Bista (Migration)

Bista (Migration) [2019] AATA 3627 (5 August 2019)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
APPLICANT:  Mr Puranjan Bista
CASE NUMBER:  1908325
HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):           BCC2018/5102023
MEMBER:Wendy Banfield
DATE:5 August 2019
PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney
DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision to cancel the applicant’s Subclass 500 (Student) visa.

Statement made on 05 August 2019 at 8:58pm

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – cancellation – Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa – Subclass 500 (Student) – ground for cancellation – convicted of an offence against a law of a State – Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm – common assault – contravene Apprehended Domestic Violence Order – consideration of discretion – repeat offending over short span of time – violent in nature – resulted from disputes over minor matters – effect on applicant’s wife – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s 116

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

This is an application for review of a decision dated 2 April 2019 made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs to cancel the applicant’s Subclass 500 (Student) visa under s.116 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).
The delegate cancelled the visa under s.116(1)(g) on the basis that the applicant has been convicted of an offence against a law of the Commonwealth, a State or territory. The issue in the present case is whether that ground for cancellation is made out, and if so, whether the visa should be cancelled.
Background
The applicant is a citizen of Nepal and is currently 35 years old. He came to Australia on 24 May 2018 as the dependent of his wife, Susmita Pokharel Bista (Ms Bista) holding a Student Visa. The applicant is employed at a tomato farm in regional Australia while his wife is undertaking a Master of Nursing Practice degree. Since arriving in Australia the applicant has been charged with criminal offences on two occasions, the first time without conviction and the second time, with a conviction.
The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 12 July 2019 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal also received oral evidence from Ms Bista who is the applicant's wife. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Nepali and English languages.
The applicant was represented in relation to the review by his registered migration agent. The representative attended the Tribunal hearing.
Evidence of the visa applicant
Prior to the hearing the following evidence was submitted in support of the application for review:
·     Representative’s submission received on 7 July 2019;
·     Statement of the applicant (signed, undated) received on 7 July 2019;
·     Statement of Ms Bista (signed, undated) received on 7 July 2019;
·     Statement of witness Jyoti Karki dated 7 July 2019;
·     Statement of witness Raymond Noel Nutt dated 12 June 2019.
The hearing
The applicant confirmed he and Ms Bista came to Australia in order for her to study. Ms Bista was already a nurse in Nepal but according to the applicant the situation there was not good. The applicants have a daughter in Nepal who is living with relatives. The applicant was previously in the Nepal army and spent time in Dubai. He said he and Ms Bista lived together for about a year after their marriage before coming to Australia.
According to the applicant when he and Ms Bista arrived in Australia, his wife began her studies and was also working part-time. The applicant found a job on a tomato farm and initially the couple were living in a guest house. The applicant was asked about the circumstances that led to his visa being cancelled and he agreed there were grounds for cancelling his visa but claimed it was a mistake. The applicant was asked about the first incident that occurred that led to him being charged with a criminal offence. The applicant said he returned from work about 5.30pm and was unable to locate some nail cutters. During a “small discussion” with his wife the applicant said she shouted at him and because he was worried about other people overhearing, he put his hand over her mouth. However, the applicant said he went out of the room and neighbours called the police. According to the applicant his wife was accidently hurt and he claimed it could have occurred when his nail scratched her nose. The applicant denied he had punched or hit Ms Bista. He said when police arrived he was outside and after questioning Ms Bista, he was taken away. The applicant said he was granted bail and later had to attend court and pay a fine. He confirmed there was no conviction recorded but he was “not to repeat any kind of act for a year”. The Tribunal asked the applicant what he understood the conditional release order to mean. He said he was not to do anything like it again and he had decided he would not repeat the act. After being apart from Ms Bista for a week, the applicant said they carried on living together as before.
According to the applicant, the relationship between him and his wife is very good. However, on the second occasion in which Ms Bista was assaulted, he had a day off while his wife had to go to work at her job in aged care in the afternoon. The applicant said he decided to go out with friends but Ms Bista told him not to and they had “a bit of a discussion”, during which she grabbed him. The applicant claimed he tried to get rid of her grip and in doing so; his arm may have “hit her a bit”. Because he did not want to argue, the applicant said he went out but the police came and arrested him. The applicant denied Ms Bista was injured at the time but said she had threatened to call the police if he went out, and because he did go out, she followed through with her threat. The applicant said he was not sure why she did this.
The Tribunal put it to the applicant that he appeared to be minimising what had occurred which was at odds with written submissions in which he claimed he was prepared to take responsibility for his actions. The applicant repeated he did not know why Ms Bista called the police but said “maybe she forgot we are married and have a daughter, I don’t know”. The applicant was asked why he allowed another incident to occur after the first charge against him. The applicant said Ms Bista had texted him to say she was going to call the police if he went out but had not told him to his face. The Tribunal put to the applicant Ms Bista had called police because he had assaulted her but he denied this was the case.
Regarding the proceedings against him the second time, the applicant advised he was fined and given an 18 month order “not to do anything”. He claimed Ms Bista was not injured but then said she hurt her cheek which may have occurred during the incident. According to the applicant, he did not know what his wife told police at the time but he was arrested. The applicant stated that since then, he and his wife have been living together without incident.
The Tribunal asked the applicant what he accepted had occurred during the second incident. He said he should not have engaged in a quarrel or discussion with his wife and should have done what she told him. He said he accepted what had happened and that was a mistake that would not happen again. The applicant said because he has a daughter, he will not quarrel with, or upset his wife again. The Tribunal put it to the applicant that he was meant to refrain from any such behaviour after the first incident. The applicant assured the Tribunal there would not be a third incident. Regarding the fact the two incidents were quite together, the applicant said he agreed but maintained it was a misunderstanding based on not spending much time together, which he said was not the case now. The applicant advised that at the relevant time he did not realise the consequences for his visa but he understands now. The applicant advised he did not have legal representation when he appeared in court over the two incidents.
The Tribunal discussed with the applicant the criteria to be considered in deciding whether to exercise the discretion to cancel the visa. Regarding any compelling need to remain in Australia, the applicant said he is very sorry for what happened in the past. He said if he gets a chance to stay in Australia, he will do good things. The applicant claimed that when he was first married he and Ms Bista did not get to spend much time together and he had returned to Nepal after having problems in Dubai. They decided to come to Australia for a good life and have left their child in Nepal. The applicant said he is in Australia to support his wife emotionally and financially and they are both still working.
The applicant was asked about any hardship that may result from the visa being cancelled. He said there would be problems if the couple are required to live far from each other. Specifically the applicant said they have a daughter who they want to bring to Australia and he is concerned about the time period before he can come back. The applicants’ child is currently cared for by Ms Bista’s parents. The applicant added that it would be struggle for his wife if he is not able to stay and support her financially and emotionally.
The Tribunal referred the applicant to the possible legal consequences of his visa being cancelled. He said he understood but did not want to comment on the criterion specifically. The applicant concluded by saying he accepted all of his mistakes and assured the Tribunal it would not be repeated. He asked for a chance to prove that he is good now.
Evidence of the witness - Susmita Pokharel Bista
Ms Bista confirmed the reason she and the applicant came to Australia, which was for her to study. After they arrived, the couple thought they would like to stay in Australia because Nepal is not secure financially and they were thinking about theirs and their child’s future. Ms Bista began studying and first worked as a housekeeper while the applicant was also employed.
According to Ms Bista, the first incident was a long time ago and she did not remember all the details. However, she said it was getting late and they were arguing about the applicant wanting something done straight away. It was claimed the applicant hit her with his arm, while trying close her mouth. She said she did not know how she got bruising around her eyes because the applicant did not hit her, just pinched her nose, however, she screamed and someone came to help. The police were also called and attended the scene.
Ms Bista said the applicant was not convicted of any offence but an AVO was issued. After a few days or a week, they resumed living together and moved out of the guest house into accommodation with friends. Ms Bista was asked about the second incident and she said she was under pressure due to assignments, a work placement and a new job in aged care which meant they did not spend much time together. She explained that at the relevant time, the applicant was leaving their residence and because she wanted him to stay, she took hold of him and he slapped her on the face. According to the witness she did not know whether it was intentional or not, however, she called the police and told them what had happened.
Ms Bista was asked if she was aware a conviction could have implications for the applicant’s Student Visa and she said she had not known initially. Ms Bista said she was hoping to get a temporary graduate visa after her studies and wants to apply for permanent residency. She said she did not know how the two incidents occurred as the applicant is her greatest support. Ms Bista said she thought the applicant was missing his child and wanted some space, which she did not give him. The Tribunal put it to the witness that bringing their daughter to Australia could put more strain on them and she said they had decided to only do so after Ms Bista finishes her studies and they are more financially secure. She said they would be able to manage and if not, they could bring her mother to Australia.
Regarding any hardship if the visa is cancelled, Ms Bista said the applicant is her biggest emotional and financial support and apart from those incidents, is honest with her. She said she has not thought about the negative legal consequences and because she is still positive, they have not discussed what they will do if the visa is cancelled. In conclusion, the witness said any decision made will affect lives and needs to be considered. The Tribunal asked Ms Bista for any comments on the need for people to be protected from assault and not subjected to physical harm. She said she agreed but declared that in this case they can fix the problem.
The Tribunal expressed concern regarding submissions in written evidence that the applicant was not affected by drugs or alcohol at the time and noted that while this would not amount to an excuse for such conduct, in this case it indicated the applicant had acted as he did while in a rational and sober state when he should have been able to control his behaviour. Ms Bista said she believed the applicant was under stress because they were new to the country. The Tribunal said it was concerning the applicant had reacted so strongly over relatively minor matters as described. Ms Bista said she did not take domestic violence to be minor and the Tribunal clarified it was referring to the cause of the argument being a minor matter. The witness said the applicant had changed his behaviour.
The representative submitted that regarding the need to protect vulnerable people, the last incident happened in January and it is now July so over the last six or seven months there have been no problems and no further violence. He said that most significantly, Ms Bista has identified a pathway as a nurse after graduation and it will be fairly easy for her to get registration. Her course has cost $58,000 and they have spent $30,000 to date. He said it would make sense for her to finish her course and take a pathway to permanent residency. If the applicant’s visa is cancelled, the couple will be separated for a lengthy period. Regarding their daughter, she would either have to stay in Nepal with the applicant or live in Australia with Ms Bista, but either way, she would be away from one parent. Alternatively Ms Bista could return to Nepal but would lose the money spent on tuition as well as lose the time spent here. The couple would have to rebuild their lives in Nepal and it would be a harsh outcome. It was submitted that importantly, the visa cancellation will primarily disadvantage Ms Bista.
The representative referred to the applicant’s witness Mr Nutt who was available to speak to the Tribunal but the Tribunal was prepared to accept the written submission of that witness. The representative otherwise relied on what had been provided in the written submissions.
For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision to cancel the applicant’s visa should be affirmed.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
Under s.116 of the Act, the Minister may cancel a visa if he or she is satisfied that certain grounds specified in that provision are made out. Relevantly, to this case, these include the ground set out in s.116(1)(g). If satisfied that the ground for cancellation is made out, the decision maker must proceed to consider whether the visa should be cancelled, having regard to all the relevant circumstances, which may include matters of government policy.
Does the ground for cancellation exist?
A visa may be cancelled under s.116(1)(g) if the Minister is satisfied a prescribed ground for cancelling the visa applies to the applicant. The prescribed grounds for cancellation are set out in r.2.43 of the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations). In the present case, the ground in r.2.43(1)(oa) is relevant.
Regulation 2.43(1)(oa) states that in the case of the holder of a temporary visa, the visa may be cancelled if the visa holder has been convicted of an offence against a law of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory. The Subclass 500 Student Visa held by the applicant is a temporary visa. On 4 February 2019 the applicant was convicted of assault occasioning actual bodily harm, common assault and contravention of an apprehended domestic violence order in New South Wales. The applicant did not dispute that grounds for cancellation exist in his case.
For these reasons, the Tribunal is satisfied that the ground for cancellation in s.116(1)(g) exists. As that ground does not require mandatory cancellation under s.116(3), the Tribunal must proceed to consider whether the visa should be cancelled.
Consideration of discretion
There are no matters specified in the Act or Regulations that must be considered in the exercise of this discretion. The Tribunal has had regard to the circumstances of this case, including matters raised by the applicant, and matters in the Department’s Procedures Advice Manual (PAM3) ‘General visa cancellation powers’.
· the purpose of the visa holder’s travel and stay in Australia, whether the visa holder has a compelling need to travel to or remain in Australia
The applicant came to Australia as a dependent on his wife’s Student Visa. The couple were married in Nepal and after deciding Ms Bista would undertake post-graduate studies in Australia, the applicant accompanied her to provide financial and emotional support. On the evidence before it, the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant’s original intention to travel to and stay in Australia was to support his wife’s study.
During the Tribunal hearing the applicant was asked whether he considered he had a compelling need to remain in Australia. The applicant expressed remorse for his actions and requested a chance to stay. He advised that when he was first married he and Ms Bista did not get to spend much time together after he returned to Nepal from Dubai. They decided to come to Australia for a good life and have left their child in Nepal. The applicant said he is in Australia to support his wife emotionally and financially. In written submissions it was claimed Ms Bista has no support network in Australia other than the applicant and because she plans to work as a nurse, there is a continuing need for the applicant to remain in Australia.
The Tribunal is not satisfied the applicant’s claims demonstrate a powerful or convincing reason for needing to stay in Australia. On the evidence provided Ms Bista has been engaged in part-time employment while studying and there is no indication she could not continue. Although Ms Bista would be without the applicant, it appears she does have some support in Australia. There is a witness statement from a friend, Jyoti Karki who states that she keeps in touch with Ms Bista and she and her husband socialise with the couple. It will be a matter for the parties themselves to decide whether Ms Bista continues her education in Australia without the applicant in the country. Although there will be necessary adjustments to be made, it, the majority of students in Australia support themselves without a partner accompanying them and there would be nothing to prevent the applicant continuing to support his wife from Nepal if she makes the decision to remain.
Ms Bista submitted her husband is her emotional support in Australia; however, the fact that the applicant was responsible for two separate assaults against her indicates his presence has also been detrimental. Given the circumstances the Tribunal considers that at times the applicant would have been a disruption to Ms Bista’s studies and her emotional well-being rather than a support. For the above reasons, the Tribunal is not satisfied the applicant has a compelling need to remain in Australia and places no weight in his favour when assessing this criterion.
· the degree of hardship that may be caused (financial, psychological, emotional or other hardship)
Regarding the degree of hardship that may be caused by the applicant’s visa being cancelled, the applicant said there would be problems if the couple are required to live apart and it would affect their plans to bring their daughter to Australia. The applicant also claimed it would be a struggle for his wife if he is not able to stay and support her financially and emotionally. Ms Bista declared the applicant to be her emotional and financial support in Australia. She asked the Tribunal to consider that any decision made will affect their lives. The representative submitted on behalf of the parties both in writing and at the hearing that it is Ms Bista who will be most adversely affected by the decision to cancel the applicant’s visa. She is undertaking post-graduate studies and plans to apply for a temporary graduate visa, with a view to eventually applying for permanent residency. The representative also referred to the cost of the course Ms Bista is undertaking and the amount of money paid so far which is significant.

The Tribunal has assessed the evidence and submissions regarding the degree of hardship that will be caused to the parties if the applicant’s visa is cancelled. Ms Bista will be able to continue her studies as she holds a Student Visa and the applicant may be able to continue to support her financially if he is employed in his home country. However, her decision whether to apply for a temporary graduate visa at the conclusion of her studies and plans to eventually apply for permanent residency in Australia will be impacted by the applicant not having a visa and not being able to remain in Australia with her. As submitted, it will also affect any plans they had for their daughter. The Tribunal accepts that there will be a considerable degree of hardship for the family resulting from the applicant’s visa being cancelled and has given weight in favour of the applicant in this regard.
· circumstances in which ground of cancellation arose. If cancellation is being considered because of relationship breakdown, whether the relationship has broken down as a result of family violence. The guidelines indicate that as a general rule, a visa should not be cancelled where the circumstances in which the ground for cancellation arose were beyond the visa holder’s control
In this case, the circumstances in which the ground of cancellation arose were not due to family violence in the context of a relationship breakdown. It occurred due to family violence within a continuing marriage, specifically because the applicant was convicted of assault, and assault occasioning actual bodily harm against his wife, Ms Bista. According to the evidence, there were two separate incidents in which the parties argued and the issue between them was escalated by the applicant to the point of violence.
Both parties gave evidence as to what occurred, and the reasons for it. It was claimed the applicant was under pressure because they were new to the country, he was working in difficult conditions on a tomato farm, the couple had not been able to spend much time together due to their busy schedules and the applicant was missing his daughter in Nepal. In his written statement and in the representative’s submissions, the applicant takes responsibility for his behaviour and there are references to “heated arguments” and being “deeply ashamed”. However, at the hearing the applicant minimised his actions on both occasions referring to it as a mistake. He described the arguments between himself and Ms Bista as “discussions” and denied knowing how she had been injured or why she called police on the second occasion. Ms Bista stated quite clearly that the applicant had slapped her, although she claimed it may have been by accident. Nevertheless, on both occasions the police were called and the applicant was charged with criminal offences. On the second occasion convictions were recorded against him.
Two witness statements were provided in evidence from the applicant’s employer and from a friend of both parties. Mr Raymond Nutt is the manager of the farm where the applicant works and declares that despite being aware of the applicant’s domestic violence offending, he has “formed a positive view” of him. He refers to the applicant being a good worker who is respectful to his colleagues and in terms of employment, is deserving of a second chance. The Tribunal accepts the evidence of Mr Nutt but notes he makes no claims to know the applicant personally or socially. Mr Nutt has only been able to assess the applicant’s character as an employee, one of 60 workers on the farm and for this reason, the Tribunal places minimal weight on his evidence. The second witness is Ms Jyoti Karki, a friend of the applicant and Ms Bista who is also from Nepal. Ms Karki has resided with the couple and gives a positive assessment of the relationship based on her social interactions with them. She expresses surprise about the domestic violence incidents that occurred as she considered them to be a polite, normal couple. The witness refers to Ms Bista’s favourable comments about her husband in terms of their domestic partnership. The Tribunal accepts Ms Karki’s assessment of the applicant based on her observations and places some weight on her evidence in favour of the applicant.
The Tribunal has assessed the evidence in this case, taking into account the witness statements, and finds the circumstances in which the ground for cancellation arose weighs heavily against the applicant. This is because there were two incidents of violence that occurred in a short period of time due to arguments over minor matters such as Ms Bista not procuring a household item that the applicant wanted immediately, and an argument about the applicant going out with friends. The applicant did not learn from the first incident that his behaviour is not only unacceptable but is criminal, and has serious consequences. The applicant claimed in his written statement he was not affected by drugs or alcohol and does not require counselling. Instead it was claimed the applicant was stressed by his work, by being new to Australia, by not spending much time with his wife and missing his child. The Tribunal considers these are part of the vicissitudes of life that many people experience and they do not explain, excuse or justify the applicant’s behaviour, even if the parties themselves consider it to be an aberration.
When asked how she can be sure such behaviour will not reoccur, Ms Bista, responded in general terms declaring that the applicant has changed and she remains positive about the future. In addition the representative noted that the last incident occurred in January 2019 and as of July 2019, nothing further has happened. The Tribunal has taken note of this evidence but finds the offending by the applicant occurred more than once, it was violent in nature and took place in a domestic setting where the victim should feel safe. In addition it resulted from disputes over minor matters. No amount of frustration or daily stresses justifies a violent response against a partner. For these reasons, the Tribunal finds the circumstances in which ground of cancellation arose weigh against the applicant in the Tribunal’s consideration of whether to exercise its discretion to cancel the visa.
· past and present behaviour of the visa holder towards the Department
There is no evidence before the Tribunal to indicate the applicant has not cooperated with the Department.
· Whether there would be consequential cancellations under s.140
There is no evidence before the Tribunal that there would be any consequential cancellations under s.140 of the Act.
· Whether there are mandatory legal consequences, such as whether cancellation would result in the visa holder being unlawful and liable to detention, or whether indefinite detention is a possible consequence of cancellation, or whether there are provisions in the Act which prevent the person from making a valid visa application without the Minister’s intervention
The cancellation of the visa means that the applicant could potentially become an unlawful non-citizen liable for detention and removal from Australia. The applicant would be subject to s.48 of the Migration Act which would limit his options for applying for a visa. In future the applicant would also have to satisfy Public Interest Criterion (PIC) 4013 which may prevent the grant of a visa for up to three years. However, those are the intended consequences of the legislation and are not sufficient reason for the applicant’s visa to not be cancelled
· Whether any international obligations, including non-refoulement and best interests of the children as a primary consideration, would be breached as a result of the cancellation
There is no evidence before the Tribunal that the cancellation of the applicant’s visa would result in Australia breaching any international obligations. On the evidence submitted the applicant’s daughter lives with extended family members in Nepal and the parents are able to return to their home country to be with her if they choose to.
· If it is a permanent visa, whether the former visa holder has strong family, business or other ties in Australia
The Subclass 500 Student Visa is not a permanent visa.
· any other relevant matters
The Tribunal has carefully considered the submissions made in this case regarding the impact the cancellation of the applicant’s visa will have on the victim of the violence, Ms Bista. On behalf of the applicant it was submitted:
The underlying purpose of preventing family violence and punishing perpetrators is to protect the psychological, physical and financial well-being of victims. In the present matter, the practical effect of a visa cancellation decision is that it punishes primarily the applicant’s wife, the victim of family violence. If an unfavourable decision is made, she is the one who must decide between giving up on her studies and future career progress in Australia, thereby also losing $30,000, or staying in Australia but being forced to live separately from her husband and potentially her daughter for an extended time period. Both of these situations are extremely harsh on the applicant’s wife.
There is no doubt that as well as being the victim of family violence, Ms Bista has had to endure the uncertainty around her husband’s ability to remain in Australia and the affect this will have on the plans she had for the future. The Tribunal sympathises greatly with her in this regard. However, it can be argued that an adverse outcome that will necessarily affect Ms Bista is not a valid reason for the applicant not to be penalised. If the applicant’s visa were not cancelled, the Tribunal would be concerned about his demonstrated propensity to react violently when under stress that has already resulted in criminal convictions. The applicant and Ms Bista advised they had been hoping to bring their daughter to Australia but were not planning to until Ms Bista finishes her studies and they are more financially secure. The Tribunal referred during the hearing to the extra stress that can occur in a family when caring for a small child in addition to daily responsibilities. It was claimed they would be able to manage and if not, they could bring Ms Bista’s mother to Australia. This indicates the couple would need help taking care of their child and may put more strain upon them.
Although the effect of the visa cancellation upon Ms Bista is most unfortunate and will result in some difficult decisions being made, based on the applicant’s past behaviour, the Tribunal has ongoing concerns for the future, particularly if the couple were to bring their daughter to Australia. The idea that they may need to bring Ms Bista’s mother to Australia to help care for their child reinforces the Tribunal’s concerns that this would add additional stress to the relationship. For this reason, the adverse consequences for Ms Bista do not outweigh the reasons in favour of the Tribunal exercising the discretion to cancel the applicant’s visa.
Conclusion
The Tribunal has assessed the applicant’s circumstances individually and cumulatively. Although there are some aspects in the applicant’s case that weigh somewhat in his favour, on balance, the Tribunal is satisfied that the majority of considerations weigh heavily against the applicant. The offences for which the applicant was convicted were serious; there were two incidents that resulted in assault and on one occasion, actual bodily harm to Ms Bista. The Tribunal considers the applicant exhibited a disregard for Australian law, particularly after the first incident when no conviction was recorded. For the reasons outlined in this decision, the Tribunal considers it appropriate in this case to exercise the discretion to cancel the visa.
Considering the circumstances as a whole, the Tribunal concludes that the visa should be cancelled.
DECISION
The Tribunal affirms the decision to cancel the applicant’s Subclass 500 (Student) visa.
Wendy Banfield
Member

[2019] AATA 3627

5 August 2019

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Administrative Law

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Procedural Fairness

Statutory Construction

Remedies

Intention