BPKX and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, and Multicultural Affairs (Migration)

BPKX and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, and Multicultural Affairs (Migration) [2022] AATA 3686 (2 November 2022)
Division:GENERAL DIVISION
File Number: 2022/6593
Re:BPKX
APPLICANT

AndMinister for Immigration, Citizenship, and Multicultural Affairs
RESPONDENT

Decision
Tribunal:Senior Member D. J. Morris
Date:2 November 2022
Place:Melbourne

Pursuant to s 43(1)(c) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, the Tribunal sets aside the reviewable decision of 31 May 2022 cancelling the Applicant’s visa.
In substitution for the decision so set aside, the Tribunal decides that the Applicant’s Refugee (subclass 200) visa is not cancelled.
........................................................................
Senior Member D. J. Morris
Catchwords
MIGRATION – applicant held Refugee (Subclass 200) visa – visa cancelled under s 501(2) of Migration Act – does applicant pass character test – if not should discretionary power to cancel visa be exercised – what is the country of reference – applicant found to be entitled to citizenship of South Sudan – ministerial Direction No. 90 – offending as a child – decision in Thornton distinguished – primary considerations – serious offending in groups but applicant not generally principal offender – other considerations – decision under review set aside and new decision substituted
Legislation
Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth), s 35
Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), s 85ZR
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 36(2B), 499, 500, 501
The Nationality Act, 2011 (South Sudan)
Transitional Constitution of South Sudan (South Sudan), Art 45(1)
Youth Justice Act 1992 (Qld), s 184
Cases
FYBR v Minister for Home Affairs (2019) 272 FCR 454
Plaintiff M1/2021 v Minister for Home Affairs [2022] HCA 17
Thornton v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2022] FCAFC 23
Secondary Materials
Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade – DFAT Country Information Report – South Sudan, dated 5 October 2016
Migration Act 1958 – direction under s 499 – Direction No. 90 – Visa refusal and cancellation under s 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under s 501CA (commenced 15 April 2021)
REASONS FOR DECISION
Senior Member D. J. Morris
2 November 2022
BACKGROUND

The Tribunal made an order under s 35 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 prohibiting the publication of the name of the Applicant in these proceedings. He will be known as ‘BPKX’. Certain other details that might tend to identify him, such as the names of members of his family, will be anonymised. Where a document is quoted which contains his name, the anonym will be substituted.
BPKX was born in the Republic of Sudan in December 1999, in an area of the country that, after partition in 2011, became the territory of the Republic of South Sudan. When he was very young – he says around nine months old – his parents moved with the family to Egypt. The family consisted of his mother and father, the Applicant and three sisters.
At the age of four, BPKX arrived in Australia with his family as the holder of a Refugee (subclass 200) visa. This visa is a class of visa where the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has referred the person to Australia for resettlement. His parents, sisters, nieces and nephews and some other relatives reside in Australia. Some are Australian citizens.
The Applicant has committed criminal offences in Australia, which will be discussed in further detail below. On 1 June 2019, the Department of Home Affairs (‘the Department’) wrote to the Applicant with a notice regarding the possible cancellation of his visa under s 501(2) of the Migration Act 1958 (‘the Act’). There was further correspondence from the Department to BPKX in September and December 2019 and again in February 2020.
BPKX was invited to comment on the possible cancellation of his visa and was given copies of documents setting out his criminal offending and some media articles regarding the ‘Blood Drill Killers gang’.
There were further exchanges of correspondence between the Applicant and the Department. In June 2021, the Department provided BPKX with sentencing reasons from the County Court of Victoria in early 2021 and a transcript of proceedings before the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria. He was invited to comment on this information.
On 31 May 2022, a delegate of the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs cancelled BPKX ’s visa under s 501(2) of the Act. For a reason not obvious in the papers, this decision was not notified to the Applicant until he was sent a letter, delivered by hand, dated 11 August 2022.
On 15 August 2022, the Applicant applied to the Tribunal for a review of the 31 May 2022 decision.
HEARING
The Tribunal conducted a hearing on 24 October 2022. BPKX represented himself, made submissions and gave oral evidence. He was questioned by Ms Tegan Weir of HWL Ebsworth Lawyers, representing the Respondent. The Applicant did not call witnesses and said he was prepared for statements he had submitted to suffice.
The Respondent submitted a Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions (‘RSFIC’) dated 6 October 2022. The Applicant submitted submissions prepared for him by Refugee Legal. The Tribunal had regard for both of these documents. Other evidence was admitted as exhibits and is listed in the annexe to these reasons.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the Tribunal reserved its decision. The Tribunal confirmed with the parties during the hearing that the eighty-fourth day under s 500(6L) of the Act in relation to this review is 3 November 2022. The Tribunal must make a decision on or before that date; otherwise, the reviewable decision is taken to have been affirmed by the Tribunal.
Questions before the Tribunal
The first question to determine is whether BPKX fails the character test. If the Tribunal is satisfied that he does not, then the discretion to cancel the visa under s 501(2) was not enlivened, and the visa should be restored. If BPKX does fail the character test, the next question is whether the discretion should have been exercised to cancel his visa.
Does the Applicant pass the character test?
Section 501(6)(a) of the Act provides that a person does not pass the character test if the person has a ‘substantial criminal record’ as defined by s 501(7). The Tribunal notes a nationally coordinated criminal history check by the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission dated 12 May 2021 (‘ACIC Report’, GD, pp 54-46). The ACIC Report relevantly records that in early 2021 the Applicant was convicted by the County Court of Victoria of the offences of Theft and Aggravated Burglary – person present. He was sentenced to an aggregate of 524 days’ imprisonment. This offending occurred when the Applicant was an adult.
Finding on the character test
The Tribunal finds that BPKX failed the character test because he has a substantial criminal record by virtue of the convictions in early 2021 referred to in the previous paragraph. Having made that finding, the next question is whether the Minister (through his delegate) should have exercised the discretion to cancel the Applicant’s visa under s 501(2) of the Act.
Threshold question – the country of reference
The Applicant, in his opening submissions, said he was born in ‘South Sudan’. The RSFIC asserted that he is a citizen of South Sudan. Ms Weir confirmed to the Tribunal that was the Minister’s contention.
In his Personal Circumstances Form submitted to the Department, BPKX said that he was born in the City of Bor in Jonglei State at the end of 1999. The Tribunal is satisfied to accept this and to note, as a matter of fact, that Bor is within the Republic of South Sudan, which was created in July 2011 by the partition of Sudan.
BPKX told the Tribunal in his oral evidence that he was a citizen of South Sudan and was from the Dinka tribe. Ms Weir noted that in the Personal Circumstances Form, BPKX had written: “I left my country of birth at the age of 2 and moved to Egypt so my parents could pursue Australian visas”. In his oral evidence, BPKX said he was recently told he was taken to Egypt when he was around nine months old. The Tribunal notes that in other parts of the form, BPKX states he is a citizen of ‘Sudan’ and wrote about prospects if he is returned to ‘Sudan’.
In response to a direct question from the Tribunal, the Applicant agreed that he and his parents are from what is now South Sudan and, consequently, that is the country to which he understood he would be returned if his visa is not restored.
The Tribunal notes that the Transitional Constitution of the Republic of South Sudan, 2011 provides, at Article 45(1):
Every person born to a South Sudanese mother or father shall have an inalienable right to enjoy South Sudanese citizenship and nationality.
The Nationality Act, 2011 (South Sudan) provides that a person born before or after the Act has entered into force shall be considered a South Sudanese National by birth if (a) the parents, grandparents, or great-grandparents of the person, in the male or female line, were born in South Sudan, or (b) the person belongs to one of the indigenous ethnic communities of South Sudan. It was not in contest that BPKX satisfies both of these stipulations: both of his parents were born in territory that now forms part of the Republic of South Sudan, and he is a member of the Dinka indigenous ethnic community.
The Tribunal, therefore, finds that BPKX is a citizen of the Republic of South Sudan, and that is the country of reference in terms of the destination if his visa is not restored.
Should the discretion be exercised to cancel the visa?
Section 501(2) of the act provides that the Minister may cancel a visa that has been granted to a person if the Minister reasonably suspects that the person does not pass the character test and the person does not satisfy the Minister that the person passes the character test.
In this case, it was not contested by the Applicant that he was sentenced to serve a period of 524 days’ (i.e., 18 months’) imprisonment by the County Court in March 2021. He, therefore, fails the character test on the basis of having what the Act defines as a ‘substantial criminal record’. That activates the basis of the discretionary power.
To decide whether the discretion should be exercised, the Tribunal must have regard to any direction made by the Minister under s 499 of the Act. On 8 March 2021, the previous Minister made a direction, Direction No. 90 (‘the Direction’). The Direction commenced on 15 April 2021.
The Direction sets out, at paragraph 5.2, principles that should be taken into account, to the extent that they are relevant, in deciding whether to cancel a non-citizen’s visa. Part 2 of the Direction sets out considerations which must be taken into account in considering whether to exercise the discretion in s 501. The considerations are grouped as ‘primary’ considerations and ‘other’ considerations. Paragraph 7(2) of the Direction states that primary considerations should generally be given greater weight than the other considerations. There is consistent Federal Court authority that any consideration in the Direction can be determinative.
It is also relevant to remember that the Tribunal is not confined only to the primary and other considerations. Any other articulated claim that may be relevant to the particular circumstances of a non-citizen, which is also relevant to the scope and purpose of the Act, should be taken into account.
Primary consideration: Protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct (paragraph 8.1)
The nature and seriousness of the conduct
As mentioned above, the ACIC Report dated 12 May 2021 was before the Tribunal (GD, pp 54-56). It reveals that, in the relatively short period between March 2017 and April 2021, BPKX has managed to amass some 35 charges dealt with by, first, the Children’s Court of Victoria and, more recently, the County and Magistrates’ Courts. The Tribunal is obliged by the Direction to take into account, without limiting the range of conduct that may be considered very serious, whether the Applicant has committed violent or sexual crimes, crimes of a violent nature against women or children, or acts of family violence.
Among the offences of which the Applicant has been convicted was the offence of Armed robbery, in November 2017; Assault in company and Assault by kicking, in February 2018; Armed robbery, and Aggravated burglary – offensive weapon, in September 2018; and Aggravated burglary – person present, in March 2021 (the offence that triggered the visa cancellation).
The offence that triggered the visa cancellation
The circumstances of the conviction for Aggravated burglary – person present were that BPKX was one of a group of young men who decided early one morning to steal a motor car from the driveway of a private house. It was sometime before 6 a.m. Some of the group entered the garage of the house and took gardening tools: an axe, a large sledgehammer, and large pair of shears (SGD, p 531). They smashed the back door of the house and went in. The house was occupied by an 80-year-old man, Mr M; his 56-year-old wife, Mrs M, and their 27-year-old daughter who has Down syndrome. They were all asleep.
Mrs M was woken by a noise. She went to investigate. In her living room, she found three young men, one was holding the sledgehammer and the other what she thought at the time was a machete, but which turned out to be the gardening shears. Mrs M asked what they wanted. One of the group demanded her car key and ushered her into the spare room, with a threat. Mrs M gave the key to one of the group.
The group then ran out of the house. BPKX and another young man had remained outside at the front of the property. This was all captured on closed circuit television. The Applicant then joined the group. They got into Mr and Mrs M’s car and drove off. Mrs M called the police. An off-duty police officer saw the car being driven fast and it was ultimately found parked at a house in another locality. The Applicant and the others were at a party at that house, but they ran off when the police arrived.
Of the other group, one pleaded guilty to the offence of an aggravated home invasion. He was sentenced to four years of youth detention. Two others who entered Mr and Mrs M’s house were sentenced for the same offence. One received three and a half years in a youth justice centre and the other two years and nine months in a youth justice centre. The other member of the group, who, like BPKX, had stayed outside, was aged 16 and convicted of aggravated burglary and theft of a motor vehicle and other offences. He was sentenced to nine months in a youth justice centre, affirmed on appeal.
The Tribunal finds on the evidence in the ACIC Report that the Applicant has committed violent crimes, and there is one crime where the victims were a woman, Mrs M, and her adult daughter. There is no evidence of sexual crimes, crimes against children or acts of family violence.
Other offending and relevance of decision in Thornton
The ACIC Report lists a range of other offending by BPKX. He had four appearances before the Children’s Court of Victoria: in March 2017; November 2017; February 2018 and September 2018. He appeared before the County Court of Victoria once in 2019 and once in 2021. He also appeared before the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria in April 2021.
Ms Weir submitted that the Full Court decision in Thornton v Minister for Immigration,Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (‘Thornton’) [2022] FCAFC 23 is not relevant to BPKX’s offending as a child, because Thornton is restricted to offending committed as a child in Queensland.
The Full Court consideration in Thornton turned on the intersection between s 184 of the Youth Justice Act 1992 (Qld) and s 85ZR of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) in cases where a minor has been before a Court, and the Court has made a determination on charges but not recorded a conviction. The Full Court held, in short, that because of the wording in the relevant Queensland statute, such offending is taken to be akin to a pardon, i.e., never to have occurred, and so such offending would be an irrelevant consideration in terms of a visa cancellation review. BPKX has no offending recorded in Queensland, and the Tribunal notes that, after his first appearance before the Children’s Court of Victoria in March 2017, he appeared before the Children’s Court in that State on three more occasions. On two of these occasions, in November 2017 and February 2018, BPKX was convicted of a large number of offences. On the third occasion, he was before the Children’s Court, in September 2018, no conviction was recorded. Because of the absence of any offending in Queensland, the Tribunal finds that the decision in Thornton is not relevant to this decision.
However, in any event, the Tribunal does not place significant weight on offending where the Children’s Court has determined not to record a conviction, which is the case for the charges BPKX faced in March 2017 and September 2018 before that Court. In the second case, however, because of the preceding convictions on earlier occasions when he had been in Court, this offending does represent continued serious misconduct by the Applicant.
As mentioned, after the early 2017 appearance, every subsequent Children’s Court appearance except for one in September 2018 has led to convictions. The Applicant has been sentenced to several periods of detention in Youth Justice Centres.
It is clear that, for a relatively young man, BPKX has amassed a criminal record of which he has nothing to be proud. He has also breached good behaviour bonds and several times committed indictable offences while on bail. This shows an alarming willingness to disregard the orders of the Courts.
The Direction states that the Tribunal must take account of the sentence imposed for a crime or crimes. I find that the Applicant has had several sentences of youth detention and an eighteen-month aggregate sentence in adult confinement.
The Tribunal must also take account of the frequency (paragraph 8.1.1(1)(d)) of the non-citizen’s offending. I find that BPKX has offended relatively frequently in the period 2017 to 2021. I also find that there has been a trend of increased seriousness. In terms of paragraph 8.1.1(1)(e), there is a cumulative effect of repeat offending.
Paragraph 8.1.1(1)(f) of the Direction requires that the Tribunal must have regard to whether the Applicant has provided any false or misleading information to the Department and whether he has offended since being warned or otherwise made aware of the possible consequences of further offending in terms of his migration status. There is no evidence of this before the Tribunal.
Ms Weir took the Applicant to the ACIC Report, and he accepted it was an accurate record of his offences. She then asked him about offending which occurred in November 2016 where he took his aunt’s car (GD, p 60). The Applicant acknowledged that he took the car without the owner’s permission at a time when he was not licensed to drive. He changed the number plates on the vehicle. His explanation was: “I didn’t want my auntie to get into trouble if I got a fine, she’d get a fine.”
Ms Weir referred to a Victoria Police preliminary brief which set out that BPKX’s aunt was asleep when he took her car sometime after midnight on the day in question. He drove to pick up five young males. A police officer intercepted the car and noted it was displaying New South Wales number plates, but that other number plates were on the back seat, and they matched the other details of the vehicle in the database accessible to the police. The officer found several items in the car: a large kitchen knife, two screwdrivers, a wrench, a torch, and a pair of blue gloves. Ms Weir asked the Applicant about these items. He told the Tribunal that most of the items, except the gloves and torch, were not his, and had been brought to the car by the others “because a lot of kids carry weapons to look tough”. This is at odds with the police report, where it states that BPKX told the police that all the items were his.

Ms Weir then took the Applicant to a Victoria Police letter setting out details of an incident in September 2017. Early one morning, the Applicant, in company with five others, went to a service station. They disguised themselves with balaclavas, gloves, and hoods. The attendant who was working at the service station saw three of the group, including BPKX, approach the door, so he pressed the duress alarm and locked himself in a rear storeroom.
BPKX admitted smashing the door with his boots, entering the service station shop, and stealing cash and cigarettes. He said the other members of the group were two males and two females and told the Tribunal they were not Sudanese, but Aboriginal. He said he had met some of them in youth detention, and the others earlier that day.
BPKX said they then drove to Geelong. The police gave chase. The police record states that several police units and the police air wing were involved (GD, p 59). Police found a tray with 49 packets of cigarettes, a cash register, two pairs of gloves and a hammer at a house in Geelong. The Applicant and two others were arrested. The Applicant agreed that this offending led to a sentence of six months’ youth detention.
When questioned about the aggravated burglary of Mr and Mrs M’s house, the Applicant said he did not know who lived at the residence. Ms Weir took him through what went on inside the house, as recited by the sentencing Judge, which he accepted.
The sentencing Judge stated (GD, p 90):
Your counsel informed me that on the occasion of this offending, you had work, you did not go into the house because you really did not want to be involved in this offending but you were not mature enough to remove yourself from the premises, instead hung around and joined your friends again when they got into the stolen car.
The Applicant was taken to an incident report dated 6 March 2020 (GD, p 81). This related to a group accosting a motorist. One of the group demanded the keys to the car. The driver resisted and was stabbed in his thigh. He immediately retreated from the car, into the path of others, who were standing nearby. The group took the car away. Later, the car was located by the police. The driver heavily rammed a police vehicle up to six times. BPKX was not the driver, but said he was in the front passenger seat.
The Applicant admitted that this incident occurred when he was on bail for the aggravated burglary offence. He said he was in a stolen car which was intercepted by the police but he had no involvement prior and “thought it was a friend’s sisters’ car”. He agreed that the driver drove at a police vehicle and that, once the police had deployed tear gas, he had got out of the car. He agreed he received 90 days’ imprisonment for his involvement in this incident, which founded the offence of Theft of motor vehicle.
In the Magistrates’ Court transcript before the Tribunal (GD, p 98), the police prosecutor explicitly stated that BPKX was not involved in the carjacking. She stated:
BPKX does not become involved until much later when he appears as a passenger in the stolen vehicle and that’s the basis for his primary charge before the court today of theft of motor vehicle.
BPKX was also charged with committing an indictable offence on bail. In terms of the car chase and the subsequent ramming of police vehicles, the police prosecutor told the Court that the Applicant was not in control of the vehicle nor complicit in the attempted ramming of police or damage to the police vehicle. She stated: “The extent of their [i.e. BPKX and a co-accused’s] involvement at this point in time is their presence in the stolen vehicle and Your Honour it’s on that basis that BPKX is pleading guilty to the charge of theft of motor vehicle…”
A consistent vein running through the Court submissions and sentencing remarks in relation to the Applicant is that he has been involved with other co-offenders, generally not as the principal offender, but equally not as a person apparently caught up in offending by others where he had little choice. He did have choices, and he exercised them very badly, especially in the company he kept. His role on many of these occasions was more than acquiescent; he knew he was part of an offending group. I find that he has been involved in serious offending.
The risk to the Australian community should the non-citizen commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct
The Direction states that 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. The Direction states that some conduct and the harm that would be caused, if it were repeated, is so serious that any risk that it may be repeated is unacceptable.
Paragraph 8.1.2 requires the Tribunal to have regard to the nature of the harm to individuals or to the Australian community if the Applicant engages in further criminal or other serious conduct, and the likelihood of him so engaging.
The Applicant, in his oral evidence, said he was remorseful for his actions. He said that most of his offending has happened through being in a group, and “not where I went away on my own and committed a crime”. He said he used to stay out late and hang around with people who were not working. He said that he had stopped doing that, prior to his visa being cancelled and him being taken into detention.
BPKX said he was in the community from April 2021 to August 2022 and did not commit any offences, and lived with his parents and two nieces in the family home. He said that he still went out, such as to the movies, and has friends who have never been involved in criminal activity. He said, “I understand I must avoid others.”
If permitted to stay in Australia, BPKX said he now has his driver’s licence restored and should be able to get a job in construction. He said he planned to “continue to do what was working for me. Spend time with my nieces and nephews and better myself.”
BPKX said:
I have learned that, in a lot of stuff I did, I hadn’t thought about the people around me, the people I’ve affected. I have to mature. I won’t be a kid forever. Even though I didn’t go inside [in respect of the aggravated burglary offence], it still was just as bad. I later found out that one of the victims was a senior lady with a medical condition. It could have been my Mum. I’m pretty sure she had a daughter who I think also had a medical condition. I wasn’t taking accountability before. I see people in adult custody and met others not providing for their families and not contributing. I don’t want my life to be like that.
…
I’ve never been convicted of home invasion. My only car offence is disqualified driving. I think my prospects [of not re-offending] are better, because there is no drug or alcohol abuse or mental health abuse.
The Tribunal put directly to BPKX the following remarks of a psychologist, Ms Gina Cidoni, who prepared a report for the Court. The sentencing Judge read part of the report into her sentencing remarks. Ms Weir had earlier put the same passage to the Applicant. It said (GD, p 91):
He presented with an underdeveloped sense of identity and connectedness to prosocial relationships and pursuits. He appeared to be impressionable and had difficulty disconnecting himself from negative peers. He was unable to problem solve effectively.
The Tribunal noted that BPKX was older than most of his co-accused, and explained to him that, in more lay terms, Ms Cidoni was saying that he was easily led by others, and that he did not undertake positive activities such as sport or work, but instead associated with others who offended.
BPKX accepted that this was an accurate assessment of how he had found himself offending in the past. In answer to a direct question from the Tribunal, he said that he had disconnected from all social media except for something called ‘Snapchat’, which he said he used to keep in touch with his sisters. The Tribunal asked the Applicant if he knew why he had been asked this question. He said, he did, and it was because he knew he should not associate with former bad elements.
In his closing submissions, the Applicant cavilled with Ms Weir’s suggestion that he had been involved in a home invasion. He said, correctly, that he had never been convicted of, or charged with, any offence of home invasion. Ms Weir submitted that this was a technical argument. The Tribunal agrees. I pointed out to BPKX that he was involved in a sequence of events where a family who was entitled to feel safe in their home found a group of intruders – who had armed themselves – inside, having broken in. They made threats and then stole the family car.
The Tribunal accepts that BPKX himself was never inside the house. That is reflected in the charges laid and the much lighter sentences he and the other lookout got. But, as he volunteered at the hearing, he should have done more to prevent the events from unfolding, rather than ‘just standing by’. Her Honour, the sentencing Judge, said (GD, pp 91-92):
I am satisfied…you are an immature young man who…, even though you are older than your other co-offenders, is someone who has been far [too] easily influenced by negative peers and have basically got yourself involved in offending as a result of the antisocial friends that you have been knocking around with and you are far too influenced by what they do. The offending at [Mrs M’s, which] has brought you before this court in, my view, is almost a classic example of this.
You did not even want to do it. You removed yourself from the most violent and serious part of the offending but you did not go away and you got into a stolen car and now, as I have said, you find yourself in adult custody which you described to me on the plea hearing as horrible, which it undoubtedly is and facing deportation. I am satisfied you are aware of the seriousness of your situation and I have explained to you during the hearing…the way in which any court in the future will regard you should you offend again, that is you will only ever be sent to gaol.
The Judge took into account time served, the Applicant’s age, the fact that he had a stable and supportive home environment, and that he had become involved in, rather than initiated, the offending.
The Respondent submitted that BPKX has undertaken rehabilitation while in prison. The Tribunal notes that the Applicant has tendered certificates in traffic control and civil construction plant operations, which have been admitted into evidence. The Judge also referred to him undertaking a certificate in carpentry when he was in youth detention. He told the Tribunal that he also undertook a drug and alcohol course while incarcerated, “even though I don’t have a problem”, but said he was glad that he did it.
The Judge also noted (GD, pp 90-91):
You appear to have done well in gaol. You worked in the prison kitchen for about nine months and for the last three months you have been working as a welder making cattle yards. You work most days from 8.30 to 11.30 and in most afternoons you are able to do overtime from 1.30 until 3 pm. And you saved $750 for your release.
You are currently being housed in [redacted] which is a privileged unit for well-behaved prisoners. There have been no incidents since you have been at [redacted] Prison when you went in April 2020. In October 2020 you voluntarily applied for the JETTS program which is a supportive program run by Jesuit Social Services. It is specifically designed to support young African youth who are in custody, you have had visits from them. It is also your intention to re-join counselling at Foundation House. I have received positive reports, as I have already said, from both Foundation House and from Jesuit Social Services JETTS program. They are willing to take – continue on with you.
You have undertaken some study, certificate work in completing a TAFE course in carpentry. You have a partially completed Certificate III in Civil Construction and it is your hope that one day you will work in carpentry. You lost your job, obviously, as a result of this offending. You have continued to have contact with your family, you intend to go back and live with them on your release from prison.
Overall, I am impressed with the way in which you have conducted yourself in gaol. You have obviously behaved yourself. You have behaved in a constructive way for yourself, you have undertaken programs, you are working, you have saved money…I also received a positive report from your psychologist, Michael Bilic, who is well known to this court.
In his Personal Circumstances Form submitted to the Department (GD, p 157), the Applicant wrote about his criminal history:
One main factor that I would like the decision maker to take into account is that when I first started offending I was only 17. I was young and did not understand what I was doing would leave a long ever lasting impact on not just my victims, but also my community, my family and me. What I can tell you is that I have done a lot of growing since then, most my conviction I willingly pleaded guilty so that I can learn from my time in Juvenile and move on with my life…Since being in the system I have enrolled to Kangan Institute and completed various courses and enrolled in numerous courses. On the outside I’ve previously started a carpentry course as well as a civil construction course.
(Minor spelling errors corrected.)
In terms of risk, the RSFIC submitted that the Applicant has a lengthy criminal history amassed over a relatively short period with an increasing escalation or pattern of offending. It noted the Magistrates’ Court remarks that BPKX was heavily influenced by his peers and appeared to lack the maturity to disengage with those who were seeking to engage in criminal history.
The Respondent also submitted that a letter from Victoria Police (GD, p 57) indicated that the Applicant is known to have links to a youth gang, namely the ‘Blood Drill Killers’. When this was put to BPKX, he flatly denied being involved with any gangs. The following relevant exchange occurred:
Ms Weir:            You are sometimes persuaded with groups of peers to offend?
BPKX:Yes. That’s fair. I haven’t woken up saying I’m going to break into someone’s house.
Ms Weir:            Do you know of gangs with young men your age?
BPKX:Heard about them on the news. I heard about them in JD. People close to me. Not part of that. They go about doing graffiti tags.
Ms Weir:            Did you associate with gangs?
BPKX:               Wouldn’t say associate. I met people linked with other people in JD.
Ms Weir:            In the community?
BPKX:               No.
Ms Weir:            You are not part of the Blood Drill Killers?
BPKX:               No. I was in detention then. I had stayed working at that time.
Ms Weir:           So, you say you were not involved with gangs when offending?
BPKX:               Yes.
There is insufficient information before the Tribunal for any positive finding that BPKX is a member of a gang, except a finding to say that the history of the Applicant’s offending is that he has engaged with offending with other groups of young male co-offenders, not always the same people. Sometimes these people have had Sudanese antecedents, but some have not.
The Tribunal is satisfied that the Applicant has been involved in a string of criminal offending, some of which has been particularly detrimental to the community, especially the car chase outlined above, and the invasion of Mr and Mrs M’s house. In each case, BPKX was not the principal offender, but it would be fair to characterise him as being a willing participant, which is reflected in the offences for which he was convicted. The nature of harm which would eventuate if BPKX continued to offend in this way, even if he continued not to be the main offender but part of a group of offenders, is obvious: people in their workplaces or homes would be affected, and their property stolen or damaged, particularly motor vehicles.
The Respondent contended there is a significant risk of BPKX engaging in further criminal acts. The Tribunal finds there is a risk, and it is a real risk. There is some evidence that the Applicant has seen the error of his ways, notably the 16 months from his last Court appearance to when his visa was cancelled in August this year, and he entered migration detention. For part of this period, BPKX was engaged in correspondence with the Department related to the possibility of cancellation of his visa. No doubt this had a salutary effect. The Applicant’s evidence and submissions to the hearing are that he knew the peers with whom he has associated were bad for him. It is difficult to be confident about the depth of BPKX’s understanding that he should not consort with such people in the future. Going in his favour is his positive conduct in prison, as referred to in detail by the Judge, his engagement in courses to improve his employability, and his lack of offending in the period before he entered migration detention. I accept that BPKX has come to this realization, but he should know that this is a critical factor for him in the future: which path to go down?
The Tribunal finds that this consideration weighs in favour of exercising the discretion to cancel the visa. However, the weight is tempered by the positive reports which were before the Judge and which Her Honour referred to; the Applicant’s conduct in prison; the fact that he committed no offences between being released from custody and being taken into immigration detention, a period over a year.
Primary consideration: Family violence committed by the non-citizen (paragraph 8.2)
The Direction requires the Tribunal to consider whether a non-citizen has been convicted of any offence or had charges proven that involve family violence. The Respondent submitted that there is no evidence that BPKX has engaged in family violence.
The Tribunal agrees with this submission and therefore finds that this primary consideration weighs neutrally in this assessment.
Primary consideration: Best interests of minor children in Australia affected by the decision (paragraph 8.3)
The Direction requires decision-makers to make a determination as to whether non-revocation is or is not in the best interests of a child affected by the decision. To be considered under this part, a child must be aged under 18 at the time of the decision. Where there are more than two relevant children, the best interests of each should be given individual consideration to the extent that their best interests may differ.
The Tribunal must take into account various factors set out in paragraph 8.3(4) of the Direction, where relevant. These include whether the Applicant has a parental relationship with the children; the extent to which he is likely to play a positive role; the impact of prior conduct on the child or children; the likely effect separation would have on the children; and whether there is another person or persons who fulfil a parental role. In addition, any known views of the child or children should be taken into account.
The Applicant has submitted that there are six nieces and nephews who reside in Australia and to whom he is close. They are: FM, who is aged 15; SM, who is 13; OO, who is 6; EM, who is also 6; DO, who is 6; and HK, who is aged 3.
BPKX says that he took care of FM when FM’s parents were at work, when the Applicant himself was a minor, and was more an older brother than an uncle to him. In his oral evidence, he told the Tribunal that two of his nephews, OO and DO, currently live with his parents (their grandparents), because their mother is unable to care for them. Accordingly, he has a closer relationship with them because they have all lived in the same household.
BPKX said that he speaks to his sisters twice a week by telephone and that often their respective children also speak to him during these calls. He said when he speaks to his parents, which he said was every second day, he will also speak to OO and DO if they are available.

The Tribunal accepts that the Applicant has a close relationship with all his nieces and nephews. However, it is not a parental relationship. They all have their own parents and grandparents who care for them. The Respondent contended that the Tribunal should give consideration to the possible adverse consequences to these minor children if BPKX engaged in offending behaviour in the future.
There is no evidence of BPKX engaging in any offending ‘at home’ or at the homes of his sisters. In addition, as the Respondent concedes, it has been found that the Applicant has engaged in no family violence conduct. The problem for the Applicant is not this sort of offending, it is going off with antisocial peers who are ready to offend in other ways.
The Tribunal does not consider the slightly closer relationship the Applicant has with FM and with OO and DO merit a distinguishing determination in relation to them, because their best interests are not significantly at variance with the best interests of the others. I consider that these six children will be disappointed if BPKX is removed from Australia, and there would probably be a greater effect on their parents and maternal grandparents, which might trickle down to them. But given the Applicant does not play a parental role, the relative weight of this determination is tempered.
The Tribunal finds that this primary consideration weighs in favour of not exercising the discretion, but not heavily so.
Primary consideration: Expectations of the Australian Community (paragraph 8.4)
Paragraphs 8.4(1) and (2) of the Direction state:
(1) The Australian community expects non-citizens to obey Australian laws while in Australia. Where a non-citizen has engaged in serious conduct in breach of this expectation, or where there is an unacceptable risk that they may do so, the Australian community, as a norm, expects the Government to not allow such a non-citizen to enter or remain in Australia.
(2) In addition, 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 is such that the Australian community would expect that the person should not be granted or continue to hold a visa.
…
The Direction highlights specific categories of identified offences: 8.4(2)(a) – acts of family violence; 8.4(2)(c) – commission of serious crimes against, inter alia, women and children; 8.4(2)(d) – commission of crimes against government representatives due to the positions they hold, or in the performance of their duties. The Australian community’s expectation is taken to be a ‘norm’. The word ‘norm’ means of a ‘standard’ or ‘pattern or type’. A superseded version of the Direction (‘Direction No. 65’) contained generally similar wording to paragraph 8.4 and was considered by the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia in FYBR v Minister for Home Affairs (2019) 272 FCR 454 (‘FYBR’). The Court held that it is not for a decision-maker to make a personal assessment of what the ‘expectations’ of the Australian community may be. The expectations articulated in the Direction are ‘deemed’; they are what the executive government has declared are its views, not what a decision-maker, including this Tribunal, may seek to derive by some other evaluative or balancing process.
Direction No. 90 was issued by the then Minister after FYBR and imports the statement that the expectations of the Australian community are to be considered as a ‘norm’, which acknowledges the approach taken by the plurality of the Court in FYBR. Therefore, while the expectations of the community are ‘deemed’ to weigh against an applicant (a position accepted by the parties in this matter), the relative weight will be affected by circumstances in the individual case.
The Tribunal considers that the weight of the deemed expectations of the community would take into account that BPKX has been resident in Australia since the age of four. The vast majority of his life, and all his adult life, has been in Australia. However, he has also offended for a large part of his adult life, in fact, until relatively recently. He is only 22.
Some of the offending has been particularly bad, even though he has been found not to have been the principal offender in the worst of it. But he has nonetheless been part of groups that have committed property and personal offences.
The Tribunal finds that this primary consideration weighs in favour of cancelling his visa. However, in the specific circumstances of this case, having particular regard to BPKX’s age and his youth during much of his (Children’s Court) offending, and the time he has spent in Australia, the weight that the Tribunal attaches to this general expectation is lessened.
Other consideration: International non-refoulement obligations (paragraph 9.1)
The Direction states that a non-refoulement obligation is an obligation not to forcibly return, deport or expel a person to a place where they will be at risk of a specific type of harm. It goes on to say that Australia has non-refoulement obligations under the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees as amended by the 1967 Protocol (i.e., the Refugees Convention), the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (‘the CAT’), and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and its Second Optional Protocol (‘the ICCPR’). The Act, particularly the concept of ‘protection obligations’, reflects Australia’s interpretation of non-refoulement obligations and the scope of the obligations that Australia is committed to implementing. Accordingly, in considering non-refoulement obligations where relevant, the Direction exhorts decision-makers to follow the tests enunciated in the Act.
The Respondent acknowledges that the Applicant has made claims to fear harm upon ‘return’ to South Sudan, which are relevant, while noting he can apply for a protection visa. The RSFIC noted the High Court of Australia decision in Plaintiff M1/2021 v Minister for Home Affairs [2022] HCA 17, where the majority stated at [39]:
Where the cancelled visa is not a protection visa and a decision-maker defers assessment of whether non-refoulement obligations are owed to permit a former visa holder to avail themselves of the protection visa procedures provided for in the Migration Act, it nevertheless may be necessary for the decision-maker to take account of the alleged facts underpinning that claim where those facts are relied upon by a former visa holder in support of there being “another reason” why the Cancellation Decision should be revoked.
In his oral evidence, BPKX was asked what he felt about the prospect of being deported to South Sudan. He responded: “I have no connexion or bond. I wasn’t raised there. I don’t know anyone there. There are barriers [for me] even though I am of the same appearance. It is scary to think of. I hear there are still wars and killings and there are still flood as well.”
These remarks are properly better considered later in these reasons, in relation to the extent of impediments if the Applicant was removed to South Sudan. Of themselves, they do not articulate a claim of actual or real harm, personal to the Applicant, except to his claim that he would be singled out as a ‘foreigner’ because of his unfamiliarity with local mores, localities, and the general milieu.
The Tribunal notes that there is no indication of whether or not the Applicant might apply for a protection visa. However, it is likely he will if the reviewable decision is affirmed. At that stage, a much more considered examination of non-refoulement claims would be able to be carried out by officers of the Department with specialized expertise, and the Applicant himself would be able to make further representations. In the time constraint imposed by s 500(6L) of the Act, I am unable to delve as deeply as might be desirable into other claims which were made to the Department on BPKX’s behalf.
Refugee Legal, in a letter written to the Department on behalf of the Applicant in October 2020, submitted that non-refoulement obligations in relation to South Sudan are owed to BPKX under the Refugees Convention because of his ‘imputed political opinion’ on account of his perceived opposition to armed groups because of his Dinka ethnicity and his family fleeing from Sudan to Egypt and then Australia, and in relation to his race on account of his Dinka ethnicity. This letter also raised membership of particular social groups, namely ‘Young men at risk of forcible recruitment by armed groups; Persons perceived to be wealthy in South Sudan; Persons perceived to be foreign; and Returnees from Australia’. The letter further submits that BPKX would suffer harm on return to South Sudan.
While there are some general references to the civil situation in South Sudan developed in this letter, the Tribunal has been unable to undertake the detailed assessment that might be warranted. On the face of it, it would appear that Dinka’s ethnicity, by itself, would not axiomatically lead to a risk of real harm for the Applicant. The current Government of South Sudan is dominated by Dinka. The DFAT Country Information Report – South Sudan (‘CIR’) dated 5 October 2016 states, at paragraph 2.9, that soon after independence, Dinka made up 35.8 per cent of the population, the largest of the ethnic groups in South Sudan, and more than two times larger than the Nuer, at 15.6 per cent. Paragraph 3.7 of the CIR goes on to say:
Overall, DFAT assesses that Dinkas living in conflict-affected areas face a high risk of societal discrimination and violence, given the significant ethnic-dimensions of the current conflict as well as their geographic proximity to the conflict. In Juba, Dinkas face a low risk of being targeted on the basis of their ethnicity because the Dinka-dominated Government currently has almost unencumbered control over Juba.
The Applicant was born in Bor, so it is possible he might face a higher level of discrimination and violence there than if he resided in the capital. Section 36(2B) of the Act relates to whether a non-citizen will suffer significant harm in a country and states that it will be taken for there not to be such a risk if it would be reasonable for the non-citizen to relocate to an area of the country where there would not be that risk (for instance, Juba).
There is a lack of independent evidence which would provide more support to the specific risks the Applicant would face if returned to South Sudan. As such, it is not possible, on the necessarily less in-depth assessment the Tribunal has been able to make, to decide that his claims rise to the level of enlivening Australia’s international non-refoulement obligations. I, therefore, find that this consideration weighs neutrally. The Tribunal will consider the claims later in relation to impediments if the Applicant was deported to the Republic of South Sudan.
Other consideration: Extent of impediments if removed (paragraph 9.2)
The Direction requires decision-makers to consider the extent of impediments a non-citizen may face if removed from Australia to his home country in establishing himself and maintaining basic living standards in the context of what is generally available to other citizens of the country. The Tribunal must consider the Applicant’s age and health, any substantial language, or cultural barriers and social, medical, and/or economic support available to him if repatriated.
In his oral evidence BPKX said he was in good health. He said he had no memories of Sudan, which is not surprising given his infancy when his family moved to Egypt. He told the Tribunal that he could understand Dinka but not speak it, except for a few words. He said that, at home, he speaks English, and his mother responds to him in Dinka. In answer to a direct question from the Tribunal, he said that he could speak a little Arabic. The Tribunal notes that the official language of the Republic of South Sudan is English but accepts that a lack of fluency in Dinka might mark BPKX out as a newcomer.
A written statement from the Applicant’s sister was in evidence (Exhibit A3). She said that the family knows no one in Sudan. She stated, regarding her brother:
He doesn’t know any of the language in Sudan, he wouldn’t fit anywhere – he would definitely be in danger as a result of this. I know they say English is the national language, but it is not. There is no way that BPKX could ever seek help with his mental health in Sudan. I fear his mental health would deteriorate significantly. It would be like being in prison for him because he wouldn’t know how to live.
The Applicant’s mother also provided a written statement (Exhibit A4). She relevantly stated:
If BPKX is returned to South Sudan he would not be okay. He arrived in Australia as a child. He does not know Dinka, or any other language spoken in Sudan or South Sudan. He doesn’t know anyone and we do not have any relatives left over there who could look after him. There is nobody in South Sudan and we have never been back.
The Respondent submitted that the Applicant is likely to face hardship if removed from Australia to South Sudan and further accepted that this consideration is likely to weigh in his favour.
In his written submissions, the Applicant claimed that he might face particular risks of harm based on his Dinka ethnicity, the fact that he is a young man who might be forcibly recruited by an armed group, that he might be perceived to be ‘wealthy’ because he had arrived from a western and more affluent nation, and that he might be perceived to be foreign. BPKX himself articulated that in his oral evidence, noting that while he has the appearance of a South Sudanese, as soon as he spoke, his unfamiliarity with the country would be obvious.
In written submissions, it was noted that the Applicant has lived in Australia since the age of four – a period now of some 19 years, and that he has had no connexion with anyone in South Sudan in that time. This would appear to be corroborated by the written statements of his mother and sister. When Ms Weir asked BPKX about any family in South Sudan, he responded that he had been told that some members of his father’s extended family live in Kenya and Uganda, but all his mother’s family had died.
The Tribunal is satisfied to find that this consideration weighs very heavily in favour of restoring the Applicant’s visa. The length of time BPKX has been in Australia, and his lack of facility with Dinka would, in the Tribunal’s view, highlight to anyone in South Sudan that he is a newcomer. If this is coupled with a misconception that, ergo, he is wealthy, it is reasonable, with the backdrop of a volatile state, even in the capital Juba, to conclude that he could be targeted for criminal attention.
In addition, while the Tribunal has found that the Applicant is entitled to citizenship of the Republic of South Sudan, there is no evidence before the Tribunal that any steps have been taken by or for him to attain it. There would therefore be administrative hurdles for BPKX to jump because he would need to satisfy the South Sudanese Government of the ethnicity of one or both of his parents to obtain citizenship and then a passport. The Tribunal does not have information on how long this would take but is satisfied that it would potentially take some weeks or months.
Other consideration: Impact on victims (paragraph 9.3)
The Tribunal interprets this part of the Direction as requiring some evidence of the impact on a victim of a non-citizen’s offending in a case where the victim has knowledge of the migration implications for the non-citizen. In the RSFIC, reference was made to the victim impact statement to the Court of Mrs M, which was in the papers. While there is no doubt that this makes affecting reading and reflects the traumatic consequences of what BPKX’s co-accused did that day in entering her house, there is no indication that Mrs M is aware of the migration status of the Applicant. This consideration, therefore, weighs neutrally.
Other consideration: Links to the Australian community (paragraph 9.4)
Sub-consideration: The strength, nature, and duration of ties to Australia
The Tribunal 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 the right to remain in Australia indefinitely.
The Tribunal must have regard to how long the Applicant has resided in Australia and his contribution to the Australian community.
The Applicant arrived in Australia in 2004, aged four. The Respondent accepted (RSFIC, paragraph 63) that this consideration weighs in BPKX’s favour because of his family ties in Australia: his parents, siblings, nieces, and nephews. The Tribunal notes that the Applicant’s father and older sister are Australian citizens, and his mother and one other sister are permanent residents. The written statements of his mother and one sister referred to above speak of how devastated they would be if BPKX was deported. The Court noted that the Applicant had a ‘hardworking, prosocial family’ (GD, p 93) who had been supportive of him in the past and continued to be.
Sub-consideration: Impact on Australian business interests
The Tribunal must consider any impact on Australian business interests if the Applicant is not allowed to remain in Australia, noting that an employment link would generally only be given weight where the decision under s 501 would significantly compromise the delivery of a major project or important service in Australia.
The Applicant gave evidence that he had been employed working in a fast-food franchise restaurant for a year when he was aged 15 to 16. He also did small jobs mowing lawns and worked in the warehouse of a pet food wholesaler. He also worked for nine months in the stock store of a company which distributes electronic goods to retailers. BPKX told the Tribunal that his father has worked in a warehouse job for 16 years, and he also worked for a time with him.
Although intermittent, BPKX’s employment is creditable, given his age and the amount of time he has spent in the last four years in either youth detention or on remand. However, the Tribunal finds that this employment history does not rise to the level envisaged by this part of the Direction.
Regarding this consideration overall, the Tribunal finds that this consideration weighs in favour of restoring the visa and assigns it very heavy weight.
SUMMATION
The Tribunal is required by the Direction to consider all the considerations in applying a weighing up exercise. Although the Direction exhorts decision-makers that primary considerations should generally carry more weight than other considerations, I note consistent Federal Court authority that any consideration can be determinative.
In this matter, the Tribunal has found as follows. The primary consideration relating to the protection of the Australian community weighs in favour of exercising the discretion to cancel the visa, even though there is a slight tempering. The primary consideration relating to family violence conduct is found not to be engaged and therefore weighs neutrally. The primary consideration relating to the best interests of minor children in Australia weighs in favour of the Applicant, but as he does not exercise a parental role, the weight is not strong. The primary consideration relating to the expectations of the Australian community favours cancellation, but not heavily so.
In respect of the other considerations, the one relating to Australia’s non-refoulement obligations weighs neutrally because a more detailed assessment has not been able to be undertaken in the statutorily limited timeframe. The consideration which considers the extent of impediments if the Applicant was removed to South Sudan weighs very heavily in his favour, as does the consideration relating to links to the Australian community. The consideration relating to the impact on victims is not engaged and weighs neutrally.

The Tribunal has carefully considered the Applicant’s offending. Weighing against him is the number of convictions in a relatively short period of time. However, weighing in favour of a more compassionate treatment of him in considering the discretionary power is that almost all of the offending was committed as a minor, and the Judge’s strong remarks that his conduct in prison and professional assessments before her show a positive change in attitude. Added to this is the extended period in the community where the Applicant has not offended. As set out above, in two objectively serious offences, the invasion of Mr and Mrs M’s house, and the events which led to the car chase, the Applicant was involved but not the principal offender. In each case, he received significantly lighter penalties because of the extent of his involvement. However, a common theme has been BPKX’s weakness to capitulate to peer group pressure, where those peers are setting off to commit antisocial and, sometimes, violent crimes.
The Tribunal concludes that the weight of the considerations relating to the extent of impediments if BPKX was removed to South Sudan and the links he has with Australia are determinative in this matter. But he faces a fork in the road: if he commits further offences as an adult, a completely different complexion will be able to be given to his criminal record. Young people are entitled to more benefit of the doubt when their offending has mainly been before the juvenile justice system, where a focus is on reform and the maturity of the offender. The Applicant has involved himself in courses and works in prison. He has a reasonable employment record in the community. He has supportive parents and other family members. He seems to understand that he must break any association with others who have more serious criminal histories and who, as he candidly said in his submissions, have less to lose in the sense that they are Australian citizens who are not liable to be deported.
Having made the finding above, the Tribunal finds that the discretion available in s 501(2) of the Act to cancel the visa should not have been exercised.
DECISION
Pursuant to s 43(1)(c) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, the Tribunal sets aside the reviewable decision of 31 May 2022 cancelling the Applicant’s visa.
In substitution for the decision so set aside, the Tribunal decides that the Applicant’s Refugee (subclass 200) visa is not cancelled.

I certify that the preceding 126 (one hundred and twenty-six) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Senior Member D. J. Morris

........................[SGD]................................................
Associate
Dated: 2 November 2022

Date of hearing:

24 October 2022

Applicant:

Self-represented

Advocate for the Respondent:

Ms Tegan Weir

Solicitors for the Respondent:

HWL Ebsworth Lawyers

Annexe – List of Exhibits
Exhibit R1                  G-documents (‘GD’) lodged on 31 August 2022
Exhibit R2                  Supplementary documents (‘SGD’) lodged on 6 October 2022
Exhibit A1                   Statement of Applicant dated 27 October 2020
Exhibit A2                   Statement of Applicant dated 19 October 2022
Exhibit A3                   Statement of AK lodged on 19 October 2022
Exhibit A4                   Statement of MB lodged on 19 October 2022
Exhibit A5                   Email to Applicant of Statement of Attainment, dated 22 July 2022
Exhibit A6                   Certificate in Traffic Control dated 13 July 2021
Exhibit A7                   Certificate III in Civil Construction (part 1), dated 21 January 2022
Exhibit A8                   Certificate III in Civil Construction (part 2), dated 21 January 2022
Exhibit A9                   Certificate III in Civil Construction, dated 15 July 2022

[2022] AATA 3686

2 November 2022

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Administrative Law

Statutory Interpretation

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Natural Justice

Procedural Fairness

Jurisdiction

Statutory Construction

Remedies

Date of hearing:	24 October 2022
Applicant:	Self-represented
Advocate for the Respondent:	Ms Tegan Weir
Solicitors for the Respondent:	HWL Ebsworth Lawyers