BDVB and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs (Migration)
[2022] AATA 5107
•20 December 2022
BDVB and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs (Migration) [2022] AATA 5107 (20 December 2022)
Division:GENERAL DIVISION
File Number: 2021/8291
Re:BDVB
APPLICANT
AndMinister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs
RESPONDENT
Decision
Tribunal:Senior Member R Bellamy
Date: 20 December 2022
Date of Written reasons 9 February 2023
Place:Brisbane
On 20 December 2022, pursuant to section 43 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act1975 (Cth), the Tribunal set aside the decision made by the delegate of the Respondent dated 28 October 2021 and substituted a decision that the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant’s visa be revoked under section 501CA(4)(b)(ii) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth).
..........................[SGD]............................
Senior Member R BellamyCatchwords
MIGRATION – Non-revocation of mandatory cancellation of a Class TY subclass 444 special category (temporary) visa - where Applicant does not pass the character test – whether there is another reason to revoke the mandatory cancellation decision – consideration of Ministerial Direction No. 90 – strong evidence of reform – minor child at risk of serious harm – decision under review set aside
Legislation
Migration Act 1958 (Cth)
Cases
FYBR v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCAFC 185
SECONDARY MATERIAL
Direction No 90 – Visa refusal and cancellation under section 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under section 501CA
REASONS FOR DECISION
Senior Member R Bellamy
9 February 2023
The Applicant was born in New Zealand in [1977]. In 2002 he moved to Australia permanently. He held a class TY subclass 444 special category (temporary) visa (“the visa”) until it was cancelled on 15 September 2020 by a delegate of the Minister (“the Respondent”). He has a criminal history in Australia that includes minor assaults and trafficking in methamphetamine, which is the offence that resulted in his visa being cancelled.
The Applicant applied for revocation of the cancellation decision, and the Respondent decided not to revoke the decision. The Applicant then applied to the Tribunal for review of that second decision (“the reviewable decision”). The Tribunal, differently constituted, affirmed the reviewable decision, however the Tribunal’s decision was subsequently remitted by consent of the parties. The second time around, the Applicant filed further evidence, and a hearing took place before me on 8 and 9 September and 20 December 2022. More evidence emerged during the course of the hearing, and the Respondent summonsed some further material. The evidence that was not before the Tribunal the first time, but was before the Tribunal this time, was important and pivotal. All the documentary evidence is listed in the attached exhibit list, marked “Annexure A”.
The Respondent conducted a skilful, reasonable and fair case, urging the Tribunal to affirm the reviewable decision. However, at the conclusion of the hearing, I set-aside the reviewable decision, and instead revoked the cancellation of the Applicant’s visa. My reasons are set out below.
There are two children whose interests are relevant to this application. Where pseudonyms are used or information is generalised, that has been done to conceal these children’s identities in the interests of protecting their privacy.
The legal issues
Section (3A) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (“the Act”) relevantly provides that the Minister must cancel a visa that has been granted to a person if:
· the Minister is satisfied that the person does not pass the character test because of the operation of paragraph (6)(a), on the basis of paragraph (7)(a), (b) or (c); and
· the person is serving a sentence of imprisonment, on a full-time basis in a custodial institution, for an offence against a law of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory.
Under s 501(6)(a) of the Act, a person will not pass the character test if they have “a substantial criminal record”. Section 501(7)(c) of the Act relevantly provides that a person will have a substantial criminal record if they have “been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more”. In July 2020, the Applicant was sentenced to imprisonment for four years. While the Applicant was serving that sentence, the Respondent duly cancelled his visa.
Revocation of the mandatory cancellation of visas is governed by s 501CA(4) of the Act which provides:
The 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.
I am satisfied that the Applicant made the representations required by s 501CA(4)(a) of the Act and that he does not pass the character test. Thus, the issue is whether there is another reason to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant’s visa. If there is, the reviewable decision should be set aside.
Determination of Whether There is Another Reason Why the Cancellation of the Applicant’s Visa Should be Revoked?
In applying s 501CA(4) of the Act, the Tribunal is bound by s 499(2A) to comply with any directions made under the Act. In this case, Direction No 90 – Visa refusal and cancellation under section 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under section 501CA (“the Direction”) applies.
For the purposes of deciding whether to revoke the mandatory cancellation of a non-citizen’s visa, paragraph 5.2 of the Direction contains several principles that must guide a decision maker’s application of Part 2 of the Direction.
Those principles may be briefly stated as follows:
(1)Australia has a sovereign right to determine whether non-citizens who are of character concern are allowed to enter and/or remain in Australia. Being able to come to or remain in Australia is a privilege Australia confers on non-citizens in the expectation that they are, and have been, law-abiding, will respect important institutions, such as Australia’s law enforcement framework, and will not cause or threaten harm to individuals or the Australian community.
(2)Non-citizens who engage or have engaged in criminal or other serious conduct should expect to be denied the privilege of coming to, or to forfeit the privilege of staying in, Australia.
(3)The Australian community expects that the Australian Government can and should refuse entry to non-citizens, or cancel their visas, if they engaged in conduct, in Australia or elsewhere, that raises serious character concerns. This expectation of the Australian community applies regardless of whether the non-citizen poses a measurable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community.
(4)Australia has a low tolerance of any criminal or other serious conduct by visa Applicants or those holding a limited stay visa, or by other non- citizens who have been participating in, and contributing to, the Australian community only for a short period of time. However, Australia may afford a higher level of tolerance of criminal or other serious conduct by non- citizens who have lived in the Australian community for most of their life, or from a very young age.
(5)Decision-makers must take into account the primary and other considerations relevant to the individual case. In some circumstances, the nature of the non-citizen’s conduct, or the harm that would be caused if the conduct were to be repeated, may be so serious that even strong countervailing considerations may be insufficient to justify not cancelling or refusing the visa, or revoking a mandatory cancellation. In particular, the inherent nature of certain conduct such as family violence and the other types of conduct or suspected conduct mentioned in paragraph 8.4(2) (Expectations of the Australian Community) is so serious that even strong countervailing considerations may be insufficient in some circumstances, even if the non-citizen does not pose a measurable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community.
Paragraph 6 of the Direction provides that:
Informed by the principles in paragraph 5.2, a decision maker must take into account the considerations identified in sections 8 and 9, where relevant to the decision.
Paragraph 8 of the Direction sets out four Primary Considerations that the Tribunal must take into account. They are:
(1)protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct;
(2)whether the conduct engaged in constituted family violence;
(3)the best interests of minor children in Australia; and
(4)expectations of the Australian community.
Paragraph 9 of the Direction sets out four Other Considerations which must be taken into account. They are:
a)international non-refoulement obligations;
b)extent of impediments if removed;
c)impact on victims; and
d)links to the Australian community, including:
i)strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia; and
ii)impact on Australian business interests
I may also take into account other matters that are relevant to whether there is another reason to revoke the cancellation of the Applicant’s visa, having regard to the scope and purpose of the legislation.
Paragraph 7(2) provides that the primary considerations should generally be given greater weight than the other considerations, and paragraph 7(3) provides that one or more primary considerations may outweigh other primary considerations.
BACKGROUND and offending
The Applicant was born in New Zealand in [1977].
The Applicant had a disadvantaged childhood. When he was around five years old, his father went bankrupt and the family lived in poverty. His father then left the family. His mother was physically and emotionally abusive, often beating him with a jug cord, and neglecting him. His mother’s boyfriends physically abused him and one of her long term boyfriends also sexually abused his sister. At around the age of 12, his mother sent him to Australia to live with his father but his father re-partnered and became uninterested in him. He felt neglected there too. He was sent back to New Zealand at the age of 14 and lived in foster care until he was 16 at which time he lived independently with the assistance of independent youth benefits. He lost touch with his older sister at a young age after she ran away from home at age 12 because of the sexual abuse. She was placed in permanent foster care. The Applicant reconnected with her briefly in their late teens then lost touch again until very recently. She provided a letter generally corroborating his evidence about their childhood. He has not had any contact with his younger brother in 20 years and does not know where he is. He has not seen his younger half-sister since she was eight years old when she went to live with her father. He has not spoken to mother in 27 years and does not wish to. He is now on good terms with his father whose current partner seems to be a different woman to the previous partner.
The Applicant settled permanently in Australia in August 2002 when he was 25 years old. Not long after, he started offending.
In early 2004, the Applicant committed two separate assaults. In the first, when security tried to remove him from a leagues club for being intoxicated and argumentative, he became violent, biting the thumb of one security guard and the shoulder of another. He spat in the face of another security guard as police placed him in a paddy wagon. The Applicant was charged with assault and pleaded guilty. He said he was too drunk to recall the incident but he did not deny it. The second assault involved a melee in a carpark. The Applicant injured police officers who attempted to arrest him.
In relation to those incidents, the Applicant was convicted of assault occasioning actual bodily harm, common assault, use of offensive language and assaulting an officer in the execution of his duty. He was sentenced to six months imprisonment for each of the assaults and fined $300 for the offensive language. On appeal, the prison sentences were replaced by probation for two years.
These assaults happened 18 years ago and the Applicant has not committed any assaults since. After the incidents, the Applicant realised he had an alcohol problem as he had blackouts and was unable to control his behaviour. He stopped drinking. He now drinks only very rarely. He said he is remorseful and ashamed of the assaults.
In 2006, the Applicant broke a phone and smashed a glass dividing wall in a real estate office. He had paid the required amount to secure a rental property, he was then told he had to pay more, and when he tried to pull out because he did not think he should have to pay more, he was told he could not get a refund. He said he felt he had been stolen from. After the incident, he went directly to a police station and reported himself. He was subsequently convicted of destroy or damage property and fined.
In February 2007 the Applicant was convicted and fined for negligent driving (not occasioning death/gbh). I do not have any details of that offence before me. In 2021 the Applicant told Professor Freeman, forensic psychologist, “I was driving a truck [for work] and apparently I clipped a car. I kept driving as I didn’t notice it”. However, he told the Tribunal at first instance and on remittal that he has always disputed that it was him driving. He said he was working as a delivery driver at the time and had finished work two hours before the offence was committed. He told the police to look at his work records that showed his last delivery two hours before the incident two minutes from the deport. He only found out that he had been convicted after being convicted in his absence. He said the vehicle was actually being driven by his boss who was on a two-year one-point good behaviour bond for his driving. This incident happened a long time ago, there is no evidence of repeated driving offence and there seems to be a fair chance that the Applicant was wrongly convicted. I place little importance on this conviction.
In 2007 the Applicant commenced a relationship with “Z” and in [2008] she gave birth to their son, CB. They lived in New South Wales at the time.
The Applicant now describes the relationship with Z as having been toxic and marked by her use of violence and her work as a prostitute. He recounted certain events to give context to, and explain, some of his offending. However, I do not think he put those forward to excuse of justify his offending. Nor did he go into much detail. It was only after some additional evidence was received and some questions were asked by the Tribunal that the scale of Z’s abuse of the Applicant and CB became apparent.
The Applicant said Z constantly hit him and at first he thought it was done in fun but the hitting became harder and harder. He had to remind her to stop hitting him because “I’m not a punching bag”. She used a closed fist. She hit him in the face and gave him black eyes. She hit him with objects. She threw things at him including a vegemite jar and a cat. He said “I’ve had so many things aimed in my direction”.
Z also assaulted CB. The Applicant recalled a time when CB was a newborn baby and he came home from work to find his father and step-mother “having a go” at Z but he did not know what it was about. She told him they had lost their minds at her for absolutely nothing, and he took her side. Several years later his father and step-mother told him that his step-mother had discovered that Z had been biting CB on his arms and places that could not be seen. The Applicant’s father gave evidence in the hearing corroborating this account. He said when CB was little he used to stay with him and his wife. He said Z “went nuts” once because he wanted to take CB to the hospital because he would not stop crying and it was a cry of pain – he knew something was wrong and he thought Z had been biting or hitting him. Z refused and became enraged. He did not think there was much he could do about it at the time.
The domestic abuse that the Applicant described Z engaging in included what is now recognised as coercive control. According to him, she tried to control who he associated with, and when they lived in New South Wales, she used financial control, for example the day before he was to start a very good job, she caused a fight and got a domestic violence order against him. He said:
“it came out of nowhere… And she took [CB] and the car, our only car, and left, therefore not allowing me to have a job, which was a way of controlling what I was doing. Should I - could I have been able to have that job, I would have had more control over - over my life.”
That incident appears to have been in 2011. According to police records Z reported by telephone that the Applicant had assaulted her and thrown a cup at her. When they arrived she told them the Applicant had tried to leave and she had stood in his way to stop him. He pushed her out of the way and she stumbled down three steps. He then left. When the police arrived, she denied that the Applicant had assaulted her and she claimed he threw the cup at the wall, not her. There were no visible injuries. She said she was afraid of the Applicant. When the police spoke with the Applicant he said he had moved her out of his way but he conceded that his actions may have been intimidating to her. The police got an apprehended violence order. Some weeks later, she reported that he had taken her phone.
In 2011, Z’s mother told the Applicant that Z was working as a prostitute. She had seen advertisements online. The Applicant tried moving the family away so she would not do that. They moved several times to no avail. He said in the end all he was doing was following her around to look after CB. He recalled a time after they moved to Queensland when Z was on top of CB, hitting him. The Applicant pulled her off and she got straight back on and started hitting him again. He left their apartment, flagged down a police officer who happened to be going past, and told him what was happening. The police arrived, but when they wanted a statement from the Applicant, he protected Z. She was taken for psychological assessment and was back three hours later.
There was not any expert evidence before the Tribunal about the psychological impact of domestic abuse on the immediate victim. However, it is well known that such abuse often entails an element of brainwashing: challenging the victim’s perception of reality, eroding their trust in their own judgment, and undermining their ability to stand up for themselves, their loved ones and what is right. Eleven years later, the Applicant acknowledges he made a lot of mistakes, failing to protect CB from Z’s abuse.
During the course of the hearing, it became apparent that there is nobody apart from Z and the Applicant who could realistically have CB in their care while he remains a minor. It is necessary to look closely at how remaining in Z’s care, without the Applicant around, is likely to impact CB. Between the second and third hearing days, after all the witnesses had given their evidence, records from the Department of Children, Youth Justice and Multicultural Affairs (“DOCS”) and from the Queensland Police (relating to Z) were obtained by the Respondent at the Tribunal’s suggestion. The Respondent is to be commended on the way it discharged its duty to act as the model litigant and to assist the Tribunal.
In early January 2012, an incident occurred that resulted in a domestic violence order requiring the Applicant to vacate his home and not approach within 100 meters of it. He cannot recall the incident but he thought it was probably an argument. A record of a notification to DOCS in early January 2012 states that the incident involved more than an argument: the Applicant locked himself away from Z for 45 minutes, attempted to leave the premises, Z physically tried to stop him, and he slapped her in the face before leaving. It also states that CB was living with his maternal grandparents at the time. As the Applicant was never charged with assault and Z cannot be considered a reliable witness for reasons that will become apparent, I do not accept that the Applicant assaulted Z on this occasion.
I pause to note that the DOCS records are quite an indictment of Z’s character and her parenting. However, most of those are anonymised notifications that have not been investigated or verified. Where there is nothing to corroborate an anonymised notification, I approach it with caution. I apply the same approach to the adverse notifications about the Applicant. The internal records indicate that at times both the Applicant and Z were hostile and uncooperative with DOCS staff.
After the incident in early January 2012, the Applicant moved into a homeless shelter. Some time later, he went back to get CB. Contemporaneous police notes record that Z was working as a prostitute in the home with CB present. The Applicant and Z argued when the Applicant took offence at Z putting CB to sleep in her “work bed”. He tried to lock himself and CB inside a bedroom but Z objected, thinking he might take CB away with him. He pushed her away from the door. She claimed he pushed her to the ground and put his hands around her throat, strangling her, and he picked up her iPad and smashed it. He denied strangling her and smashing an iPad. The Applicant took CB out of the apartment and Z tried to take CB from him. The Applicant pushed her away and she fell to the ground. Witnesses saw this.
The Applicant went straight to a police station with CB to report that Z was working as a sex worker with a child in the apartment, and Z went to a different police station. Nothing was done about his report, although it looks like the police notified DOCS of the matter including that Z was working as a prostitute at home with CB present.
The Applicant claims that when the matter went to court, the Magistrate accepted his account. His account is that he pushed Z because she was punching and scratching him, and screaming and yelling. She was hurting CB as the Applicant had CB in his arms. He was trying to defend himself and CB from her. He was convicted (without the conviction being recorded) of breaching a domestic violence order and fined $600. A $600 fine without the recording of the conviction is not consistent with a finding that the Applicant did something as serious as strangling Z, and I do not accept that he did. Nor was there any order to make reparation so I do not accept that the Applicant smashed an iPad.
The Applicant concedes that he handled the situation the wrong way and he should have abided by the terms of the domestic violence order.
In October 2012 there was another domestic violence incident. The Applicant and Z had resumed living together. Z alleged that during an argument, the Applicant spat in her face and hit her on the head. The police attended and spoke to Z, the Applicant and CB. At some point the Applicant climbed over the railing of the balcony and began moving to a nearby window ledge. He yelled abuse at the police. He became aggressive towards a police officer who had to take evasive action when the Applicant threw an object at him from approximately six feet away. The Applicant spat in the face of another officer from three feet away. Some minutes later he came back inside and became involved in a physical altercation with the police before being retrained. Another domestic violence order was made against the Applicant. It does not appear that the Applicant was convicted of any offence arising from this incident. The Applicant thinks he was arrested and given probation. He lived in a homeless shelter. He also went to his General Practitioner for a mental health plan, and he got treatment for depression and anxiety.
According to the Applicant, he ended the relationship with Z in September 2013 and the break-up was not amicable. They barely had any contact after that. CB lived with him full-time. Z had relationships with other people. The Applicant thought it was important for CB to have Z in his life so he facilitated CB spending time with her. The only contact the Applicant had with Z was for that purpose.
The Applicant had been CB’s primary carer before he and Z broke up and he continued in that role afterwards. The Applicant read to CB every night and they shared the reading as CB learned to read. They read hundreds of books together. He taught CB to read, write, count and do mathematics. They had a daily routine that involved meals, brushing teeth, bedtime, getting up in the morning, doing the washing etc. He taught CB to cook, clean, and hang the washing out. Z did not do any of these things for CB.
A friend, “Mr G”, provided a letter and gave evidence in the hearing. He said he has known the Applicant for 12 years and he lived with him and CB in 2013 and 2014. He described the Applicant as hard working, motivated, level headed, respectful, honest, willing to help others, and a dedicated single father to CB. He said the Applicant’s priority was ensuring CB was well loved, had everything he needed and had good structure in his life. He described Z as a “self-centred ball of destruction” who had wrecked the Applicant’s life (referring to events in 2018) and who he feared would also destroy CB’s life. He said he saw Z drag CB around the house by his hair. He got upset about that and Z screamed at him “It’s none of your business what I do with my child”. He recalled three times when he saw Z being violent to CB. He saw her being violent to the Applicant countless times. She threw a brick through the window and smashed the television when he lived with the Applicant. He said the Applicant refused to give a statement to the police as he did not want to get Z in trouble.
Mr G’s evidence is consistent with a notification to DOCS made in September 2013 that Z was dragging CB around and being rough with him. That notification also mentioned that CB was thought to have bruises on his body as a result, and that Z was kicking CB. CB had a black eye which he explained as “Mummy was really upset and locked out of the house and was throwing bottles” and one hit him. The notification included that Z was known to be violent. The Applicant, in his evidence, said Z would drag CB around by the arm, leaving bruises.
Another friend of the Applicant, “Ms L”, wrote a letter. She said he and CB sometimes visited. She was impressed by his love and concern for CB.
In early 2014, the police were investigating Z for drug trafficking. In the course of that, they found video footage on her phone of her engaging in some highly aberrant sexual behaviour. She was subsequently prosecuted and convicted of some offences as a result. The only information before the Tribunal about these offences, apart from the records of the convictions in Z’s criminal history, are media reports. The police fact sheets are curiously missing from the material that was produced by the Queensland Police Service in response to a summons. A media report relating to Z’s sentencing hearing states that a male partner had encouraged her to engage in that behaviour, that he had sent text messages about it and that he could be heard speaking in a video. This information is not in any earlier media reports available to the Tribunal which suggests that it was not based on the police allegations. The timing suggests it was put forward by the defence in mitigation of sentence. I mention this information because the fact that, according to Z, she was prepared to engage in illegal, disgusting behaviour to impress a sexual partner raises serious concerns about what sorts of things she would be prepared to do to or around her children to impress a partner or client.
One media report identified the male as the Applicant. The Applicant was not aware of any alleged involvement of a male, or that he had been named as that male, until the second day of hearing when the Tribunal and the Respondent both searched for the media reports after Mr G mentioned the offences in his evidence. The Applicant had ended his relationship with Z in September 2013. His abhorrence of her choice of career is well documented. He denied that the man was him. He speculated that Z had seen an opportunity to use their past turbulent relationship to minimise her responsibility, and he noted that a common theme throughout the DOCS records is Z seeking to reduce her responsibility for her actions. The Applicant also pointed out that the police never spoke with him in relation to the offending despite the accomplice apparently being identifiable, and that it is not common practice for submissions made on behalf of defendants when they are being sentenced to be the subject of verification, i.e. they often go unchallenged. That is accurate. I am inclined to accept that the Applicant was not involved in these offences.
There is a record, dated 12 November 2014, of an interview conducted by DOCS officers with CB at the Applicant’s home. The author described the home environment and CB’s appearance and demeanour very positively. The author noted that CB’s artwork and awards from school covered the refrigerator. CB told the officer many things that indicated that he was safe and loved with the Applicant but that Z hurt him and acted against his interests. Those things included:
“If I tell mum that I don't want to do something she yells at me, she has been a little bit good, little bit bad.”
“On Friday ... my friends birthday ... mum picked me up from school, she threw my collage into the bin. She did a lot of bad things to me. Walking to the park from school. Was angry at me for some reason when she picked me up, for no reason, I don't know why ... dad has been really good to me, has done nothing bad”.
“… in the park. My friends mum asked my mum if it was alright to take me into the birthday party. She yelled ‘No.’ I wanted to go to my friends birthday and be happy. She forced me. Her fingernails ...”
CB then showed the officers two marks on the inside of his lower left arm consistent with fingernails having cut into the skin, having since healed. CB also told the officers:
“She was forcing me to write on the card, it might have happened when she was making me write on the card. It happened before in [New South Wales]..”
“Dad - He's really good. he (sic) doesn't hurt me ... not mean to me. If I get in trouble he sends me to bed. I don't care about that.”
“Seeing mum - Its pretty good, sometimes bad, sometimes good. Bad times - Like if I'm not allowed something, or I'm really hungry. I can't remember the last time I saw mum, might have been at tae kwon do”
“Example of a good time with mum - When I'm allowed to have chips”.
“Dad wouldn't let me live with mum. I stay with dad because mum would hurt me. I don't really now how she would hurt me, it's always a surprise when I get hurt. She uses her hand. She might push me, she pushed me on really hard dirt. I told her to stop but she said no.”
“Mum needs someone to help her.”
“I never feel scared at dads, not worried.”
The report includes that when CB was asked to nominate five adults, for what purpose is not apparent, he said “Police, Steve, Army, Dad, not mum, I don't know anyone else”.
The Applicant, after reading the summonsed bundle of DOCS records, told the Tribunal that DOCS had not shared information pertaining to the abuse of CB by Z with him.
DOCS officers spoke with Z at her home. The report described her as displaying a very limited ability to discuss events or child-related or parenting issues objectively, often responding to open questions with passive aggressive style rhetoric and deflections or allegations about others. It was noted that her responses to officer's questions suggested that she believes she was a victim of the process.
The principal and deputy principal of CB’s school were also interviewed. They reported that it was believed at the school that the Applicant and Z were living together (which was clearly incorrect). They also indicated that both the Applicant and Z had separately gone “ballistic” about a minor matter at the school. They reported aggressive, explosive and “quite unbelievable” behaviour from Z of the kind they had not seen in 30 years. The principal expressed concern about the potential for Z to be violent toward staff of the school and said the Education Department had been notified.
In February 2015 there was another incident between the Applicant and Z. The Applicant was at home and on crutches following foot surgery. Z came to do some cleaning for him as she was short of money. They got into an argument and the Applicant asked her to leave. They then struggled over a phone. The Applicant’s account is that Z pulled him over causing him to skin both knees. She then landed on top of him. The struggle continued and she put him into a head lock. The Applicant told the attending police that Z had a history of that sort of behaviour but he had never reported it before. Z had left by the time the police arrived.
It appears that Z later told the police that the Applicant had followed her around the house calling her names. She claimed she tripped over, causing the Applicant to fall, and that he was pulling her arm causing an injury. The police notes record that Z had scratch marks and other injuries caused by the Applicant. However, she was not present when the police attended so it should not be assumed that any or all of her injuries were caused by the Applicant and not Z herself or someone else after she left the Applicant’s home. The police obtained a domestic violence order against Z, protecting the Applicant. He was not charged with any offence.
Two days after that incident, the police searched the Applicant’s home and found two quantities of cannabis: 15grams and 6grams. He said it was for personal use. Messages on his phone suggested that he was supplying drugs to others but he was not charged with supply. The police also found $17,800 in cash under his pillow. He told them it was money he had saved from working as a house cleaner and he had not worked for some months as he had injured his ankle. He said he did not like to put his money in the bank because he was hiding it from his ex-partner (Z). Later the Applicant explained to the Tribunal that he had bought 6 grams of cannabis flower and he had been given 15 grams of cannabis leaf to bake cookies for pain relief.
The Applicant provided details about this incident to Professor Freeman and the Tribunal. He said he used to use cannabis regularly in the same way as a person might have a glass of wine to wind down at the end of the day. He did not see it as a problem. He used it after CB had gone to bed. After he injured his foot, which resulted in 15 screws and a plate being put in his heel, he started making cookies for pain relief. He hated using Endone, which he had been prescribed, for pain relief because of the way it made him feel. He thought it was making him incapable of looking after CB effectively as a single parent because he needed to stay alert. With respect to the cash, the Applicant said he provided the police with all the receipts, records and tax invoices to show it was earned legitimately. There is no evidence that the money was forfeited or that the Applicant was convicted or any offence relating to the money. I accept his explanation.
In March 2015, DOCS received a notification that Z had bitten CB, and that he had bite marks with bruising on his arm. There are further notes of Z having bitten CB’s ear, leaving marks and bruising, and that the Applicant had been told by DOCS not to leave CB unsupervised in Z’s care. The Applicant told the Tribunal that CB had stayed with Z on the weekend and he had collected him from school the following Monday afternoon. He discovered a bite mark on CB’s arm that had tape over it. CB initially tried to cover for Z before revealing that he had told his school that Z had bitten him. The Applicant claims the school did not alert him despite him being CB’s sole carer.
The Applicant claimed that he took CB to the police station and he was told to speak into a phone on the wall and that it was seven months before the police spoke with the Applicant about the assault. This is not true: DOCS records include evidence that in June 2015 the police were attempting to get a statement from the Applicant and he was being evasive. This looks like another example of the Applicant protecting Z. Eventually, in 2016, Z was convicted of two assault (domestic violence) offences.
In April and May 2015, the Applicant came to the attention of the police because he bought cannabis from a dealer they were monitoring. They searched his home and found a gram of cannabis leaf which the Applicant said was from a joint he smoked the day before. He admitted to being a recreational user and to buying it on occasion. He was convicted of possessing dangerous drugs, fined $400 and sentenced to good behaviour for three months and drug diversion for both incidents.
According to police records, in September 2015, Z went to the Applicant’s home and banged on doors and windows, wanting to see CB after she failed to attend a scheduled meeting at his swimming lesson. She broke CB’s bedroom window then threw approximately $200 at the front door to cover replacing the window.
In March 2018, the Applicant allowed Z to move in with him and CB temporarily because she was homeless. At some point they entered into a sexual relationship. However, Z was increasingly verbally and physically abusive to him. He could not get her to leave despite giving her money to help her to move out. He was leaving for short periods of time but he could not move out because he did not want to leave CB, and Z made sure CB was always with her. She physically held on to him and would not let go. He thought if he contacted the police, he would be the one in trouble.
In July 2018, Z made allegations of domestic violence against the Applicant, including that he had threatened to rip her and CB’s heads off. She also alleged that she had received over 100 abusive messages from the Applicant. He denies the allegations. Presumably if there were abusive text messages Z could have shown them to the police who could have charged the Applicant with the Federal crime of using a carriage service to menace, harass or cause offence. The Applicant was not charged with any offence. At the time Z made the allegations, she had convictions for prostitution offences, property offences, drugs offences including trafficking, and assaults against four different victims including a police officer and CB. She had consistently abused her child. I do not consider her to be a person of good character and it follows that I do not consider her to be a credible witness.
Following these allegations, a Temporary Domestic Violence Protection Order was made against the Applicant which resulted in him having to leave his home. This meant he lost care of CB, and Z gained control of his belongings and his business. He described it as the worst thing that has ever happened to him. He became depressed and suicidal: he worried about CB’s safety. He became homeless and stayed in hotels and “couch surfed” with strangers. Z told him she was pregnant with his child and flaunted the fact that she was continuing to work as a prostitute while pregnant. He did not have the support of his father because his father had suffered several strokes and was in hospital with pneumonia. Nor did he have Mr G’s support because Mr G had his own responsibilities, and they had drifted apart after Mr G had fallen into methamphetamine use and the Applicant had tried to get him to stop. During this time, the Applicant himself was offered methamphetamine and he took it to dull the pain.
The Applicant managed to have contact with CB around Christmas of 2018. After that, he was in contact with him almost every day by telephone until Christmas of 2019. However, he was not allowed to have physical contact.
The Applicant had commenced a relationship with “Ms H” in December 2018 and moved into her home. Ms H has an unfortunate background, having been placed in foster care at the age of 18 months due to parental neglect associated with substance abuse. She and her brother spent their childhoods moving around between kinship carers whom she described positively. She knew the Applicant was using drugs, although she thought he was only using cannabis, and she unsuccessfully tried to help him to stop. Z sent her nasty messages and letters.
According to the Applicant, by January 2019 he was highly addicted to methamphetamine. He visited Z in February 2019 because he was very concerned for CB and disturbed by Z’s advertising of her services as a pregnant prostitute. He had consensual sex with Z. He said he was in the throes of addiction and he does not know why he did it. The Applicant claimed that the visit ended with Z punching him and chasing him down the street with a tyre iron. Police records indicate that Z later threatened to tell Ms H about their sexual activity if he did not.
The Applicant did tell Ms H. He is regretful and ashamed. He said Ms H sees it as something that happened when he was not in the right frame of mind because of his drug addiction, and she has forgiven him. He believes that if he were to be unfaithful to her again, it would end their relationship. He said he has no intention of ruining things with her. This is important because Ms H has been put forward as a significant support and positive influence.
In March 2019 the Applicant was intercepted in his vehicle and the police found evidence that he was supplying drugs. He was also under the influence of methamphetamine. The police later searched Ms H’s home and found more drug related evidence that was not well concealed. They also found a taser. The Applicant made full admissions to the police that he was supplying cannabis and methamphetamine. Ms H claims not to have known the Applicant was selling drugs and not to have known about the drugs in her home. She came across as a credible witness and I accept her evidence, although it shows some naiveite.
The Applicant was remanded in custody for 100 days before being granted bail. He described his incarceration as “fortunate” because he got clean of drugs and his eyes were opened to the harm methamphetamines does. He later told Professor Freeman, about this period:
“It was terrible. A real eye-opener. I woke up to myself and realised what I’d done. 70% of the people were in because of ice. I thought that selling drugs to fund my habit was better than doing crime like other people, but I was the reason they were doing the crime. I think about it all the time still. I feel like a terrible person.”
After the Applicant was granted bail, he lived with Ms H. For that period of 13 months he did not take drugs or commit any offences. He got help managing his anxiety and depression from his GP who prescribed antidepressant medication and helped him to develop a mental health care plan. He also attended counselling sessions.
In July 2020, the Applicant was sentenced to imprisonment for four years for trafficking in dangerous drugs between 31 December 2018 and 28 March 2019. The sentence was suspended after 12 months for four years, meaning he will be subject to a suspended sentence, and in peril of having to serve the remaining three years in prison, until around March 2025.
The learned sentencing Judge’s remarks included the following passages:
“By way of short further detail, you were a street level trafficker and you descended into using methamphetamine and then selling it to support your habit when there was a breakup in the relationship that you had had with your son. His mother came back into your lives. There was a break-up in the household. You had to leave what had been your own home. You became very depressed. You were introduced to ice. You used that to self-medicate and your addiction spun out of control. You were unemployed at the time and so selling street level quantities of drugs was necessary to support yourself and to support your own habit, and you made a profit of between $1,000 and $1,200 per week.
…If you had been thinking straight – which clearly you were not – you would have brought matters to an end and got treatment, at that point. But your addiction, obviously, was too much. If you had been thinking more clearly you would have appreciated that it would be unsurprising that the police would get a search warrant to search your home.”
The learned Judge commented that the Applicant had explained that the taser was for protection as he was in the drug trafficking game. The Applicant denied having said that. He said he had swapped something for the taser, thinking it was a novelty item, and he never took it out of the suitcase he had it in (presumably to move in with Ms H). He did not think it could be used and he had no intention of using it. It is remarkable how any times people in the drug scene are found in possession of weapons that they claim were not intended to be used as weapons. Whether the taser was in working order or not, and regardless of where it was located, it was illegal for the Applicant to have it and it could have been used to intimidate someone at the very least.
In September 2019, Z threw a punch at a man at a venue where there were families present. She had four children with her. She kept trying to assault the man after security intervened and told her to leave. She verbally abused a female employee, and when a security guard tried to restrain her from attacking that person, she struggled violently and elbowed him in the face. She was subsequently convicted of public nuisance.
In May 2021, Z drove into the rear of another vehicle after that vehicle had been involved in a traffic accident. Z approached the young, female driver of the other vehicle, aggressively hit the driver’s side window and hurled abuse at her despite her asking to be left alone as she was having a panic attack. Z then grabbed her head with her left hand and punched her in the head with her right fist. Another driver forced Z back and witnesses comforted the victim. Z was combative with attending police. CB was in Z’s car and witnessed the whole thing.
Between the first Tribunal hearing and the second Tribunal hearing, the Applicant provided an undated letter purportedly written by Z in support of his visa being returned to him. The contents of the letter are reproduced below with names replaced by pseudonyms.
“My name is Z, I am the Applicant’s ex-partner we have 2 children together CB 14 and XY 3.
I do not take writing this letter lightly as it may affect future custody of my children. Though I am comforted in the fact the Applicant has only ever tried to pursue an amicable relationship and arrangement in this regard.
The Applicant as a parent to CB has only ever put CB above all else he is a positive, teaching and caring parent and it just comes naturally to him. Due to some issues I had the Applicant did the large majority of parenting for CB from his birth up until our relationship ended in 2013. He then became CB’s sole parent for the next 5 years. During this time the Applicant only ever encouraged my participation in CB's life believing children deserve to have both parents available to them though this often didn’t have the outcomes the Applicant had hoped for.
I caused a lot of problems for the Applicant and CB during our relationship and admittedly continued to do so after it was over. Last year 2021 I was diagnosed with a borderline personality disorder and am now getting the correct help and medication I require. This combined with my use of substances caused many problems, I was often unpredictable, violent, controlling and not responsive to sensible suggestions or help of any kind and would go out of my way to fabricate stories to manipulate people and shine a positive light on myself as always being the victim allowing me to have control.
CB has been adversely affected by not having the Applicant in his life it has effected everything from his sleep to schooling, I am concerned CB will head in the wrong direction without the Applicant to guide him as the positive male role model he always has been especially during these important teenage years.
Even though now they have contact via phone and messaging that can't be a substitute for the actual physical connection they both need. I am concerned for CB's mental health should the Applicant be deported to New Zealand.
The Applicant also has another son XY who he has not as yet met due to my past behaviour, I am sure he would really like to know XY and make a positive difference to his life as well.
I know the Applicant will have strong and lasting relationships full of love with both his sons should he remain in Australia.”
(Errors in original)
The Applicant said he had asked Z many times for a letter. She had previously refused and he did not know why she finally provided this letter in August 2022. In the previous Tribunal hearing there was very little to corroborate the Applicant’s evidence about the reported domestic incidents, and Z’s abusive behaviour towards him and CB. This letter supports that evidence in a general sense. I was initially a little concerned about the authenticity of the letter, but it was not challenged, and as it transpired, other evidence emerged that tended to support the Applicant’s evidence and is consistent with the contents of the letter.
The weight of the evidence supports a finding that Z was violent and abusive over a period of several years towards the Applicant and CB. It does not support Z’s allegations that the Applicant had been violent and abusive towards her. The Applicant said he protected himself against her but he never struck her. He also denied sending abusive messages. He did not dispute that he breached domestic violence orders and he accepted that he was wrong to do that. Looking at the period when the Applicant and Z had interactions with each other, being 2007 to 2019, Z has five convictions for assault and one for public nuisance which arose from two further assaults. The Applicant spat at, threw an item at, and struggled with police officers in 2012. The only convictions for violent offences pre-date his relationship with Z. Those were alcohol related and he duly gave up drinking. Mr G, who lived with the Applicant and CB for a period, gave evidence that Z was violent to the Applicant but he was not violent to her. Mr G came across as frank and unfiltered in his evidence. Mr G and the Applicant’s father gave evidence that Z was violent to CB on multiple occasions, whereas there is no credible evidence that the Applicant was ever violent to CB.
It is apparent that during and around the period when there were reported domestic violence incidents between the Applicant and Z, it was she and not the Applicant who showed a propensity for violence. I am satisfied that on a few occasions the Applicant pushed Z away when she was attacking him, but I am not satisfied that he ever assaulted her. Nor do I accept, because there is simply not any reliable evidence, that the Applicant verbally abused or threatened Z or CB, or that he violently broke items of property. I do accept that he engaged in shouting matches with her. I am not satisfied that he caused her fear by shouting: the risk of violence was from her, not him, and on multiple occasions it was documented that he, not she, tried to leave a volatile situation. I am not satisfied, on the evidence before me, that the Applicant engaged in any act of family violence. However, I think the loud arguments and the conflict that CB witnessed must have had an adverse impact on him.
The Applicant said he accepts that raising his voice in verbal arguments and pushing Z out of his way when she was attacking him come within the broad definition of domestic violence. I think he conceded too much: it is more nuanced than that, depending on factors like whether the pushing was done in self-defence (or in defence of CB) and in reasonable proportion, and whether the yelling caused fear or included verbal abuse. However, it is positive that the Applicant recognises that the concept of domestic violence covers a lot and that he has expressed regret that he engaged in that behaviour – saying:
“I never thought I would in my life commit [domestic violence], but I was in a very unstable relationship, and it has happened”
and
“I absolutely accept my part and guilt for my behaviour and inability at the time to choose a different way of dealing with these situations”.
There is no evidence before the Tribunal that the Applicant engaged in any poor behaviour or reverted to drug use while in prison or immigration detention. He used his time in custody to get treatment for his mental health and engage in rehabilitative programs. So far, the Applicant has undertaken:
·a “Do It” program, which is a drug and alcohol support program;
·several SMART recovery online sessions in 2021 and 2022 through Odyssey House
·anger management;
·self-help cognitive behavioral therapy;
·three stress management programs;
·a resilience program and meditation programs;
·a 10-week “Circuit Breaker” (domestic violence) course;
·counselling on a fortnightly basis for eight months while in prison, in which he worked on grief regarding losing CB, and establishing firm boundaries, which he found marginally helpful;
·counselling on a fortnightly basis while in immigration detention with a “mental health drug and alcohol nurse”, totalling around 40 one-hour sessions; and
·counselling with an external psychologist which including continuing work on establishing boundaries and putting his best interest ahead of making bad decisions.
In addition to that, the Applicant has been attending Narcotics Anonymous (“NA”) meetings online since the beginning of 2022. He attends daily zoom meetings with a group in [California], a group in [New South Wales] and a group in [Queensland]. He has a sponsor who has been abstinent for over 30 years.
PROTECTION OF THE AUSTRALIAN COMMUNITY
This is a key Primary Consideration in this case where the Applicant has engaged in some serious criminal conduct and serious harm would be caused to members of the community if it were repeated.
The violent assaults and the drug trafficking are of greatest concern. The assaults in 2003 and 2004 caused physical harm to the victims. The harm from further violence obviously includes physical harm and potentially psychological harm. Spitting at or otherwise assaulting or threatening police officers is an attack on those tasked with protecting the community, and the victims potentially suffer physical and psychological harm. The Direction stipulates that, offences against police officers in the performance of their duty are, by their nature, serious. With respect to spitting, there is a risk that saliva will transmit harmful germs, although it does not appear to have happened to the victim of the Applicant’s spitting.
Methamphetamine is well known to be a dangerous and highly addictive drug. The Applicant acknowledged the harm it does to users and the fact that it leads to drug related crime. The harm to users can include deterioration in physical and mental health, loss of employment and homelessness. The family, particularly the children, of addicts are at increased risk of violence and neglect as the addict prioritises their drug use above all else, and methamphetamine is associated with aggression and impaired judgement. The widespread use of methamphetamine takes a toll on the community as a whole in terms of drug related crime and pressure on health and allied services. The circulation of this drug in the community is extremely harmful.
The Applicant resorted to trafficking to support his addiction and to pay his living expenses. He did not seek to enrich himself. He engaged in this behaviour for three months and did not traffic on a large scale. His offending is therefore towards the less serious end of the scale of seriousness in terms of methamphetamine supply. Nevertheless, he was given a lengthy prison sentence and required to serve a substantial portion of it in recognition of the harm methamphetamine causes and the seriousness of trafficking in dangerous drugs.
The multiple breaches of domestic violence orders are also serious. Court orders, especially those intended to protect members of the community from harm, should not be trifled with.
The Applicant’s offending did not follow a particular pattern or trajectory but he did commit several offences since arriving in 2002 and his most recent offending was the most serious. The most readily apparent cumulative impact of his repeated offending was that a harmful drug was consumed by members of the community.
Professor James Freeman, forensic psychologist assessed the Applicant in late 2021 and he provided a follow up report in August 2022. He diagnosed the Applicant with Persistent Depressive Disorder (with anxious distress), Cannabis Dependency Disorder (in remission) and Methamphetamine Dependency Disorder (in remission). He said that mistreatment/neglect as a child laid the foundation for the Applicant’s poor mental health, with reduced resilience, in adulthood. He pointed out that childhood neglect is a major risk factor for psychopathology (e.g. depression) in adulthood. While he made these comments about the Applicant in the context of assessing the risk of further offending, they are also relevant to CB in the context of Primary Consideration 3.
Professor Freeman thought that the Applicant’s mental health and, more so, his drug addiction contributed to the index offending. He reported that when he interviewed the Applicant, he consistently accepted responsibility for his offending behaviour. He administered the PCL-R actuarial risk assessment tool, and the Applicant’s score, placing him at a percentile rank of 1.8, was well below the average inmate’s score at a percentile ranking of 46.3. Professor Freeman also administered the HCR-20 (version 2) which assesses the risk of future violent behaviour. His score placed him in the middle of the “low” risk category.
Professor Freeman opined that if the Applicant were to continue to abstain from drugs, the likelihood of reoffending could be considered low, but if he were to relapse into methamphetamine use, the risk would be greatly increased. He noted that methamphetamine dependency is usually chronic and requires lasting aftercare. I asked him if it was significant that the Applicant’s period of methamphetamine use was eight months, being relatively short. He indicated that it was the 13 months of abstinence on bail that was really promising. He noted that the Applicant has done everything he could possibly do to reduce the risk of relapse, and that he has several protective factors in his life now including an ongoing stable relationship with Ms H, accommodation, good employment prospects in Australia, willingness to engage in on-going treatment, and no intention to reconcile with Z. Professor Freeman pointed to the Applicant’s vulnerability to emotional stressors and said the Applicant will need to ensure he avoids emotional stress in the future or that he is able to respond appropriately. Professor Freeman appeared to have accepted that the Applicant has well and truly moved on from his toxic relationship with Z. Based on the Applicant’s evidence and his demeanour when giving his evidence, I respectfully agree. He seems to have turned a corner with respect to Z in that he does not seem protective of her anymore and he wants nothing to do with her except what is necessary in relation to the parenting of CB (and possibly XY).
In terms of the Applicant’s current mental health, notes made by International Health and Medical Service staff identified that the Applicant has some psychological issues including fear of rejection/abandonment which triggers negative feedback loops in relation to his daily functioning. However, it was noted that he showed good self-awareness and a positive, future focused, balanced outlook. It was further noted that he was self-aware and took responsibility for his mistakes, and that his outlook was pragmatic and logical.
The Applicant was put on Desvenlafaxine in immigration detention for his mental health and this has been beneficial. There is a notation that the Applicant may have had complex Post Traumatic Stress Disorder from childhood abuse and that the medication seemed to be beneficial for that.
In consideration of this Other Consideration, paragraph 9.4 of the Direction requires that decision makers must have regard to the following two factors set out in paragraph 9.4.1 and paragraph 9.4.2 respectively:
·the strength, nature, and duration of ties to Australia; and
·the impact on Australian business interests.
The strength, nature, and duration of ties to Australia
The Applicant settled in Australia at the age of 25 and he has lived in Australia for some 20 years. He commenced offending in 2003, relatively shortly after moving here permanently.
The Applicant has contributed to the Australian community through employment. There is no evidence of voluntary work.
The Applicant has some friends who were prepared to support him in this application. His father and step-mother reside in Australia. I accept that they would suffer some emotional hardship if the Applicant were deported and they would suffer the loss of any opportunity to have a relationship with CB or XY.
Ms H will also be impacted if the Applicant is deported. The cancellation of the Applicant’s visa has already impacted her mental health and she has been seeking help for depression and anxiety. She worries that her mental health will deteriorate while they are separated pending her move to New Zealand – there will be a delay while she arranges to move their possessions including her cat. She does not have any support in New Zealand either. She will also suffer the emotional hardship of leaving her family who are extremely important to her. Her father is deceased and she has recently reconnected with her mother and her mother’s side of the family. She has got to know her younger step-sister who is in kinship care with her grandmother, and she will feel very guilty to leave her now. She is very close to her two maternal aunts. She does not want to leave her brother. There are some other relatives who she is close to. She will be able to stay in touch with these people although that is not the same as physically being near them.
Impact on Australian business interests
The Applicant does not claim that his removal from Australia would adversely impact on Australian business interests. No weight can be allocated under paragraph 9.4.2 of the Direction.
Conclusion: Other Consideration (d)
Overall, I am satisfied that the Applicant’s links to the Australian community weighs in favour of revocation but not to a significant degree.
CONCLUSION
I am now required to weigh all of the Considerations in accordance with the Direction. As I have said, I consider Primary Consideration 3 to be all but determinative in this matter. I say “all but” because the interests of a child cannot effectively be a free-pass for a non-citizen to do as they please and keep their right to remain in Australia. I must also have regard to the other mandatory considerations including the protection of the Australian community. It helps the Applicant a lot that I am not persuaded that he engaged in any family violence and that I consider there to be a very low risk that he will re-offend. In this case, Primary Consideration 3 outweighs Primary Considerations 1 and 4 combined.
Application of the Direction therefore favours the revocation of the cancellation of the Applicant’s visa.
Decision
The decision under review is set aside and the Tribunal instead exercises the discretion conferred by section 501CA(4) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) to revoke the cancellation of the Applicant’s visa.
I certify that the preceding 144 (one hundred and forty-four) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Senior Member R Bellamy
..............................[SGD].................................
Associate
Dated: 9 February 2023
Date of hearing:
8 and 9 September and 20 December 2022
Applicant:
By videoconference
Solicitor for the Respondent Mr Ingmar Duldig
Clayton Utz
ANNEXURE A – EXHIBIT LIST
EXHIBIT
DESCRIPTION OF EVIDENCE
PARTY
DATE OF DOCUMENT
DATE RECEIVED
1
Agreed Bundle of Remittal Documents (Tab 1 to 7, 596 pages)
R
-
4 July 2022
2
Applicant's Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions (paged 1 to 21)
A
18 July 2022
18 July 2022
3
Applicant’s Reply (10 pages)
A
8 August 2022
8 August 2022
4
Applicant’s Tender Bundle (paged 1 to 617)
A
-
5 September 2022
5
Respondent’s Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions (paged 1 to 17)
R
28 July 2022
28 July 2022
6
Bundle of Material Produced under Summons (566 pages)
R
-
28 November 2022
7
Applicant’s Submissions and attachments (42 pages)
A
-
14 December 2022
8
Applicant’s Submissions and Screenshots (11 pages)
A
-
17 December 2022
9
Three media articles (16 pages)
T
-
9 September 2022
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Immigration
-
Administrative Law
-
Statutory Interpretation
Legal Concepts
-
Judicial Review
-
Procedural Fairness
-
Natural Justice
-
Remedies
-
Statutory Construction
-
Jurisdiction
0