Barrantes and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Migration)

[2022] AATA 2280

Barrantes and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Migration) [2022] AATA 2280 (12 July 2022)

Division:GENERAL DIVISION

File Number(s):      2022/3298

Re:Miko Nino BARRANTES

APPLICANT

AndMinister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs

RESPONDENT

DECISION

Tribunal:The Hon. John Pascoe AC CVO, Deputy President

Date:12 July 2022

Place:Sydney

The correct or preferable decision is to set aside the reviewable decision, and in substitution it is decided not to exercise the discretion under subsection 501(2) of the Act to cancel the Applicant’s visa.

...............................[sgd].........................................

The Hon. John Pascoe AC CVO, Deputy President

CATCHWORDS

MIGRATION  - visa cancellation – discretionary cancellation under s 501(2) of the Migration Act 1958 – whether the applicant passes the character test - where the applicant has been convicted of a sexually-based offence involving a child – consideration of Direction No. 90 – protection of the Australian community – expectations of the Australian community – links to the Australian community – extent of impediments if removed from Australia – where the offence is the first offence – where the applicant’s conduct was in the presence of children but not directed at children – decision under review set aside and substituted.

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958 (Cth) s 499, 501

CASES

FYBR v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCAFC 185

SECONDARY MATERIALS

Direction No. 90 – Migration Act 1958 – Direction under section 499: Visa refusal and cancellation under section 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under section 501CA

REASONS FOR DECISION

The Hon. John Pascoe AC CVO, Deputy President

12 July 2022

1. This matter relates to an application, dated 26 April 2022, in which the applicant applied for review of a decision of a delegate of the Respondent, dated 10 December 2021, to exercise the discretion under subsection 501(2) to cancel the applicant's visa.

   BACKGROUND

2. The Respondent’s Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions contains a helpful summary of the background to the matter, some of which is replicated below.

3. The applicant is a citizen of the Philippines, born in January 1994. The applicant first arrived in Australia on 25 February 2011.

4. On 13 February 2019, the applicant was granted a Five Year Resident Return (Class BB) (subclass 155) visa (‘the visa’).

5. On 8 November 2019, the applicant was convicted of 'act of indecency/in presence/under 10 years' (the offence) for which he received a four month term of imprisonment which was wholly suspended upon entering into a good behaviour bond for 12 month. The conviction related to an incident which occurred in December 2018 at a Coles store in the Australian Capital Territory (ACT). The applicant was initially observed by a staff member to be following a female customer around the store who was shopping with her three young children. The applicant committed the offence while seated on a bench outside the cash register area and engaged in what the sentencing judge described as ‘a form of masturbation' in respect of the woman, while the woman's three children moved around the area where the applicant was seated.

6. The summonsed material produced by the Australian Federal Police (the AFP) indicates that as a result of the offence the applicant was subject to the Crimes (Child Sex Offenders) Act 2005 and became a registerable offender, and is required to report to the ACT Child Sex Offenders Registry Team for a period of at least eight years.

7. On 17 September 2021, the Department wrote to the applicant to advise him of its intention to consider cancellation of his visa, pursuant to subsection 501(2) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (‘the Act’), because it was suspected that the applicant did not satisfy the character test. The notice stated that the department possessed information which suggested that the applicant did not pass the character test by virtue of paragraph 501(6)(e) of the Act.

8. On 21 October 2021, the applicant made representations that the discretion under subsection 501(2) of the Act should not be exercised.

9. On 10 December 2021, a delegate of the Respondent (‘the delegate’) found that the discretion under subsection 501(2) to cancel the applicant's visa should be exercised. That decision was emailed to the applicant's registered representative on 19 April 2022.

10. The delegate found that, as the applicant had been convicted of the offence, he failed the character test on the basis of paragraph 501(6)(e) of the Act.

11. On 26 April 2022, the applicant applied to the Tribunal for review of that decision.

    THE LAW

12. Section 501 of the Act provides:

    Refusal or cancellation of visa on character grounds

    Decision of Minister or delegate--natural justice applies

    ….

    (2) The Minister may cancel a visa that has been granted to a person if:

    (a)the Minister reasonably suspects that the person does not pass the character test; and

    (b)the person does not satisfy the Minister that the person passes the character test.

13. The ‘character test’ is defined at s 501(6) of the Act as:

    Character test

    (6)  For the purposes of this section, a person does not pass the character test if:

    …

    (e)a court in Australia or a foreign country has:

    (i)     convicted the person of one or more sexually based offences involving a child; or

    (ii)    found the person guilty of such an offence, or found a charge against the person proved for such an offence, even if the person was discharged without a conviction…

    Otherwise, the person passes the character test .

    THE ISSUES

14. The issues for the Tribunal to consider in relation to the application for review are:

    (a)whether the applicant meets the character test, as defined in subsection 501(6) of the Act; and

    (b)if not, whether the discretion in subsection 501(2) of the Act to cancel the applicant's visa should be exercised.

15. A non-citizen will not pass the character test by operation of subparagraph 501(6)(a)(i) of the Act, which provides that a person will not pass the character test if 'a court in Australia or a foreign court has convicted the person of one or more sexually based offences involved a child’: subparagraph 501(6)(e)(i) of the Act.

    DIRECTION 90

16. The Tribunal must take into account ‘Direction No. 90 – Migration Act 1958 – Direction under section 499: Visa refusal and cancellation under section 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under section 501CA’ when determining whether the discretion should be exercised.

17. On 8 March 2021 the Minister made the Direction pursuant to s 499 of the Act to guide decision-makers in the exercise of the power in s 501. The Direction came into effect on 15 April 2021.

18. Paragraph 5.2 of the Direction sets out the following principles relevant to the exercise of the discretion:

    (1)  Australia has a sovereign right to determine whether non-citizens who are of character concern are allowed to enter and/or remain in Australia. Being able to come to or remain in Australia is a privilege Australia confers on non-citizens in the expectation that they are, and have been, law-biding, will respect important institutions, such as Australia's law enforcement framework, and will not cause or threaten harm to individuals or the Australian community.

    (2)  Non-citizens who engage or have engaged in criminal or other serious conduct should expect to be denied the privilege of coming to, or to forfeit the privilege of staying in, Australia.

    (3)  The Australian community expects that the Australian Government can and should refuse entry to non-citizens, or cancel their visas, if they engaged in conduct, in Australia or elsewhere, that raises serious character concerns. This expectation of the Australian community applies regardless of whether the non-citizen poses a measurable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community.

    (4)  Australia has a low tolerance of any criminal or other serious conduct by visa Applicants or those holding a limited stay visa, or by other non-citizens who have been participating in, and contributing to, the Australian community only for a short period of time. However, Australia may afford a higher level of tolerance of criminal or other serious conduct by non-citizens who have lived in the Australian community for most of their life, or from a very young age.

    (5)  Decision-makers must take into account the primary and other considerations relevant to the individual case. In some circumstances, the nature of the non-citizen's conduct, or the harm that would be caused if the conduct were to be repeated, may be so serious that even strong countervailing considerations may be insufficient to justify not cancelling or refusing the visa, or revoking a mandatory cancellation. In particular, the inherent nature of certain conduct such as family violence and the other types of conduct or suspected conduct mentioned in paragraph 8.4(2) (Expectations of the Australian Community) is so serious that even strong countervailing considerations may be sufficient in some circumstances, even if the non-citizen does not pose a measurable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community.

19. Section 6 of the Direction provides that, informed by the principles in paragraph 5.2 of the Direction, a decision-maker must take into account the considerations identified in section 8 and 9, where relevant to the decision.

20. Section 8 of the Direction provides that the four primary considerations are:

    (a)protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct (Primary Consideration 1);

    (b)whether the conduct engaged in constituted family violence (Primary Consideration 2);

    (c)the best interests of minor children in Australia (Primary Consideration 3); and

    (d)expectations of the Australian community (Primary Consideration 4).

21. Section 9 of the Direction provides that the four other considerations which must be taken into account where relevant are:

    (a)international non-refoulement obligations;

    (b)extent of impediments if removed;

    (c)impact on victims;

    (d)links to the Australian community, including:

    (i)strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia;

    (ii)impact on Australian business interests.

    THE EVIDENCE

22. The Applicant entered into evidence before the Tribunal two statements on his behalf from Mr Arnold Bernal and Mr Jurlan Cantiga, along with various statements that were before the delegate and that are contained within the G-documents. I have taken into account these statements, and given them appropriate weight.

    The evidence of the Applicant

23. The Applicant gave his evidence within the context of Direction 90, which was explained to him by the Respondent’s representative. It is noted that the Applicant elected to give his evidence in the absence of his representative, as his representative was unable to be contacted at that time due to his being in remote Indonesia.

24. When questioned about his criminal offending, the Applicant said that his actions were ‘a big mistake’. He said he was not intending anything ‘towards the kids’ but that his actions were directed towards the mother. He said his actions were not intended to harm, and that he had done the wrong thing ‘in the presence of children’. When questioned further, he accepted that it was wrong to masturbate in a public place, and that he had exhibited a lack of self-control. He said his behaviour was not directly due to the influence of drugs, but that his drug use may have contributed ‘a little bit’ to his offending.

25. The Applicant accepted that when interviewed by police in 2018, he denied masturbating in public, and that he also initially denied the behaviour in 2019 at the time of the pre-sentencing report.

26. The Applicant said his denials were because he was scared of the consequences of this behaviour, but that he changed his evidence after his lawyer told him he must be honest.

27. There was some confusion was to when the Applicant ceased using drugs. After questioning, it was made clear firstly that the Applicant had not used drugs while in detention despite being offered drugs, and that he had stopped using drugs once he became employed in May 2021. Before that time, he was using methamphetamine ‘once or twice’ a month.

28. The Applicant was living with his family when he was using drugs, and said that he had not sought help to deal with his drug addiction.

29. Prior to his detention, the Applicant was working as a labourer. He said he was not working at the time of the offence, but he later got a job and was trying to pay off debts and assist his parents.

30. When questioned about his offending behaviour, the Applicant accepted that his offending had led to him being placed on the sex offenders register and that he had restrictions placed on him being around children without the supervision of their parents. The restrictions applied for a period of eight years.

31. The Applicant was questioned about an incident where he was found with three young children in his car in 2019. He said that he was looking after the children because their mother had been driving under the influence and had left the children with him, and that he had run out of fuel whilst following the children’s mother. One of the children was eight months old. He said the mother was aware of his offending. The Applicant said that he was visiting the children’s mother on and off at that time.

32. The Applicant accepted that the Australian Federal Police (AFP) version of events was different to his evidence, but said that his evidence was correct. He said that although it was in breach of his restrictions to be alone with the children at that time, it had only occurred on that one occasion and was for a period of about an hour and a half.

33. When questioned about his risk of reoffending, the Applicant was taken to a report of Mr Marshall O’Brien, clinical psychologist, dated 31 October 2019, and to various other reports relating to his offending including those related to his admission into a Sex Offender Treatment program run by ACT Corrective Services. He gave evidence that he had participated in the 22-week long program, and also acknowledged that he had been interviewed by psychologist Marshall O’Brien, who saw him prior to his sentencing. The Applicant said he had not taken many further steps in relation to rehabilitation.

34. The Applicant said that his offending was a ‘wake up call’ and that he would not reoffend. He said that he had brought shame on his family and that he greatly regretted the consequences of his actions.

35. The Applicant gave evidence that he would find it very difficult to return to the Philippines. He said there was ‘nothing there’ for him, that he was used to Australia and his mother, brother, sister, and stepfather were all in Australia. He also has other extended family in Australia.

36. The Applicant’s grandfather, uncle, aunty and a number of nieces and nephews were in the Philippines. The Applicant said that the family may be able to help him a bit, but that they would not be able to support him, and that his nieces and nephews were still reliant of their parents.

37. The Applicant  had visited the Philippines twice since arriving in Australia, the most recent visit being in 2019.

38. Since his offending, the Applicant had become actively involved in his local church both as a regular attendee at church services on Sunday and also, he said, in youth outreach programs.

39. The Applicant said that he supported his family financially in terms of assisting them to pay the mortgage, and also by paying half of the regular bills with his father paying the other half. The Applicant said that his family would ‘struggle’ if he were returned to the Philippines, and that they were unlikely to have any money to assist him. The Applicant said that his father had found it very difficult to pay regular bills whilst the Applicant was unemployed.

40. The Applicant said that it would be very difficult for him to obtain a job in the Philippines, but that he had good prospects for work in Australia. His former employer had consistently contacted him and sent him information about job vacancies, and that he would be able to go back to that employer. He pointed out that he had been unemployed during COVID.

    DISCUSSION

41. It was not disputed between by the parties that the Applicant had been convicted of a sexual offence involving a child, and therefore failed the character test under s 501(6)(e). Accordingly, the issue before the Tribunal is whether the discretion under s 501(2) to cancel the Applicant’s visa should be exercised.

42. It must be said at the outset that I expressed serious concerns that the Applicant’s representative was not available at the start of the hearing. I gave the Applicant time to try and contact his representative, and consider how he wished to proceed. He elected to proceed on the basis that he was self-represented, and was questioned extensively by the Minister’s representative.

43. His representative was able to join the hearing in the afternoon, and asked the Applicant a number of questions by way of clarification as well as making final submissions on behalf of the Applicant.

44. I acknowledge the Minister’s representative’s cooperation and efforts to ensure that the Applicant was accorded procedural fairness. In my view, the Minister’s representative met the requirements of a model litigant in her conduct of these proceedings.

45. I now turn to the provisions of Direction 90.

    PRIMARY CONSIDERATION 1: Protection of the Australian Community

46. In considering this primary consideration, I have had regard to paragraph 8.1 of Direction 90.

47. The first aspect of this consideration is the nature and seriousness of the Applicant’s offending.

48. There is no doubt that the Applicant’s offending was serious. Any conduct of a sexual nature conducted in the presence of children must be taken seriously. The circumstances of the offending were summarised in the sentencing remarks of Judge Burns of 8 November 2019 as follows:

    I have had the opportunity to view a Closed-Circuit Television (CCTV) recording of the offence. That recording shows that at about 3.30 pm on 14 December 2018, you were at the Coles store at Amaroo in the Australian Capital Territory. You were observed by a Coles staff member to be following an unidentified female customer who was shopping in the store with her three young children.

    You took a seat outside the cash register area on a bench seat. You were seated near the cash register, where this unidentified female with the three children came to pay for her groceries. Whilst you were seated on the bench, the three children, to whom I previously referred, moved around in the area between the bench on which you were seated and the cash register where the adult female, I presume it was their mother, was paying for her groceries.

    On occasions the children sat on the bench next to you. On other occasions they moved away towards where their mother was paying for the groceries You were wearing a green, high visibility T-shirt which was not tucked into the pants that you were wearing at the time. When you sat down it covered your groin area. You placed your hand underneath the T-shirt and began to move your hand up and down.

    At the same time, you were also jiggling your legs up and down. I am quite satisfied that at that point you were engaging in a form of masturbation. It is now accepted, as stated by your Counsel, that you were rubbing your penis on the outside of your clothing. Having seen the CCTV footage I am satisfied that your attention was focused upon the mature female who was paying for the groceries. l am satisfied that your attention was not directed towards the children as they came and went in that area.

    ...

    I also take into account not only that it occurred in a public place, but that it continued over a number of minutes and that it was clearly a deliberate action on your part to provide yourself with sexual gratification. I accept that there was no exposure of your penis to any other person at that time. However, objectively speaking, it appears to me that this is still a relatively serious example of this type of offending.

1. Against this, I note that the sentencing judge also made the following remarks in relation to the Applicant’s offending:

   I am satisfied that your attention was not directed towards the children as they came and went in that area.

   I am further satisfied that that woman was unaware of what you were doing and that the children were also unaware of the sexual nature of your actions. Certainly, the children gave no indication that they perceived that there was anything wrong and, more importantly, nor did the children's mother. She, from time to time, looked in your direction as the children were seated nearby and she took no actions to try and remove them from your presence. That, as I indicated in argument with Counsel, is really a matter of good fortune. Your conduct was highly reckless in the sense that you were engaging in an act for sexual self-gratification in a public place, in the presence of a number of young children.

2. As stated by the sentencing judge, there was no evidence that any of the children had directly witnessed the Applicant’s behaviour, or even that the unidentified adult female was aware of the behaviour. It was certainly reckless given that it occurred in a busy supermarket, and the Applicant accepted that it demonstrated a lack of self-control.

3. It is of concern that the Applicant did not admit his offences until his lawyer pointed out to him that he had to be honest.

4. I agree with Judge Burns that the Applicant demonstrated a complete lack of judgment. Although not clearly established at the hearing, it does appear that the Applicant may have partially affected by drugs at the time of the offence.

5. I accept his evidence that he was not intending anything “towards the kids”. This was certainly the view of the sentencing judge.  

6. Nevertheless, the offence must be regarded as serious.

7. The second aspect of this consideration is the risk to the Australian community should the applicant reoffend.

8. There is no doubt that the Australia community has little tolerance for those who commit sexual offences involving children. It is however relevant that the Applicant’s behaviour was not directed towards the children, but rather was reckless and for the purpose of self-gratification.

9. There is no evidence that the Applicant has committed any other offences whilst in Australia. He did complete a rehabilitation course as required by the ACT Corrective Services, although I note he did not appear to have been a particularly enthusiastic participant and did not always attend the various sessions.

10. The sentencing judge imposed a relatively light sentence, which reflected the seriousness of the behaviour and the likelihood of reoffending.

11. It must also be taken into account, however, that the sentencing judge saw the applicant’s behaviour as ‘deliberate’ and the clinical psychologist reported that there was no psychological explanation for the Applicant’s offending. The pre-sentencing report assessed the Applicant to be at ‘low risk of general offending’ and at a ‘moderate to high risk’ of sexual reoffending. There was however no evidence before the Tribunal that the Applicant posed any direct risk to children. The Applicant’s difficulty seems to be more with self-control.

12. I accept that the one occasion in which the Applicant was found to be in the company  of young children without the supervision of their mother resulted from particular circumstances and did not last a long time.

13. The Applicant produced a number of character references, including from his priest Father Jiss Sunny, his mother, and a number of his friends. These references did not contain any real detail of the Applicant’s offending, and the character reference from Father Jiss Sunny did not mention the Applicant’s offending at all. I give limited weight to these references which go to the Applicant’s character and shed some light on his support networks within the community.

14. At the hearing, I formed the impression that the Applicant did not really understand the seriousness of his offences or why he was in his current predicament. However, I am satisfied that he understands that his behaviour was totally inappropriate in the presence of children.

15. I regard the applicant’s prospects of reoffending as low to moderate.

16. Overall, I give this first consideration moderate to heavy weight in favour of exercising the discretion to cancel.

    PRIMARY CONSIDERATION 2: Family Violence

17. There was no evidence before the Tribunal relevant to this consideration.

    PRIMARY CONSIDERATION 3: Best interests of minor children

18. There was no evidence before the Tribunal relevant to this consideration.

    PRIMARY CONSIDERATION 4: Expectations of the Australian community

19. Direction 90 sets out the expectations of the Australian community. Broadly, these encapsulate the findings of the Federal Court in FYBR v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCAFC 185, where the Full Court decided by majority that it is not for the decision-maker to assess the expectations of the Australian community for the purpose of applying this consideration. Rather, the expectations of the community that decision-makers are required to consider are those set out in Direction 90 at paragraph 8.4.

20. There is clear authority that it is not the Tribunal’s role to determine for itself the expectations of the Australian community. The Tribunal’s role is to determine the weight to be given to this consideration.

21. Given the nature of the Applicant’s offending, the sentence imposed, and the remarks of the sentencing judge, together with his remorse, the fact that he is free of drug use and has, since the offending, developed links with his local church, I consider that it is appropriate to give moderate weight to this consideration in favour of exercising the discretion to cancel.

    OTHER CONSIDERATIONS

    International non-refoulment obligations

22. In this regard, I note paragraph 9.1 of Direction 90.

23. There were no arguments put to the tribunal regarding Australia’s non-refoulement obligations. I note, however, as a reformed drug addict, and as a person who may possibly revert to drug use if placed in a stressful situation, the Applicant may be at some risk if he were returned to the Philippines.

24. As the matter was not directly addressed, I take any potential harm to the Applicant into account under impediments to his removal.

    Impediments to removal

25. In this regard I note paragraph 9.2.1 of Direction 90.

26. The Applicant gave evidence that there was ‘nothing for him’ in the Philippines. Although he had family in the Philippines, any help they were able to give him would be limited. The Applicant gave evidence that he would be unlikely to find employment in the Philippines.

27. It was pointed out by the Minister’s representative that the Applicant had lived in the Philippines until he was 17, and that he had returned to the Philippines on at least two occasions. There was also no evidence that the Applicant suffered from any health conditions that would make it more difficult for him to integrate in the Philippines.

28. I accept the Applicant’s evidence that his family would be of limited assistance to him, and that his cousins in the Philippines are still dependant on their parents. The Applicant left the Philippines at the age of 17, and I accept his evidence that he has integrated into Australia and is not really very familiar with the Philippines ten years on from the date he left.

29. The Applicant did not appear to have attained a particularly high standard of education. There was some evidence that he had completed a number of TAFE courses while in Australia. Prior to his detention, he had been working as a labourer.

30. During the hearing it became clear that the Applicant had some real difficulty in understanding the evidence and the questions being put to him. Although not directly addressed, his education appeared to have been limited, and his comprehension somewhat limited.  In my opinion, this would make it more difficult for him to reintegrate and find work in the Philippines.

31. It is a matter of common knowledge that drug users, particularly those who are poor and vulnerable, may be at serious risk in the Philippines. The Applicant is, in my opinion, much more likely to revert to drug use if he were to find himself in a stressful environment where he has no supports, although I accept that he would have the same access to medical care as Filipinos in a similar situation.

32. On the evidence overall, I find that there are significant impediments to the Applicant being returned to the Philippines.  The weight which I give this  consideration is reinforced by the fact that the Applicant was using drugs until May 2021, when he stopped after getting a job, and that if the stress of returning to the Philippines were to result in him again using drugs, he is likely to be in considerable danger particularly as he would not have the support of his family, friends and the church which he has in Australia.

33. Overall, I give this consideration heavy weight in favour of not exercising the discretion.

    Impact on victims

34. There was no evidence before the Tribunal relevant to this consideration.

    Links to the Australian community

    Strength, nature and duration of ties

35. The Applicant arrived in Australia 2011 at the age of 17. He arrived with his mother and step-father and has lived with them and his brother continuously since his arrival. He also has a number of other family members in Australia.

36. The Applicant has had a job in Australia, and said that he was only unemployed due to COVID. The Applicant gave evidence that he would be able to find employment readily if released from detention.

37. I accept the evidence of the Applicant that he assisted his family in the payment of their mortgage and other household bills, and that the family would struggle without his contribution, both emotional and financial.

38. I also accept that the Applicant has a circle of friends in Australia and that he plays an active role in the life of his parish church, which may include youth outreach, although it was not possible to place other than limited weight on his evidence in this regard.

39. In looking in the evidence as a whole, it is evident that the Applicant has integrated into the Australian community and that his family and friends are in Australia. He has good prospects of employment here, including the possibility of again working with his previous employer.

    Impacts on Australian business interests

40. There is nothing to indicate that this aspect of the consideration is of relevance to this matter.

41. Overall, I give this consideration heavy weight in favour of not exercising the discretion.

    CONCLUSION

42. This is not a case where the evidence strongly supports a particular conclusion. Rather, it involves balancing the primary considerations, which weigh against the Applicant, with the other considerations which weigh heavily in his favour.

43. The observations of the sentencing judge are of particular importance. Those remarks support the Applicant’s evidence that his behaviour was not directed at the children, although it certainly exhibited a reckless disregard for their presence. I note also that the Applicant did not expose himself, although it must have been evident that he was masturbating underneath his clothing. If either of these elements of the Applicant’s offending had been different, I would likely have reached a different conclusion especially if his behaviour had in fact been directed towards the children.

44. In light of all of the evidence, and with some reluctance because of the abhorrent nature of any offence that has the potential to adversely affect a child, even if the conduct is not directed towards them, I find that on balance, the weight of the evidence is in favour of not exercising the discretion to cancel the applicant’s visa.

    DECISION

45. The correct or preferable decision is to set aside the reviewable decision, and in substitution it is decided not to exercise the discretion under s 501(2) of the Act to cancel the Applicant’s visa.

I certify that the preceding 93 (ninety-three) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of The Hon. John Pascoe AC CVO, Deputy President

.............................[sgd]...........................................

Associate

Dated: 12 July 2022

Date of hearing:	6 July 2022
Advocate for the Applicant:	Mr R. D. Godkin, AusThai Immigration Services Phils., Inc.
Solicitors for the Respondent:	Ms S. Prasad, MinterEllison