Becerra Perea and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (Migration) - [2025] ARTA 1756

Becerra Perea and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (Migration) [2025] ARTA 1756 (9 September 2025)
Applicant:Jorge Armando BECERRA PEREA
Respondent: Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs
Tribunal Number: 2025/4120

Tribunal:Senior Member Hon J Rau SC
Place:Adelaide
Date:9 September 2025
Decision:The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

......................[sgnd]..........................................
Senior Member Hon J Rau SC
CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – refusal of a Bridging E (Class WE) visa under section 501(1) where the visa Applicant does not pass the character test – the visa Applicant has substantial criminal record – whether the discretion to refuse to grant the visa under section 501 (1) should be exercised – consideration of Ministerial Direction No. 110 - decision under review is affirmed.
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth)
CASES
Afu v Minister for Home Affairs [2018] FCA 1311
FYBR v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCA 500
FYBR v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCAFC 185
Suleiman v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 594
Uelese v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCA 348
YNQY v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCA 1466
SECONDARY MATERIAL
Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, and Multicultural Affairs (Cth), Direction No 110 – Visa refusal and cancellation under section 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under section 501CA (21 June 2024.
REASONS FOR DECISION
Senior Member Hon J Rau SC
9 September 2025
STATEMENT OF REASONS
INTRODUCTION

The Applicant seeks a review of the decision by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs (‘the Respondent’) made under section 501(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (‘the Act’) on 12 June 2025 to refuse to grant him a Bridging E (Class WE) visa (‘the Visa’).[1] The Visa application was refused on the basis that the Applicant did not pass the character test, and the Respondent decided to exercise the discretion under s 501(1), to refuse to grant the Visa.[2]
[1] Hearing Book (‘HB’), 194-219.
[2] Ibid.
Sections 501(6)(a) and 501(7)(c) of the Act provide that a person does not pass the character test if they have been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more.
The Applicant fails the character test on account of his conviction on 12 April 2019, of dishonesty offences and his sentence to 18 months imprisonment to be served by way of an intensive correction order.[3]
[3] HB 48.
The Applicant concedes that he does not pass the character test.[4]
[4] HB 136 at [11].
The issue before the Tribunal is therefore, whether the discretion to refuse to grant the Protection Visa pursuant to s 501(1) of the Act, should be exercised. In doing so, the Tribunal must have regard to Direction 110.
The hearing was held on 1 and 2 September. The Applicant was represented by Chris Honnery of 6 St James Hall Chambers and the Respondent was represented by Ms Annabelle Wilford of Sparke Helmore.
The Applicant gave evidence by video via MS Teams. The Applicant elected to give evidence through a Spanish interpreter. He was invited to try his best in English and to call upon the interpreter as a resource. He elected not to do this. As is often the case, this made the assessment of his evidence, as filtered through an interpreter, somewhat more difficult than having the benefit if hearing his evidence, in his own words. I note that the Applicant has been in Australia since September 2011.[5] I also note that he has undertaken various courses of study in Australia, in English, including a diploma of project management at the Australian Institute of Management,[6] a 12-month Graduate Diploma in Migration Law and Practice at the University of Technology, Sydney between 2022 and 2023,[7] and an on line debt management course. I also note that he has demonstrated an apparent capacity to communicate fluently in English, for instance, in an Email with the NSW Dept of Correctional Services.[8]
[5] HB 576.
[6] HB 302.
[7] HB 304 at [24].
[8] HB 141.
The Applicant often gave long, rambling answers to quite simple direct questions. His evidence tended to be inconsistent, sometimes with his own past statements, sometimes even with itself, as questioning progressed. His evidence regarding his history of compliance with the requirements of his Intensive Corrections Order (ICO) was a case in point.[9] He initially suggested that he had been compliant with these requirements, it was only when cross-examination was pressed, that he conceded that there were several breaches. Even then, he did not seem to accept all of them as set out in the report of NSW Corrections. The Applicant’s description of his offending was also presented in various ways. Sometimes he took full responsibility. Sometimes he blamed his accountant. He told his expert witness Mr Dadgostar that “he got taken for a ride by the people he trusted”.
[9] See HB 135-150.
Overall, the Applicant was not a reliable witness. This is relevant not only to the assessment of the relevant history, but also to assessing the voracity of his various untested, or presently untestable claims, such as his intended future conduct.
The Applicant called Mr Hamid Dadgostar, a psychologist engaged by his legal advisers, to give evidence. He has produced a report dated 31 July 2025.[10]
[10] HB 16-23.
Mr Dadgostar interviewed the Applicant on 23 July 2025 and was otherwise provided with various documents by the Applicant’s solicitors.[11] He did not interview any of the Applicant’s family. He did not conduct any psychometric tests. He essentially accepted the Applicant’s account of events. This seems to have misled him somewhat about the nature of the Applicant’s offending. For example, he said that the Applicant “got taken for a ride by the people he trusted”. This is a particularly generous interpretation of the Applicant’s conduct, which shifts blame, presumably to his employees. The Applicant himself effectively conceded to the Tribunal that he was aware that the misuse of his client’s funds was going on, but he didn’t stop it or rectify it because he had “cash-flow problems”. Based largely on what he was told by the Applicant, Mr Dadgostar assessed him as being a low risk of reoffending.
[11] HB 16-17 at [2].
The Applicant called his mother Ms. MF. She gave evidence by phone with the aid of a Spanish interpreter. She currently holds a Bridging Visa, pending Court proceedings challenging a refusal to grant her a Protection Visa. She is a joint applicant for that visa with her son. Her Protection Visa case is therefore linked to the Applicant’s. If he is unsuccessful in his pending Court proceedings, she will also presumably be unsuccessful. I accept that she is very close to the Applicant and that she is reliant upon him for practical and financial support.
The Applicant called his niece Ms. MA. She is the daughter of his older sister, Ms MP. She gave evidence by phone with the aid of a Spanish interpreter. She currently also holds a Bridging Visa pending Court proceedings also challenging a refusal to grant her a Protection Visa. I accept that she is very close to the Applicant and has enjoyed his support with her 5-year-old, son Child A. She had a daughter, Child B, in May this year. She has recently separated from her husband, but they remain on good terms and share parenting responsibilities on a 50/50 basis.
The current visa status of Child A, Child B and her estranged husband was not explicitly in evidence before the Tribunal. That said, counsel for both the Applicant and the Respondent proceeded on the basis that none of the Applicant’s familial connections in Australia meet the residence requirements of paragraph 8.3.(1) of the Direction.
The Applicant called his sister Ms. MP. She gave evidence by phone with the aid of a Spanish interpreter.[12] She currently holds a Bridging Visa also pending Court proceedings challenging a refusal to grant a Protection Visa. I accept that she also has a close relationship with the Applicant.
[12] HB 528-531.
I note also that there were statements from other family members, supporting the Applicant. The Respondent did not require them to be called for cross-examination.
Background Facts
The Applicant was born in Colombia on 15 April 1983. He is a Columbian national. He is now aged 42 years.[13] He is the youngest of 3 siblings who were raised by his mother and his maternal grandmother.[14] His parents separated when he was 5.[15] His father lives in Colombia, but he has no contact with him.[16] He still has other relatives in Colombia, but he is not in regular contact with them.
[13] HB 227.
[14] HB 364 at [15].
[15] HB 364 at [14].
[16] HB 289.
The Applicant obtained a Bachelor of Industrial Engineering in Colombia. He then worked for 8 years in the finance sector.[17] This is relevant because the Applicant claims that his financial illiteracy was partially at least responsible for his criminal offending
[17] HB 290.
On 26 September 2011, the Applicant came to Australia on a student visa, ostensibly to study English.[18]
[18] HB 576.
On 20 April 2012, he was granted an Independent ELICOS Sector visa (subclass 570) (a second Student Visa).[19]
[19] HB 2.
He began studying a Diploma of Project Management at the Australian Institute of Management in Sydney.[20] The Applicant’s then partner moved to Australia to join him.[21]
[20] HB 362 at [4].
[21] HB 290.
In 2014, the Applicant was sponsored by OCITAP Pty Ltd.[22] He obtained a working visa commencing on 25 July 2014.[23] The Applicant’s temporary Sponsored Working Visa was valid until 25 July 2018.[24]
[22] HB 302.
[23] HB 362 at [5], 2.
[24] HB 226.
On 21 January 2014, the Applicant left Australia.[25]
[25] HB 576.
On 6 February 2014, the Applicant returned to Australia.[26]
[26] HB 576.
On 19 June 2014, the Applicant left Australia.[27]
[27] HB 576.
On 22 June 2014, the Applicant returned to Australia.[28]
[28] HB 576.
In 2014, the Applicant’s mother came to join him. She told the Tribunal that she came on a Visitor’s Visa. She later applied for a Protection Visa.
The Applicant claims that in 2014, he and his family received verbal threats from the Revolutionary Army Forces of Colombia.[29]
[29] HB 186 at [6].
In 2015, his siblings and their families moved to Sydney.[30] The evidence before the Tribunal from Ms MP and Ms MA suggests that they also came on Visitor’s Visas and then applied for Protection Visas. These applications have not yet been finally determined.
[30] HB 290.
In 2015, the Applicant purchased OCITAP for $50,000.[31] This business involves assisting students living in Columbia and elsewhere in Latin America, to relocate to Australia for study purposes.[32]
[31] HB 290.
[32] HB 290-291.
In 2016, the Applicant applied for a permanent residency visa.
This was refused in 2017. He unsuccessfully appealed this decision to the AAT in 2018.[33]
[33] HB 362 at [5].
In 2017, the Applicant’s relationship with his partner ended. He has remained single since then.[34]
[34] HB 364 at [16], HB 18 at [11].
In 2017, the Applicant says that he “closed his company” which included 2 franchises in Columbia. He claims that he then received death threats from “individuals in Columbia” indicating that if he returned to his country, he and his family would be killed.[35]
[35] HB 363 at [7].
On 25 July 2018, the Applicant’s temporary Sponsored Working Visa expired.[36]
[36] HB 226.
Between November 2017 and May 2018, the Applicant committed various dishonesty offences.[37] The Police Fact Sheet relating to these offences is annexed hereto and marked “Annexure A”.[38]
[37] HB 228-243, 251-255.
[38] HB 225-243.
The Applicant was asked about this fact sheet, and he agreed that it was correct.
The Applicant whilst accepting responsibility for his offending, in effect blames others.[39]
[39] HB 291 at [17]-[22], 187 at [11], 17 at [4].
On 12 April 2019, the Applicant was convicted of various dishonesty offences.[40] The NSW Police fact sheet discloses 14 sequences of dishonestly obtaining financial advantage by deception.[41]
[40] HB 224.
[41] HB 225-226, 251-255.
Unfortunately, the Tribunal did not have access to the sentencing remarks of the Judge.
Details of the offences are:
“Migration Act 1958 Section 234(1)(c)
Law Part Code: 21498
Cause delivery, document with false statement, Migration Act
Between 12:01 am on 12/01/2017 and 11 :59 pm on 05/04/2018 at SYDNEY. did, in connection with an application for a visa/a further visa permitting a non-citizen, to wit, [redacted name], [redacted name], [redacted name], [redacted name], [redacted name], [redacted name], [redacted name], [redacted name], [redacted name], [redacted name], [redacted name] and [redacted name], to remain in Australia, deliver or cause to be delivered, to an officer or a person exercising powers or performing functions under the Migration Act 1958, for official purposes of the Commonwealth, a document containing a statement or information that was false or misleading in a material particular.”[42]
And
“Crimes Act 1900, Section 192E(l)(b)
Law Part Code 70974 - Tl
Dishonestly obtain financial advantage or cause disadvantage by deception
between 9:00 am on 28/11/2016 and 4:15 pm on 23/05/2018 at Sydney.
Did by deception that is by receiving monies for his services as a contract administrator, to organise International Student Visas, Overseas Student Health Insurance and Education Programs, did not pay monies due to providers as organised or intended, thereby dishonestly obtained a financial advantage, to wit obtained monies or benefit totalling $124,540.91 from [redacted name], [redacted name], [redacted name], [redacted name], [redacted name], [redacted name], [redacted name], [redacted name], [redacted name], [redacted name], [redacted name], [redacted name], [redacted name], [redacted name], [redacted name], and the Education Centre Australia Pty Ltd.”[43]
[42] HB 94.
[43] HB 96.

Offences

Law Part

1.    Dishonestly obtain financial advantage etc by deception

Act Section: TI Crimes Act 1900

70974

2.    Dishonestly obtain financial advantage etc by deception

Act Section: TI Crimes Act 1900

70974

3.    Dishonestly obtain financial advantage etc by deception

Act Section: TI Crimes Act 1900

70974

4.    Dishonestly obtain financial advantage etc by deception

Act Section: TI Crimes Act 1900

70974

5.    Dishonestly obtain financial advantage etc by deception

Act Section: TI Crimes Act 1900

70974

6.    Dishonestly obtain financial advantage etc by deception

Act Section: TI Crimes Act 1900

70974

7.    Dishonestly obtain financial advantage etc by deception

Act Section: TI Crimes Act 1900

70974

8.    Dishonestly obtain financial advantage etc by deception

Act Section: TI Crimes Act 1900

70974

9.    Dishonestly obtain financial advantage etc by deception

Act Section: TI Crimes Act 1900

70974

10.    Dishonestly obtain financial advantage etc by deception

Act Section: TI Crimes Act 1900

70974

11.    Dishonestly obtain financial advantage etc by deception

Act Section: TI Crimes Act 1900

70974

12.    Dishonestly obtain financial advantage etc by deception

Act Section: TI Crimes Act 1900

70974

13.    Dishonestly obtain financial advantage etc by deception

Act Section: TI Crimes Act 1900

70974

14.    Dishonestly obtain financial advantage etc by deception

Act Section: TI Crimes Act 1900

70974

He was sentenced to a term of 18 months imprisonment to be served by way of an ICO.[44]
[44] HB 224, 256-263.
The Applicant told the Tribunal that “cash-flow issues” started in 2018. He said that “invoices weren’t sent in time”. This was the accountant’s fault, not his.
The business model was that students paid his business, he paid the relevant institution, and they then paid him a commission. He admitted that he made a choice to continue to operate even after he knew that he was in debt. He agreed that he kept operating when he knew that he didn’t have enough cash flow. He agreed that he had abused the trust of the students. He agreed that he could have put their visas at risk. He agreed that he was using his personal accounts and mixing his own funds with company funds.
The Applicant said that the matter only came to light because the students “were manipulated by people who were against me”. He seemed to suggest that this may have been by his commercial competitors.
On 20 August 2019, the Applicant lodged a Protection Visa claim. His mother was a joint Applicant. [45]
[45] HB 3.
On 22 August 2019, the Applicant was granted a Bridging C (subclass 030) (Bridging Visa 1) Visa.[46]
[46] Ibid.
On 4 September 2019, NSW Dept of Corrections records state:
“* Phone call to the offender to discuss his non attendance on 31/08/2019
* Offender advised he had family issues and was fighting with his brother
* Offender was reminded of his responsibility to notify the agency if he will not be attending and that he hasn't gotten off on a good start by not turning up on his first day at this agency
* Offender was also advised to call the agency supervisor to explain his absence and advise that he will be there this Saturday
* Offender confirmed he understood and will call the agency.”[47]
[47] HB 140.
Between 2019 and 2022 OCITAP ceased operations.[48] During this time the Applicant worked in construction.[49]
[48] HB 365 at [20].
[49] HB 365 at [22].
On 22 Oct 2019, NSW Dept of Corrections records state:
“Dear Case Officer,
Please find attached the notice of order. The reason why I did not work at Salvos Chester Hills these days 12 y 19 October 2019 was because I needed to pay the amount $4,128.57 to White Real Estate as soon as possible and I decided to work this days loading and unloading containers at 3PC in Guilford NSW from 7 am to 5 pm. Thanks to God I paid the outstanding amount to real estate and I will continue to work at Salvos Chester Hills this Saturday 26 October 2019. This situation was very worried to my family and me because I do not have many to pay the rent working a part time job at Woolworths.
Thank you so much for your attention and support.
Kind regards,
Jorge Armando Becerra Perea.”[50]
[50] HB 141.
On 7 January 2020, NSW Dept of Corrections records state:
“* Below message sent to offender on [redacted phone number]
Jorge, you are taking too many days off community service work. You are expected to attend every Saturday at Salvos Chester Hill.
[[redacted name] appended the case note on 08/01/2020 07:25:20]:
* Below response received from [redacted phone number] on Tue 07 Jan 5:11 PM
Yes, I'm expected to attend every Saturday at Salvos Chester Hill.”[51]
[51] HB 143.
On 3 February 2020, NSW Dept of Corrections records state:
“* PC to Bev at Salvos Chester Hill on [redacted number].
* Bev advised that Jorge worked on Saturday, 1/2/2020.
* She advised that Jorge has "not really" been attending on Tuesdays.”[52]
[52] HB 144.
On the same date an ICO Breach Report states:
“Attachments:
• Response ‘A’ warning letter dated 25 July 2019
• Response ‘A’ warning letter dated 10 September 2019
• Response ‘B’ warning letter dated 6 November 2019
• Response ‘C’ warning letter dated 21 November 2019
…
Following his assignment to weekend community service work, Mr Becerra Perea’s attendance has been unsatisfactory, as demonstrated below.
• 31 August 2019 – failed to attend, no evidence provided
• 21 September 2019 – failed to attend, medical certificate provided
• 12 October 2019 – failed to attend, non-compliant documentation provided
• 19 October 2019 – failed to attend, non-compliant documentation provided
• 2 November 2019 – failed to attend, no evidence provided
• 9 November 2019 – failed to attend, no evidence provided
A second Response ‘A’ warning letter was sent to Mr Becerra Perea on 10 September 2019 for his non-compliant absence on 31 August 2019. On 6 November 2019 a Response ‘B’ warning letter was sent for his continued failure to comply with community service work on 12 and 19 October 2019.
Mr Becerra Perea was issued with Response ‘C’ final warning during an interview with community service staff on 21 November 2019. During this interview, Mr Becerra Perea advised that he is no longer working full time Monday to Friday, but is employed on a casual basis. Despite being warned that further non-compliant absences would result in immediate breach action, Mr Becerra Perea has continued with incurring absences without providing compliant documentation.
• 30 November 2019 – failed to attend, medical certificate provided
• 7 December 2019 – failed to attend, backdated medical certificate provided
• 21 December 2019 – failed to attend, backdated medical certificate provided
• 28 December 2019 – failed to attend, community service work date not stated on medical certificate
• 18 January 2020 – failed to attend, no evidence provided
• 25 January 2020 – failed to attend, no evidence provided
Immediate supervision plan
The supervision component of Mr Becerra Perea’s order was suspended on 14 May 2019 based on his assessed level of risk, and as a result, there is no current supervision plan in place. There are no current factors that may be managed via supervision of the offender.
Recommendation
Community Corrections recommends that a warning is issued.
Reason for recommendation
Community Corrections has made this recommendation because Mr Becerra Perea has been provided with numerous opportunities to comply with the community service work component of his order. He has been accommodated with his paid employment schedule and has been warned that if he continues not to comply with his order breach action would be taken. An official warning from the Authority may result in Mr Becerra Perea realising the gravity of his non-compliance.
Dated: 3 February 2020.”[53]
[53] HB 148-150.

On 21 February 2020, NSW Dept of Corrections records state:
“* Jorge reported as directed and was seen by CSO
* SPA warning letter was provided.
* CSO explained to Jorge that an ICO is a custodial sentence that he is given the opportunity to serve in the community. She also explained to Jorge why he was breached and that further non-compliance would result in another breach being submitted, which could result in a custodial sentence. Jorge acknowledged.
* Jorge explained that he had been unwell on the numerous occasions. CSO advised him that if he had a paid job he would not be able to take so much time off. She also referred him to information about absences from CSW and directed him to provide MCs which identify the nature of illness in the future, which Jorge acknowledged.
* Jorge was provided with a copy of the warning letter and indicated he would be compliant in the future.”[54]
[54] HB 146.
On 1 May 2020, the Applicant’s great nephew, Child A was born.[55] He is now aged 5.
[55] HB 389.
On 2 June 2020, NSW Dept of Corrections records state:
“The offender received 300hrs of community service work on an ICO from Downing Centre Local Court from 12/04/2019 to 11/10/2020 for the offences Cause delivery, document with false statement, Migration Act & Dishonestly obtain financial advantage etc by deception-T1. The offender was placed on the Litter Picking Bus and Salvation Army, Chester Hill where his attendance was unsatisfactory. It is noted that the offender was non compliant on 11 occasions and provided a medical certificate on a further 5 occasions. The offender is considered not suitable for future community service work supervision.”[56]
[56] HB 147.
On 16 April 2022, the Applicant was required to submit to a breath analysis test when driving. He registered 0.087 grams of alcohol in 210 litres of breath.[57]
[57] HB 244.
In relation to this incident, the Applicant states:
“23.1 was sentenced to an Intensive Corrections Order for 18 months, which included strict conditions and 300 hours of completed community service. I had an excellent record, with no infringements or breaches.
24. Since then, I still operate my business with extreme caution. I am the person in charge of everything, and I have an accountant that manages the business finances and tax obligations. I know that it is now being done properly.
25.1 also maintain my community service work at the Salvation Army in Chester Hill, assisting with cleaning and supervising.
26. In 2022 I was charged with a drink driving offence. The day before I was charged, it was my birthday. A friend and I went to a Columbian restaurant in Surry Hills to celebrate. While at the restaurant, I was offered a really strong alcoholic drink that is popular in Columbia, which I accepted.
27. I knew I could not drive after consuming this drink, so I left my car outside the restaurant and got an Uber home.
28. The next day, at approximately midday, I returned to the restaurant to collect my car. Unfortunately, on the drive home I was pulled over by police and blew over the limit.
29. It was an honest mistake, I thought because it was the day after, and I had slept all night that it would be okay. However, I understand that I am responsible for my actions, and that it was wrong.
30. I pleaded guilty to the offence and received a $1000 fine and 6~month licence disqualification. I also had to participate in the alcohol interlock program for 12 months.
31. Since the offence, I have continued to be extremely cautious about driving after I have had alcohol.”[58]
[58] HB 292 at [23]-[31].
On 16 June 2022, the Applicant was fined $1000 and disqualified from holding a driver’s license and ordered to participate in the alcohol interlock programme.[59]
[59] HB 224, 264-267.
On 29 June 2022, the Respondent determined that the Applicant was not owed protection obligations under s 36(2)(a) of the Act.[60]
[60] HB 577-594.
The Applicant sought a review of that decision in the AAT.
In 2022-23 the Applicant completed a Graduate Diploma in Migration Law and Practice.[61]
[61] HB 291.
On 15 May 2023, the AAT affirmed the Respondent’s decision regarding the Applicant’s Protection Visa application (the AAT decision).[62]
[62] HB 398.
On 22 May 2023, the Applicant’s lawyers filed a notice seeking judicial review on his behalf (the Federal Court Case).[63]
[63] HB 403.
On 25 May 2023, the Applicant was granted a Bridging C (subclass 030) (Bridging Visa 2) Visa. Based upon his pending Federal Court Case.[64]
[64] HB 3.
On 20 August 2024, Ms. Susan Hawil, a consultant psychologist, completed a report at the request of the Applicant’s lawyers. She assessed him by AV link on 13 August 2024 and by telephone on 19 August 2024.This relevantly states:
“28. Assessment of Mr Perea included the use of a variety of personality, functional and risk assessment instruments. The assessment instruments utilised in Mr Perea’ assessment are included in Annexure 1, whilst a summary of those assessment results is contained below.
29. Mr Perea is clinically severe levels of anxiety and depression. His symptoms include feeling nervous and anxious, not being able to stop worrying, worry too much about different things, trouble relaxing unable to sit still, becoming irritable and feeling afraid as is something awful might happen, having little please in doing things, feeling depressed, sleep difficulties, feeling tired, feeling bad about himself, trouble concentrating, and thoughts he would be better off dead. Although Mr Perea's prevailing emotions may vary between tension and unhappiness, it is likely that the affective quality is consistently negative.
30. His results suggest potential for problems with persecutory or delusional thinking and other psychotic phenomena along with suicidal thinking patterns. There are also indications for impulsivity, sensation-seeking, recklessness, and a disregard for convention and authority.”[65]
“4.3 Risk of Reoffending
36. When considering Mr Perea’s risk of re-offending, the author has been provided with the Notice of Intention to cancel his visa, which included convictions, as well as a Translated Colombian Criminal History certificate.
37. Mr Perea provided a NSW Police Court Attendance notice relating to charges in 2019. The author has not been provided with facts sheets of his offending. Consequently the author is unable to develop a professional opinion associated with any psychological explanation for the offending.
38. Mr Perea’s risk of reoffending is only determined upon the completion of a risk of reoffending test. This test is limited to indicating offending within one (1) year of previous offending that would result in a custodial sentence.
39. Upon completing a risk assessment,5 I am of the opinion Mr Perea poses a low risk of reoffending.
[65] HB 367.
4.4 Treatment Recommendations
Mr Perea would benefit from the following treatment:
a) Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT) to address his psychological symptoms;
b) Cognitive training in cognitive restructuring;
c) Social skills training including problem-solving skills;
d) Relaxation, grounding, and mindfulness techniques;
e) Supportive counselling to assist with emotional difficulties.”[66]
[66] HB 368-369. See also Clinical Profiles 371-373.
On 22 August 2024, the Applicant’s mother completed an affidavit in these terms:
“Moving to Australia:
12. In 2011 Jorge decided to move to Australia as he wanted to learn English, and complete further study. The opportunities for work in Australia are much better, and he was eager to move.
13. A few years later in 2014, I decided to move to Australia to be closer with Jorge and have an opportunity at a better life. Jorge completed all the necessary immigration documents for me, and I am a dependent on his visa.
14.Australia has a lot more economic stability than Columbia and is a lot safer generally. I wanted to see the benefits that Jorge was experiencing myself and knew that my family would live a better life, here, in Australia.
15. Comparing my own experiences as a single mother, the support and assistance you are given in Australia is a lot better than anything available in Columbia. I had no assistance from the government, or within the community.
16. My quality of life has improved greatly since moving to Australia, and it makes me happy being closer to my son. I have lived with him since I moved, in November 2014.
17. Jorge is extremely hard-working and I am very proud of him.
My health problems:
18. I suffer from high blood pressure and osteoarthritis in both of my knees, which means I have difficulties walking as I experience a lot of pain in my knees.
19. To manage my health conditions, I am required to take quite a few medications. As I live with Jorge, I completely depend on him to assist me with walking, reminding me to take my medications and organising it for me.
20. He takes me to most of my doctors' appointments and helps me to understand, as I do not speak English.
21. Due to the fact I cannot move around easily, I rely on Jorge to complete all the tasks and duties around the house, and he also does the grocery shopping.
22. Jorge is also a companion, and he takes me out when he can. I am very close with all my children and appreciate the time they spend with me.
Jorge's criminal history:
23. l understand that in 20191 Jorge pleaded guilty to fraud offences, relating to the operation of his business, assisting Colombian students who want to come to Australia.
24. Our family has never been involved with the police or the legal system, both in Australia and Columbia. It was especially hard given the language barrier, and the fact that we do not understand the Australian legal system well.
25. Jorge explained the situation entirely to me, and I believe that he has taken accountability for his actions and is very sorry.
26. Jorge understood that it was his fault and was extremely remorseful for his role.
27. Jorge continues to run his business, and he has worked hard to ensure that he meets all his responsibilities and obligations as a business owner.
28. I am aware that in 2022, Jorge got into trouble with the police in relation to having alcohol in his system while driving.
29. Jorge told me as soon as it happened, and I believe that he made an honest mistake. He tried to do the right thing by waiting to drive until the next day, but he still had the alcohol in his system.
30. Immediately he took responsibility for his actions, and he has been aware of his limits since the offence.
31. I believe that these offences are not reflective of his character, and he is still the honest, responsible and reliable person I know him to be.
Concerns with deportation to Columbia
32. I am concerned for Jorge's wellbeing and safety, if he were to be sent back to Columbia. This would also cause a lot of stress for my entire family.
33. My visa Is dependent on Jorge's visa, and I am very worried about what this could mean for me. I do not want to be separated from any of my children.
34. Due to the fraud offences. families back in Columbia were very upset with Jorge's company. He has received threats of harm and danger to himself and our family since.
[signed].”[67]
[67] HB 516-519.
On 23 August 2024, the Applicant’s sister, Ms MP completed an affidavit in these terms:
“Moving to Australia:
12. Jorge moved to Australia in 2011 to study. There are a lot more jobs, and opportunities available, so it was something he always wanted to do.
13. My mother came to Australia in 2014 to be with Jorge. and she has lived with him ever since. She is of poor health, and Jorge is dedicated to taking care of all her needs.
14. I understand that since Jorge moved to Australia he has studied, and for work he assists Columbian students who want to come to Australia to study.
15. ln 2015 my brother [redacted name] and I also moved to Australia. We all wanted to be closer to Jorge, and see what Australia had to offer for ourselves.
16. I currently live in Riverwood with my 3 children, and my grandchild. It is about 20 minutes away from Jorge's home.
17. Jorge does not have his own kids, so he always assisted my brother and I when our children were younger. Jorge is particularly close with my children; he spends a lot of time with them and supports them.
18. I work as a cleaner here in Australia, and Jorge provides me with a lot of assistance such as with speaking with clients In English, administrative organisation, and with transport sometimes.
19. We are a very united and loving family, especially Jorge loves his family very much. We all rely on each other for any kind of support and help and try to catch up as often as we can.
Jorge's criminal history:
20. ln 2018 Jorge was charged with some fraud offences relating to his business, Quack Study. It was a very confusing and scary time, as we did not really understand what was happening.
21. Jorge spent a few weeks in custody, and in that time, I visited him and spoke with him a lot. It was extremely surprising, and it is not characteristic of the brother I have always known.
22. I understand that Jorge plead guilty to two fraud charges, and he has tried very hard to make amends. I do not believe that the offence is indicative of the person he is.
23. Jorge is extremely hard-working and responsible, and he ensures that he operates his business properly.
24. In 2022 Jorge got pulled over by police whilst driving, and he got charged with driving while under the influence of alcohol.
25. Although I do not agree with his actions. I understand that it was an honest mistake. Jorge had gone out the day before for his birthday and had some alcohol with his friend. He left his car at the restaurant and came back the next day.
26. I believe that Jorge did try to do the right thing, and this does not change my view of him being an honest, reliable, and responsible person.
27. These experiences have been unfortunate; however, he now thinks carefully about his actions.”[68]
[68] HB 503-507.
On 24 August 2024, the Applicant completed an affidavit in these terms:
“I swear/affirm as follows:
1. I am 41 years old.
2. On 16 July 2018 I was charged with dishonestly obtain financial advantage by deception (dishonestly obtain charge) and cause delivery, document with false statement (document with false statement charge).
3. On 12 April 2019, in respect of the dishonestly obtain charged, I was sentenced to an 18-month Intensive Corrections Order, commencing on 12 April 2019 and concluding on 11 October 2020. In addition, I was ordered to complete 300 hours of community service.
4. On 12 April 2019, in respect of the document with false statement charge, r was sentenced to an 18-months imprisonment to be served by way of an Intensive Corrections Order, commencing on 12 April 2019 and conclude 11 October 2020.
5. In the course of the sentence, I made an undertaking to repay the victims of the fraud offences. I understand that amount owing at the time of the sentence was $100,000.
6. Since the commission of the offences giving rise to the notice of intention to consider cancellation, I have made numerous payments in restitution for my offending conduct. Those payments were made both prior to and after being charged, as well as following a restitution order made by the Local Court at the time of sentence.
7. Those payments were made by me on the following dates and in the following amounts.
8. To that end, I confirm that I have made the following payments:
a. $2,019 on 14 September 2017
b. $1,476.80 on 27 February 2018
c. $1,070 on 23 May 2018
d. $853 .38 on 14 June 2018
e. $2, 138.40 on 15 June 2018
f. $513 on 4 July 2018
g. $1 ,000 on 5 July 2018
h. $3,000 on 12 July 2018
i. $3,922 on 12 April 2019
j. $1,463.71 on 2 April 2024
k. $261.18 on 18 April 2024
I. $779.22 on 18 June 2024
m. $520.65 on 6 August 2024
9. Annexed hereto and marked with the letter A is a true copy of the undertaking which I provided in relation to the payment of the monies to the victims.
10. Annexed hereto and marked with the letter B is a true copy of the compensation schedule ordered by the Local Court.
11. Annexed hereto and marked with the letter C is a true copy of the payments which I have made as deposed to in paragraph 8 of this Affidavit.
12. ln the event that my visa is cancelled, I will not have the capacity to repay the money as I undertook.”[69]
[69] HB 297-299.
On 16 September 2024, the Respondent cancelled Bridging Visa 2 under s116(1)(g) of the Act.[70] The Applicant applied to the ART for a review.[71]
[70] HB 3.
[71] Ibid.
On 9 December 2024, the Applicant’s niece, Ms MA, completed an affidavit.[72] This states:
[72] HB 528-531.
“I swear as follows:
1. My name is [JP].
2. Jorge Armando Becerra Perea is my uncle. I have known him my whole life.
3. I am 30 years old.
4. I do not have criminal record.
5. I provide this affidavit in support of Jorge, and in response to decision to cancel Jorge's visa.
Background
6. Jorge has always been an important part of my life, and I was raised to be very close with him. He has always supported my siblings and I, and I spend a lot of time with him.
7. I have been married to my husband, [MG], for 9 years. He is also from Columbia and has similarly lived in Australia for the last 12 years. We have both applied for permanent residency through our work and are waiting to hear the outcome.
8. Together we have one son, [Child A], born [redacted] in Australia, and I am currently 8 weeks pregnant with our second child [Child B].
9. When I first found out I was pregnant with [Child A], my uncle was always a great source of support. He was attentive of my needs, including transporting me, and physical support. At the time my husband was working three jobs to be able to provide for our family, and I relied on Jorge a lot.
10. We live very close to each other, and after [Child A] was born, Jorge would regularly come and visit us, particularly whenever [Child A] was unwell.
11. There were many times Jorge helped us with giving us money for rent, making us food, buying clothes and diapers for [Child A]. I do not know what I would have done without him. As soon as I found out I was pregnant again, I said to him that I cannot do it without the same support. He is always happy to help, no matter what.
12. About 7 or 8 months ago, my husband and I were having relationship issues, and we were considering separating. Throughout this time, I relied on my uncle for advice, and I knew he supported me completely. My uncle has a 4-bedroom house, and he told me that [Child A] and I could move into his house, and he would provide for us. He is always looking out for us.
[Child A]'s relationship with Jorge
13. When [Child A] was younger, I used to work night shift, however, I have since changed to regular working hours. Similarly, my husband works full-time, but he works long hours, finishing at 1 0:00pm most nights.
14. For that reason, Jorge offered that I could bring [Child A] to his house each day, and he would look after him. I am extremely grateful that he does this.
15. Jorge and [Child A] have a very close bond, and [Child A] is always happy and excited to see him. They see each other most days of the week and go shopping together, play in the park and at home. Jorge cares for [Child A] as if he were his own son and [Child A] views Jorge as his grandfather.
16. [Child A] really loves Jorge, and I have never had any concerns with him caring for [Child A]. Jorge is developing a relationship with [Child A], similar to the relationship my siblings and I have with him. Jorge is a very special uncle.
17. My uncle works at an office in his house, and [Child A] loves spending time in the office with him. [Child A] loves drawing and stationary, and Uncle Jorge spoils him and lets him play with endless amounts of paper, anywhere in his house.
18. For example, [Child A] loves to draw, and I have been trying to help him understand that he needs to be careful and not draw on any furniture or the walls in our house. One day when I was picking him up from Jorge's house, he told me that an accident had happened, but he did not want me to get angry at [Child A].
19. Jorge has a white couch at home, and [Child A] had accidentally drawn on it when he was playing. Jorge was very understanding, and he encourages him playing and being a little kid. I knew that he had already spoken with [Child A], and that he is always keeping an eye on him.
20. It makes me happy to know that Jorge will always be there to support my son throughout his life, and that [Child A] has someone else other than his dad and I to turn to if he ever needs.
Impact of a cancellation decision on [Child A]
21. If Jorge were to be deported, this would have a substantial impact on our entire family, and I know that it would hurt [Child A] a lot and he would be very sad.
22. In addition to the time [Child A] spends with Jorge, we regularly spend time altogether as a family on the weekends, including going to the beach, the park, or having barbecues at home.
23. On the weekend that just passed, we were all together for a barbecue with our family and friends. When it was time to go back to our house, [Child A] wanted to stay with Jorge and go home with him. [Child A] has a very close attachment to him.
24. I believe that not having Jorge around would be very disruptive for [Child A], and I know that he will miss him a lot. Our whole family will struggle without him.
25. Annexed hereto and marked with the letter 'A' are a true copy of photos of Jorge, [Child A] and our family that we have taken throughout the year.”[73]
[73] HB 528-531, see also 509-514.

On 17 December 2024, the ART affirmed the Respondent’s decision.[74]
[74] Ibid.
The Applicant then submitted an application for the Visa which is the subject of these proceedings.[75]
[75] HB 595-604.
This is his third Bridging Visa application since August 2019.
On 24 March 2025, the Respondent advised the Applicant of its intention to consider refusal of the Visa application.[76]
[76] HB 273-277.
On 22 April 2025 the Applicant swore an affidavit in which he said:
“16. While my mother and older brother worked to provide financially, I was able to study and obtained a Bachelor of Industrial Engineering in Cali, Columbia. After completing my degree, I obtained a job in the finance sector. I stayed in this position for approximately eight years and was able to start helping my family.
…
Offending
26. On 16 July 2018, I was charged with dishonestly obtain financial deception and cause delivery, document, with false statement.
27. In relation to these matters, I was working as a migration officer as part of my business, OCITAP. At the time, OCITAP had two franchises, one in Sydney and one in Columbia and I was working from our office in Sydney.
28. OCITAP was receiving money from the students in Columbia for the purpose of paying that money to third parties for visas and insurance.
29. Although I was working from the office in Sydney, I engaged an employee in Columbia to manage the finances of the business. Their role included transferring the money we received from students onto the third parties for the visas and insurance.
30. Unfortunately, the employee I engaged in Columbia was not processing the payments to the third parties properly for the insurance. However, the payments for the visas were being paid properly.
31. I pleaded guilty to these offences and was sentenced on 12 April 2019. I pleaded guilty as I was the owner of the business, and recognised that being the owner meant I had the responsibility for ensuring the payments were being completed properly.
32. In relation to the charge for dishonestly obtain financial advantage, I was sentenced to an Intensive Corrections Order, for a period of 18 months. The order commenced on 12 April 2019 and concluded on 11 October 2020. For this charge, I was also required to complete 300 hours of community service.”[77]
[77] HB 302-309.
On 23 April 2025, the Applicant’s representatives responded with a bundle of documents.[78]
[78] HB 281-282.
In May 2025 the Applicant’s niece, Ms MA had a daughter, Child B.
In about May/June 2025 Ms. MA and her husband separated. They are still on good terms, and they are parenting on a 50/50 basis.
On 12 June 2025, the Applicant’s application for the Visa was refused by the Respondent (the refusal).[79]
[79] HB 3.
This is the matter now before the Tribunal.
On 19 June 2025, the Applicant was notified of the refusal and detained at Villawood Detention Centre, where he remains.[80]
[80] HB 2.
On 31 July 2025, the Applicant’s legal advisers obtained a report from Mr Hamid Dadgostar, a registered psychologist. This relevantly provides:
“Summary of Findings
4. The financial offence involved the failure to forward insurance payments for 16 international students, which Mr. Perea attributed to an administrative oversight by his accountant. Although Mr Perea reports that the error originated from an administrative oversight by a third party, he accepted full accountability in his capacity as the business owner, pleaded guilty, and was sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment to be served by way of an intensive correction order.
…
Likelihood of Reoffending and Risk of Harm to the Australian Community
19. In my professional opinion, the likelihood of Mr. Perea reoffending is low. This assessment is based on his genuine remorse and insight, the situational and non-violent nature of his offences, the absence of any criminal pattern or escalation, his strong social supports and motivation to remain in Australia, and his caregiving responsibilities and commitment to his mother.
20. Mr. Perea does not pose a risk of harm to any section of the Australian community. His offences were not violent or predatory in nature. Rather, they may have stemmed from administrative mismanagement and a lack of awareness, both of which he has acknowledged and reflected upon.
Impact of Extended Immigration Detention
21. Extended detention is likely to cause significant psychological deterioration in Mr. Perea. He has already demonstrated signs of major Depressive Disorder since entering detention. Mr Perea reports extreme emotional distress, feelings of helplessness, and an inability to cope with being separated from his mother.
22. Mr Perea highlighted that many detainees have come from prison, whereas he was taken from the community, a disruption that he finds especially traumatising. Ongoing detention would likely exacerbate depressive symptoms, reduce coping capacity, and undermine his psychosocial stability.
Potential Impact of Deportation
23. He has reported receiving death threats in Colombia related to the 2018 financial offence. His application for a protection visa reflects fear of persecution and serious harm if returned.
24. His 74-year-old mother is fully dependent on him for care. She has no permanent residency and may be forced to return to Colombia with him, despite having serious health conditions and no support network there.
25. His mother would face extreme hardship in accessing appropriate care. Mr. Perea would also lose access to any structured mental health support and employment pathways, likely exacerbating depressive symptoms and leading to emotional deterioration.
26. Returning to Colombia would sever ties with family, disrupt his established life, and will lead to significant psychological and social destabilisation.
Mental Health Status and Treatment Recommendations
27. Mr Perea has no prior history of mental health issues, nor is there a family history of psychiatric illness. However, since being detained on 19 June 2025, he has exhibited symptoms suggestive of Major Depressive Disorder, consistent with 'Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders' fifth edition (DSM-5) and 'International Classification of Diseases' (ICD-11 ). These include sadness, emotional dysregulation, low mood, and difficulty speaking about his experience in detention. His distress is likely reactive and situational, linked to the sudden loss of freedom, concern for his elderly mother, and uncertainty about his future.
Community Supports to Address Mental Health
28. Mr Perea has several protective factors that support his stability and integration within the community. He maintains a strong and stable family network, including close relationships with his siblings, nieces, and nephews, which provide him with emotional support and connection. He shares a particularly strong caregiving bond with his mother, a relationship that offers him both a sense of purpose and daily structure. In addition, Mr. Perea has a history of employment and business ownership, demonstrating a capacity for responsibility and productivity. He also exhibits insight into his past challenges and shows a clear motivation to engage with support services, further reinforcing his capacity for rehabilitation and community reintegration.
29. Mr. Perea is likely to benefit from engaging in regular psychological counselling, ideally on a weekly or fortnightly basis. This support could assist him in processing past experiences, managing any ongoing emotional distress, and developing healthier coping strategies. Therapeutic intervention may also provide a structured space to explore issues such as adjustment, anxiety, or depression, particularly in the context of his prolonged detention and uncertainty about the future. Regular counselling would not only help to strengthen his emotional resilience but could also enhance his insight, support decision-making, and contribute positively to his overall wellbeing and rehabilitation.”[81]
[81] HB 16-26.
On 4 August 2025, the Applicant swore a further affidavit which says:
“Immigration Detention:
6. I have been in immigration detention at Villawood since 19 June 2025.
7. I have been struggling with depression whilst in detention mostly worried about the state of my family and how they will continue to live whilst I am in detention. The fact that I cannot do anything to help them emotionally or financially torments me.
My Offending:
8. I understand the Department raised concerns in relation to my criminal offending, and the context surrounding my explanation of the offences.
9. In addition to the previous statements I have provided, I wish to provide further context to my thought processes at the time of the offending, and throughout the legal proceedings.
10. From the time that I was arrested, I felt extremely confused by the whole process and I felt that I did not really have anyone explain to me from the beginning. Given that English is my second language, this was a significant barrier for me. Even throughout my case, it felt very rushed at times. I tried to speak to many different solicitors, and I did not really understand how to best defend myself.
11. However, in saying that, I wish to express that I wholeheartedly accept that I am solely responsible for my actions. In pleading guilty, I accepted that I was responsible, and I do not wish to diminish that in providing an explanation for my offending.
12. In my Affidavit dated 22 April 2025, I explained how the problem began, due to an employee of my company, OCITAP, not appropriately dealing with funds received from clients.
13. I understand that as soon as I realised that the payments were off, I should have properly investigated the issue and attempted to resolve it in a proper way. However, I was nervous as I did not fully understand how bad the problem was, and it snowballed quite quickly.
14. I started to realise there were unpaid accounts for programs or insurance for clients, and I only focused on attempting to catch up with each payment. I did not have separate business accounts, namely a transaction account for everyday transactions, and a trust account for holding client funds. I realise that was wrong, and an improper way to run my business. Due to this, my personal and business finances became so intertwined.
15. I appreciate that my business was not appropriately run, and I did not have the knowledge at the time of how to properly be running my business. In hindsight, I can see that this is what led me to have these problems.
16. The employee responsible for managing the finances was not sending out invoices in time, which meant that programs, visas and insurances were being paid late. This also impacted the operation of my business in Sydney, because the company did not receive its commissions, made on the referral of clients. This further contributed to the cash flow issues of the company.
17. It quickly began to spread that my business was struggling, particularly in Colombia. I felt as though it became a tool for people to use to threaten me with. There were a lot of incorrect stories being told, and this added to the pressure and stress I was feeling at the time. I also had to make the decision to sell the Colombia franchise, because I could not afford to keep the business operating.
18. I accept that the way in which I approached this situation was wrong, and I take full responsibility. I do not wish to shift the blame, and this experience was an extremely eye-opening one.”[82]
[82] HB 28-31.
The practical consequence of the Applicant being granted the Visa would be that he would be able to remain in the community.
Whether he would be able to work, would depend on the outcome of any request by him to the Respondent do so.
I note that the Applicant’s preference is to return to work in his business.
If the Applicant is not granted the Visa, he will, remain in immigration Detention pending determination of the Federal Court Case.
LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK
Does the Applicant Pass the Character Test?
The Tribunal finds that the Applicant has a “substantial criminal record” and, therefore, he does not pass the character test. This is not disputed by the Applicant.
Should the discretion to refuse to grant the Visa under section 501 (1) be exercised?
In considering whether to the original decision should be revoked, the Tribunal is bound by s 499(2A) to comply with any directions made under the Act. In this case, Direction No 110 – Visa refusal and cancellation under section 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under section 501CA (“the Direction”) has application.[83]
[83] On 21 June 2024, the former applicable direction, Direction No. 99 – Visa refusal and cancellation under s501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under s501CA, was revoked and was replaced by Direction 110.
For the purposes of deciding whether to refuse or cancel a non-citizen’s visa or whether or not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of a non-citizen’s visa, paragraph 5.2 of the Direction contains several principles that must inform a decision maker’s application of the considerations identified in Part 2 where relevant to the decision.
The principles that are found in paragraph 5.2 of the Direction 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)The safety of the Australian Community is the highest priority of the Australian Government.
(3)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.
(4)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.
(5)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.
(6)With respect to decisions to refuse, cancel, and revoke cancellation of a visa, 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.
(7)Decision-makers must take into account the primary and other considerations relevant to the individual case. In some circumstances, the nature of the noncitizen’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.
(8)The inherent nature of certain conduct such as family violence is so serious that even strong countervailing considerations may be insufficient to justify not cancelling or refusing the visa, or revoking a mandatory cancellation, even if the information available at the time of consideration suggests that 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 7(2) of the Direction requires that protection of the Australian community (Primary Consideration 8.1), is generally to be given greater weight than other primary considerations.
Paragraph 8 of the Direction sets out five Primary Considerations that the Tribunal must take into account and 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 strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia:
(4)the best interests of minor children in Australia; and
(5)expectations of the Australian community.
Paragraph 9 of the Direction sets out three Other Considerations which must be taken into account. These considerations are:
a)Legal consequence of the decision;
b)extent of impediments if removed;
c)impact on Australian business interests
I note the importance of the Other Considerations being “other” considerations, as opposed to “secondary” considerations. As noted by Colvin J in Suleiman v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection:[84]
“…Direction 65 [now Direction 110] makes clear that an evaluation is required in each case as to the weight to be given to the 'other considerations' (including non‑refoulement obligations). It requires both primary and other considerations to be given 'appropriate weight'. Direction 65 does provide that, generally, primary considerations should be given greater weight. They are primary in the sense that absent some factor that takes the case out of that which pertains 'generally' they are to be given greater weight. However, Direction 65 does not require that the other considerations be treated as secondary in all cases. Nor does it provide that primary considerations are 'normally' given greater weight. Rather, Direction 65 concerns the appropriate weight to be given to both 'primary' and 'other considerations'. In effect, it requires an inquiry as to whether one or more of the other considerations should be treated as being a primary consideration or the consideration to be afforded greatest weight in the particular circumstances of the case because it is outside the circumstances that generally apply.”[85]
[84] [2018] FCA 594.
[85] Ibid [23].
OFFENDING HISTORY
The Applicant’s criminal record as produced by the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission is outlined at Annexure B.
The Applicant’s offending is discussed in detail above.[86]
[86] This will be from the national criminal history check. Sometimes if the Applicant has minor offences John may want to mention this though double check with him.
Primary Consideration 1 – Protection of The Australian Community
In considering this Primary Consideration 1, paragraph 8.1 of the Direction requires decision-makers to keep in mind the safety of the Australian community is the highest priority of the Australian Government. To that end, the Government is committed to protecting the Australian community from harm as a result of criminal activity or other serious conduct by non-citizens. Decision-makers should have particular regard to the principle that entering or remaining in Australia is a privilege that this country confers on non-citizens in the expectation that they are, and have been, law abiding, that they will respect important institutions and that they will not cause or threaten harm to individuals or the Australian community.
In determining the weight applicable to Primary Consideration 1, paragraph 8.1(2) of the Direction requires decision-makers to give consideration to:
a)The nature and seriousness of the non-citizen’s conduct to date; and
b)The risk to the Australian community should the non-citizen commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct.
The Nature and Seriousness of the Applicant’s Conduct to Date

When assessing the nature and seriousness of a non-citizen’s criminal offending or other conduct to date, paragraph 8.1.1(1) of the Direction specifies that decision-makers must have regard to a number of factors. I will now turn to addressing these considerations.
Sub-paragraph (a) of paragraph 8.1.1(1) of the Direction provides that without limiting the range of conduct that may be considered very serious, violent and/or sexual crimes; crimes of a violent and/or sexual nature against women or children (regardless of the sentence imposed); or acts of family violence (regardless of whether there is a conviction for an offence or a sentence imposed) are viewed very seriously by the Australian Government and the Australian community.
The Applicant has not committed any of the specified offences set out above. This is not however an exclusive list, indeed it is stated to be “without limiting the range of conduct that may be considered very serious”.
The Applicant defrauded several students of significant sums of money in circumstances that threatened to compromise their ongoing studies, for which they had paid him, and even their right to lawfully remain in Australia as students.
As a person with an employment history in the finance sector, it is very concerning that he nevertheless mixed monies held on trust on behalf of students, with his own business accounts and even his own private finances, at times using his personal credit cards. The effect of the Applicant’s evidence what that he was knowingly using student’s funds to manage “cash-flow” problems in his business. On his evidence, the solvency of his ongoing business, must have been at least in doubt.
In addition to this, these students were all from Latin American countries. English was not their first language. Australia was a strange country to them. They were vulnerable guests in our country, being preyed upon and exploited by one of their own countrymen. This represents a very serious breach of trust.
In my view, the Applicant’s conduct was very serious.
Sub-paragraph (b) of paragraph 8.1.1(1) of the Direction provides that without limiting the range of conduct that may be considered serious, the types of crimes or conduct described below are considered by the Australian Government and the Australian community to be serious:
(i)causing a person to enter into or being party to a forced marriage (other than being a victim), regardless of whether there is a conviction for an offence or a sentence imposed;
(ii)crimes committed against vulnerable members of the community (such as the elderly and the disabled), or government representatives or officials due to the position they hold, or in the performance of their duties;
(iii)any conduct that forms the basis for a finding that a non-citizen does not pass an aspect of the character test that is dependent upon the decision-maker’s opinion (for example, section 501(6)(c));
(iv)where the non-citizen is in Australia, a crime committed while the non-citizen was in immigration detention, during an escape from immigration detention, or after the non-citizen escaped from immigration detention, but before the non-citizen was taken into immigration detention again, , or an offence against section 197A of the Act, which prohibits escape from immigration detention.
I repeat my comments above. The Applicant does not pass the character test.
Sub-paragraph (c) of paragraph 8.1.1(1) of the Direction requires a decision-maker (with the exception of the crimes or conduct mentioned in sub-paragraphs (a)(ii), (a)(iii) or (b)(i) of paragraph 8.1.1(1)) to have regard to the sentence(s) imposed by the Courts for a crime or crimes of a non-citizen/applicant. The imposition of a custodial term is regarded as the last resort in any reasonably and correctly applied sentencing process. Custodial terms are viewed as a reflection of the objective seriousness of an applicant’s offending.
The Applicant was sentenced to an 18-month ICO. This is indicative that the offending was serious, but not so serious as to warrant incarceration of a first-time offender.
Sub-paragraph (d) of paragraph 8.1.1(1) of the Direction requires a decision-maker to have regard to the impact of the offending on any victims offending or other conduct and their family, where information in this regard is available and the non-citizen whose visa is being considered for refusal or cancellation, or who has sought revocation of the mandatory cancellation of their visa, has been afforded procedural fairness.
The Applicant’s attitude to his victims has been somewhat contradictory. He says that he accepted responsibility but also said that the students “were manipulated by people who were against me.”
The Applicant has made some restitution, but on his evidence, $75,000 remains to be repaid.
Sub-paragraph (e) of paragraph 8.1.1(1) of the Direction requires a decision-maker to have regard to the frequency of a non-citizen’s offending and whether there is any trend of increasing seriousness.
There are several offences over a period between November 2017 and May 2018. The fact that the offending continued for such a period is very concerning. It was a prolonged course of conduct, not an isolated event.
Sub-paragraph (f) of paragraph 8.1.1(1) of the Direction requires a decision-maker to have regard to the cumulative effect of an Applicant’s repeated offending.
The effect of the Applicant’s offending on his victims has been very serious. They have not only suffered an ongoing financial loss, but they have been the victims of a serious abuse of trust.
Sub-paragraph (g) of paragraph 8.1.1(1) of the Direction requires a decision-maker to have regard to whether a non-citizen has provided false or misleading information to the Department, including by not disclosing prior criminal offending.
There is no evidence of this.
Sub-paragraph (h) of paragraph 8.1.1(1) of the Direction requires a decision-maker to have regard to whether the non-citizen has re-offended since being formally warned about the consequences of further offending in terms of the non-citizen’s migration status ( noting that the absence of a warning should not be considered to be in the non-citizen’s favour).
There is no evidence of this.
Sub-paragraph (i) of paragraph 8.1.1(1) of the Direction requires a decision-maker to have regard, where the offence or conduct was committed in another country, to whether that offence or conduct is classified as an offence in Australia.
There is no evidence of this.
I do not consider factors (g), (h) and (i) of paragraph 8.1.1(1) of the Direction apply to the Applicant’s offending or circumstances. The rest of the relevant sub-paragraphs of paragraph 8.1.1(1) of the Direction, in their totality, weigh heavily against revocation of the cancellation of the Applicant’s visa.
The Risk to the Australian Community Should the Applicant Commit Further Offences or Engage in Other Serious Conduct
Paragraph 8.1.2(1) provides that in considering the need to protect Australian community (including individuals, groups or institutions) from harm, decision-makers should have regard to the Government’s view that the Australian community’s tolerance for any risk of future harm becomes lower as the seriousness of the potential harm increases. Some conduct and the harm that would be caused, if it were to be repeated, is so serious that any risk that it may be repeated may be unacceptable.
Paragraph 8.1.2(2) provides that in assessing the risk that may be posted by the non-citizen to the Australian community, decision-makers must have regard to, cumulatively:
a)the nature of the harm to individuals or the Australian community should the non-citizen engage in further criminal or other serious conduct;
b)the likelihood of the non-citizen engaging in further criminal or other serious conduct, taking into account:
(i) information and evidence on the risk of the non-citizen re-offending; and
(ii) evidence of rehabilitation achieved by the time of the decision, giving weight to time spent in the community since their most recent offence; and
c)where consideration is being given to whether to refuse to grant a visa to the non-citizen - whether the risk of harm may be affected by the duration and purpose of the non-citizen’s intended stay, the type of visa being applied for, and whether there are strong or compassionate reasons for granting a short stay visa.
Nature of harm should the Applicant engage in further criminal or other serious conduct
Assessing the nature of the harm to individuals or the Australian community that may occur if the Applicant were to engage in further criminal or other serious conduct, is informed by the nature of his offending to date, including any escalation in his offending. This assessment also notes that the Direction provides that the Australian community’s tolerance for harm becomes lower as the seriousness of the potential harm increases. Some conduct and the harm that would be caused, is so serious that any risk that it may be repeated may be unacceptable (Paragraph 8.1.2(1)).
The Applicant’s conduct is very serious. He has exploited and breached the trust of vulnerable people for his own financial gain. His offending is particularly reprehensible because he has been preying on his own countrymen, as they attempt to make the very difficult adjustment to a very different community, a new country and a new language.
Fraud, dishonesty and breaches of trust, may occur in any number of different contexts. Harm of this sort, whatever the specific context may be, is very serious.
Likelihood of engaging in further criminal or other serious conduct
In relation to his future conduct, the applicant says:
“49. My legal proceedings and the possible cancellation of my visa have caused me significant emotional and mental stress. After my 2018 charges I was diagnosed with depression, and I maintained regular treatment with a psychologist Adalberto Lamas in Campsie.
50. I love my life in Australia, I moved here because the opportunities are much better than in Columbia. I cannot imagine my life in Columbia.
51. I am optimistic about maintaining a positive future in Australia. I have truly learnt from my offences, and I do not wish to be involved with the law again. I have made a real effort to be aware of my actions, particularly in the way I conduct my business. I am dedicated to upholding my responsibilities as a business owner.”[87]
[87] HB 295.
The Applicant says that he has undertaken to repay his victims. He says:
“34. During the sentence proceedings, I made a personal undertaking to repay the victims of these offences. The Local Court also made an order for restitution at the time of my sentence. However, prior to being charged and this order being made, I had already made numerous payments in restitution for the offending. At the time I was sentenced, I understand the amount owing was $100,000.
35. I confirm I have made the following payments:
a. $2,019 on 14 September 2017
b. $1,476.80 on 27 February 2018
c. $1,070 on 23 May 2018
d. $853.38 on 14 June 2018
e. $2,138.40 on 15 June 2018
f. $513 on 4 July 2018
g. $1,000 on 5 July 2018
h. $3,000 on 12 July 2018
i. $3,922 on 12 April 2019
j. $1,463.71 on 2 April 2024
k. $261.18 on 18 April 2024
l. $779.22 on 18 June 2024
m. $520.65 on 6 August 2024.”[88]
[88] HB 305-306.
The fact that the Applicant claims that he has repaid $19,017.34 to his victims out of $100,000 stolen, between 2017 and the present, is a very modest attempt at redress.
I note that two psychologists have assessed that he is a low risk of reoffending.
I note that between the time of his last dishonesty offence and the time that he was taken into Immigration detention on 19 June 2025, the Applicant was in the community and there is no evidence of any similar offending.
I also note that the Applicant intends to resume his business in the event of getting the Visa, subject of course to permission from the Respondent to do so. I regard this clear intention on his part, as increasing the element of risk.
I am not satisfied that the Applicant has adequately confronted and accepted his accountability for his offending. These is little in the way of relevant rehabilitation save for 5 psychologist visits some time ago and having done an online debt management course. The Applicant has no concrete plans if released to engage in community-based treatment.
All in all, I accept that the risk of reoffending in the immediate future may be low, particularly if he is not permitted to work, but the harm that may result if he did reoffend, would be very serious indeed.
Conclusion: Primary Consideration 1
Primary consideration number one weighs heavily against granting the visa.
Primary Consideration 2: Family Violence
There is no evidence of this.
Conclusion: Primary Consideration 2
This consideration is neutral.
Primary Consideration 3: Ties to Australia
Paragraph 8.3 of the Direction provides:
(1) Decision-makers must consider any impact of the decision on the non-citizen’s immediate family members in Australia, where those family members are Australian citizens, Australian permanent residents, or people who have a right to remain in Australia indefinitely.
(2) Where consideration is being given to whether to cancel a non-citizen’s visa or whether to revoke the mandatory cancellation of their visa, the decision-maker must also consider the strength, nature and duration of any other ties that the non-citizen has to the Australian community. In doing so, decision-makers must have regard to:
148.a) how long the non-citizen has resided in Australia, including whether the non-citizen arrived as a young child, noting that:
i.less weight should be given where the non-citizen began offending soon after arriving in Australia; and
ii.more weight should be given to time the non-citizen has spent contributing positively to the Australian community
149.b) the strength, duration and nature of any family or social links with Australian citizens, Australian permanent residents and/or people who have an indefinite right to remain in Australia.
The Applicant came to Australia as an adult in 2011.
His formative years were spent in Colombia.
His offending began in 2017 and continued into 2018.
Australian contacts and family have provided statements of support.[89]
[89] HB 481-546.
The Applicant says that he did his community service with the Salvation Army.[90]
[90] HB 306 at [40].
Since 2012, the Applicant has declared a modest income and paid some tax.[91]
[91] HB 473-480.
The counsel for both the Applicant and the Respondent, were agreed that there were no “immediate family members” who are “Australian citizens, Australian permanent residents, or people who have a right to remain in Australia indefinitely”.
On that basis, those relationships may still be relevant to Primary Consideration 4, or as an “Other Consideration”. They are discussed as such below.
Conclusion: Primary Consideration 3
This consideration weighs at best, very slightly in favour of granting the Visa.
Primary Consideration 4: The best interests of minor children in Australia
Paragraph 8.4(1) of the Direction requires a decision-maker to make a determination about whether cancellation or refusal under section 501, or non-revocation under section 501CA is in the best interests of a child affected by the decision. Paragraphs 8.4(2) and 8.4(3) respectively contain further considerations. The former provides that for their interests to be considered, the relevant child (or children) must be under 18 years of age at the time when a decision about whether or not to refuse or cancel the visa or not to revoke the mandatory cancellation decision is being made. The latter provides that if there are two or more relevant children, the best interests of each child should be given individual consideration to the extent that their interests may differ.
Paragraph 8.4(4) of the Direction sets out a number of factors to take into consideration with respect to the best interests of minor children in Australia. Those include, relevantly:
a)the nature and duration of the relationship between the child and the non-citizen. Less weight should generally be given where the relationship is non-parental, and/or there is no existing relationship and/or there have been long periods of absence, or limited meaningful contact (including whether an existing Court order restricts contact);
b)the extent to which the non-citizen is likely to play a positive parental role in the future, taking into account the length of time until the child turns 18, and including any Court orders relating to parental access and care arrangements;
c)the impact of the non-citizen’s prior conduct, and any likely future conduct, and whether that conduct has, or will have a negative impact on the child;
d)the likely effect that any separation from the non-citizen would have on the child, taking into account the child’s or non-citizen’s ability to maintain contact in other ways;
e)whether there are other persons who already fulfil a parental role in relation to the child;
f)any known views of the child (with those views being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child);
g)evidence that the child has been, or is at risk of being, subject to, or exposed to, family violence perpetrated by the non-citizen, or has otherwise been abused or neglected by the non-citizen in any way, whether physically, sexually or mentally;
h)evidence that the child has suffered or experienced any physical or emotional trauma arising from the non-citizen’s conduct.
The relevant minor children in Australia are Child A and Child B, as discussed above. They are his great nephew and great niece respectively.
The Applicant has not, and it is not asserted that he will ever perform, a parental role in relation to these children.
It is important to bear in mind that the Visa, if granted, is only of a temporary nature. It will expire shortly after the determination of the Federal Court Case, whenever that may be. After that, it is mere speculation as to what may occur. It is therefore, by no means certain that the Applicant would remain in the lives of Child A and B, in Australia, until they turn 18, if he were to be granted the Visa.
The Applicant has had a lot of contact with Child A and I accept that they have a close relationship. Child A would certainly miss the Applicant not being in the community. It would be in his interests for the Applicant to be in the community. At least for as long as Child A himself remains here.
The Applicant could remain in contact with Child A electronically, even if in detention.
Child B is an infant. The Applicant has met Child B, but Child B would presently have no concept of the Applicant.
I accept that if the Applicant were to be in the community this would benefit Child B.
If he was in detention, he could still contact child B electronically.
I also note that the visa status of Child A and Child B is uncertain. They are not citizens or permanent residents. It seems likely that they are a part of a joint application for a Protection Visa by one or both of their parents. This is relevant because this Primary Consideration is concerned only with “best interests of minor children in Australia”. It is possible that these children may not remain in Australia until they reach 18 years of age.
Conclusion: Primary Consideration 4
Having regard to all of the above, primary consideration 4 weighs slightly in favour of granting the Visa.
Primary Consideration 5 – The Expectations of The Australian Community
The relevant paragraphs in the Direction
In making the assessment for weight to be allocated to Primary Consideration 5, paragraph 8.5(1) of the Direction provides that the Australian community expects non-citizens to obey Australian laws while in Australia. I should consider whether the Applicant has breached, or whether there is an unacceptable risk that he would breach, this expectation by engaging in serious conduct.

Paragraph 8.5(2) of the Direction directs that a visa cancellation or refusal, or non-revocation of the mandatory cancellation of a visa, may be appropriate simply because the nature of the character concerns or offences are such that the Australian community would expect that the person should not be granted or continue to hold a visa. In particular, the Australian community expects that the Australian Government can and should refuse entry to non-citizens, or cancel their visas, if they raise serious character concerns through conduct, in Australia or elsewhere, of the following kind:
(a)acts of family violence; or
(b)causing a person to enter into, or being party to (other than being a victim of), a forced marriage;
(c)commission of serious crimes against women, children or other vulnerable members of the community such as the elderly or disabled; in this context, ‘serious crimes’ include crimes of a violent or sexual nature, as well as other serious crimes against the elderly or other vulnerable persons in the form of fraud, extortion, financial abuse/material exploitation or neglect;
(d)commission of crimes against government representatives or officials due to the position they hold, or in the performance of their duties; or
(e)involvement or reasonably suspected involvement in human trafficking or people smuggling, or in crimes that are of serious international concern including, but not limited to, war crimes, crimes against humanity and slavery; or
(f)worker exploitation.
Paragraph 8.5(3) of the Direction provides that the above expectations of the Australian community apply regardless of whether the non-citizen poses a measurable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community.
Paragraph 8.5(4) of the Direction provides guidance on how the expectations of the Australian community are to be determined. This paragraph states:
This consideration is about the expectations of the Australian community as a whole, and in this respect, decision-makers should proceed on the basis of the Government’s views as articulated above, without independently assessing the community’s expectations in the particular case.
Paragraph 8.5(4) is consistent with the decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court in FYBR v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCAFC 185 which affirmed the approach established in previous authorities that it is not for the Tribunal to determine for itself the expectations of the Australian community by reference to an Applicant’s circumstances or evidence about those expectations. The Tribunal is to be guided by the Government’s views as to the expectations of the Australian community, which are to be found in the Direction.[92]
[92] See Uelese v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCA 348; Afu v Minister for Home Affairs [2018] FCA 1311; YNQY v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCA 1466 and FYBR v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCA 500.
Paragraph 8.5 contains a statement of the Government’s views as to the expectations of the Australian community, which operates to ascribe to the whole of the Australian community an expectation aligning with that of the executive government which the decision maker must have regard to.
Analysis – Allocation of Weight to Primary Consideration 5
Accordingly, in assessing the weight attributable to Primary Consideration 5, it is necessary to have regard to the following matters:
a.the Applicant’s criminal record as set out in Annexure B
b.the other matters set out above.
c.The Applicant’s conduct, as set out above, has involved a serious breach of trust, preying upon vulnerable visitors to our country.
Conclusion: Primary Consideration 5
Primary consideration 5 weighs heavily against granting the Visa
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
It is necessary to look at the Other Considerations listed at paragraph 9 of the Direction.
(a) legal consequence of the decision:
There is no protection finding in this case, indeed the Respondent and AAT have determined that he is not owed protection. This matter is presently the subject of the Federal Court Case.
The Applicant would suffer detriment if this decision is not in his favour, in that he would remain in detention, at least until the determination of the Federal Court Case. He could not apply for another visa. These consequences are however, proscribed by law.
An adverse decision may be detrimental to the Applicant personally and would, based on the evidence, be unhelpful from the perspective of his mental health
As foreshadowed above, there is also the issue of the impact of the Applicant remaining in detention on his family in Australia, notwithstanding that they have not presently any right to remain here indefinitely.
The Applicant’s mother is aged 71.[93]
[93] HB 34-35.
She has some medical issues.[94]
[94] HB 424-425.
The Applicant says that his mother is dependent upon him. He says:
“My mother's health issues:
34. My mother depends solely on me to provide for her, as well as to support her with her medical issues. She lives with me full time, and I solely pay the rent and our daily living expenses which total roughly $3,400 per month.
35. She has osteoporosis in her knees which has impacted her ability to walk for extended periods of time. This also makes it hard for her to get public transport, so she relies on me to drive her to appointments, take her to Church and anywhere else.
36. Currently, she is medicated for blood pressure, osteoporosis and cholesterol. I assist her by refilling her prescriptions, reminding her to take her medication and translating throughout her appointments, as she does not speak English.
37. As a result of the criminal charges against me, this caused her significant emotional stress and anxiety. Throughout the 3 weeks I spent in custody at Silverwater she was alone at home, and struggling as she did not understand.
38. Recently, about three weeks ago she was walking and got dizzy and collapsed. I am concerned way may happen to her if she does not have someone who can look after her.
Implications of deportation:
39. If I am to have my visa cancelled, I am extremely concerned about what this would mean for my mother. Firstly, because she is listed as a dependent on my visa, and I do not know what would happen to her.
40. Next, my brother and sister both work full-time and it is difficult for them to have the flexibility to work from home. Because I operate my own business, it is extremely flexible for me, and I can support my mother the way I can.
41. They also both have their own families, and although they visit often, it is harder for them to care full-time for our mother. There is no space for my mother to move in with them, and they cannot afford to relocate to accommodate.
42. Although I have a lease for our home, she would not be able to cover the rent payments. Due to her age and health conditions, she is unable to work. This uncertainty and instability would cause her a lot of stress.”[95]
…
“49. My mother has extensive medical needs, and as we live together, I have been her primary caregiver.
50. She suffers from osteoarthritis in her knees, which impacts her ability to walk for extended periods of time. As a consequence of this condition, she also struggles to take public transport, and therefore relies on me to attend medical appointments or elsewhere.
51. My mother also suffers from blood pressure and cholesterol and is required to take medication to treat these conditions. Over the past 18 months, she has experienced increased emotional stress and anxiety, which have had an impact on her physical health conditions. In mid 2024, she became very dizzy and collapsed.
52. Since late last year, I have not been working and instead have been a full-time carer for my mother. To provide for her, I have been relying on my savings, as I am not presently able to work. We are struggling severely, and I am only just managing to cover our rent. I am very concerned that I will not be able to continue to cover our expenses. Given my mother has medical conditions, she cannot be without a stable home or access to the medications and treatment she needs.
53. My extended family have intermittently helped with our expenses, however, they are unable to cover the entirety of our costs. Furthermore, they cannot provide consistent and ongoing support, as they have their own families and expenses to cover. Therefore, while I do not have a visa and cannot work, my mother is at increased risk and I am concerned about her physical health and overall wellbeing.
[95] HB 293-294.
Impact of visa refusal
54. Since my visa was cancelled, and I have been waiting on the outcome of my application, my mother and I have been without any source of income.
55. As set out above, being without any income has caused significant stress for both my mother and I, and also impacted our ability to cover day-to-day expenses, as well as my mother’s health needs.
56. My mother is elderly and unable to work to provide for herself, or others.
57. Given my mother’s health is declining, she increasingly needs my support. I am concerned that should my visa application be refused, my mother will be without the necessary physical, financial, and emotional support to manage her health. Outside the financial aspects of her care, she also requires extensive physical assistance given the impact of her osteoarthritis on her ability to stand and walk. I help her up and down stairs, and go with her wherever she needs to ensure she is physically safe, particularly since the incident last year when she collapsed.
58. My mother cannot speak English, and I am her translator for medical appointments and other day-to-day activities. Given the importance of her understanding her condition and how to maintain treatment, it is important she has someone with her at all times. While my siblings also live in Australia, they are currently working full time and have children of their own. Therefore, they do not have the flexibility to attend appointments with my mother. When I was working, as I was the owner of the business, I had the greatest capacity within my family to assist my mother with her medical needs.
59. My mother would be without a place to live, should my visa application be refused. This is because she is currently living with me, and I pay the rent. If my application is refused, I would have to leave Australia. My siblings’ properties do not have room for my mother to stay, and their incomes are not sufficient to cover a rental for my mother. As my mother is unable to work, and my siblings cannot cover her expenses entirely, she would therefore be without a home or sufficient means to care for herself.
60. Should my visa application be refused, forcing me to return to Columbia, I would not be able to meet my present financial commitments. I fear that in my absence, my family would likely become responsible for these financial obligations. I have a car loan totalling $49,000 and pay weekly instalments of $155 towards this loan. I am also still responsible for the restitution to the victims, as ordered by the Court. Due to my families’ circumstances, particularly my mother, this would cause her further stress and place debt on them that they cannot pay.”[96]
[96] HB 307-309.
The Applicant expresses concern that his family may be liable for his debts if he is deported.[97] He produced no evidence to support this somewhat unlikely assertion.
[97] HB 353 at [60]-[61].
In relation to his family, the Applicant says:
“48. My family also rely on me to support them financially, and I will be unable to do that. I am devastated about the effect this could have on them, and the stress that this has caused them.”[98]
[98] HB 294 at [48].
The Applicant may, or may not be granted permission to work, if he had the Visa.
The Applicant also has a brother, a sister, their partners, 4 adult nephews and an adult niece in Australia.[99] His niece has two children, Child A and Child B as discussed above.
[99] HB 391.
A number of his relatives and other contacts have provided statements of support.[100]
[100] HB 481-546.
I accept that although there is no evidence to suggest that any of the Applicant’s family have a right to remain here indefinitely, they are a close family, and they would be emotionally and financially distressed by the Applicant remaining in immigration detention. The same could be said if he was to be ultimately removed in the event of the Federal Court Case being unsuccessful, but that is a matter of conjecture at present.
This Other Consideration weighs in favour of granting the visa
(b) Extent of Impediments if Removed
Paragraph 9.2 of the Direction directs a decision-maker to take into account the extent of any impediments that the non-citizen may face if removed from Australia to their home country, in establishing themselves and maintaining basic living standards (in the context of what is generally available to other citizens of that country), taking into account:
(a)the non-citizen’s age and health;
(b)whether there are any substantial language or cultural barriers; and
(c)any social, medical and/or economic support available to that non-citizen in that country.
The Applicant spent his formative years in Columbia. He has qualifications there and has worked for 8 years in the financial sector. He is of working age, has no major physical health issues, though he is presently showing signs of depression. He is familiar with the language and culture.
The Applicant says that it is hard for anyone over 30 years old to get a job in Columbia. He presented no supporting evidence for this assertion.
I accept that if the Applicant were to return, he would face a difficult period of readjustment, finding accommodation and employment. I accept that this would be distressing for him and may have an adverse impact on his mental health. He does, however, still have family there who he could reach out to.
The Applicant has 6 uncles/aunts and 14 cousins in Columbia.[101]
[101] HB 391.
The Applicant says that he would suffer difficulties if he were to return to Columbia. He says:
“60. Should my visa application be refused, forcing me to return to Columbia, I would not be able to meet my present financial commitments. I fear that in my absence, my family would likely become responsible for these financial obligations. I have a car loan totalling $49,000 and pay weekly instalments of $155 towards this loan. I am also still responsible for the restitution to the victims, as ordered by the Court. Due to my families’ circumstances, particularly my mother, this would cause her further stress and place debt on them that they cannot pay.
61. While I may be able to obtain employment in Columbia, the renumeration I would likely receive would not be sufficient to cover my own living expenses, nor the expenses I owe in Australia.
62. My family are my main source of support, and should I be deported to Columbia, I would have no one. This is because the majority of my immediate family and close connections are in Australia. While my father does live in Columbia, we do not have a relationship and have not had any contact with one another for over two decades.
63. I am also fearful for my physical safety, should I return to Columbia. This is because although I no longer operate the franchise of OCITAP in Columbia, there are still people in Columbia who are very angry. To date, I have received numerous death threats and believe the only reason I have been able to maintain my safety has been because I have remained living in Australia.
64. I have been very stressed about the possible impact on my mental health, should I be deported. In 2018, after my initial charges, I was diagnosed with depression and have been receiving ongoing treatment from a psychologist in Campsie, Adalberto Lamas. Since receiving the notice of intention to cancel my visa, and the subsequent notice of intention to refuse my visa, my mental health has further declined.
65. I have also been very concerned about the welfare of my mother, should my visa application be refused. It is devastating to think of the impact my deportation may have on my family, and the stress this has caused them.
66. I thoroughly enjoy my life in Australia and moved here as I knew it would provide me with a much better quality of life, compared to Columbia. I am committed to maintaining a positive life in Australia.”[102]
[102] HB 308-309 at [60]-[66], see also HB 352-360.
The Applicant expresses concern that his family may be liable for his debts if he is deported.[103] As observed above, there is no evidence to support this claim.
[103] HB 353 at [60]-[61].
It is perhaps also relevant to note that whatever the decision in this case may be, it will not be likely to result in him being immediately required to leave Australia. This Visa is only a Bridging Visa, to get him to the point of the Federal Court Case being determined. It is that decision, whenever it may be, which may possibly create an immediate prospect of removal. Then again, it may not.
It is possible that other members of the Applicant’s family, particularly his mother, may also have to return to Columbia, if he has to do so.
This consideration (b) weighs slightly in favour of granting the Visa.
(c) Impact on Australian business interests
I am not satisfied that this case raises any such issue.
This Other Consideration (d) is neutral.
CONCLUSION
It is necessary to weigh up all of the primary and other considerations.
Primary consideration 1 weighs heavily against granting the Visa.
Primary consideration 2 is neutral.
Primary consideration 3 weighs slightly in favour of granting the Visa.
Primary consideration 4 weighs slightly in favour of granting the Visa.
Primary consideration 5 weighs heavily against granting the Visa.
Other consideration (a) in favour of granting the Visa.
Other consideration (b) weighs slightly in favour of granting the Visa.
Other consideration (c) is neutral.
I note that paragraph 7(2) of the Direction requires that protection of the Australian community is generally to be given greater weight than other Primary Considerations, and that Primary Considerations should generally be given greater weight than the Other Considerations.
The Applicant has committed very serious offences of dishonesty, over a period of time, against vulnerable victims, who were student visitors to our country. Primary Considerations 1 and 5 weigh heavily in favour of exercising the discretion to refuse to grant the Visa.
Primary Consideration 4, and Other Considerations (a) and (b) do weigh in favour of granting the Visa, to various degrees.
On balance however, the weight of Primary Considerations 1 and 5 substantially outweigh Primary Consideration 4 and Other Considerations to the contrary.
In my view, the proper application of the Direction favours the Tribunal exercising the discretion under s501(1) not to grant the Visa.
DECISION
The decision under review affirmed.

I certify that the preceding two hundred and twenty (220) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Senior Member Hon J Rau SC.

............................[sgnd]........................
Associate

Dated: 9 September 2025

Date of hearing: 1 and 2 September 2025

Advocate for the Applicant:

Mr C. Honnery (6 St. James Hall Chambers)
Mr A. Soukie (Hanna Legal)

Advocate for the Respondent:
Ms I. Wilford (Sparke Helmore)

ANNEXURE A – LIST OF EXHIBITS

Exhibit no.

Lodged by

Document

1

Respondent

Hearing Book

ANNEXURE B – APPLICANT’S OFFENDING HISTORY

Court

Court Date

Offence

Court Result

Downing Centre Local Court

16 Jun 2022

Drive With Middle Range Prescribed Concentration Of Alcohol - 1st Off

$1000 Fine

6 months disqualification

Downing Centre Local Court

12 Apr 2019

Cth – Cause Delivery, Document with False Statement, Migration Act

Convicted and sentenced to 18 months imprisonment

Downing Centre Local Court

12 Apr 2019

Dishonestly Obtain Financial Advantage Etc By Deception

18 months intensive corrections order

$100,000 compensation

Offences	Law Part
1. Dishonestly obtain financial advantage etc by deception Act Section: TI Crimes Act 1900	70974
2. Dishonestly obtain financial advantage etc by deception Act Section: TI Crimes Act 1900	70974
3. Dishonestly obtain financial advantage etc by deception Act Section: TI Crimes Act 1900	70974
4. Dishonestly obtain financial advantage etc by deception Act Section: TI Crimes Act 1900	70974
5. Dishonestly obtain financial advantage etc by deception Act Section: TI Crimes Act 1900	70974
6. Dishonestly obtain financial advantage etc by deception Act Section: TI Crimes Act 1900	70974
7. Dishonestly obtain financial advantage etc by deception Act Section: TI Crimes Act 1900	70974
8. Dishonestly obtain financial advantage etc by deception Act Section: TI Crimes Act 1900	70974
9. Dishonestly obtain financial advantage etc by deception Act Section: TI Crimes Act 1900	70974
10. Dishonestly obtain financial advantage etc by deception Act Section: TI Crimes Act 1900	70974
11. Dishonestly obtain financial advantage etc by deception Act Section: TI Crimes Act 1900	70974
12. Dishonestly obtain financial advantage etc by deception Act Section: TI Crimes Act 1900	70974
13. Dishonestly obtain financial advantage etc by deception Act Section: TI Crimes Act 1900	70974
14. Dishonestly obtain financial advantage etc by deception Act Section: TI Crimes Act 1900	70974

Date of hearing:	1 and 2 September 2025
Advocate for the Applicant:	Mr C. Honnery (6 St. James Hall Chambers) Mr A. Soukie (Hanna Legal)
Advocate for the Respondent:	Ms I. Wilford (Sparke Helmore)

Exhibit no.	Lodged by	Document
1	Respondent	Hearing Book

Court	Court Date	Offence	Court Result
Downing Centre Local Court	16 Jun 2022	Drive With Middle Range Prescribed Concentration Of Alcohol - 1st Off	$1000 Fine 6 months disqualification
Downing Centre Local Court	12 Apr 2019	Cth – Cause Delivery, Document with False Statement, Migration Act	Convicted and sentenced to 18 months imprisonment
Downing Centre Local Court	12 Apr 2019	Dishonestly Obtain Financial Advantage Etc By Deception	18 months intensive corrections order $100,000 compensation