Canepa Uranga and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs (Migration)

[2022] AATA 2815

Canepa Uranga and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs (Migration) [2022] AATA 2815 (26 August 2022)

Division:GENERAL DIVISION

File Number:          2022/4793

Re:Andres Canepa Uranga

APPLICANT

AndMinister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs

RESPONDENT

DECISION

Tribunal:Senior Member D. J. Morris

Date:26 August 2022

Place:Melbourne

Pursuant to section 43(1)(a) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, the Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

........................................................................

Senior Member D. J. Morris

Catchwords

MIGRATION – where applicant is a citizen of the Oriental Republic of Uruguay – where applicant held Partner (subclass 100) visa – visa cancelled – where delegate of minister decided not to revoke the cancellation – review by Tribunal – ministerial Direction – primary considerations – protection of Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct – where applicant has been convicted of several armed robberies – where applicant also convicted of fraud – best interests of minor children in Australia – expectations of Australian community – extent of impediments if removed – links to the Australian community – decision under review is affirmed

Legislation

Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth), ss, 33, 33A
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 499, 501, 501CA

Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), r 2.55

Cases

FYBR v Minister for Home Affairs (2019) 272 FCR 454

Secondary Materials

Migration Act 1958 – Direction No. 90 – direction under s 499 – Visa refusal and cancellation under s 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa (commenced 15 April 2021)

Organization of American States (OAS) Inter-American Drug Abuse Control Commission (CICAD); Emerging Drugs and Early Warning System on Drugs (EWS) in the Americas; 11 February 2021 (accessed 23 August 2022)

REASONS FOR DECISION

Senior Member D. J. Morris

26 August 2022

BACKGROUND

1. Mr Andres Canepa Uranga is a citizen of the Oriental Republic of Uruguay. He was born in 1982. He first arrived in Australia in 2002 as the holder of a tourist visa. On 2 March 2015, he was granted a Partner (Subclass 100) visa. That visa was cancelled on 10 July 2020, under section 501(3A) of the Migration Act 1958 (‘the Act’) because a delegate of the then Minister decided that Mr Canepa Uranga failed the character test.

2. Mr Canepa Uranga was invited to make representations to a delegate of the Minister as to why the cancellation of his visa should be revoked. He did so on 28 July 2020. On 25 May 2022, the delegate decided not to revoke the visa cancellation.

3. Mr Canepa Uranga has brought that 25 May 2022 decision to the Tribunal for review, as he is entitled to do under section 500(1)(ba) of the Act.

4. On 1 June 2022 the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs was appointed to his office. On 1 July 2022 new Administrative Arrangements Orders were published assigning the administration of the Act to that Minister. He becomes the Respondent in this matter.

   The date by which the Tribunal must make a decision

5. The decision of 25 May 2022 was notified to Mr Canepa Uranga with a letter dated 26 May 2022, which was sent by post. The Applicant, in his application form to the Tribunal, said he received the decision on 7 June 2022. The Respondent submitted that as the letter accompanying the decision was dated 26 May 2022, Mr Canepa Uranga is deemed to have received it seven days after that date, on 6 June 2022.

6. Regulation 2.55(7) of the Migration Regulations 1994 (‘Regulation’) sets out ways a person can be notified of a decision not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of their visa. One way is for the notification to be sent by prepaid post and delivered to the residential address of the person (see Regulation 2.55(3)(c)(ii). In this case, the Tribunal is satisfied that the letter was sent by registered post to HM Prison Loddon, where Mr Canepa Uranga is incarcerated. The Respondent quoted Regulation 2.55(7), which relevantly reads:

   If the Minister give a document to a person by dispatching it by prepaid post or by other prepaid means, the person is taken to have received the document:

   (a) if the document was dispatched from a place in Australia to an address in Australia – 7 working days (in the place of that address) after the date of the document; …

   (Emphasis added.)

7. This means the clock starts on 27 May 2022 and ends on the seventh working day thereafter, which is 6 June 2022. It may be that prison authorities did not physically give Mr Canepa Uranga the notification until the following day, but the provisions in the Regulations are strict, so the Tribunal finds he is taken to have received the notification on 6 June 2022.

8. That finding means that the calculation of the eighty-fourth day (in section 500(6L) of the Act) from when a person is notified of the decision not to revoke the visa cancellation under section 501CA(4) of the Act is 29 August 2022. The Tribunal must make a decision before the end of that day; otherwise, the delegate’s 25 May 2022 decision is taken to have been affirmed.

   HEARING

9. A hearing was held on 16 August 2022 by video link, as is allowed under section 33A of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (‘the AAT Act’). The Applicant made submissions and gave evidence. The Respondent was represented by Mr Christopher Orchard of Sparke Helmore Lawyers. The Applicant called two witnesses who gave evidence by telephone: his de facto partner, Ms Cherelle McNally, and his former wife, Ms Rubenia Hernandez.

10. The Tribunal admitted into evidence documents listed in the annexe to these reasons. In addition, the Tribunal had regard to a Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions lodged by the Respondent. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Tribunal reserved its decision.

    QUESTIONS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL

11. There are two questions for the Tribunal to address. The first is whether Mr Canepa Uranga fails the character test. If the Tribunal is satisfied that he does not, then section 501CA(b)(i) of the Act provides that the cancellation of the visa is set aside, and that is the end of the matter. However, if the Tribunal finds that Mr Canepa Uranga fails the character test, the second question is whether the cancellation of his visa should be revoked for “another reason.”

    DOES THE APPLICANT PASS THE CHARACTER TEST?

12. Section 501(7)(c) of the Act provides that a person has a “substantial criminal record” if the person has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more. Section 501(3A)(a)(i) of the Act provides that the Minister must cancel a visa that has been granted to a person if the person has a “substantial criminal record” and is serving a sentence of imprisonment on a full-time basis in a custodial institution for an offence against the law of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory (section 501(3A)(b)).

13. Before the Tribunal was a nationally coordinated criminal history check by the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission dated 23 May 2020 (‘ASIC Report’, GD, pp 23-25). The ASIC Report relevantly records that on 23 August 2019, Mr Canepa Uranga was convicted in the County Court of Victoria of five counts of the offence of Armed robbery. He received an aggregate prison sentence of ten years. It was also not in dispute between the parties that the Applicant was serving a sentence of full-time imprisonment on the date his visa was cancelled.

    Finding on the character test

14. The Tribunal is satisfied based on this evidence that Mr Canepa Uranga does not pass the character test and that the delegate of the Minister was required to cancel his visa by operation of law.

    IS THERE ANOTHER REASON TO REVOKE THE VISA CANCELLATION?

15. Section 501CA(4)(b)(ii) of the Act provides that the Minister (or, in this case, the Tribunal standing in his shoes) may revoke the original decision if satisfied that there is ‘another reason why the original decision should be revoked’.

16. How the Tribunal must approach this question is guided by a direction that the previous Minister has made under section 499 of the Act.

    Ministerial Direction No. 90

17. Section 499 of the Act provides that the Minister may make directions which a person or body must consider in performing a function or exercising a power under the Act. Any such direction cannot be inconsistent with the Act, but a decision-maker must comply with a relevant direction under section 499(2) of the Act.

18. On 8 March 2021, the then Minister made a direction under section 499, Direction No. 90 (‘the Direction’), which commenced on 15 April 2021. The Tribunal must have regard to the contents of the Direction in considering whether there is “another reason” to revoke the mandatory cancellation. The Direction requires that some considerations must be taken into account where they are relevant. However, the Direction does not confine the Tribunal’s task; it must look at any other relevant factors in the circumstances of the case.

19. The Tribunal must consider the primary and other considerations in the Direction as relevant to Mr Canepa Uranga’s personal circumstances and his offending history.

    PRIMARY CONSIDERATIONS

    Primary consideration: Protection of the Australian community

20. Paragraph 8.1(2) of the Direction requires the Tribunal to consider the nature and seriousness of the non-citizen’s conduct and the risk to the Australian community should the non-citizen commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct.

    The nature and seriousness of the conduct

21. 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.   

    The offending which triggered the visa cancellation

22. Before the Tribunal was the sentencing remarks of His Honour Judge Ryan in the County Court of Victoria on 23 August 2019 (GD, pp 26-35). The Applicant was taken to these remarks in the hearing and said that he accepted the summaries of his offending and His Honour’s conclusions. The matters before the Court related to the jury convicting Mr Canepa Uranga of five charges of armed robbery.

    First offence

23. On 12 February 2017, the Applicant rode a bicycle up to a petrol station in a Melbourne suburb. He entered the shop attached to the petrol station, brandishing a weapon that appeared to be a handgun and which ultimately turned out to be an imitation firearm. He yelled “Give me all the money”. There were two staff working at the shop. One fled. The other handed over around $400 from the till. The Applicant then left on the bicycle.

    Second offence

24. On 21 May 2017, Mr Canepa Uranga went to a pharmacy in another Melbourne suburb. The victims, in this case, were the pharmacist and his female assistant. His Honour said:

    Upon entering the store, you walked directly to the counter, pointing your firearm at the pharmacist and saying, ‘Give me the money and no one will get hurt’. The pharmacist removed $300 from his wallet. You then made demands on the pharmacist to open the cash register, during which you held the imitation firearm to the pharmacist’s head.  At this time, your second victim [name redacted] was present at the counter. The victims handed over all the notes from the till. You demanded that your victims lie down on the floor while you exited the pharmacy.

    Third offence

25. On 18 June 2017, the Applicant went to another petrol station in a Melbourne suburb. He produced an imitation firearm and demanded money from the female station attendant. He stole $200 in cash before fleeing. 

    Fourth offence

26. The next day, he went to a pharmacy. A female pharmacist and her female assistant were present. He produced an imitation firearm and pointed it at the assistant, saying, “Give me the money”. She gave him cash from the till. Mr Canepa Uranga then demanded personal property from the pharmacist, who denied having anything in her pockets. He then left the pharmacy.

    Fifth offence

27. On 10 July 2017, the Applicant attended a milk bar in a Melbourne suburb. The proprietor was working behind the counter. The Applicant produced an imitation handgun and, in the words of the Judge, “menaced” the proprietor with it. He demanded money, and the owner gave it to him from the till. He then jumped over the counter and stole around $400 and some cigarettes. This offending was captured on closed-circuit television.

28. The Judge referred to the different effects on the victims. The victim in the fifth incident of offending was described by His Honour as a stoic. However, the female victims in the second and third offences provided impact statements which conveyed profound effects on them. One said that the robbery, trial, and cross-examination had a major effect. She had been unable to return to work and took two months’ leave. On return, she found she could not function at the expected level and was made redundant. Another said she was experiencing nightmares and was now too afraid to accept night shifts which had reduced her income.

29. Paragraph 8.1.1(1) of the Direction states that violent and/or sexual crimes and crimes of a violent nature against women and children are to be regarded as serious. There is no evidence that the Applicant has committed any offences that could be categorised as sexual crimes or crimes against children. However, the Tribunal takes the view that physical injury is not necessary for a crime to be violent, and each of the armed robbery counts of which Mr Canepa Uranga has been convicted may reasonably be categorised as violent offending. Several of the victims of his offending were women.

30. This part of the Direction requires the Tribunal to consider the sentence imposed by the Courts for a crime or crimes. As mentioned, the Applicant received an aggregate sentence of ten years’ imprisonment for the five counts on which he was convicted in August 2019.  This is reflective of the very serious view the Court took of this group of offences.

    Other offending – driving offences

31. The national coordinated criminal history check also lists other offending by Mr Canepa Uranga. In June 2009, he was convicted at the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria of driving while intoxicated and driving whilst disqualified. He was placed on a Community Based Order for eight months and disqualified from driving for 18 months.

32. In February 2010, he was back before the Magistrates’ Court and convicted of breaching the previous orders of the Court relating to the drink driving and driving whilst disqualified offences. He was sentenced to an aggregate of two months’ imprisonment, to be wholly suspended for two years.

33. On the same date, he was further convicted of the offences of Unlicensed driving (three counts); Drive whilst disqualified; Refuse to accompany to a station for a breath test; Drive whilst exceeding PCA (two counts). For these offences, he received an aggregate of six months’ imprisonment, partially suspended for two years with two months to be served.

34. In May 2015, Mr Canepa Uranga was convicted before the Magistrates’ Court of the offence of Drive whilst disqualified, for which he was sentenced to two months’ imprisonment, wholly suspended for 12 months.

35. In January 2017, the Applicant was back before the Magistrates’ Court in breach of the Court orders for the May 2015 sentence. In regard to the offence of Contravene Suspended Sentence Order, it was found proven. In regard to the other breach, the period of suspension of the sentence was extended by 24 months.

    Other offending – fraud offences

36. However, the ACIC Report before the Tribunal was incomplete. On 27 August 2019, in the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria, Mr Canepa Uranga pleaded guilty and was convicted of three counts of the offence of Fraudulently obtaining payment (GD, p 121). He was sentenced to nine months’ imprisonment on each count, to be served concurrently, and ordered to pay back $112,975 of payments fraudulently received.

37. The Applicant confirmed the circumstances of this offending during the hearing. He had been involved in a workplace accident and received a permanent injury to his left eye whilst working as a carpenter in 2015. There is evidence before the Tribunal that the accident was not Mr Canepa Uranga’s fault. He claimed compensation payments but secretly began working as a painter ten days after he began claiming payments. The fraud was uncovered in August 2018 when an independent medical expert contacted Mr Canepa Uranga’s doctor about a possible return to work. The doctor said he had not seen the Applicant since 2017 and had banned him from his consulting rooms after he had become aggressive and kicked in the doctor’s front gate. The Applicant in the hearing, in response to questions put to him by Mr Orchard, agreed that he had amended the medical certificates to continue to receive benefits. The delegate noted that when the police arrested the Applicant, they found a bundle of medical certificates, which they described as having been “illegally altered” where dates had been changed and covered over with sticky tape.

38. The Direction requires the Tribunal to consider the frequency of the non-citizen’s offending and whether there has been any trend of increasing seriousness. The Tribunal finds that Mr Canepa Uranga’s offending has been relatively frequent. The driving offences are not at the highest level, but where the Court had made orders, the Applicant has not always complied with them, which has led to further sanctions. Mr Canepa Uranga said one instance was that he was required to have an alcohol interlock fitted to his vehicle, which he did not do, and this breach was discovered when the police stopped him.

39. The fraud committed by the Applicant on Work Cover is also a serious matter. It shows a willingness to improperly obtain funds for personal benefit. It is not in dispute that the Applicant suffered a genuine and permanent eye injury, but he pretended that this injury prevented him from returning to work when he had secretly returned to paid employment.

40. But the most serious offending by the Applicant is the five counts of armed robbery, carried out, as set out above, over a five-month period from February to July 2017. The Tribunal finds, on a survey of Mr Canepa Uranga’s offending history, that there has been a trend of increased seriousness in the Applicant’s offending.

41. There is no evidence before the Tribunal that Mr Canepa Uranga has provided false information to the Department of Home Affairs or that he has re-offended after being formally warned by the Department or otherwise made aware of the potential effect of criminal offending on his migration status. There is also no evidence that the specific types of crimes or conduct set out in paragraph 8.1.1(1)(b) of the Direction are engaged.

42. The Tribunal finds that the Applicant’s armed robbery and fraud offences are very serious, and his drink driving offences are serious.

    The risk to the Australian community should the non-citizen commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct

43. The Direction states that decision-makers (including the Tribunal) 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.

44. It was apparent from Mr Canepa Uranga’s evidence that there were two main drivers of the armed robbery offences, and perhaps the fraud offences. The first impetus was for him to maintain the income he had become accustomed to, after his workplace injury. The second impetus was to fund an addictive drug habit.

45. Mr Canepa Uranga told the Tribunal that he had a heroin habit since around 2003. He said he had also taken cannabis and cocaine occasionally, but not regularly. He also said that he had begun using methylamphetamine (‘ice’) in the wake of his eye injury.

1. In the sentencing remarks, His Honour stated (GD, pp 31-32):

   You married Rubenia Fernandis [sic] in 2005. You have a daughter, [AF], now aged 13 years. As a result of this marriage, you were able to obtain permanent residency in Australia. Mr McGlone, on your behalf, informed me that you were introduced to illicit drug use by your brother-in-law, and it was during your marriage that you started to use heroin and cannabis. It was put on your behalf that your drug abuse contributed to the dissolution of your marriage. Subsequent to your industrial accident, you commenced to use methylamphetamine, or ice, and your habit as or about the time of your offending was approximately $150 per week. You also used cocaine sometimes. It is to be noted that you are prescribed methadone while in custody. In respect of alcohol, you commenced drinking at the age of 18 and were drinking heavily at the time of your divorce. You have a prior criminal history that principally involves drink-driving offences.

2. However, at the Tribunal hearing, Mr Canepa Uranga gave different evidence from the instructions he gave his counsel in the County Court. He volunteered to the Tribunal that he has had a heroin habit since around 2003. The Tribunal asked the Applicant whether a major problem for him at the time of his offending was the cost of his drug habit. He responded:

   Applicant: That was part of it. I said $150 per week so as not to affect the trial.

   Senior Member:  How much were you spending?

   Applicant: It could be $400 a week. Sometimes less.

   Senior Member: Mainly on ‘ice’?

   Applicant:  Yes. I was using heroin, too. When I started using ‘ice’ I get out of control.

3. Mr Orchard put to Mr Canepa Uranga that he initially denied the armed robbery offending and asked why. The Applicant responded: “I was advised to by my lawyer. He told me it was up to the police to prove my guilt. My lawyer said the evidence was weak”. Mr Orchard then asked the Applicant if that was the basis on which he pleaded not guilty to the armed robbery charges. Mr Canepa Uranga responded: “Yes. That’s why I got a big sentence.”

4. The Tribunal draws no adverse inference from this particular evidence from the Applicant.  He is perfectly correct that it is up to the prosecution to prove guilt, not the accused. However, the Tribunal further notes that Mr Canepa Uranga agreed without reservation at this hearing that the remarks of the sentencing Judge setting out the facts of the offending of which he was convicted by the jury were accurate.

5. There is no clinical assessment of the risk of re-offending by the Applicant, which is before the Tribunal. The sentencing Judge remarked that he had no insight into Mr Canepa Uranga’s prospects of rehabilitation and, therefore, could make no finding.

6. The Tribunal does, however, note that there has been a pattern of behaviour by the Applicant which illustrates a willingness not to comply with the law in relation to his driving offences, including his admission at the hearing that he failed to affix an alcohol interlock to his vehicle even though he knew that was a requirement. There is evidence in the ACIC Report of the Applicant refusing to accompany a police officer to a police station for a breath test, continuing to drive whilst disqualified and breaching the conditions imposed by a Court in relation to a suspended sentence. 

7. His willingness to defraud Work Cover appears essentially to be based on the fact that he was not earning the same income as before his eye injury, as well as to support his drug addiction. Ms McNally confirmed in her evidence that she was in receipt of social welfare benefits at the time. The Tribunal considers, with the Work Cover payments for a legitimate injury, the household should have been able to make ends meet, albeit perhaps not with the disposal income Mr Canepa Uranga had previously enjoyed. But he was prepared to return to work and not advise the workers’ compensation authorities, and as part of the subterfuge, falsified medical certificates that he was not working, leading to his conviction for fraud and a significant debt. 

8. There is evidence that Mr Canepa Uranga has tried to master his drug addiction whilst in prison. He has been on a methadone programme and appears to have been compliant with that and provided several assays of urine samples taken by prison nurses over an extended period, recording no illicit substances present, except for the prescribed methadone.  This is commendable and shows the Applicant has the self-will to kick this corroding habit, even if in a protective environment.

9. Mr Canepa Uranga has been proactive in undertaking treatment courses in gaol. He provided a Certificate of Completion of a Managing Emotions Program in September 2017; a Relationship Skills Program dated March 2018; a Managing Worry Program in March 2018; a Managing Sleep Program in February 2018; a Managing Loss Program in March 2018, and evidence of completion of short programs conducted by Alcohol & Other Drug Services on Depression dated August 2018 and Stress dated March 2019. In addition, a Long Program Completion Advice relating to Ice Addiction, dated April 2018, contained notes from the course provider of Mr Canepa Uranga’s positive involvement in the course and that he was able to apply it to his personal circumstances. The course provider recommended he engage in continuing drug and alcohol treatment on release to continue his rehabilitation and reduce the likelihood of relapse.

10. In addition, before the Tribunal was evidence of Mr Canepa Uranga undertaking a course on Tuning into Responsible Relationships, run by Anglicare, in May 2019, a course titled ‘Riding the Wave – Emotional Regulation Program’, dated August 2018 and an introductory course on Managing Anxiety. Vocationally, in June 2022, the Applicant has completed subjects for a Certificate II in Engineering, a preliminary course on written and spoken English and part of a Certificate I on Access to Vocational Pathways, all run by Bendigo TAFE. He has also completed an induction programme on general education for adults.

11. This industriousness while in prison reflects creditably on Mr Canepa Uranga and illustrates a willingness to keep active and to improve his employability skills on release.

12. At the hearing, Mr Canepa Uranga agreed that he still owed around $112,000 in repayment for his fraud offences and proffered the view that he would not be able to repay that if deported. The Tribunal also considers this is relevant to the risk of re-offending because the Applicant has illustrated by his past actions an inability to tailor his lifestyle to reduced income.  When under financial pressure, he has shown a willingness to both commit fraud and menace others for money, with what they assumed was a firearm. It is immaterial that the weapon he used in the armed robbery offending was an imitation firearm; none of the victims knew that, and several were severely affected, at least one possibly permanently so, according to His Honour’s reading of the victim impact statement.

13. Overall, while the Applicant seems genuine in trying to address his drug problem, the Tribunal is not convinced that, faced with the need for further treatment if released and such a large debt to repay, there is not at least a moderate risk of him returning to offending.  Unfortunately, the Applicant has shown a weakness in taking that path before, when faced with either financial problems or the cost of his addiction, or a combination of both.

14. The Tribunal finds that this primary consideration weighs relatively heavily against revoking the visa cancellation.

    Primary consideration: Family violence committed by the non-citizen

15. 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 this consideration is not relevant. The Tribunal agrees with that submission; none of Mr Canepa Uranga’s offending falls within this category.

16. This primary consideration therefore weighs neutrally in the Tribunal’s assessment.

    Primary consideration: Best interests of minor children in Australia affected by the decision

17. 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.

18. 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.

19. The Applicant is the father of two minor children who reside in Australia. He has two daughters, one aged 16, who will be called ‘AF’ and one who is shortly to turn eight years of age, who will be called ‘AS’. The Tribunal is satisfied that different determinations should be made regarding each.

    Minor child AF

20. AF was born towards the end of 2005. Her mother, with whom she lives, is Ms Hernandez, the Applicant’s former wife. A written statement from AF dated 13 July 2022 was before the Tribunal. In the letter, AF said her parents separated when she was just turning six years of age, and she has since then been living with her mother. She wrote:

    Even so, my dad has always been around, sometimes he dropped by school to pick me up or even just to spend time with me.  My dad used to come over to see me on the weekends either to go for a bike ride, skateboard or play soccer and he’s always been there for birthdays, [barbecues] and family events.

21. Ms Hernandez gave evidence at the hearing. She confirmed that she undertakes the major parental responsibilities for AF and that, before his arrest, the Applicant visited every week, sometimes twice a week. Ms Hernandez said that, before entering prison, Mr Canepa Uranga made regular weekly payments of $200 to her to help with AF’s expenses.

22. Ms Hernandez was asked about the Applicant’s drug use. She said: “We were separated after AF was born. Sometimes he would try to rehabilitate. It was an ongoing struggle but he was trying.”

23. When asked what her understanding was about Mr Canepa Uranga’s drug habit, Ms Hernandez said she knew he was a heroin user and had been on a methadone programme.

24. Ms Hernandez said she was aware that the Applicant had committed robbery offences, but she did not know how many. When asked about the fraud offences, she said that she knew he had experienced an injury at work and was receiving compensation payments, but not that he was convicted of fraud.

25. Ms Hernandez said that before the pandemic lockdowns and when Mr Canepa Uranga was in prison closer to Melbourne, she visited him every fortnight in company with AF. She said AF has a close relationship with her father. She said she had explained the Applicant’s offending to her daughter and that he had a drug addiction.

26. The Applicant asked Ms Hernandez whether, if he was repatriated to Uruguay, it would be likely that AF would visit him. Ms Hernandez said it would be hard because the flight cost would be too expensive, and she would be unable to help AF with such an expense because of her own limited income.

27. Ms Hernandez said she viewed Mr Canepa Uranga as always being a positive influence on AF. The Tribunal notes that Ms Hernandez and AF are both Australian citizens.

28. The Tribunal makes a determination that it would be in the best interests of AF for the Applicant’s visa cancellation to be revoked. There is no evidence that his relationship with AF has been other than positive. He maintains a clearly cordial relationship with his ex-wife, and, although there was some dispute about the amount, the Tribunal accepts that, when he was able to, he made regular financial contributions to help with the living costs of AF. The Tribunal accepts that Mr Canepa Uranga does not play the major parental role in AF’s life and has not for the last ten years, but he does still perform a parental role, as evidenced by maintaining contact, regular visits (including when he has been in prison) and by AF’s own written statement to the Tribunal.  The Tribunal notes that AF would be saddened if her father was deported but that she could, in the future when an adult, have the capacity to travel to see him.

29. The Respondent submitted that the best interests of AF are affected by her age, in that she will become an adult in a little over a year’s time and suggested her interests should also be considered under the part of the Direction relating to links to the Australian community.

    Minor child AS

30. Mr Canepa Uranga has a second daughter, AS, whose mother is Ms McNally. AS was born in mid-2014. Ms McNally gave evidence at the hearing. The Applicant asked Ms McNally whether she would come to Uruguay with AS, if he was deported. Ms McNally said she would not, because she felt that bringing up their daughter in Australia is a better option.

31. Under cross-examination, Ms McNally said she knew the Applicant had been convicted of armed robbery, but she could not remember how many counts, and she did not know the facts of the offending. She knew that Mr Canepa Uranga had been on Work Cover payments and that he had been convicted of three counts of fraudulently obtaining payments.

32. When asked whether she was still in a relationship with the Applicant, Ms McNally said she was and that when he is released from prison, she would “like to get back together for the sake of our child.”

33. Ms McNally said that when they were living together, she was in receipt of social welfare payments which she used to buy groceries, and that Mr Canepa Uranga paid the rent and other bills. She said she was aware that he was spending money on drugs, but she did not know the amount.

34. Ms McNally said she had visited Mr Canepa Uranga in prison before the restrictions and before he was moved to HM Prison Loddon.  His current location makes visits much more difficult.  Ms McNally said she used to take AS with her on visits so she could see her father.

35. In answer to direct questions from the Tribunal, Ms McNally said she would still regard herself as being the de facto partner of the Applicant. Ms McNally said that if the Applicant were allowed to stay in Australia after completing his prison term, he would resume living with her. She agreed with a proposition put by Mr Orchard that the real reason Mr Canepa Uranga resumed working ten days after his eye accident was to help fund his drug use. She said: “He also wasn’t working as much as he used to work. It was a little bit of everything.  He was depressed.”

36. When asked whether she would allow the Applicant to live with her if he was drug-affected, Ms McNally said she would, “if he was willing to get help.”

37. In his oral evidence, Mr Canepa Uranga told the Tribunal that in 2017 he had an ‘ice’ habit costing around $150 a week. Mr Orchard put to him that he could afford a drug habit but could not provide for his daughter. The Applicant responded: “That’s what addiction does.  I wasn’t in a rational state of mind.”

38. Mr Orchard asked Mr Canepa Uranga if he put his habit above his partner and child. He responded: “Sometimes I did, probably. They always had food. But I was out of control, not thinking rationally or making the right decisions.”

39. Mr Orchard put to the Applicant that Ms McNally was buying food for the household. He responded: “I did, too. I even used some of the money from the armed robberies to pay for food.”

40. The Applicant said that the family were evicted from their rental property because they had fallen into rental arrears. He said when this happened he spoke to Ms McNally to see if she could obtain public housing, which she did.

41. The Applicant told the Tribunal that he started receiving Work Cover payments around August 2015 and was receiving $750 a week. He said he paid $1,500 a month for rent, about half of his monthly income. In response to direct questions from the Tribunal, Mr Canepa Uranga agreed that there was some money left over for family expenses and that he told the Court he was spending ‘$150 a week’ on drugs so as not to affect his trial. He said that the real amount he was spending on drugs could be as much as $400 a week, mainly on ‘ice’ but also on heroin.

42. Mr Canepa Uranga was asked whether he accepted that he had neglected the best interests of his child because of his drug use. He responded: “In 2017, yes.  Before that, I didn’t.”

43. Mr Orchard asked the Applicant whether he used drugs in the house when AS was there.  He responded: “No, I used to go to a friend’s house. If I used heroin, I would go home. I used to function ok”. He was then asked what he would do when he used ‘ice’. He responded: “I would smoke it, and leave.”

44. The Tribunal asked Mr Canepa Uranga whether he would sometimes return home from his friend’s house affected by his ‘ice’ use. He responded: “The effect would have worn off.”

45. The Tribunal does not accept the Applicant’s evidence that he would not sometimes be affected by his ‘ice’ use when he returned to the family home where his young daughter was. There is no evidence before the Tribunal of any danger to AS, but nonetheless, this conduct shows a recklessness by Mr Canepa Uranga, perhaps borne out of his addiction, but also thoughtless as to the possible consequences in terms of his affected behaviour in front of a young child.

46. However, the Tribunal nonetheless makes a determination that it would be in the best interests of AS for the Applicant to remain in Australia. In the material lodged by the Applicant were several photographs of AS, including some messages from her to Mr Canepa Uranga for Easter and Father’s Day. It is clear from this evidence, and linked letters to the Applicant from Ms McNally, that AS loves her father and misses him. The Tribunal notes that the main parental responsibilities for AS are carried out by her mother, and this has been the case since Mr Canepa Uranga was arrested in 2019. The Tribunal also notes that there is some conditionality on Ms McNally permitting the Applicant to resume living with her and AS in the same household, depending on whether he willingly seeks help to address his drug use. This conditionality supports the Tribunal’s view that Ms McNally retains some concerns that the Applicant may resume taking drugs when outside a prison environment.

47. Overall, the Tribunal finds that this primary consideration weighs in favour of revoking the mandatory cancellation of the visa.  However, that weight is slightly tempered by the fact that, in the case of each minor child, the mother carries the lion’s share of parental responsibilities.

    Primary consideration: Expectations of the Australian Community

48. 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 of 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.

    …

49. 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. Mr Canepa Uranga has committed offences where the victims were women. He has not committed any offences where the victims were children, nor any offences that relate to government representatives.

1. 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 his or her own 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. 

2. Direction No. 90 was issued 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.

3. Mr Canepa Uranga has been a regular offender from 2009 to 2019, with the seriousness of his offending escalating. He has committed significant fraud offences and also a series of armed robberies that traumatised victims in their workplaces. The Tribunal considers that this offending would be viewed very poorly by the Australian community, especially as in the case of the fraud, he was availing himself of a benefit because of a workplace injury, and nonetheless returned to work ten days after the accident that he purported prevented him from working.

4. The Tribunal finds that this primary consideration weighs heavily against revoking the mandatory cancellation of the visa.

   OTHER CONSIDERATIONS

   Other consideration: International non-refoulement obligations

5. 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.

6. The Respondent submitted that this consideration is not engaged. Mr Canepa Uranga made no submissions that he had concerns about his personal safety if he was repatriated to Uruguay. In addition, no such claims were clear from the facts of this case.  The Tribunal finds that this consideration weighs neutrally.

   Other consideration: Extent of impediments if removed

7. The Direction requires decision-makers to consider the extent of impediments a non-citizen may face if removed from Australia to their 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.

8. In response to a direct question from the Tribunal, Mr Canepa Uranga said he was in good physical health, apart from the residual effects of his eye injury. In this respect, he said that he occasionally gets headaches when watching television and has to close that eye but said: “I am getting used to the eye injury. I have been working [in prison] doing welding and previously with timber.”

9. The Tribunal notes that the Applicant is currently on a prescribed course of methadone treatment while in prison. Under section 33(1)(c) of the AAT Act, the Tribunal can inform itself on any matter in such manner as it thinks appropriate. Exercising this power, the Tribunal has considered what information is available on methadone treatment in the Oriental Republic of Uruguay. The Inter-American Drug Abuse Control Commission of the Organization of American States has published a document relating to emerging drugs in the Americas. That document relevantly states:

   In Argentina and Uruguay, substitute treatment with methadone, buprenorphine (generic) and suboxone is limited only to patients who work in the health care area.

10. It is not clear from this meagre mention whether Mr Canepa Uranga would be able to continue opioid substitution treatment if repatriated, if he is not by that time weaned off, but the Tribunal reasonably surmises that there may be some impediments to this.  The Direction requires the Tribunal to measure what is available to him in his home country in the context of what is available to fellow citizens, not against what is accessible in Australia.  But the Tribunal believes that a special factor which is personal to the person subject to repatriation might be relevant, in terms of an impediment.

11. Mr Canepa Uranga said that he has a mother, two sisters, one brother and one cousin in Uruguay. Although in his oral evidence he says he has had some contact with his father since being in Australia, the Tribunal accepts that they are estranged. There is evidence in the papers before the Tribunal that the Applicant had a very strict upbringing in the Jehovah’s Witness faith. The Tribunal gleans this was the backdrop to a regime of strict discipline and adherence imposed by the Applicant’s father, in terms of his behaviour as a child and young man.

12. Mr Canepa Uranga said that if released into the community, he would seek employment as either a painter or a carpenter. He said he had no formal qualifications in the latter but was quite good at carpentry work. While employment can be a preventative factor in offending, it appears not to have been before, in the Applicant’s case. The Applicant agreed in response to a question from Mr Orchard that he would not have difficulty obtaining employment as a house painter in Montevideo.  The Tribunal has recorded earlier that Mr Canepa Uranga has been proactive in undertaking vocational courses while in gaol and considers that these will improve his skills and employability.

13. The Applicant said he is in contact with his sisters in Uruguay about every two months, and with his brother. He has one uncle in Australia who visited him in prison on one occasion, before the pandemic restrictions limited visiting.

14. The Tribunal finds that this consideration weighs slightly in favour of revoking the mandatory cancellation of the visa, because of the uncertainty about opioid replacement treatment available to him in his home country. But the weight is only slight given he may well have completed this course of treatment by the time he completes his prison sentence.

    Other consideration: Impact on victims

15. Although there was extensive reference to the impact on some of the victims of the Applicant’s armed robbery offences in the sentencing judge’s remarks, the Tribunal interprets this part of the Direction as meaning 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. As there is no such evidence before the Tribunal, this consideration weighs neutrally.

    Other consideration: Links to the Australian community

    Sub-consideration: The strength, nature, and duration of ties to Australia

16. 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.

17. The Tribunal must have regard to how long the Applicant has resided in Australia and his contribution to the Australian community.

18. The Applicant came to Australia in 2002 on a tourist visa. He has a former wife in Australia, Ms Hernandez, who is an Australian citizen. Although in Court, the sentencing Judge stated that his relationship with his de facto partner (Ms McNally) had ended because of his drug use, Mr Canepa Uranga said he did not know his lawyer would say that. In one card Ms McNally sent to the Applicant in prison, she wrote (Exhibit A4 bundle):

    And no matter what happened before I want you home no matter what I said then I want us to be together again if that’s what you want.

19. This inclines the Tribunal to the view that there was some break in the relationship around the time of Mr Canepa Uranga’s trial, and that what his counsel told the Court was, in fact, the state of play at the time, regarding his and Ms McNally’s relationship. However, in any event, Ms McNally provided a written statement and gave oral evidence that they currently maintained a relationship. In response to direct questions from the Tribunal, said she would describe him, if asked, as her de facto partner and that she was prepared for him to resume living with her if he is released from prison and permitted to stay in Australia. The Tribunal is satisfied that the relationship has been rekindled.

20. There was mixed evidence about the relationship between the Applicant and his uncle who lives in Australia, but on the evidence that the uncle has visited him in prison, the Tribunal accepts there is some sort of relationship.

21. The Tribunal notes that Mr Canepa Uranga has been employed in Australia as a house painter and a carpenter and has paid tax. He has made some positive contribution to this country. That positive contribution is, however, somewhat overshadowed by his fraud convictions which were, in the end, against the taxpayers and contributing workers of Victoria. In his oral evidence, the Applicant said that he did not know that he was not meant to work whilst simultaneously receiving Work Cover payments. The Tribunal rejects that evidence as implausible, especially given that Mr Canepa Uranga sought medical certificates when he was apparently working, and then went to elaborate lengths to falsify medical certificates to purport to Work Cover that he was not, in fact, working, in order to continue to receive workers’ compensation payments.

22. Mr Orchard submitted that the Applicant’s elder daughter, AF, was shortly to turn 17, and therefore, she should be considered under this part of the Direction. While the Tribunal is reluctant to ‘double count’, having already found that AF’s best interests weigh in favour of revoking the cancellation of the Applicant’s visa, it does nonetheless record that, if AF was an adult, the evidence of her positive and loving relationship with her father would weigh in his favour.

    Sub-consideration: Impact on Australian business interests

23. 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 section 501CA would significantly compromise the delivery of a major project or important service in Australia.

24. In evidence was a letter from Mr Greg Borg (Exhibit A1 bundle), who states that he employed the Applicant as a carpenter from 2012 to 2015. He describes Mr Canepa Uranga as reliable and hard-working. Mr Borg said he was aware of the Applicant’s drug-taking and knew that he was trying to deal with it.

25. The Applicant also provided a letter from Mr Adel Sharobim (Exhibit A1 bundle) dated August 2020. Mr Sharobim records that he employed the Applicant as a painting contractor. He wrote:

    Mr. Uranga has had a drug problem for a number of years but like many addicts he fought hard to overcome the addiction and struggled with good and bad times. Mr. Uranga would take medication to assist him to overcome his addiction and whilst on medication he functioned well. Unfortunately, when he relapsed into drug taking, I had to let him go but still kept in contact with him to ensure he was okay. When I found out Mr. Uranga was charged with burglary, I knew this was probably out of desperation and completely out of character as I know him to be an honest individual. I know through correspondence from Mr. Uranga whilst at the correctional facility that Mr. Uranga is remorseful for his actions [,] drug free and has a new outlook on life.

26. It would appear to the Tribunal that Mr Sharobim, while clearly a supportive employer, did not have a complete picture of the Applicant’s offending, given he thought that the charges related to burglary. It would also appear Mr Sharobim did not know about the workers’ compensation fraud when he described Mr Canepa Uranga as an “honest individual”. It is unclear when the Applicant worked for Mr Sharobim and whether he was simultaneously claiming Work Cover payments for any of this time. The Tribunal makes clear, however, that it attaches no criticism to Mr Sharobim, for his statement of support.

27. While Mr Canepa Uranga has worked gainfully in Australia, the Tribunal does not make a finding that the removal of the Applicant from Australia would have the effect of ‘significantly compromising’ an important service or major project. This sub-consideration, therefore, weighs neutrally.

28. The Tribunal finds that, overall, this consideration weighs in favour of revoking the visa cancellation. The Applicant has an ex-wife, a current partner in Australia, and a brother-in-law who provided a written statement of support. He has other friends, some of whom have visited him in prison, as well as an uncle here.

    SUMMATION

29. The Tribunal must weigh all the considerations it has assessed under the Direction individually and cumulatively.  It must also take into account any other relevant factor it has identified. No other factor has emerged, nor has been suggested by either party.

30. In respect of the primary considerations relating to the protection of the Australian community and the expectations of the Australian community, both weigh relatively heavily against revoking the visa cancellation. Another primary consideration, the one relating to family violence, is not engaged in this assessment. The remaining primary consideration relating to the best interests of minor children in Australia weighs in favour of Mr Canepa Uranga, and particularly because of the age of AS, relatively heavily. The Tribunal is satisfied on the evidence that the Applicant has a close fatherly relationship with his two Australian citizen daughters, which is reciprocated.  There is a slight tempering of this weight because he is incarcerated and their respective mothers perform the major parental role.

31. In relation to the other considerations, those relating to international non-refoulement obligations and the impact on victims have been found not to be engaged. The consideration relating to the extent of impediments, if removed, weighs slightly in favour of revocation. The consideration relating to links to the Australian community weighs in his favour.

32. Paragraph 7(2) of the Direction states that primary considerations should generally be given greater weight than the other considerations. While the Tribunal can decide that any consideration weighs determinatively, on the facts of this case the Tribunal does not conclude that the general principle about exercising the discretion in paragraph 7(2) is dislodged. The Applicant has committed very serious offending, a fact recognised by the long prison sentence he received from the Court. Apart from his serious criminal offending, he has also committed a deliberate fraud.

33. As the Tribunal has found that the discretion available in section 501CA(4)(b)(ii) of the Act is not enlivened, the consequence is that the delegate’s decision should be affirmed.

    DECISION

34. Pursuant to section 43(1)(a) of the AAT Act, the Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

I certify that the preceding 128 (one hundred and twenty-eight) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Senior Member D. J. Morris

........................[SGD]................................................

Associate

Dated: 26 August 2022

Date of hearing:	16 August 2022
Applicant:	Mr Andres Canepa Uranga (Self-represented)
Advocate for the Respondent:	Mr Christopher Orchard
Solicitors for the Respondent:	Sparke Helmore Lawyers

ANNEXE

Schedule of Exhibits

129.    Exhibit No.

130.    Exhibit’s Description

131.    R1

132.    G-documents lodged 27 June 2022

133.    A1

134.    Applicant’s Bundle Part 1 lodged on 7 July 2022:

-    Letter from the Department of Justice and Community Safety dated 4 July 2022

-    Letter of Decline from the Department of Justice and Community Safety dated 15 September 2020

-    Statement of Adel Sharobim dated 19 August 2020

-    Letter from the Applicant undated

-    Certificate of Marriage dated 21 August 2005

-    Birth Certificate of Sofia Canepa Hernandez dated 9 November 2005

-    Certificate from Relationship Skills Program dated 19 March 2018

-    Assay results from Loddon Prison dated 30 April 2021

-    Grant of a Partner Visa letter dated 2 March 2015

-    Divorce Order dated 4 October 2011

-    Australian Business Register undated

-    Tribunal’s Direction dated 21 June 2022 (Senior Member Morris)

-    Statement of Greg Borg dated 23 September 2021

-    Statement of Cherelle McNally dated 9 June 2022

-    Statement of Rubenia Hernandez dated 12 February 2022

-    Birth Certificate of Cherelle McNally dated 12 July 2007

-    Birth Certificate of Sienna Canepa dated 20 October 2014

-    Birth Certificate of the Applicant dated 11 February 2015

-    Australian Citizenship of Rubenia Hernandez dated 4 May 2019

-    Alcohol and Other Drug Services (Short term program completion) dated 29 August 2018

-    Alcohol and Other Drug Services (Short term program completion) dated 4 March 2019

-    Alcohol and Other Drug Services (Long term program completion) dated 9 and 10 April 2018

135.    A2

136.    Applicant’s Bundle Part 2 lodged on 7 July 2022:

-    Certificate of 24 Hour Managing Ice Addition Program dated 13 March 2018

-    Certificate of 6 Hour AOD and Depression dated 28 August 2018

-    Certificate of Initial General Education for Adults from Bendigo TAFE dated 21 June 2022

-    Certificate I in Access to Vocational Pathways from Bendigo TAFE dated 21 June 2022

-    Certificate in Preliminary Spoken and Written English from Bendigo TAFE dated 21 June 2022

-    Certificate II in Engineering from Bendigo TAFE dated 21 June 2022

-    Certificate of Tuning into Respectful Relationship dated May 2019

-    Certificate of Attendance (‘Riding the Wave’ Emotional Regulation Program) dated 27 August 2018

-    Certificate of Attendance (Managing Anxiety) undated

-    Certificate of Managing Worry Program dated 7 March 2018

-    Certificate of Managing Loss Program dated 1 March 2018

-    Certificate of Managing Sleep Program dated 21 February 2018

137.     

138.    A3

139.    Applicant Bundle Part 3 lodged on 7 July 2022:

-    Certificate of Managing Emotions Program dated 4 September 2017

-    Assay Results from Marngoneet dated 11 June 2020

-    Assay Results from Loddon dated 20 October 2020

-    Partner Visa Grant Letter undated

-    Letter from the Australian taxation Office dated 19 June 2007

-    Passport of Rubenia Hernandez (expiry date of 3 September 2029)

-    Passport of the Applicant (expiry date of 10 March 2020)

-    Bundle of photographs of Applicant, Applicant’s de-facto partner and daughters

140.    A4

141.    Applicant’s Bundle Part 4 lodged 15 July 2022 duplicate material with exception of handwritten cards from the Applicant’s daughters and letters from Cherelle McNally

142.    A5

143.    Statement of Sofia Canepa dated 13 July 2022

144.    T1

145.    Email from Benjamin S Holt (DJCS) dated 12 August 2022