out in Schedule 8 to the Regulations. Division 050.6 also sets out conditions to which the visa is subject.
When considering cl 050.223, the Tribunal must consider which conditions, if any, should be imposed and whether it is satisfied that the applicant would abide by those conditions. In deciding the question of whether the applicant would abide by conditions imposed, the Tribunal is to consider the likely conduct of the applicant. In that context, relevant considerations may include the applicant’s past immigration history, in particular any previous breaches of immigration laws, the significance of the migration laws that were breached, the wilfulness with which those laws had been breached, whether there were any mitigating circumstances justifying their breach and whether the applicant had shown any contrition for their unlawful conduct: Applicant VAAN of 2001 v MIMA (VAAN) (2002) 70 ALD 289 at [15]-[16].
Clause 050.223 of the Regulations requires that the Tribunal be satisfied at the time of decision that, if a bridging visa is granted to the applicant, the applicant will abide by any conditions imposed on it This clause prescribes that, in addition to any mandatory conditions, certain conditions may be imposed. Conditions that may be imposed on a Subclass 050 visa are provided for in Division 050.6 and set out in Schedule 8 of the Regulations. Division 050.6 also sets out conditions to which the visa is subject.
The Tribunal considers that in light of the applicant’s history in Australia the following conditions are appropriate:
8101, a mandatory condition that the applicant must not engage in work in Australia
8401, that the applicant must report at the time or times and at a place or in a manner specified, orally or in writing, by the Minister from time to time
8506, that the applicant must notify Immigration at least two working days in advance of any change in the holder’s address; and
8564, that the applicant must not engage in criminal conduct.
Must not engage in work in Australia
The applicant stated at hearing that he had had five sessions of counselling over the phone with a psychologist/psychiatrist (Dr Nugent) but that face-to-face consultations would be optimal. He stated he had applied for a Medical Treatment visa because he wanted to continue to deal with his depression for which had been diagnosed. He stated that he was advised that he would need treatment from 6 to 8 months in Australia.
The Tribunal emphasised that the Bridging visa E would not permit the applicant to work and up to 8 months was a lengthy period not to be earning. The Tribunal understands the applicant has two children aged 4 and 6 years and asked him whether he intended to provide some financial support to them. The applicant stated that after he finished his treatment he would depart for Turkey and work there. His children would be able to visit him because they had dual nationality.
The applicant stated that he had a friend who owned a kebab shop (they met at his kebab shop), Mr Wucel Polat, who would accommodate him, provide food, clothing and would pay for all other expenses. When asked, the applicant conceded he did not have a Medicare Card which as the Tribunal noted meant that should he need an operation or have a medical incident during the 6 to 8 months in Australia, he would need to pay for that privately. The applicant stated that Mr Polat was aware of that and that he would be responsible for “everything”. They had known each other for 4 or so years. Mr Polat was not related to the applicant. The applicant stated that Mr Polat was married and had three adult children (precise ages not known by the applicant).
The applicant advanced that Mr Polat was in a position to support him because he had recently sold his kebab shop and would ultimately invest that money in another business and there were no concerns about him being able to financially support the applicant.
The Tribunal spoke to Mr Polat over the phone. He confirmed he owned his own home and did not have a mortgage. Asked about savings Mr Polat stated he had around $40,000 in savings. The Tribunal does not have evidence of Mr Polat having access to $40,000 in savings but accepts this is the case. When the Tribunal indicated that this might not be enough in the event of unforeseen circumstances such as a medical emergency, Mr Polat stated that he had additional savings. Asked how much additional funds he might have, he seemed reluctant to say and asked whether he had to tell the Tribunal the exact nature of his financial situation. He did state he had bought and sold several businesses over the years. There may be several reasons why Mr Polat was cagey about his true financial situation and does not place adverse weight on his reluctance to divulge this information. Even in the absence of evidence of Mr Polat having access to funds beyond the $40,000, the Tribunal accepts he does have additional funds, even if the exact quantum is unknown.
Mr Polat also stated that he had a three-bedroom home in which the twin girls would sleep together, and the applicant would sleep in the room with his son. These arrangements had been approved he stated. The Tribunal notes that the applicant had stated that Mr Polat had a four-bedroom house and a granny flat which was not consistent with Mr Polat’s advice that he had a three bedroom home. Nonetheless, nothing turns on this matter and the Tribunal does not place any weight on this inconsistency because it may well be that the applicant had never been to the home of Mr Polat.
The representative argued that the community and others in addition to Mr Polat had phoned the representative to give him assurances that they would support the applicant and would provide both physical and emotional support were the visa granted. The evidence before the Tribunal that the applicant has a widespread network of supporters is minimal.
The Tribunal accepts that Mr Polat is a generous person and even when the Tribunal put to him that he would be putting his family’s resources at the disposal of the applicant for a lengthy period, he responded that his wife was in agreement and supported the applicant being in their home and that she would be happy to provide financial support to him. In terms of his children, it was not up to them what their views were. When asked whether he was aware as to the applicant’s problems he stated that he understood the applicant had argued with his wife. The applicant came from a different culture and did not understand the laws of Australia. In any event, Mr Polat stated the applicant’s wife could also have been at fault. He did not know. What was important according to Mr Polat was that the applicant be given a chance to show he had changed. He was very sure that the applicant would adhere to the conditions imposed on his visa.
The Tribunal accepts that Mr Polat is genuinely wanting to assist the applicant, but the Tribunal did not gain the impression at hearing that he had fully understood the extent of his undertaking, simply repeating that yes, he was prepared to support the applicant in “everything”. This is particularly so as the applicant claims he requires up to 8 months of psychological counselling.
The applicant stated that Mr Polat had covered the $1,500 associated with counselling already, but it is unclear whether such funds need to at some point be repaid by the applicant and whether Mr Polat is prepared to continue to pay for counselling for such an extended period.
Concerningly, Mr Polat also stated that the applicant had worked as a handyman and had helped people out generally in the community, but it is unclear whether such work was carried out while the applicant was an unlawful non-citizen. The Tribunal has concerns that the applicant in the genuine wish to be useful or assist his family will not again resort to the type of work he has done in the past.
Having considered the applicant’s circumstances and taking Mr Polat’s assurances into consideration, and accepting Mr Polat’s wife fully consents to the applicant being in their home together with providing him with funds, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant has any moral obligation to Mr Polat not to disassociate from him and the Department and start working illegally.
The Tribunal finds that Mr Polat is a friend, not a relative, for example, and while the applicant might give Mr Polat assurances that he will not breach his visa conditions to work, the Tribunal finds it difficult to accept that the applicant would continue to remain dependent on a family man who would have his own expenses (even though he does not have a mortgage which the Tribunal accepts). Mr Polat stated at hearing that he intended to use the proceeds from the sale of his kebab shop to buy another business, so it unclear whether he will be able to stretch his resources to cover the applicant’s costs for a significant part of a year unconditionally, and without some form of recompense. This is particularly so as the cost of private counselling can be prohibitive.
The representative stated that psychological counselling will assist the applicant to abide by his conditions, including the condition he does not work in Australia. However, the Tribunal has little evidence before it as to whether Dr Nugent considers they hold any moral persuasion over the applicant such that he will not work in contravention of his visa conditions were it granted. The representative also emphasised that the applicant would abide by all Australia’s laws now as he was remorseful for his conduct and would not repeat such mistakes. The Tribunal has limited information, however, about the rehabilitation prospects of the applicant and any comments made in sentencing which would demonstrate that the applicant was indeed remorseful and was simply not asserting he had changed in a bid to be able to have access to his children – a factor which is highly motivating for him.
The Tribunal has taken into account the good intentions of Mr Polat to support the applicant through any medical unforeseen events but is not satisfied that Mr Polat has insight into the extent and the length of the support required by the applicant. His responses at hearing seemed to indicate to the Tribunal that he was asserting he would assist, without any real awareness that the extent of support would cover a significant period.
After 22 February 2025, on expiry of the AVO, the applicant would be able to see his children again and he stated he wanted to prove he was a good role model to his children. The Tribunal has serious concerns that were he to start residing with his family again, however, that his circumstances might mean that he would work to support his family.
The applicant at hearing blamed his wife’s friend for completing an application for a Temporary Activity visa and stated he knew nothing about it, and therefore became an unlawful non-citizen without his knowledge. The representative also stated at hearing that the applicant had not been properly notified of the refusal of the Temporary visa and that therefore he was theoretically not an unlawful citizen for a period, and it was beyond the applicant’s control he did not know he did not have a visa to be in Australia. The Tribunal is not convinced of such assertions. Even if the Department did renotify the applicant, the issue of whether he had a valid visa continues to be an issue. It is also for the applicant to be responsible for their migration status and finds his arguments that he just trusted his wife’s friend to take full responsibility for his immigration status, and that he took no interest in the matter, unconvincing.
The Tribunal places no weight on the fact that the applicant was initially unlawful for a 2-day period. However, it is significant that the applicant on being refused a Temporary visa disengaged from the Department again demonstrating the applicant tends to circumvent Australia’s immigration laws if he does not attain his goals (i.e., temporary residence in this case). During the second unlawful period the Tribunal had no visibility in terms of whether the applicant was working without a right to do so and has concerns that given the opportunity to disengage with the Department in the future, he will do so.
Given the Tribunal’s serious concerns above, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant will abide by condition 8101 were he granted a Bridging Visa E
Report at the time or times and at place or in a manner specified, orally or in writing, by the Minister from time to time
The Tribunal is unaware as to the circumstances surrounding the applicant contravening the terms of the AVO in April 2024 and in July 2024. The Tribunal as put to the applicant at hearing cannot make findings about an applicant’s future conduct based solely on their past conduct. The applicant at hearing stated that he was motivated by wanting to see his children and that is why he contravened the AVO. The Tribunal is taking these matters into consideration because the condition to report as specified by the Minister is somewhat comparable to an order by a court that the applicant not approach his family, although the Tribunal appreciates that breaching an AVO carries serious legal and other consequences.

The Tribunal has considered that the applicant stated that he was deeply remorseful for his actions, however, by the second time he had contravened the AVO, the applicant would have been aware that to breach such an order carried serious consequences. The applicant proceeded to breach regardless, on the basis of wanting to see his children. This conduct would indicate that the applicant is likely to do whatever is in his interests regardless of what the law requires of him and regardless of whether the Minister requires him to report.
The Tribunal notes that Mr Polat at hearing stated that the applicant “could not control himself” implying he was impulsive and not likely to resist acting on such impulses. The Tribunal places weight on the fact that there were two contraventions of an AVO and that these contraventions are not matters in the distant past, but occurred less than 12 months ago. At hearing the applicant stated that he had undertaken training in prison to understand family violence and its serious consequences, but the Tribunal has little evidence that the applicant successfully engaged with such training. Nor does it have evidence that the applicant has engaged in anger management or other courses, for example, that would show the applicant had insight into his conduct and would not act impulsively again in future such that he might not report to the Minister as specified, and become an unlawful non-citizen if it were advantageous to him. This is particularly so when his AVO expires on

22 February 2025, and the applicant will have no obligations in terms of the courts and may feel he can also disengage with the immigration process.
The Tribunal considers that had the applicant had a genuine change of mind set regarding compliance with the law, and if he wished to demonstrate that he was law abiding, he would not have promptly breached the AVO a second time.
On the evidence, the Tribunal is not persuaded that the applicant will act in future on the basis of the requirement to report to the Minister because the applicant continues to be highly motivated to achieve his aims of being with his children regardless of the consequences. The Tribunal is not satisfied, therefore, that the applicant will abide by the conditions to report to the Minister as specified from time to time.
The applicant must notify Immigration at least two working days in advance of any change in the holder’s address
The Tribunal refers to its reasoning above regarding reporting to the Minister at a time or times and at a place as specified by the Minister. The issue of compliance with this condition that the applicant will notify the Minister of his whereabouts and will not disengage from the Department is linked to whether the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant will comply with his reporting requirements of a Bridging visa E.
As the Tribunal has expressed above, it has concerns that the applicant states that he has undergone significant changes in attitudes and wants to abide by his conditions and to obey the laws of Australia, yet the Tribunal has expert little independent and authoritative third-party evidence that this has in fact occurred.
For these reasons, the Tribunal is not satisfied, that particularly after his ADVO expires on

22 February 2025, and the applicant will be able to have access to his wife and children, that the applicant will abide by this condition. Furthermore, the Tribunal continues to remain seriously concerned that the applicant breached his AVO orders on two occasions despite knowing (at least in terms of the second occasion) that his actions entailed a breach of Australia’s criminal laws.
The Tribunal is therefore not satisfied that the applicant will notify Immigration at least two working days in advance of any change in his address were he to be granted a Bridging visa E. The applicant’s focus is being with his children wherever and in whatever circumstances that may be.
Must not engage in criminal conduct
The representative instructed the Tribunal that the criminal matters in the courts had now been finalised and were well behind the applicant. The Tribunal did, however, consider that it ought to advise the applicant about the privilege against self-incrimination which allows a person to refuse to answer any question, or produce any document or thing, if in doing so it would tend to expose the person to conviction for a crime.[1]
[1] See ‘Australian Government’, Australian Law Reform Commission’, A common law right | ALRC.
The Tribunal commented at hearing that the applicant’s previous criminal conduct was serious. Accordingly, The Tribunal put to the applicant under s.359A the particulars of the NSW Police Fact Sheets which could lead the Tribunal to find that the applicant would not abide by his visa condition not to engage in criminal activity in the future, given the seriousness of the criminal conduct he had engaged in in the past. The history put to the applicant is as follows:
·During the month of June 2022, the applicant and his spouse engaged in a verbal argument. About 15 minutes later they went into the kitchen/dining area when the applicant picked up a knife and started to walk towards his wife who was holding their daughter when the applicant was walking towards them with the knife in front of his body pointing in their direction. While walking towards them the applicant stated words to the effect, “I’m going to kill you”.
·After walking out the applicant kicked the back door in to gain access as it was locked.
·During the month of July 2022, the applicant and his wife argued again. During this argument the applicant became aggressive and walked towards his spouse with a closed fist and punched her in the back of the neck and on the top of the head, and after this he grabbed her by her hair and slammed her head into the side of the lounge. His wife then told him to leave the premises and the applicant stated, “If I do kill you the kids will not be with you or me I’ll be in jail, and you will be underground”.
·On 23 August 2022 the applicant attempted to prevent his spouse from taking the children out of the house and started walking towards her stating “I told you you’re not going to go nowhere, give both of my kids and fuck off”. The applicant’s wife had to push her son through an open window to secure his safety.
The applicant at hearing stated that it was not true he had held a knife. As the Tribunal advised the applicant, however, it was not conducting a criminal trial, it was simply putting to the applicant that it had seen the NSW Police notes and was giving the applicant an opportunity to state why given the above conduct, the Tribunal should be satisfied that the applicant would not engage in criminal conduct if a Bridging visa were granted.
The applicant stated that during his time in prison he had reflected and regretted his actions deeply and that his conduct was the worst regret of his life. Nonetheless, the Tribunal has limited evidence that the applicant has undergone a change of mindset as concerns family violence over several years, or that he has engaged in transformative training to understand the criminality of his conduct. The Tribunal has no objective or expert evidence before it that the applicant has fully understood and taken responsibility for his actions, and that the likelihood of the applicant reoffending again was low. The Tribunal has no such reassurances from authoritative sources.
The Tribunal’s concerns relate, for example, to the applicant’s past belief as expressed by him that the children were his, and that he could hurt the children by hurting his spouse. The Tribunal has little evidence that the applicant has understood issues of coercive control and other forms of family violence apart from physical harm. The National Domestic and Family Violence Bench Book [2] discusses the complexity of what constitutes family violence, and that coercive control is “almost always an underpinning dynamic of family and domestic violence. Coercive control involves perpetrators exerting power and dominance over victim-survivors using patterns of abusive behaviour that create fear and autonomy. Perpetrators may use physical or non-physical abusive behaviours, or a combination of both”.[3]
[2] ‘National Domestic and Family Violence Bench Book’, The Australasian Institute of Judicial Administration, Attorney-General’s Department, The University of Melbourne, AIJA Benchbook.
[3] Ibid.
At hearing the applicant stated that he had reconciled with his wife and that she and his children came to visit him in detention as they wanted to see him. He stated she had “forgiven” him, however, the Tribunal is not concerned with the applicant’s spouse’s intentions toward the applicant. The Tribunal’s assessment is directed at whether it can be satisfied that the applicant will comply with the condition not to engage in any type of criminal conduct while he is on his Bridging visa E. Given there is limited verifiable evidence before the Tribunal that the applicant has had a fundamental shift in his thinking regarding exerting power and dominance, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant will not again engage in criminal conduct on a Bridging visa E if he were granted such a visa.
It was also of some concern to the Tribunal that Mr Polat who claims to be the one to encourage the applicant to abide by his visa conditions, referred to the difficulties of the applicant as being due to “arguments” with his wife and that the applicant’s wife could well have been at fault also and that the applicant’s culture meant he had not understood Australia’s laws. This would indicate that Mr Polat was also diminishing the significance of the offending and that only limited weight can be placed in terms of Mr Polat’s guidance in terms of ensuring the applicant continued to adhere to the conditions of his visa. Clearly, Mr Polat as well-intentioned as he might have been, was not able to prevent the applicant breaching the AVO on a second occasion.
Conclusion
The representative made lengthy verbal submissions involving assertions that the applicant knew this was his last chance to be with his family and that the applicant not wanting to return to prison was a deterrent to him violating any conditions or breaking the law again. The Tribunal has had regard to such submissions, but they are not substantiated by credible expert evidence and the Tribunal is being asked to rely on the applicant’s assurances.
On the evidence before it and for the reasons above, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant will abide by conditions imposed on the visa if granted. Therefore, the applicant does not meet cl 050.223.
For these reasons, the applicant does not satisfy the criteria for the grant of a Subclass 050 (Bridging (General)) visa.
The visa application is also an application for a Subclass 051 (Bridging (Protection Visa Applicant)) visa. The applicant is not a relevant eligible non-citizen as set out in cl 051.211 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations and therefore does not meet the requirements for the grant of that visa.
DECISION
The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Bridging E (Class WE) visa.
NB: The applicant told the Tribunal that he had attempted suicide in the past and the Tribunal considers that he is at risk of such future attempts. The Tribunal would urge detention staff to provide the applicant with the support required, particularly in light of this adverse decision.
Date of hearing: 7 January 2025
Representative for the Applicant: Mr Kayhan Oncu