Anderson and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship
[2010] AATA 483
•30 June 2010
Administrative Appeals Tribunal
DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2010] AATA 483
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
) No 2010/1553
GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION )
Re Roberto Anderson
Applicant
AndMinister for Immigration and Citizenship
Respondent
DECISION
TribunalMr R P Handley, Deputy President
Date30 June 2010
PlaceSydney
DecisionThe decision under review is affirmed.
………………[sgd]……………...
Mr RP Handley
Deputy President
CATCHWORDS
IMMIGRATION – visa cancellation – Direction 41 - character test – substantial criminal record – primary considerations – protection of the Australian community – seriousness and nature of the conduct – risk that the conduct may be repeated – whether a minor when person began living in Australia – length of time ordinarily resident in Australia prior to engaging in criminal activity – best interests of the child – other considerations - family ties, the nature and extent of any relationships – person’s age – person’s health – links to the country to which they would be removed – hardship likely to be experienced by the person or their immediate family members – level of education – whether the person has been formally advised in the past of conduct that brought the person within deportation provisions
…
RELEVANT ACT
Migration Act 1958 (Cth): ss 499, 501
…
OTHER AUTHORITIES
Direction [No.41] – Visa Refusal and Cancellation under s 501
…
REASONS FOR DECISION
30 June 2010
Mr RP Handley, Deputy President
1. Mr Anderson has applied to the Tribunal for the review of a decision of a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship to cancel Mr Anderson’s visa on the ground that he did not pass the ‘character test’ because he has a substantial criminal record.
BACKGROUND
2. Mr Anderson was born in New Zealand in 1980 and came to Australia when he was two years and five months old in 1983. He is a New Zealand citizen but has lived in Australia since then. He has a de facto partner, Ms Kurdi, who has a daughter, aged 10, from a previous relationship.
3. Mr Anderson has a history of offending as a juvenile from 1995 but his first conviction, on 14 December 1999 for aggravated robbery with wounding, was for an offence committed on 9 March 1998 for which he was charged in April 1998. Having been released on conditional bail on 28 October 1998, on 5 March 1999, he was charged with two counts of taking and driving a motor vehicle without consent and, it appears, multiple counts of robbery in company. On 14 December 1999, Mr Anderson was sentenced to a fixed term of 15 months imprisonment, commencing on 10 April 1998 in respect of the first offence, and to a total term of imprisonment of six years with a non-parole period of three years and six months for one count of robbery in company, four counts of robbery, and two counts of robbery using corporal violence. He was released on parole on 31 December 2002, the parole period to expire on 30 June 2005.
4. On 11 August 2003, Mr Anderson was charged with two counts of robbery armed with an offensive weapon (committed on 10 August 2003) for which he was sentenced on 19 February 2004 to a further six years imprisonment with a non-parole period of three years and six months. Finally, on 20 October 2004 (while already in prison), he was charged with robbery armed with an offensive weapon (for an offence committed on 16 July 2003) for which he was sentenced on 11 April 2005 to seven years and six months imprisonment with a non-parole period of five years. This non-parole period expired on 10 April 2010, and Mr Anderson, having been released from prison, was, at the time of the hearing, being detained in Villawood Detention Centre. His parole expires on 10 October 2012.
5. In 2002, consideration was given to the cancellation of Mr Anderson’s visa but ultimately, on 12 December 2002, the Minister decided against cancellation. However, by letter 18 December 2002 he was warned that conviction of any further offences would result in a fresh assessment being made in relation to cancellation, and Mr Anderson acknowledged this warning in writing on 25 December 2002.
6. By letter dated 6 January 2009, the Department informed Mr Anderson that consideration was being given to cancellation of his visa and inviting submissions. Mr Anderson responded by completing a Personal Details Form for the Department on 12 January 2009. Although further submissions were invited by letter dated 3 September 2009, Mr Anderson does not appear to have responded further. By letter dated 9 April 2010, a delegate of the Minister notified Mr Anderson that his Class TY Subclass 444 Special Category (Temporary) visa had been cancelled. Mr Anderson was notified of this decision on 13 April 2010 and, on 20 April 2010, applied to the Tribunal for a review of this decision.
RELEVANT LAW AND POLICY
7. Section 501(2) of the Act provides that the Minister may cancel a visa if “the Minister reasonably suspects that the person does not pass the character test” and “the person does not satisfy the Minister that the person passes the character test”. Section 501(6) provides that a person does not pass the character test if the person has a substantial criminal record. ‘Substantial criminal record’ is defined in s 501(7) as, among other things, having been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more, or to two or more terms of imprisonment where the total of those terms is two years or more.
8. Mr Anderson has been sentenced to terms of imprisonment exceeding 12 months on three occasions. Thus, he does not pass the character test.
9. It was therefore open to the Minister to cancel Mr Anderson’s visa. In exercising this discretion, the decision-maker must apply Direction [no. 41] - Visa Refusal and Cancellation under section 501 of the Act (Direction No 41). Direction No 41 contains a number of ‘primary’ and ‘other’ considerations to which the decision-maker must have regard when considering whether to exercise the discretion to refuse or cancel a visa.
10. The primary considerations in Direction No 41 are set out in paragraph 10(1):
10.The primary considerations
(1)In deciding whether to refuse to grant a person a visa or cancel a person’s visa, the following (the primary considerations) are to be considered:
(a) the protection of the Australian community from serious criminal or other harmful conduct, particularly crimes involving violence;
(b) whether the person was a minor when they began living in Australia;
(c) the length of time that the person has been ordinarily resident in Australia prior to engaging in criminal activity or other relevant conduct; and
(d) relevant international obligations, including but not limited to:
(i)the best interests of the child, as described in the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CROC); and
(ii)the non-refoulement obligations contained in the Convention and the Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees (the Refugees Convention), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT).
11. These considerations are elaborated on by a range of factors to which regard must be had. There are also a number of other considerations that, where relevant, must be taken into account but, generally, in accordance with Direction No 41 paragraph 11(2), they should be given less weight than the primary considerations. Those other considerations are discussed below.
PRIMARY CONSIDERATIONS
12. All four primary considerations are relevant in Mr Anderson’s case and are addressed below.
The Protection of the Australian Community
13. Direction No 41 identifies two factors relevant to this consideration: the seriousness and nature of the relevant conduct, and the risk that the conduct may be repeated.
The Seriousness of the Conduct
14. With regard to the seriousness of Mr Anderson’s conduct, the Tribunal notes that paragraph 10.1.1(1) states:
Crimes involving violence or the threat of violence are of special concern to the welfare and safety of the Australian community. Those crimes involving violence, particularly against vulnerable persons (such as minors, the elderly and the disabled), are especially abhorrent to the whole community.
15. Examples of offences and conduct that are considered serious are listed in paragraph 10.1.1(2) and include offences involving violence such as aggravated assault, and robbery. Paragraph 10.1.1(3) states that “The sentence imposed for an offence is considered indicative of the seriousness of the offender’s conduct against the community”, and regard must be had to the number and nature of offences, the period between offences and the time elapsed since the most recent offence. Among the factors to be considered pursuant to paragraph 10.1.1(4) are any judicial comments made about the person, parole assessments and any relevant mitigating factors.
16. Mr Anderson has been convicted of robbery on three separate occasions, in December 1999, February 2004 and April 2005, receiving sentences of six years (non-parole period three years and six months), six years (non-parole period three years and six months) and seven years and six months (non-parole period of five years) respectively. However, the offences of which he was convicted in February 2004 and April 2005 were committed on 10 August 2003 and 16 July 2003 respectively. On 14 December 1999, Justice Barr of the Supreme Court of NSW described how Mr Anderson, while on bail, committed a significant number of robberies, one of which, in particular, involved violence. His Honour stated, at [32]:
The prisoner has learned by childhood experiences to resort to the use of violence and threats in order to obtain what he wants. The combination with drug addiction has put him firmly in the way of criminal activity. …
17. In sentencing Mr Anderson on 19 February 2004, Judge Berman of the District Court of NSW described the armed robbery at the Masonic Hotel at Petersham which Mr Anderson and his two brothers had carried out armed with knives, and the “feelings of terror” that must have been felt by his victim, one of the staff of the hotel. He noted that Mr Anderson’s “childhood was marked by violence, alcoholism and abuse as well as rejection and neglect”. Judge Berman said Mr Anderson began using drugs at the age of 13 and his commission of offences was “closely related to his drug addiction”: it was to pay off a substantial drug debt that he got involved in the offence for which he was being sentenced. Judge Berman also noted that Mr Anderson was on parole at the time of the offence and said, “I cannot identify the prospects of rehabilitation … as being good”: a great deal would depend on Mr Anderson’s willingness to take the difficult steps involved in giving up drugs.
18. In sentencing Mr Anderson on 11 April 2005, Judge McGuire of the District Court of NSW described the armed robbery committed by Mr Anderson and three others at the Roselands Bowling Club on 16 July 2003. The offenders were armed, two with knives, one with a hammer and one with a baseball bat. There were about 40 patrons and also staff in the Club at the time who were threatened, one person was kicked in the back and two manhandled. His Honour commented, “Clearly this armed robbery demonstrated criminality of a high order.” He noted that Mr Anderson’s drug habit “was costing him some $600 per day which he financed through crime”. The Judge commented, “It is difficult to place substantial confidence in his present statement that he intends to remain drug free”.
19. Mr Anderson said that he started experimenting with drugs and alcohol at the age of about 14. He started using heroin at the age of 15 or 16 and was addicted by the age of 16. His drug habit was funded from the proceeds of crime. Mr Anderson said he last used drugs in 2008 when he went “cold turkey”. A report dated 19 August 2008 prepared by the Probation and Parole Service noted that Mr Anderson had failed urine tests on three out of 10 occasions while in custody; on 10 May 2005, 6 December 2007 and 25 May 2008. The 25 May 2008 test result “indicated positive for Methyl Amphetamine and Buprenorphine”. Mr Anderson said this was the result of his taking what he thought was a sleeping tablet obtained from another prisoner.
20. I am satisfied that Mr Anderson has been convicted of a significant number of very serious offences involving violence in order to support his drug habit. He has received lengthy sentences for these offences and has been in prison for most of the past 12 years.
The Risk that the Conduct may be Repeated
21. With regard to the risk that the conduct may be repeated, paragraph 10.1.2 of Direction No 41 requires that consideration be given to Mr Anderson’s previous general conduct and criminal history and, in particular, to any recent history of convictions, evidence of rehabilitation and evidence as to whether he has breached any judicial orders including bail and parole orders. As stated above, the offences committed by Mr Anderson appear to have been driven by the need to fund his drug habit. He states that he has not taken drugs since 2008 and will now walk away from drugs and turn his back on those involved in criminal activity. He does not want to go back to prison. However, Mr Anderson also said that on arriving at Villawood, he had applied to the medical staff to join the methadone program because of his fear that he might go back on drugs and because he thought the program might help him with this. He has not been accepted onto the program but thinks he still needs help with his drug problem.
22. Mr Johnson, for the Minister, submitted that there is a real risk that Mr Anderson will be unable to stay free of drugs and will reoffend. I note that Mr Anderson was on bail when he committed a number of offences for which he was sentenced on 14 December 1999, and breached his parole order on his release from prison on 31 December 2002 when he committed further armed robberies. In sentencing Mr Anderson on 19 February 2004, Judge Berman was pessimistic about the prospects of his rehabilitation. In sentencing Mr Anderson on 11 April 2005, Judge McGuire lacked confidence in Mr Anderson’s statement that he intended to remain drug free. Judge McGuire’s assessment proved accurate. By his own admission, Mr Anderson continued using drugs until 2008.
23. Mr Anderson acknowledged that in December 2002 he was warned that conviction of any further offences might lead to the cancellation of his visa. He said he was only 22 then and did not really think about the situation. He has changed since then and wants a chance to prove himself in the community. Mr Anderson said that when he went back into prison in 2003, he was still thinking like a criminal and continued to do so for the first 18 months until he was transferred to Long Bay Correctional Centre and another inmate suggested he undertake drug and alcohol and violent offender programs.
24. Mr Anderson undertook the Violent Offenders Therapeutic (VOT) Program from 1 February 2004 to 4 December 2004, attending every day, five days a week, which he said he struggled with at times. He had to address how he thinks and the effect of his behaviour on the community, his family and the victims of his criminal activity, and the hurt caused. He undertook the Getting Smart Program, dealing with addiction to drugs, alcohol and gambling, for the 12 weeks ending 11 September 2008. He learned about relapse prevention, to seek help when needed and to join a support network. Mr Anderson also undertook a reading and writing course and a TAFE course on asbestos removal.
25. Mr Anderson acknowledged that he had previously undertaken a drug and alcohol prevention program early in 2003 after his release from prison but said it was not effective because he relapsed into taking drugs again and “doing crime” to support this.
26. The Probation and Parole Service Report prepared for the Department of Immigration dated 19 August 2008 stated that Mr Anderson had progressed satisfactorily through the classification system and was by then a C1 classification inmate housed in minimum security conditions. It appears that Mr Anderson was not recommended for C2 classification at that time because of his positive urine analysis test on 25 May 2008. However, Mr Anderson said that he did achieve this status about three months before his release from prison and was undertaking the Violent Offenders Maintenance Program, reinforcing what he learned in the VOT Program, which he was supposed to continue in the community on his release from prison.
27. The Probation and Parole Service Report referred to 11 incidents in custody on Mr Anderson’s record, including Possession of Unauthorised Property, Assaults, Disobey Direction, Fail to Comply Correctional Centre Routine (x 2), Damage/Deface Cell (x 2), Receive Unauthorised Article and the three failed urine tests referred to above. The Report referred to the Discharge Report from the VOT program undertaken by Mr Anderson in 2004 which stated:
Mr Anderson displays a tendency to give up easily and to search for quick and easy solutions. This was consistently demonstrated in his verbal reports throughout the program. He would often admit to saying “stuff it” when things became too difficult for him, and appears to still maintain this way of thinking.
28. Mr Anderson said that if he is released into the Australian community he will try and get a job as a youth worker, perhaps working with the Hikila brothers (Sione Hikila and Maea Hikila, the latter a Youth Coordinator with the Uniting Church in Australia) who provided letters (dated 26 May 2010 and 27 May 2010 respectively) addressed to the Department supporting Mr Anderson’s release into the community. Mr Anderson said he would like to do youth work because he is wiser now and “I have been through it”. He recognised that he might need to undertake a TAFE training program for this purpose.
29. In my view, the prospect of Mr Anderson being rehabilitated, while perhaps better now than at the time of Judge Berman’s comments in February 2004, is still uncertain. As the Judge recognised, whether rehabilitation is successful will ultimately depend on whether Mr Anderson succeeds in staying off drugs. While Mr Anderson may have greater insight into his addiction than previously, his will to address this outside the prison environment or detention is unproven and, in my view, given his past history, there remains at least a moderate risk of his reoffending.
30. Thus, in terms of the seriousness of the offences committed by Mr Anderson and the moderate risk of his reoffending, the primary consideration of the protection of the Australian community strongly favours the cancellation of his visa.
Whether A Minor On Beginning To Live In Australia
31. Direction No 41, paragraph 10.2(1) states:
If the person was a minor when they began living in Australia and spent their formative years in Australia, thereby increasing the likelihood of establishment of greater ties and linkages to the Australian community, this is to be given favourable consideration.
32. Mr Anderson arrived with his family and began living in Australia in April 1983, when he was aged two years and five months. He has not been to New Zealand since. Thus, Mr Anderson spent all his formative years in Australia. Mr Anderson’s evidence is that all his immediate family are in Australia except his older brother who has also been returned to New Zealand. I am satisfied that Mr Anderson has close ties to the Australian community as a result of his being brought up here and the presence of his family here. This primary consideration therefore weighs against cancellation of Mr Anderson’s visa, although I agree with Mr Johnson’s submission that, in the circumstances of this case, the protection of the Australian community carries significantly greater weight.
length of time ordinarily resident
33. Mr Anderson has been an Australian resident since his arrival on 2 April 1983. Paragraph 10.3(1) of Direction No 41 states that “more favourable consideration is to be given the longer the person has been ordinarily resident in Australia prior to engaging in criminal activity or activity that bears negatively on their character”. On 4 April 1998, at the aged of 17, Mr Anderson was charged with the first offences in respect of which received convictions. However, his criminal history records that he was first before the Children’s Court in May 1995 and on three occasions in 1996 on various charges which were found proved but no conviction recorded.
34. Again, this primary consideration weighs against cancellation of Mr Anderson’s visa, but I agree with Mr Johnson’s submission that, in the circumstances of this case and noting that for some of the years in question prior to committing his first offences Mr Anderson was a very young child, the protection of the Australian community carries significantly greater weight.
The Best Interests of the Child
35. Direction No 41, paragraph 10.4.1(4) states: “Under Australian law, it is generally presumed that a child’s best interests will be served if the child remains with its parents”.
36. The Direction sets out a number of factors to be considered in ascertaining the best interests of the child. These include, relevantly, the nature of the relationship between the child and the person; the duration of the relationship including the number and length of any separations and the reasons for those separations; the extent to which the person is likely to play a full parental role in relation to the child; the child’s age, citizenship and relationships with others in a parental role; the likely effect that any separation from the person would have on the child; the impact of the person’s prior conduct on the child; any known wishes expressed by the child; and the circumstances of the probable country of future residence and any language and cultural barriers there for the child.
37. Mr Anderson’s de facto, Ms Kurdi, has a daughter from a previous relationship, aged 10, with whom, the evidence suggests, Mr Anderson has a parental relationship. I assume, although I have no specific evidence of this, that she is an Australian citizen. Ms Kurdi said her daughter has never had a relationship with her biological father and, for the past seven years, even though she knows Mr Anderson is not her biological father, she has looked to him as her father, calling him ‘Dad’. They have a strong relationship and she listens to what he says. She has always accompanied Ms Kurdi in visiting Mr Anderson in prison or detention and they talk regularly on the phone at other times. Ms Kurdi said her daughter is longing for Mr Anderson to come home and was very disappointed when, on his release from prison, he was taken into immigration detention.
38. Mr Anderson said he tries to encourage Ms Kurdi’s daughter, to point out what is right and wrong and to assure her he is always there for her and that she should be strong. She tells him about what is going on at school, where she is doing well. He agreed that if he had not been in prison he would have a closer relationship with her but said he hopes his imprisonment has not had a negative effect on her.
39. Mr Anderson lived with Ms Kurdi and her daughter for five or six months before he was detained in August 2003. Although he had known Ms Kurdi at school, they met again after he was released from prison and he moved in with her and her daughter in March 2003. If he is released into the community, they both state he will live with them once again. Ms Kurdi said that if Mr Anderson is sent to New Zealand, she does not know what they will do. All her family are in Australia and her daughter is settled in school and they do not want to go to New Zealand.
40. Mr Johnson submitted that Ms Kurdi’s daughter has had little opportunity to develop a relationship with Mr Anderson outside prison. When visiting Mr Anderson in prison, she has always been in the company of her mother and there have always been others present in the visiting room. Mr Johnson submitted that there is no evidence that similar contact could not be maintained if Mr Anderson is in New Zealand. In any event, both Mr Anderson and Ms Kurdi indicated that they had not decided what to do if Mr Anderson is returned to New Zealand.
41. I am satisfied from Mr Anderson’s and Ms Kurdi’s evidence that he has a good relationship with Ms Kurdi’s daughter, who treats him as her father, and that if Mr Anderson is released into the Australian community he will assume a parental role. I note that their relationship has, thus far, largely been limited to prison visits and telephone contact. I have no specific evidence as to the impact on her if Mr Anderson is returned to New Zealand but I think it is fair to assume given the evidence as to their relationship that if she is further separated from Mr Anderson, she will suffer an adverse impact.
42. While both Mr Anderson and Ms Kurdi said they had not decided whether she and her daughter would join Mr Anderson in New Zealand if he is returned there, I accept that Ms Kurdi’s family are in Australia, her daughter is settled in school here, and it would be difficult to uproot them and go to live in New Zealand. However, it is certainly possible, given the relative closeness of and similarities between the two communities. Moreover, Ms Kurdi’s daughter would not face any significant language or cultural barriers in New Zealand. Nevertheless, in my view, her best interests favour Mr Anderson’s visa not being cancelled. Mr Anderson said that he does not have a significant relationship with any of the other children in his family.
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
43. As noted above, Direction No 41 states that ‘other’ considerations, where relevant, must be taken into account but, generally, should be given less weight than ‘primary’ considerations. Relevant ‘other’ considerations in Mr Anderson’s case specifically referred to in the Direction are his family ties and the nature and extent of his relationships with those in the Australian community, his age, his health, his links with New Zealand, the hardship that may be experienced by both Mr Anderson and his immediate family members in Australia, his level of education, and whether he has been formally warned in the past that his visa might be cancelled because of his criminal conduct.
44. No evidence has been provided from Mr Anderson’s family. Mr Anderson said he is close to his mother and keeps in touch with her. His parents are separated and he did not get along with his father. Mr Anderson also has an elder brother who has been returned to New Zealand, and I note that his elder brother and their younger brother were co-offenders with Mr Anderson in the armed robbery at the Masonic Hotel on 10 August 2003. Mr Anderson has an elder sister who lives with her family including two children, and he also has two younger sisters and two younger brothers, all of whom live in Australia as, he says, do his uncles and cousins. Mr Anderson said he has no family in New Zealand.
45. As stated above, Mr Anderson’s de facto, Ms Kurdi, and her daughter live in Sydney. Ms Kurdi said she and Mr Anderson have a strong connection and understand each other: Mr Anderson has a loving heart – it is not easy to take on another person’s child in a relationship. Ms Kurdi said she was aware when their relationship commenced in 2003 that Mr Anderson was recently out of prison. He was doing really well and trying to get help with his drug addiction, but then he started hanging out with his old mates and things went “hay wire”. She was aware of his becoming involved in criminal activity again and tried to guide him but to no avail.
46. Ms Kurdi said the period Mr Anderson has been in prison has been very difficult for her. It has been the love they have for each other and his being a father to her daughter that has motivated her. But sometimes she gets depressed and he tries to be supportive and cheer her up.
47. I am satisfied that Mr Anderson has strong family ties in the community in Sydney. Equally, I am satisfied from his evidence that he has no links with New Zealand other than his brother who has been returned there and with whom Mr Anderson has had no recent contact although he is aware his brother is somewhere in the vicinity of Auckland. Mr Anderson is now aged 30 and in good health. He has little formal education having left school at the age of about 14. He was warned in December 2002 that any further convictions would lead to the cancellation of his visa being reconsidered. He acknowledged receipt of this warning on 25 December 2002. Mr Anderson said he did not really think about the consequences of further convictions at that time but has changed since then and grown wiser. His evidence certainly suggests that he has a greater maturity than previously, but there was no evidence to corroborate this other than letters of support from Sione and Maea Hikila. Furthermore, Mr Anderson’s past repeat offending, following similar assurances that he had changed, means that his further assurances must be treated with caution.
48. In my view, of these ‘other’ considerations, Mr Anderson’s family ties in Sydney favour not cancelling his visa, but I note that he was warned in December 2002 that any further convictions would result in the cancellation of his visa being reconsidered, a warning that he did not heed, instead going on commit further armed robberies for which he received lengthy prison sentences.
Conclusion
49. Weighing up the ‘primary’ and ‘other’ considerations, in my view, because of the very serious offences committed by Mr Anderson and the question mark remaining over his rehabilitation, significant weight should be accorded to the protection of the Australian community. If Mr Anderson can stay free of drugs, there appears to be a reasonable chance of his rehabilitation but this is currently untested. On the other hand, the other ‘primary’ considerations favour his visa not being cancelled, noting in particular that he has been in Australia since a very young age, and has a stepdaughter aged 10 with whom he has a good relationship and who could be adversely affected by his being returned to New Zealand. However, in my view, these other ‘primary’ considerations should be accorded less weight than the protection of the Australian community.
50. In terms of the ‘other’ considerations, the fact that Mr Anderson has family ties in Australia - in particular Ms Kurdi, his de facto and the mother of the child with whom he has a good relationship - and practically none in New Zealand, is also a consideration that favours his visa not being cancelled. However, New Zealand is a country not dissimilar to Australia, and it would be open to Mr Anderson to establish a new life there with Ms Kurdi and her daughter. In my view, this consideration should be accorded less weight than the ‘primary’ considerations.
51. On weighing up the ‘primary’ and ‘other’ considerations, my overall conclusion is that the discretion in s 501(2) of the Act should be exercised with a view to protecting the Australian community by cancelling Mr Anderson’s visa. The Tribunal therefore affirms the decision under review.
I certify that the 51 preceding paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Mr RP Handley, Deputy President
Signed: ……[sgd]......................................................................
Associate
Date of Hearing: 15 June 2010
Date of Decision: 30 June 2010
Applicant representative: Self-represented
Respondent representative: Mr G Johnson, DLA Phillips Fox
0
0
0