Bale and Minister for Home Affairs (Migration)

[2019] AATA 6894

Bale and Minister for Home Affairs (Migration) [2019] AATA 6894 (19 November 2019)

Division:GENERAL DIVISION

File Number(s):      2019/5528

Re:Samu Bale

APPLICANT

AndMinister for Home Affairs

RESPONDENT

DECISION

Tribunal:Senior Member M Griffin, QC

Date:19 November 2019

Place:Sydney

The decision of a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs dated 26 August 2019, to not revoke a visa cancellation decision made under s501(3A) of the Migration Act 1958, is affirmed.

..................................[SGD]......................................

Senior Member M Griffin, QC

CATCHWORDS

MIGRATION – mandatory cancellation of the Applicant's class UK subclass 820 spouse visa – s 501(3A) – s 501CA – Applicant failed to pass the character test – sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months of more – whether there is another reason why the cancellation should be revoked – application of Ministerial Direction No 79 – applicant demonstrates a lack of insight – risk of future offending – decision affirmed

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1985 (Cth) ss 499, 500, 501, 501CA

CASES

FYBR v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCAFC 185

SECONDARY MATERIALS

Direction No 79 – Visa refusal and cancellation under s501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under s501CA

REASONS FOR DECISION

Senior Member M Griffin, QC

19 November 2019

BACKGROUND

1. The Applicant seeks review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs on 26 August 2019 not to revoke a decision to cancel the Applicant’s Class UK Subclass 820 Spouse visa (Spouse visa / visa).

2. The Applicant is 53 years old and a national of Fiji. He came to Australia in March 1996 at age 30, met his wife in 1996 and they were married in 1999. On 19 June 2003 the Applicant was granted the Spouse visa.

3. On 1 April 2015, the Applicant was issued with a notice advising him consideration would be given to cancelling the visa on character grounds in accordance with section 501 of the Migration Act 1958 (Migration Act / the Act). The Applicant re-offended during this period of consideration and the resulting sentence lead to mandatory cancellation of his visa on character grounds. On 21 August 2018, the Applicant made representations about the cancellation, including letters from himself and his family provided to the Department of Home Affairs (the Department) on 19 March 2019 and 24 May 2019. A decision was made by a delegate of the Minister on 26 August 2019 to not revoke the cancellation.

   ISSUES

4. The issue in this review is whether the original decision to cancel the Applicant’s visa should be revoked pursuant to section 501 of the Act. The Tribunal may revoke the original decision if the Tribunal is satisfied:

   (a)That the Applicant passes the character test as defined by section 501 of the Act; or

   (b)There is another reason why the original decision should be revoked (s 501CA(4)(b)).

   RELEVANT LEGISLATION AND POLICY

5. Section 501CA of the Act applies if the Minister makes a decision under s 501(3A) to cancel a visa that has been granted to a person: see s 501CA(1).

6. Subsection 501CA(4) provides that:

   4The Minister may revoke the original decision if:

   (a)the person makes representations in accordance with the invitation;  and

   (b)the Minister is satisfied:

   (i)     that the person passes the character test (as defined by section 501); or

   (ii)    that there is another reason why the original decision should be revoked.

7. Subsection 501(6)(a) relevantly provides that a person does not pass the "character test" if the person has "a substantial criminal record". Relevantly, a person has a substantial criminal record if the person has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more: s 501(7)(c).

8. Subsection 500(1)(ba) of the Act provides that applications may be made to the Tribunal for review of decisions of a delegate of the Minister under s 501CA(4) not to revoke a decision to cancel a visa.

9. The Minister has made written directions pursuant to s 499 of the Act to guide decision-makers in the exercise of the power in s 501CA(4) (Direction 79 – Visa refusal and cancellation under s501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under s501CA dated 20 December 2018, commencing on 28 February 2019) (Ministerial Direction No. 79). The relevant paragraphs of which are set out below and describe the framework within which the Tribunal’s discretion is to be exercised.

10. The Preamble of Direction No 79 at 6.2 and 6.3 sets out preliminary matters, including general guidance and principles for decision-makers, which relevantly include that:

    (a)the Government is committed to protecting the Australian community from harm as a result of criminal activity or other serious conduct by non-citizens;

    (b)the Australian community expects that the Australian Government can and should cancel the visas of non-citizens if they commit serious crimes in Australia or elsewhere;

    (c)a non-citizen who has committed a serious crime, including of a violent nature, and particularly against vulnerable members of the community such as minors, should generally expect to forfeit the privilege of staying in Australia;

    (d)in some circumstances, criminal offending or other conduct, and the harm that would be caused if it were to be repeated, may be so serious, that any risk of similar conduct in the future is unacceptable. In these circumstances, even other strong countervailing considerations may be insufficient to justify not cancelling or refusing the visa;

    (e)while Australia has a low tolerance of any criminal or other serious conduct by people who have been participating in, or contributing to, the Australian community for only a short period time, Australia may afford a higher level of tolerance of criminal or other serious conduct in relation to a non-citizen who has lived in the Australian community for most of their life, or from a very young age; and

    (f)the length of time a non-citizen has been making a positive contribution to the Australian community, and the consequences of a visa refusal or cancellation for minor children and other immediate family members in Australia, are considerations in the context of determining whether that non-citizen's visa should be cancelled, or their visa application refused.

11. Part C of Direction 79 identifies the considerations relevant to former visa holders in determining whether to exercise the discretion to revoke the mandatory cancellation of a non-citizen's visa. It comprises three "primary considerations" and several specified, but non-exhaustive, "other considerations", which must be taken into account.

12. Pursuant to Part C of Direction 79, the Tribunal must, to the extent that they are relevant to this case, take into account three primary considerations and other considerations. Primary considerations should generally be given greater weight than the other considerations and one or more primary considerations may outweigh other primary considerations. These principles are of course dependent upon the facts and circumstances of each case.

13. The three primary considerations are:

    (a)Protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct;

    (b)The best interests of minor children in Australia;

    (c)Expectations of the Australian community.

    Primary Consideration 1 – Protection of the Australian community

14. Paragraph 13.1 of Direction 79 provides:

    1When considering protection of the Australian community, decision-makers should have regard to the principle that the Government is committed to protecting the Australian community from harm as a result of criminal activity or other serious conduct by non-citizens. 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. Mandatory cancellation without notice of certain non-citizen prisoners is consistent with this principle by ensuring that serious offenders remain in either criminal or immigration detention while their immigration status is resolved.

    2Decision-makers should also 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.

15. The two limbs of paragraph 13.1(2) that the Tribunal must consider when assessing the protection of the Australian community are set out below.

    The nature and seriousness of the conduct

16. Sub-paragraph 13.1.1 of Direction 79 provides a list of factors to be considered in determining the nature and seriousness of a person's criminal offending or other conduct to date, which includes, in summary:

    (a)the principle that violent and/or sexual crimes are viewed very seriously;

    (b)the principle that crimes of a violent nature against women or children are viewed very seriously, regardless of the sentence imposed;

    (c)the principle that crimes committed against vulnerable members of the community (such as minors, the elderly and the disabled), government representatives or officials due to the position they hold, or in the performance of their duties, are serious;

    (d)the sentence imposed by the courts for a crime or crimes, subject to (b) above;

    (e)the frequency of the non-citizen's offending and whether there is any trend of increasing seriousness;

    (f)the cumulative effect of repeated offending;

    (g)whether the non-citizen has provided false or misleading information to the Department, including by not disclosing prior criminal offending;

    (h)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; and

    (i)where the non-citizen is in Australia, that a crime committed while the non-citizen was in immigration detention is serious.

    The risk to the Australian community

17. Paragraph 13.1.2 of Direction 79 states that decision-makers must have regard, cumulatively, to the following:

    (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 available information and evidence on the risk of the non-citizen re-offending.

    Primary Consideration 2 – Best interests of minor children in Australia affected by the decision

18. Decision-makers must make a determination in respect of each relevant child under 18 years about whether revocation is in the best interests of that child.

19. In considering the best interests of the child, the following factors must be considered where relevant:

    (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 non-citizen has abused or neglected the child in any way, including physical, sexual and/or mental abuse or neglect; and

    (h)Evidence that the child has suffered or experienced any physical or emotional trauma arising from the non-citizen’s conduct.

    Primary Consideration 3 – Expectations of the Australian community

20. Paragraph 13.3 of Direction 79 provides:

    1The Australian community expects non-citizens to obey Australian laws while in Australia. Where a non-citizen has breached, or where there is an unacceptable risk that they will breach this trust or where the non-citizen has been convicted of offences in Australia or elsewhere, it may be appropriate to not revoke the mandatory visa cancellation of such a person. Non-revocation may be appropriate simply because the nature of the character concerns or offences are such that the Australian community would expect that the person should not hold a visa. Decision-makers should have due regard to the Government's views in this respect.

21. The principles to be applied, as set out in paragraph 6.3 of Direction 79, state that the right of a non-citizen to remain in Australia is a privilege conferred in the expectation that he or she will be law-abiding, will respect important institutions and will not cause or threaten harm to individuals or the Australia community. It is also the expectation of the Australian community that a visa should be cancelled if the holder commits serious crimes.

22. The length of time a non-citizen has been making a positive contribution to the Australian community and the consequences of the visa refusal or cancellation for minor children and other immediate family members in Australia are relevant considerations.

    Other Considerations

23. The Tribunal must also take into account other considerations insofar as they are relevant. These considerations include (but are not limited to):

    (a)International non-refoulement obligations;

    (b)Strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia;

    (c)Impact on Australian business interests;

    (d)Impact on victims;

    (e)Extent of impediments if removed.

    International non-refoulement obligations

24. The considerations at para 14.1 of Direction 79 include (but are not limited to):

    (a)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. Australia has Convention and Protocol non-refoulement obligations;

    (b)The existence of a non-refoulement obligation does not preclude non-revocation of the mandatory cancellation of a non-citizen's visa;

    (c)Claims which may give rise to international non-refoulement obligations can be raised by the non-citizen in a request to revoke under s501CA the mandatory cancellation of their visa, or can be clear from the facts of the case (such as where the non-citizen held a protection visa that was mandatorily cancelled);

    (d)Where a non-citizen makes claims which may give rise to international non­refoulement obligations and that non-citizen would be able to make a valid application for another visa if the mandatory cancellation is not revoked, it is unnecessary to determine whether non-refoulement obligations are owed to the non-citizen for the purposes of determining whether the cancellation of their visa should be revoked;

    (e)Any non-refoulement obligation should be weighed carefully against the seriousness of the non-citizen's criminal offending or other serious conduct in deciding whether or not the non-citizen should have their visa reinstated.

    Strength, nature and duration of ties

25. The considerations at para 14.2 include:

    (a)how long the non-citizen has resided in Australia, including the age of arrival in Australia, the period of offending and positive contributions to the Australian community;

    (b)the strength, duration and nature of any family or social links with Australian citizens, including the effect of non-revocation on the non-citizen’s immediate family.

    Impact on Australian business interests

26. Direction 79 notes an employment link would generally only be given weight where non-revocation would significantly compromise the delivery of a major project, or delivery of an important service in Australia (para 14.3(1)).

    Impact on victims

27. Paragraph 14.4 of Direction 79 provides:

    'Impact of a decision not to revoke 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 that information is available and the non-citizen being considered for revocation has been afforded procedural fairness.'

    Extent of impediments if removed

28. The extent of impediments if removed requires consideration of the extent of any impediments that the non-citizen 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: age and health; whether there are substantial language or cultural barriers; and the availability of any social, medical and/or economic support.

    DISCUSSION

    Character Test

29. It is clear according to the Act that because the Applicant has a ‘substantial criminal record’ (s 501(6)(a)) he does not pass the character test.

30. The question for the Tribunal is whether it is satisfied that there exists another reason for revoking the cancellation decision.

    Some aspects of evidence

31. The Applicant represented himself at the hearing, provided hand-written submissions to the Tribunal, gave evidence and was cross-examined at the hearing. After the hearing’s conclusion on 28 October 2019, the matter was reopened on 5 November 2019 on the basis that the Respondent informed the Tribunal that certain material relevant to the proceedings had not been available at the time of hearing. I allowed material that was relevant to the Applicant’s case and supportive of it to be produced and further evidence to be given.

32. The evidence produced by the Respondent supported the Applicant’s claims that he had successfully completed certain courses during his time in custody which included Certificates of Participation in EQUIPS (drug) addiction program, EQUIPS foundation program, a parenting program and a TAFE unit in food handling. The Applicant said they “broadened his horizons about his offending behaviour and helped him behave responsibly and make the right decisions”.

33. During the course of the Applicant’s evidence in cross-examination, the Tribunal formed the opinion that the evidence was discursive, often long-winded and on occasions, evasive, especially when asked about concerning matters that the Applicant may have perceived not to be in his interests.

34. The Applicant was an astute witness who, in the Tribunal’s opinion, appreciated both the nature of the proceedings and the matters raised with him in cross-examination.

35. The Applicant’s evidence focused on his life in Australia and the need to remain in order to keep his family together and to provide them with help and guidance. His wife and children provided similar evidence.

36. The Applicant’s written material before the Tribunal dealt amongst other things, with two major aspects of his case. The first, in fact, was a detailed assertion about the circumstances of the stealing and intimidation offences concerning a cigarette lighter for which he was convicted on 23 November 2017. In both his written submissions and his evidence before the Tribunal, the Applicant passionately declared that he was not guilty of the offences and that he had no intention to steal the lighter which was of minimal value. This was based partly on the fact that he had money to pay for it and that he spent further time in the shop after he had put the lighter in his pocket. Of course, the intention to steal is at the time of the taking. The Magistrate, by looking at independent evidence on CCTV footage together with other evidence, concluded that the offence had been committed. There is no reason to suppose, despite the Applicant’s protestations, that this conviction is other than correct. Furthermore, the Tribunal, looking at all the evidence available to it, is independently of the view that the conviction was correct. This is, to an extent, also informed by the Tribunal‘s attitude to the Applicant’s credibility.

1. The Applicant was cross-examined at length. Amongst other things, he was cross-examined about his use of the drug “ice”. He denied using ice. However, he had in the past admitted to police officers about using ice when he had been apprehended. This was one feature of the Applicant’s evidence that lead the Tribunal to conclude he was not a witness who was worthy of credit in important aspects of his evidence and submissions. Furthermore, the Tribunal did not believe the Applicant’s assertions that he did not commit the stealing and intimidation offences. This aspect of his evidence added both to a lack of credit-worthiness and demonstrated a lack of acceptance of his past offending.

2. The second main feature of the Applicant’s evidence was his desire to re-institute a life with his family, the need to be present and supportive of his children and also be supportive of his wife who, in 2013, suffered from and was treated for mental illness. She still continues to receive treatment although has had no further mental health issues. She is still on medication; the name of which she does not recall.

3. When the stealing offence was committed, the Applicant was in the company of a friend who he said was a female person. At various points during his evidence, the Applicant referred to a female friend and when questioned, denied that this was someone with whom he was having a relationship. Such a relationship would, of course, be suggestive of a consequent lack of a real relationship with his wife. Although the Applicant denied this, and the Tribunal cannot make any particular finding, the Tribunal has some residual disquiet about that aspect of the Applicant’s evidence.

4. The Applicant’s children provided statements to the Tribunal and his wife and daughter gave evidence on the first day of the hearing. The children implored the Tribunal to allow their father to remain in Australia on the basis that they needed his emotional and other varieties of support.

5. The wife, likewise, gave evidence that she would like her husband to remain in Australia. Although, overall, the material appears to suggest, together with what the Applicant said, that while he was concerned and would wish to remain in Australia to support his wife in her illness, he nonetheless appeared more passionate about remaining in Australia for his children. In the Tribunal’s opinion, the evidence of both husband and wife about their mutual wishes was somewhat formulaic and unconvincing. The wife’s evidence was to the effect that she wanted her husband to housekeep and cook meals for herself and her 18 year old son.

6. The Tribunal notes that the wife’s mental illness, which apparently was schizophrenia, was treated in 2013 and there is no further evidence nor was it suggested that the illness has re-asserted itself. The wife is still receiving medication for that illness. Her younger son lives with her and she has the support of her other children.

7. The Tribunal considers, on the evidence, that the husband is not someone who is essential to the support of the wife for her mental health, particularly having regard to the former history between husband and wife including his domestic violence to her. This will be addressed later under other considerations with respect to Direction 79.

   Applicant’s criminal history

8. The Applicant was warned prior to cancellation of the likelihood of cancellation should further offences been committed. That warning had no appreciable effect having regard to his later criminal history. The following is a brief history of the Applicant’s criminal offending.

9. The Applicant has been convicted of 31 offences since 1998 including six convictions for assault including three for assault causing bodily harm, three related convictions for breaching apprehended domestic violence orders, one conviction for stalking and intimidation offences, and six convictions for stealing and four convictions for destruction of property. The Applicant has also been convicted of two breaches of parole conditions. There have been convictions for driving offences, including driving without a license driving whilst disqualified. On two occasions he was given a suspended sentence and required to enter into a good behaviour bond which he later breached. In fact, the Applicant was placed on a good behaviour bond only months before committing the stalking / intimidation offences of April 2017, which were the offences that breached the good behaviour bond.

10. Although the Applicant’s offending is not the most serious type of offending, nonetheless, there is a variety to the offending which includes not only property offences, but also offences of violence and the associated type of offence of intimidation which is the last major offence associated with him being charged with stealing. The Applicant presents as a fit-looking, solid build who said in evidence that he had been a former boxer.

11. There are some disturbing features to the Applicant’s criminal history. There are two offences in relation to assaulting his wife in a domestic situation in 2007 and again in 2016. Both offences involved the use of physical force against his wife. Some actual injury occurred, although not of a serious type. There are offences of stealing and being in possession of suspected stolen property, breaches of Court Orders and driving offences and although not particularly serious in themselves, the last mentioned groups of offences show disdain for the operation of the law.

12. The Tribunal accepts the Applicant has undergone, in his most recent period of incarceration, some courses meant to help his offending. However, since those courses have been completed, the Applicant has had little opportunity in the community to demonstrate that they have had any real effect. Furthermore, in the past, the Applicant has shown an unwillingness to participate in those sorts of remedial courses. The learned Magistrate who sentenced him in relation to the larceny and intimidation with intent to cause fear offence referred to that.

13. There is reference in the material to incidents which occurred in immigration detention. The Tribunal places little weight on these having regard to the environment and pressures upon people who are detained, nonetheless, those matters are not inconsistent with the Applicant’s past conduct.

    Protection of the Australian community (past conduct and future risk)

14. Although the Tribunal concludes that the Applicant’s offending is not in the most serious category, it demonstrates a variety of offending over a lengthy period of time and involves offences of a violent nature against a woman, that is, the Applicant’s wife. This should, according to Direction 79, be viewed particularly seriously. The Tribunal takes that view. The Applicant has had the advantage of non-custodial sentences in the past. He has continued to offend. Although the Applicant has claimed to have reformed and passionately wishes to remain in Australia for his family, the credit-worthiness of these protestations must be regarded with some caution. The objective history of the Applicant’s continued offending, in the Tribunal’s view, is clearly indicative of his future behaviour. The Tribunal accepts the Applicant wishes to remain in Australia for rather more selfish reasons. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the recent certificates of completion referred to above will have any halting effect on his likely further criminal behaviour. The evidence which he gave, refusing to accept the last convictions for stealing / intimidation demonstrate, at the least, a lack of insight. For all these reasons, the Tribunal concludes that the Applicant has committed serious offences and is clearly a serious risk to members of the public of Australia in the future. This consideration weighs heavily against the Applicant.

    Best interests of minor children in Australia

15. On the facts of this matter, this consideration does not apply. Reference, however, is made to his children below.

    Expectations of the Australian Community

16. The Applicant has been convicted of a variety of offences including offences of violence against a woman. Having regard to the statements of Justices Charlesworth and Stewart in FYBR v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCAFC 185 concerning the assessment of expectations of the Australian community, in the circumstances, this consideration weighs strongly against the Applicant.

    Other considerations

    Strength, nature and duration of ties

17. The Applicant has lived in Australia for 23 years, since he was 30 years of age. The Applicant has a wife and three children who live in Australia and who are all Australian citizens. Evidence provided by the three children all speak very strongly about the desire for their father to remain in Australia, wishing for his emotional and parental support. They cite, for example, he has missed many milestones in their lives although, doubtless, this is a result of the Applicant’s own doing. Reference has already been made to the wife’s mental health. The weight to be attached to the Applicant’s ties to his wife and the benefit to her of his remaining are still proper considerations which the Tribunal takes into account. Overall, despite the matters referred to by the Tribunal, this consideration weighs in the Applicant’s favour. The Tribunal specifically accepts that the wife and children will be affected by the Applicant’s removal from Australia. However, the wife would not be left alone in Australia without support as her three children appear to have a suitable and appropriate relationship with their mother.

    Impact on victims

18. The Applicant’s wife, who is properly considered a victim, gave evidence for the purpose of this consideration. Nothing in her evidence, nor inferred from the evidence, raised anything relevant to this consideration.

    Extent of impediments if removed

19. The Tribunal is prepared to accept that should the Applicant be returned to Fiji, he would be likely to struggle financially and furthermore, face social difficulties amongst his people because of his criminal history.

20. He arrived in Australia as a 30 year old, and although he has returned to Fiji on two occasions, his life has been in Australia and importantly, his family are here in Australia. In Fiji, the Applicant has a number of siblings and extended family. It is undoubted that should the Applicant return to Fiji, this would be disruptive to his own family to a great degree (as discussed above) and he himself would naturally have some difficulty adjusting to a different culture and environment. It may also be supposed that he would not have the social or health support that Australia offers in Fiji. Because of the effects on both the Applicant and his family should he be removed, this consideration carries considerable weight in his favour.

    CONCLUSION

21. The Applicant appears to refuse to acknowledge the seriousness of his own offending, demonstrating a lack of insight.

22. There is no convincing evidence that the Applicant has actually reformed, despite his protestations. The Applicant said in evidence that his offending was the result of family pressures and issues. This, the Tribunal considers, is an unsatisfactory explanation for his offending. The Tribunal considers that there is a real risk that the Applicant will continue to offend in the future.

23. Weight must be given to the fact that the Applicant’s wife has suffered in the past from mental illness and it is of some importance to her that the husband remains to support and look after his wife. However, having regard to his past history of violence to her and the prospect that he remains a risk of offending in the future, taken with the fact that the wife has the support of her children, this consideration carries reduced weight.

24. Although there are matters referred to above which clearly weigh in the Applicant’s favour, including his time in Australia, the need for support to be given to his wife because of her past illness and future support to his children, nonetheless, in the Tribunal‘s view, these matters are substantially outweighed by the seriousness of past conduct, the risk of future offending and the fact that the Australian community’s expectation would be that his visa should be revoked.

25. The decision under review is affirmed.

I certify that the preceding 61 (sixty -one) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Senior Member M Griffin, QC

.............................[SGD]...........................................

Associate

Dated: 19 November 2019

Date(s) of hearing:	28 October 2019 and 5 November 2019
Applicant:	In person
Solicitors for the Respondent:	Mr J Hutton – Australian Government Solicitor