CCYW and Minister for Home Affairs (Migration) - [2019] AATA 241

CCYW and Minister for Home Affairs (Migration) [2019] AATA 241 (27 February 2019)
Division:GENERAL DIVISION
File Number(s): 2018/7326
Re:CCYW
APPLICANT

AndMinister for Home Affairs
RESPONDENT

DECISION
Tribunal:Member Tigiilagi Eteuati
Date:27 February 2019
Place:Brisbane

The decision under review is affirmed.
..........................[SGD]..............................................
Member Tigiilagi Eteuati
Catchwords
MIGRATION – mandatory cancellation of applicant’s visa under s 501(3A) – Applicant failed to pass the character test - whether there is another reason why cancellation decision should be revoked - application of Direction No. 65 – decision affirmed
Legislation
Migration Act 1958 (Cth)
Cases
Afu v Minister for Home Affairs [2018] FCA 1311
Doan and Minister for Home Affairs (Migration) [2019] AATA 169
Gaspar v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCA 1166
Marzano v Minister for Immigration & Border Protection [2017] FCAFC 66
Suleiman v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 594
Uelese v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCA 348
YNQY v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCA 1466
Secondary Materials
Direction No 65 – Visa refusal and cancellation under s501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under s501CA
Direction No 75 – Refusal of Protection Visas Relying on Section 36(1C) and Section 36(2C)(b)
REASONS FOR DECISION
Member Tigiilagi Eteuati
27 February 2019
BACKGROUND

This is an application by CCYW (“the Applicant”) for review of a decision made by the delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs (“the Minister”) made on 6 December 2018 to not revoke, under section 501CA(4) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (“the Act”), the cancellation of the Applicant’s visa.
The Applicant is a 47 year old citizen of the People’s Republic of China. Applicant arrived in Australia on a Skilled Australian Sponsored (BQ 138) visa on 26 December 2005. This visa was subsequently cancelled on 26 June 2017 on the basis that the Applicant did not pass the character test as set out in section 501(6)(a) of the Act (when read with section 501(7)(c)) as he had been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of more than 12 months and was serving a full-time term of imprisonment.[1] On 9 July 2017 the Applicant sought that the cancellation decision be revoked.[2] On 6 December 2018, the Minister’s delegate refused to revoke the cancellation of the Applicant’s visa. On 10 December 2018, the Applicant applied to this Tribunal for a review of that decision.
[1] Exhibit G1, page 18.
[2] Exhibit G1, pages 54-55.
The matter was heard on 19 February 2019. For the reasons below, I have found that the Minister’s delegate’s decision to refuse to revoke the cancellation of the Applicant’s visa is the correct decision I have affirmed that decision.
ISSUES
Pursuant to section 501CA(4) of the Act, the Minister may revoke the decision made under section 501(3A) of the Act to cancel the Applicant’s visa. Section 501CA(4) provides:
(4) The Minister may revoke the original decision if:
(a)the person makes representations in accordance with the invitation; and
(b)the Minister is satisfied:
(i) that the person passes the character test (as defined by section 501); or
(ii) that there is another reason why the original decision should be revoked.
The Applicant was invited to make representations to the Minister about revocation of the cancellation of his visa and he made representations in accordance with the invitation. Thus, section 501CA(4)(a) is satisfied in this case.
The two remaining issues are:
(a)Whether the Applicant passes the character test as defined in section 501 of the Act; and
(b)Whether there is another reason why the decision to cancel the Applicant’s visa should be revoked.
If the Tribunal finds that, the Applicant passes the character test or that, there is another reason why the decision to cancel the Applicant’s visa should be revoked, the cancellation decision must be revoked.
The Tribunal considers that the meaning of “another reason” in subparagraph 501CA(4)(b)(ii) is a reason other than that the Applicant passes the character test. The Full Court of the Federal Court has found that there is no residual discretion to be exercised once the Minister (and in this case, the Tribunal) finds that the Applicant passes the character test or there is another reason why the cancellation decision should be revoked. The Full Court has also found that the “reason” in subparagraph 501CA(4)(b)(ii) does not mean “any reason” but rather the determinative reason for revocation arrived at after a balancing of factors both in favour and against revocation.
In Marzano v Minister for Immigration & Border Protection [2017] FCAFC 66 the Full Court of the Federal Court (Collier J, with whom Logan and Murphy JJ agreed), after citing with approval the reasons of North ACJ at paragraphs [38] and [39] of his decision in Gaspar v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection[2016] FCA 1166, stated at [31] and [32]:
“I agree with this analysis. The primary Judge in these proceedings found, and the parties are ad idem, that s 501CA(4)(b) requires the Minister to revoke the cancellation if he or she is satisfied of relevant requirements. To that extent his Honour held that “may” in s 501CA(4)(b) means “must”. I consider that this is a correct construction of s 501CA(4)(b).
In relation to the question whether s 501CA(4)(b)(ii) contemplates an evaluative process on the part of the Minister, I respectfully adopt the reasoning of North ACJ in Gaspar [2016] FCA 1166 at [38]- [39]. In so doing, I note that the section does not, for example, require the Minister to revoke a cancellation decision if the Minister finds “any” reason why the cancellation decision “could” be revoked”. The requirement that the Minister revoke a cancellation decision if he or she determines that there is another reason why the cancellation decision should be revoked, imports an assessment by the Minister of the propriety of a revocation decision, balancing factors both in favour and against revocation. This is the exercise upon which the Minister clearly embarked in this case. It follows that I respectfully agree with the view formed by his Honour at [52] and [53] of the primary Judgment.”
If the Tribunal is satisfied that the Applicant passes the character test, or that there is another reason why the cancellation decision should be revoked, the Tribunal must find in the Applicant’s favour. The appropriate decision in these circumstances would be for the decision refusing to revoke cancellation to be set aside and for a decision in substitution to be made revoking the cancellation decision.
EVIDENCE
The Tribunal has considered all of the evidence permissibly before it including the documents described in section 501G of the Act (“G Documents”), the documents tendered into evidence by the Applicant and marked as exhibits A1 to A4 and the documents tendered into evidence by the Respondent and marked S1 to S21. The evidence contained in these documents is discussed throughout this decision: see ‘Annexure 1’ to this decision.
DOES THE APPLICANT PASS THE CHARACTER TEST?
Section 501(6) relevantly provides:
“(6) For the purposes of this section, a person does not pass the character test if:
(a) the person has a substantial criminal record (as defined by subsection (7)); or”
Section 501(7) relevantly provides:

“(7) For the purposes of the character test, a person has a substantial criminal record if:
…
(c) the person has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more; or”
The Applicant will be taken to have a substantial criminal record, and thus not pass the character test, if he has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more.
Offending history
The sentencing remarks of Blackmore J on 10 July 2015[3] record that the Applicant pleaded guilty to and was convicted of:
·Two counts of having sexual intercourse without consent and was sentenced to 4 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 2 years and 6 months;[4]
·Two counts of indecent assault and was sentenced to a fixed term of imprisonment for 1 year and 6 months.[5]
[3] Exhibit G1, pages 37-52.
[4] Exhibit G1, page 52.
[5] Exhibit G1, pages 51-52.
In total, the Applicant was sentenced to 5 years and 6 months imprisonment with a non-parole period of 3 years. As the sentences were served, in part, concurrently, the total effective sentence was 4 years and 6 months imprisonment with a non-parole period of three years.[6]
[6] Exhibit G1, page 52.
The National Police Certificate for the Applicant indicated that, on 19 September 2008, the Applicant was convicted of four counts of indecent assault with a further two counts taken into consideration on a Form 1. The Applicant’s effective sentence was two years imprisonment, fully suspended upon the Applicant entering into a good behaviour bond.
I am satisfied that the Applicant has a substantial criminal record for the purpose of section 501(6)(a), when read with section 501(7)(c) of the Act, as he was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of more than 12 months.
Consequently, I am satisfied that the Applicant does not pass the character test.
The only remaining issue is whether there is another reason why the decision to cancel the Applicant’s visa should be revoked.
IS THERE ANOTHER REASON WHY THE CANCELLATION OF THE APPLICANT’S VISA SHOULD BE REVOKED?
In considering whether there is another reason why the cancellation of the Applicant’s visa should be revoked, the Tribunal must comply with any directions made by the Minister pursuant to section 499 of the Act. In this case Direction No 65 – Visa refusal and cancellation under s501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under s501CA (“the Direction”) applies. The Direction provides guidance for decision-makers in determining, relevantly, whether there is another reason why the cancellation of the Applicant’s visa should be revoked.
Paragraph 8(1) of the Direction provides that decision makers must take into account the primary and other considerations relevant to the individual case.
The relevant considerations in relation to consideration of revocation of a cancellation decision are contained in Part C of the Direction.
Paragraph 13 of the Direction provides for the consideration of three primary considerations. They are:
(a)Protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct;
(b)The best interests of minor children in Australia; and
(c)Expectations of the Australian community.
Paragraph 14 of the Direction provides for the consideration of other considerations. They include but are not limited to:
(a)International non-refoulement obligations;
(b)Strength, nature and duration of ties;
(c)Impact on Australian business interests;
(d)Impact on victims; and
(e)Extent of impediments if removed.
Paragraphs 8(3) to (5) of the Direction provide:
“(3) Both primary and other considerations may weigh in favour of, or against, refusal, cancellation of the visa, or whether or not to revoke a mandatory cancellation of a visa.
(4) Primary considerations should generally be given greater weight than the other considerations.
(5) One or more primary considerations may outweigh other primary considerations.”
In Suleiman v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 594 Colvin J stated at [23]:
“Direction 65 makes clear that an evaluation is required in each case as to the weight to be given to the 'other considerations' (including non‑refoulement obligations). It requires both primary and other considerations to be given 'appropriate weight'. Direction 65 does provide that, generally, primary considerations should be given greater weight. They are primary in the sense that absent some factor that takes the case out of that which pertains 'generally' they are to be given greater weight. However, Direction 65 does not require that the other considerations be treated as secondary in all cases. Nor does it provide that primary considerations are 'normally' given greater weight. Rather, Direction 65 concerns the appropriate weight to be given to both 'primary' and 'other considerations'. In effect, it requires an inquiry as to whether one or more of the other considerations should be treated as being a primary consideration or the consideration to be afforded greatest weight in the particular circumstances of the case because it is outside the circumstances that generally apply.”
The principles in paragraph 6.3 of the Direction reflect community values and standards with respect to determining whether the risk of future harm from a non-citizen is unacceptable and are to inform the consideration of each of the primary and other considerations.
The principles in paragraph 6.3 provide a framework within which decision-makers should approach their task of deciding whether to revoke cancellation. The principles in paragraph 6.3 are as follows:
1)Australia has a sovereign right to determine whether non-citizens who are of character concern are allowed to enter and/or remain in Australia. Being able to come to or remain in Australia is a privilege Australia confers on non-citizens in the expectation that they are, and have been, law-abiding, will respect important institutions, such as Australia’s law enforcement framework, and will not cause or threaten harm to individuals or the Australian community.
2)The Australian community expects that the Australian Government can and should refuse entry to non-citizens, or cancel their visas, if they commit serious crimes in Australia or elsewhere
3)A non-citizen who has committed a serious crime, including of a violent or sexual nature, and particularly against vulnerable members of the community such as minors, the elderly or disabled, should generally expect to be denied the privilege of coming to, or to forfeit the privilege of staying in, Australia.
4)In some circumstances, criminal offending or other conduct, and the harm that would be caused if it were to be repeated, may be so serious, that any risk of similar conduct in the future is unacceptable. In these circumstances, even other strong countervailing considerations may be insufficient to justify not cancelling or refusing the visa.
5)Australia has a low tolerance of any criminal or other serious conduct by people who have been participating in, and contributing to, the Australian community only for a short period of time. However, Australia may afford a higher level of tolerance of criminal or other serious conduct in relation to a non-citizen who has lived in the Australian community for most of their life, or from a very young age.
6)Australia has a low tolerance of any criminal or other serious conduct by visa Applicants or those holding a limited stay visa, reflecting that there should be no expectation that such people should be allowed to come to, or remain permanently in, Australia.
7)The length of time a non-citizen has been making a positive contribution to the Australian community, and the consequences of a visa refusal or cancellation for minor children and other immediate family members in Australia, are considerations in the context of determining whether that non-citizen’s visa should be cancelled, or their visa application refused.
Summary of the evidence of the Applicant
The following is a summary of the evidence of the Applicant, who appeared in person before the Tribunal. The evidence includes evidence given in written statements by the Applicant, information he gave to psychologists and evidence given in answer to questions from the Respondent’s representative and the Tribunal.
The Applicant was born in China. He told Mr Sam Borenstein, a psychologist who had provided a report on the risk of the Applicant reoffending for the purposes of sentencing in relation to his 2015 offences, that after he completed secondary school, he completed an information technology qualification at a TAFE equivalent in China. He said that he was unable to find employment in the area of his studies and instead worked in advertising. He told Mr Borenstein that he had married his ex-wife in 1998 prior to arriving in Australia in 2001.
The Applicant first arrived in Australia on a Visitor (TU 560) visa on 27 October 2001. The Applicant indicated that his wife joined him in Australia in 2003. He said that he and his wife had owned the unit in China but they had sold that unit and bought a house in Sydney. He departed Australia on 7 February 2002 and returned on 22 February 2002 as the holder of a Student (TU 574) visa.
It appears that the Applicant applied for, and was granted, a Temporary Work (UC 457) visa in 2003 or 2004. The Applicant said that he was granted that visa on the basis of being a dependent of his then wife, who had been the primary visa applicant. The Applicant departed Australia on 26 November 2005 as the holder of the Temporary Work (UC 457) visa and returned to Australia on 26 December 2005 as the holder of a Skilled Australian Sponsored (BQ 138) visa, a permanent visa. This was the visa cancelled by the Minister pursuant to section 501(3A) of the Act on 26 June 2017. On 9 July 2017, the Applicant sought that the cancellation decision be revoked. On 6 December 2018, the Minister refused to revoke the cancellation of the Applicant’s visa. The Applicant has not departed Australia since his last return in December 2005.
The Applicant said that when he was granted the student visa he was to complete an English language course before beginning the substantive course. He said that he ceased his studies as he and his wife were granted Temporary Work (UC 457) visas in 2003 or 2004. The Applicant indicated that he met Weiqi Zhang while they were both undertaking an English language course in 2002. Weiqi Zhang recently provided a letter of support for the applicant.
The Applicant said that he began work as a massage therapist in 2003 or 2004, first working in that occupation in Lane Cove in Sydney in a business owned by his ex-wife’s sister. He said that he had previously worked as a massage therapist on occasion in China before arriving in Australia. The Applicant said that he purchased a massage therapist business in Shellharbour, south of Wollongong, in 2006. He said that when he opened the business, it was having some financial difficulties as is common with many new businesses. He said that he and one other person provided massage services for the business.
The Applicant first began offending in late 2006 or early 2007, shortly after his first child was born. The offences for which he was convicted in 2008 involved indecent assault against clients he was massaging. The circumstances surrounding the offending relating to the first victim was that, on two occasions while massaging a client, he massaged the victim’s pubic area and touched her genitals. Similarly, the Applicant had massaged the second victim’s pubic area and massaged her genitals. He said that he couldn’t really remember his first offending. The Applicant said that when he began offending he had an addiction to pornography. He said that he would use pornography approximately once a fortnight. The Applicant said that some people are addicted to drugs whereas he was addicted to pornography. He said that this pornography addiction was the cause of his offending.
The Applicant said that, after he first offended, he knew what he had done was wrong. He said that he was overcome by an “evil spirit” and had lost control of his actions at the time he was offending. He said that the “evil spirit” was part of him and had arisen from his pornography addiction.
The Applicant said that, even though he knew that indecently assaulting women was wrong after he had committed his first offence, he continued offending as he had lost control of his actions.

The Respondent’s solicitor indicated that the Applicant began talking to one of the victims about the use of sex toys. The Respondent’s solicitor asked whether the Applicant realised at the time that this was inappropriate. The Applicant indicated that at the time he did not realise that having such a conversation with a client was inappropriate. He advanced an analogy saying that after people had watched a movie, they would often talk about the movie. The Applicant suggested that as he had been watching pornography, presumably involving sex toys, he didn’t think anything of discussing the use of sex toys with the client.
The Applicant said that he had first realised this conversation was inappropriate after he was arrested on charges of indecent assault in around September 2007.
The Applicant said that he was shocked when he was arrested and that he had not realised what he had been doing was illegal. The Applicant repeated that his actions had been influenced by an “evil spirit”. He said that he plead guilty to the indecent assault charges and that his business closed about two weeks after he was arrested.
After the Applicant was arrested in around September 2007, he was released on bail. While he was convicted and sentenced to two years’ imprisonment on 19 September 2008, the sentence was fully suspended upon the Applicant entering into a good behaviour bond for two years. Thus, the Applicant did not spend any time in prison in relation to his first lot of offences. The Applicant said that, after he was arrested he ceased using pornography for some time, but that he had recommenced using pornography before committing further offences in 2014. The Applicant said that, after he was arrested, he undertook five sessions with a psychologist relating to his offending.
The Applicant said that after his first arrest in 2007, the family moved back to Sydney where he enrolled at TAFE and completed a year-long Certificate III course in carpentry in 2011. He said that, before he was arrested for the second time in 2014, he fulfilled the primary parental role insofar as caring for his children as his wife was working full-time as a graphic designer. The Applicant indicated that he was unable to find consistent work as a carpenter and that his family was under financial pressure. He said that, as a result, he returned to working as a massage therapist in 2014 at the clinic in Lane Cove where he had been employed previously by his ex-wife’s sister. The Applicant said that the financial pressure on his family, and the stress that he felt as a result, led him to begin using pornography again.
As the Applicant had been convicted of offences in relation to two victims in 2008, the Tribunal will refer to the two victims of the Applicants offending for which he was convicted in 2015 as the third and fourth victims.
The circumstances of the Applicants offences relating to the third victim were that, during a massage conducted by the Applicant on the victim, the Applicant squeezed the victim’s buttocks very hard causing bruising. The Applicant then digitally penetrated the victim’s anus despite the victim asking the Applicant what he was doing a number of times and indicating that the assault was painful. The assault lasted for 5 to 10 minutes.
The circumstances of the Applicant’s offences relating to the fourth victim were that, over four massages, the Applicant inappropriately massaged the victim’s breasts including her nipples in a forceful manner causing her pain. The victim had a breast removed and had undertaken reconstructive surgery as a result of breast cancer diagnosed in 2006.
The Applicant reported having consulted with a psychologist, Ms Julia Weinstein on three or four occasions while he was imprisoned. It appears that he saw Ms Weinstein as he was anxious about the possibility that he would be removed from Australia and thereby separated from his children.
Ms Weinstein reported that the Applicant had indicated that his beliefs influenced his offending. Ms Weinstein recorded that the Applicant appeared to understand that in China his offending behaviour may have been acceptable and that his conduct would not constitute a serious offence in China. This was raised by the Respondent’s solicitor during the hearing. The Applicant said that it was his understanding that, in China, people may not take uninvited touching of another’s breasts particularly seriously. He had previously indicated that, in relation to his fourth victim, he had massaged her breasts forcefully as he was trying to relieve the pain that she suffered relating to her mastectomy and breast reconstruction. When pressed by the Respondent’s solicitor, the Applicant indicated that he accepted that the uninvited touching of another person’s vagina or anus would be considered to be a serious offence in China.
The Applicant admitted that he had not undertaken any treatment in the form of a sex offender program. He said that he had applied to undertake such a program while in prison, but that he was never given the opportunity to undertake such a program.
Under cross-examination the Applicant admitted that he had never been diagnosed with a pornography addiction and that he had not disclosed such an addiction to the psychologists that he had seen.
The Applicant said that he had been sexually abused when he was a child of about seven or eight years of age. The Respondent’s solicitor put to the Applicant that he had never disclosed this to anyone prior to telling Mr Borenstein for the purpose of preparing a report relating to recidivism for the purposes of sentencing in 2015. The Applicant said that he had never told anyone about the abuse prior to informing Mr Borenstein. He indicated that he had been embarrassed and ashamed about the abuse but that after disclosing the abuse to Mr Borenstein he also disclosed the abuse to his family members.
The Applicant indicated that he and his wife had separated after she learnt of his offending in 2014 or 2015. He said that they divorced in August 2016. He said that since he had been imprisoned, he and his wife agreed that it was best that their children did not visit the Applicant in prison. He said that when he first entered prison, on 25 June 2015, he would speak to his children by telephone almost every day. He said that, once he was divorced in August 2016, his wife allowed contact with the children only once a fortnight. He said that, since he has been in immigration detention, he has had access to messaging and Skype and speaks with the children over Skype about once a fortnight.
The Applicant said that, if he is allowed to remain in Australia, two of his friends, Paul de Leeuw and Weiqi Zhang, have offered him accommodation. He said that he had met Paul de Leeuw while in prison where Paul de Leeuw was a fellow inmate convicted of sexual offences.
He admitted that a number of other people who had provided character references for him were former inmates. He said that Eric van Zwam had been convicted of smuggling drugs and had been removed from Australia. He said that Anthony Cheung had been convicted of drugging and sexually assaulting victims. He also said that a Mr Pollock and Michael Drew had also been inmates while the Applicant was in prison.
The Applicant admitted that he did not have any solid employment offers at present. However he said that he was confident that he would be able to find employment as he had a carpentry licence, a forklift licence and a sewing certificate.
The Applicant said that Weiqi Zhang had indicated that he would offer the Applicant a job in his cleaning business. In addition the Applicant indicated that he believed that his ex-wife’s sister’s husband would help the Applicant find employment.
The Applicant indicated that he had no legal custody of the children and that he had agreed with his ex-wife that they would discuss visitation if the Applicant were released. The Applicant said that his ex-wife told him that her current view was that she may allow the Applicant to spend time with the three children on one day of each month.
The Applicant said that before he went to prison that he had been attending the Bread of Life Church in North Sydney and that since he had been in immigration detention he had been a member of the Hill Song church. The Applicant indicated that he had mainstream Protestant Christian beliefs. He said that his practice of the Christian faith before he was detained involved attending church on Sundays and praying and reading the Bible at home. He said that in prison he had undertaken a course in Christianity and that he would attend a Christian worship group with three other detainees.
The Applicant indicated that his parents were currently living in Hong Kong. He said that he had a brother living in Hong Kong, two sisters living in China and another sister living in the United States of America.
The Applicant said that he had very recently come to believe that all Christians in China were persecuted by the Chinese government. He said that he’d come to believe this as he had been told so by two fellow church members of Chinese heritage. He said that after he spoke to the fellow church members, he conducted Internet research where he found Internet articles which he said supported this view. Those articles were provided to the Tribunal and the Respondent by the Applicant in the week prior to the hearing[7]. The Applicant said that he feared being killed by the Chinese government on account of being Christian. The Applicant admitted that he was not a religious leader but simply an adherent of the Christian faith. The Applicant indicated that apart from the harm he feared which may go to the granting of a Protection visa, he was concerned that his practice of Christianity would be more restricted in China than it is in Australia.
[7] Exhibit A4.
The Applicant told the Tribunal that he was guilty of his offences and accepted responsibility for the crimes he committed. He said that he had apologised to his family and to his victims for his crimes.
The Applicant said that he had learned valuable lessons from his offending and from his time in prison. He said that he had truly repented and accepted that what he did was wrong. He said that the accepted his offences were serious crimes. He said that he accepted his punishment and that he had learnt from his mistakes.
The Applicant said that he had changed while in prison. He said that this was evidenced by the various courses he completed in prison and the studies he had undertaken including in English, vocational courses and Bible study. He said that the fact that he had changed was also evidenced by the letters from inmates who had seen this progression over time in prison. The Applicant said that he wanted to change, to be a new person and to prove himself. He said that he did not want to be the person that he had been in the past. He said that he had undertaken a great deal of study in prison to improve himself and to ultimately contribute to the Australian community. The Applicant said that he wished to have the opportunity to rebuild trust with the community, his family and his church. He said that this was all also very important for his children.
The Applicant said that his children needed him to remain in Australia so that he could help raise them and provide them with encouragement. He said that he had very strong ties with all three of his children as he had been their primary caregiver prior to his detention. He said that he had paid child support payments in relation to the children after he had been detained.
The Applicant indicated that his children needed their father. He said that the children had all told him that they felt lonely without him and wanted him to be released and return to them. The Applicant said that he also felt that he needed to remain in Australia to ensure that his children were raised in the Christian faith and that he could teach his children about Christianity. He said that raising his children as good Christians would be good for them, his family and for the Australian community.
The Applicant said that, if his visa were to remain cancelled, he would be permanently separated from the children and they would not be able to visit him in China. In addition, he said that he had nothing in China, that he had sold the unit that he and his wife had owned in China and that he had transferred all of his assets to his wife.
The Applicant also indicated that he couldn’t use Skype or Facebook to communicate with his children from China as there were severe restrictions on Internet use in China and that, if he used other applications to communicate with his children, he would be targeted by the Chinese government for persecution as the Chinese government would eavesdrop on his communications with his children and discover that he was a Christian.
PRIMARY CONSIDERATION A: PROTECTION OF THE AUSTRALIAN COMMUNITY FROM CRIMINAL OR OTHER SERIOUS CONDUCT
The Tribunal must have regard to the protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct. Paragraph 13.1(2) of the Direction provides that decision makers should give consideration to:
(a)the nature and seriousness of the non-citizen’s conduct to date; and
(b)the risk to the Australian community should the non-citizen commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct.
The Nature and Seriousness of the Applicant’s Conduct to Date
When assessing the nature and seriousness of a non-citizen’s criminal offending or other conduct to date, paragraph 13.1.1(1) of the Direction specifies that decision-makers must have regard to a number of factors including:
(a)The principle that, without limiting the range of offences that may be considered serious, violent and/or sexual crimes are viewed very seriously;
(b)The principle that crimes committed against vulnerable members of the community (such as minors, the elderly and the disabled), or government representatives or officials due to the position they hold, or in the performance of their duties, are serious;
(c)The sentence imposed by the courts for a crime or crimes;
(d)The frequency of the non-citizen’s offending and whether there is any trend of increasing seriousness;
(e)The cumulative effect of repeated offending;
(f)Whether the non-citizen has provided false or misleading information to the department, including by not disclosing prior criminal offending;
(g)Whether the non-citizen has re-offended since being formally warned, or since otherwise being made aware, in writing, about the consequences of further offending in terms of the non-citizen’s migration status (noting that the absence of a warning should not be considered to be in the non-citizen’s favour); and
(h)Where the non-citizen is in Australia, that a crime committed while the non-citizen was in immigration detention; during an escape from immigration detention; or after the noncitizen escaped from immigration detention, but before the non-citizen was taken into immigration detention again is serious, as is an offence against section 197A of the Act.
The circumstances surrounding the offending relating to the first victim was that, on two occasions while massaging a client, the Applicant massaged the victim’s pubic area and touched her genitals. Similarly, the Applicant had massaged the second victim’s pubic area and massaged her genitals.
The circumstances of the Applicant’s offences relating to the third victim were that, during a massage conducted by the Applicant on the victim, the Applicant squeezed the victim’s buttocks very hard causing bruising. The Applicant then digitally penetrating the victim’s anus despite the victim asking the Applicant what he was doing a number of times and indicating that the assault was painful. The assault lasted for 5 to 10 minutes.
The circumstances of the Applicant’s offences relating to the fourth victim were that, over four massages, the Applicant inappropriately massaged the victim’s breasts including her nipples in a forceful manner causing her pain. The victim had had a breast removed and had undertaken reconstructive surgery as a result of breast cancer diagnosed in 2006.
The nature of the offending involved the Applicant indecently assaulting three women and having sexual intercourse without consent with a fourth while they were in a vulnerable position and had put their trust in the Applicant.
The offences which the Applicant has committed were all of a sexual nature and, especially in relation to the third victim, were violent crimes in the sense that the offences involved assaults and an instance of sexual intercourse without consent. The offences were committed against women who were in the vulnerable position of being massage clients who had undressed and trusted the Applicant to act professionally and provide them with massage for therapeutic reasons.
In relation to his 2008 convictions the applicant was sentenced to two years imprisonment, wholly suspended. In relation to his 2015 convictions the Applicant was sentenced to an effective sentence of 4 years and 6 months. The Applicant has been convicted of multiple offences on two occasions. On each occasion when the Applicant was convicted, he was convicted of offences against two victims. The later offending was more serious than the initial offending and included the offence of sexual intercourse without consent.
It does not appear that the Applicant has provided false or misleading information to the Department such as to justify any significant increase in an assessment of the seriousness of the offending or its nature. The Applicant has not sought to hide his criminal offending from the Department. He has not re-offended since being formally warned by the Department and the offences were not committed while the Applicant was in immigration detention or during or after an escape from immigration detention.
The sentencing remarks of Blackmore J on 10 July 2015[8] record that the Applicant pleaded guilty to and was convicted of:
·Two counts of having sexual intercourse without consent and was sentenced to 4 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 2 years and 6 months;[9]
·Two counts of indecent assault and was sentenced to a fixed term of imprisonment for 1 year and 6 months.[10]
[8] Exhibit G1, pages 37-52.
[9] Exhibit G1, page 52.
[10] Exhibit G1, pages 51-52.
The seriousness and nature of the Applicant’s offending was described by the sentencing judge as follows:
The offences committed by this offender are plainly serious as can be gauged by the maximum penalties applying and in the case of sexual intercourse without consent, also by considering the standard non-parole period that has to be applied[11]
The offender pleaded guilty only after I ruled that the offenders earlier convictions referred to in the facts above should be led before a jury is tendency evidence in his then forthcoming trial.
Whilst all offences of sexual intercourse without consent are serious the circumstances of the offending can happen in a variety of different ways. It is necessary to attempt to categorise the seriousness of the offences committed against the complainant, NM. The complainant went to see the doctor expecting some appropriate medical treatment but instead she was subject to a debasing sexual attack by the offender. The offences involved a serious breach of trust by him at a time when the complainant was under his care and physically vulnerable. The fact that the offences were committed in a breach of trust aggravates the seriousness of the offending. Not only did the offences psychologically disturb the complainant but she was also left with some physical injury and discomfort of a relatively transient nature. That bespeaks to the force that was used by the offender in assaulting the complainant. In my view the offences committed on NM would not be described as falling towards the bottom of the range for such offending.[12]
…
The offences committed by the offender are such that they require condign sentences due to the need for the sentence to provide guidance by way of general deterrence. In my view a term of imprisonment is the only available sentence here. The principle of general deterrence is that the sentence imposed should provide a warning to other potential offenders that if they act in a way in which this offender has acted a lengthy prison term can be the expected result.[13]
[11] Exhibit G1, page 47.
[12] Exhibit G1, page 47.
[13] Exhibit G1, page 48.

The sentencing judge indicated that the Applicant only pleaded guilty shortly before the hearing when he was informed that the judge would allow evidence of his previous offending to be adduced at trial as tendency evidence.
As noted by the sentencing judge, the offences committed by the Applicant can only be described as offences of a violent and sexual nature, committed against vulnerable people who had placed their trust in him as a masseur.
The Applicant’s offending had a profound negative effect on his victims. One of his victims was diagnosed as having acute stress disorder, which the diagnosing psychologist found was directly attributable to the Applicant’s offending. The victim of the sexual intercourse without consent offence described a number of physical and psychological injuries suffered as a result of the offending and the serious negative effect that the psychological injuries, in particular, had on her life and the lives of her loved ones. She said that at one point she contemplated suicide as a result of the Applicant’s offending. Another victim described that the Applicant’s offending as causing her to cry uncontrollably, that she had lost her strength and motivation for work, has become paranoid, developed a fear of Asian men, gained 15 kg and had a relationship break down.
The Applicant himself admitted that his offending was serious.
The Tribunal is of the view that the Applicant’s offending conduct was very serious. The nature of the offending was that the Applicant indecently assaulted three women, and had sexual intercourse without consent with a fourth while they were in a vulnerable position and had put their trust in the Applicant.
The Risk to the Australian Community Should the Applicant Commit Further Offences or Engage in Other Serious Conduct
Paragraph 13.1.2(1) of the Direction provides that a decision-maker should have regard to the principle that the Australian community’s tolerance for any risk of future harm becomes lower as the seriousness of the potential harm increases. Paragraph 13.1.2(1) of the Direction provides that some conduct and the harm that would be caused if it were to be repeated, is so serious that any risk that it may be repeated may be unacceptable.
In considering the risk to the Australian community presented by an Applicant, the Tribunal must have regard to the two sub-considerations listed in paragraph 13.1.2(2) of the Direction cumulatively. They are:
(i)The nature of the harm to individuals or the Australian community should the non-citizen engage in further criminal or other serious conduct; and
(j)The likelihood of the non-citizen engaging in further criminal or other serious conduct, taking into account available information and evidence on the risk of the non-citizen reoffending.
The nature of the harm to individuals or the Australian community should the non-citizen engage in further criminal or other serious conduct.
In his written submissions the Respondent argued that, if the Applicant were to reoffend, the nature of the harm inflicted would include physical and psychological harm. The Respondent referred to victim impact statements provided in relation to the Applicant’s previous offending which showed that the victims had suffered substantial harm, especially psychological harm. The Respondent pointed out that there were also physical effects of the offending and that the Applicant undermined the trust and confidence of his victims.
The Applicant indicated that he would never reoffend, that he realised that his offending was serious and had serious consequences on his victims, and that he had apologised to as victims for his offending.
The Tribunal finds that, if the Applicant were to re-engage in similar criminal conduct, it is likely that nature of the harm to victims would be that they would suffer from violent sexual crime. The effects of that kind of offending have been expressed in the victim statements which were before the Tribunal. Some of those effects have been mentioned above, and include physical injury and severe psychological injury.
The likelihood of the non-citizen engaging in further criminal or other serious conduct
Ms Jenny Howell, a psychologist, provided a report to the court in 2008 for the purposes of sentencing, in relation to the Applicants risk of reoffending. Ms Howell stated:
“Assessment using the Static 99 and SONAR suggests that [the Applicant] has a low risk of future sexual offending behaviour. Technically, [the Applicant] demonstrates a number of strengths including his insight into the effects of his behaviour, his acknowledgement of full responsibility for the offences and acknowledged remorse for his actions. [the Applicant’s]wife is fully aware of his offences and has indicated that she is committed to their relationship and is positive and supportive of him.
It is my opinion that [the Applicant] would benefit from participation in psychotherapy to address the risk factors associated with his depression and suicidal ideation and his use of sexual behaviour to manage strong emotions. Private psychologists provide most of the treatment interventions for inappropriate sexual behaviour in the community and a list of suitable accredited people can be obtained from the NSW commission for children and young people.”
Mr Borenstein, a psychologist, provided a report to the court in 2015 for the purposes of sentencing in relation to the Applicants risk of reoffending. Mr Borenstein stated:
“On this occasion, the Static 99R result indicates low to moderate risk factors.
[The Applicant] presents as significantly depressed and anxious with regards to the prospect of incarceration. [the Applicant] realises and accepts he will never return to massage work. In my opinion the likelihood of [the Applicant] reoffending outside of that work context is extremely low.
…
[the Applicant] is not a sexual predator. When given an opportunity as was the case in working as masseur, [the Applicant] responded inappropriately to sexual urges, which represents a focal point of intensive treatment with myself.
The likelihood of [the Applicant] reoffending is negligible. He remains resolved never to return to working as a masseur again.
…
[the Applicant] will continue to participate in intensive treatment over the next 12 months, reinforcing the notion of personal responsibility and self-regulation and address unresolved issues regarding history of sexual abuse in childhood.
The likelihood of [the Applicant] reoffending outside of the context of providing massage is, in my opinion, extremely low.”
The Applicant visited a psychologist, Ms Weinstein, in prison. Ms Weinstein assessed the Applicant with the STABLE 2007 tool on 8 December 2017. Ms Weinstein’s assessment indicated that the Applicant had a definite problem with “significant social influences” and “sex as coping”. Ms Weinstein recorded that the Applicant fell in the moderate range for STABLE, moderate - high for Static 99, moderate, - high for SOSA, and recorded a risk of reoffending as 6.6% in two years and 9.2% in four years.
While Ms Weinstein did not provide a formal report, it appears that the Applicant’s scores on the Static 99 measure have increased from low in 2008 to low to moderate in mid-2015 to moderate to high as recorded in Ms Weinstein’s report.
Unfortunately, no psychologist was made available for questioning by the Tribunal.
In sentencing the Applicant in 2015, the sentencing judge made the following comments in relation to rehabilitation prospects:
“I further note that in the cases of Salmon and Porteous both offenders had no prior convictions for anything and were both regarded as having good prospects of rehabilitation. I am not in a position to make the same finding here given the offender’s prior convictions. Before I could find that the offender had any reasonable prospects of rehabilitation he would need to carry out extensive counselling recommended by his psychologist.”
The Tribunal shares the sentencing judge’s reservations about the Applicant’s prospects of rehabilitation and has real concerns as to his risk of reoffending. The Applicant has not undertaken any sexual offending programs and has had limited contact with any psychological professionals. That does not appear to be his fault. It appears that the Applicant sought to undergo a sexual offending program in prison, but this was not offered to him.
In relation to Mr Borenstein’s assessment that the Applicant was not a sexual predator, the sentencing judge made the following observations:
“His psychologist opined that he was not a sexual predator but I understand that statement to be made only because each of the complainants assaulted by the offender came to him as customers rather than him seeking out the victims to assault. In my view this is only a matter of marginal significance.”
This case provides a good example of the limitations of psychological assessments in these matters. In 2008 Ms Howell assessed that the Applicant presented a low risk of sexual reoffending. Of course, the Applicant went on to commit other sexual offences, of a much more serious nature than those offences he committed previously. In the circumstances, it appears that Ms Howell’s assessment was optimistic. It was either incorrect that the Applicant’s risk of reoffending was low, or the Applicant’s reoffending fell within the low risk of reoffending assessed by Ms Howell. If the former is correct, it gives the Tribunal some reluctance in accepting such psychological assessments as determinative of the risk that an Applicant will reoffend. If the latter is correct, it illustrates that a psychological determination that an Applicant presents a low risk of reoffending does not mean that there is no real risk that the Applicant will in fact reoffend.
The Tribunal has taken into account that after the Applicant’s most recent offending, the Health Care Complaints Commission (“HCCC”) prohibited the Applicant from providing health services for a period of seven years from October 2015, as the Applicant was determined by the HCCC to pose a risk to the health and safety of members of the public.
This determination would mean that the Applicant would be legally prohibited from working as a masseur until October 2022. This may mean that he is less likely to put himself in a position where he can commit further similar offences. However, the determination does not prevent the Applicant from working illegally as a masseur. The very reason why he has been prohibited from providing health services is because it has been determined by the HCCC that the Applicant poses a risk to the health and safety of members of the public. The Tribunal considers that, even if the Applicant were not to work as a masseur, there remains a risk that he will put himself in a position where he can continue to commit sexual crimes against women.
The Tribunal has taken into account the letters provided in support of the Applicant which suggest that the Applicant has changed during his time in prison and will not reoffend. The Tribunal has also considered that it appears that the Applicant’s closest friends, who he claims will provide support on his release, were inmates with the Applicant in prison who were also convicted of sexual offences. In her assessment of the Applicant, Ms Weinstein indicated that the Applicant’s association with fellow former inmates was a negative factor in determining the risk that the Applicant would reoffend.
The Tribunal has also taken into account that the Applicant has claimed that his Christian faith would ensure that he would not reoffend. The Applicant became a Christian after he was first arrested for the offences in 2007. The Tribunal does not doubt that adherence to any major religion may have benefits for those of faith and for the Australian community. The basic principles of the Christian faith, and in particular those contained in the New Testament, encourage adherents to love and care for one another and to treat others as they would hope to be treated. Despite the Applicant’s evidence that he would attend church every Sunday, pray at home and read the Bible, his Christian faith did not prevent him from reoffending in 2014. The Tribunal hesitates on placing any significant weight on the Applicant’s faith in determining the risk he will reoffend.
The Tribunal has also considered the Applicant’s claim of his current realisation that, if he reoffends, he will almost certainly be permanently separated from his children, presents a compelling disincentive to reoffending.
The Tribunal considers that there is a real risk that the Applicant will reoffend if he were allowed to remain in Australia. While the Tribunal has considered the assessments of Ms Howell and Mr Borenstein that the Applicant presents a low risk of reoffending, the Tribunal considers that there is a good chance that these assessments are overly optimistic. That was the case after Ms Howell’s assessment in 2008, where she assessed the Applicant as presenting a low risk of reoffending before he reoffended more seriously than he had before. It also appears that the Applicant’s Static 99 scores have increased over time from low in 2008, to low to moderate in 2015, to moderate to high in Ms Weinstein’s report of 2017. While the Tribunal would have benefited from being able to ask a psychologist what an assessment of a “low” risk of reoffending means in practical terms, it is abundantly clear in this case that it does not mean that there is not a real chance that an Applicant will reoffend.
Neither the Applicant’s Christian faith, nor the prospect of being separated from his children prevented the Applicant from offending in the past. In addition, it is not clear that the Applicant will be able to find stable employment if he were to remain in Australia. His evidence was that, although he completed a carpentry qualification in 2010 or 2011, he was unable to find sufficient work in that occupation and therefore returned to being a masseur, knowing full well that this would place him in the same circumstances in which his initial offending arose.
Whereas during the periods when the Applicant was offending previously, he was supported by his wife and children, the Applicant no longer has the support of his wife, who has now divorced him. It appears that he will have limited contact with his children. The Applicant has said that he will receive support from fellow former inmates and that his ex-wife’s sister’s husband and Weiqi Zhang would be able to assist him in finding work. As mentioned previously, Ms Weinstein indicated that further association with fellow sex offenders was a negative consideration in the assessment of reoffending. Further, neither the Applicant’s ex-wife’s sister’s husband nor his former classmate, Weiqi Zhang, have provided evidence to the Tribunal indicating a firm employment offer to the Applicant.
Finally, both Ms Howell and Mr Borenstein indicated the need for the Applicant to have ongoing psychological assistance. The sentencing judge stated that the Applicant would need to carry out extensive counselling recommended by Mr Borenstein before he could find that the Applicant had any reasonable prospects of rehabilitation. The Applicant has not undertaken extensive counselling or completed a sex offender course. The Tribunal has taken this into account in forming its view that there is a real risk that the Applicant will reoffend if he were to remain in Australia.
Conclusion: Primary Consideration A
The Tribunal has found that the Applicant’s offending conduct was very serious and the nature of the conduct was that the Applicant indecently assaulted three women and had sexual intercourse without consent with a fourth, while they were in a vulnerable position and had put their trust in the Applicant.
The Tribunal has found that, if the Applicant were to reengage in similar criminal conduct, it is likely that nature of the harm to victims would be that they would suffer from violent sexual crime. The effects of that kind of offending have been expressed in the victim statements which were before the Tribunal and include physical injury and severe psychological injury.
The Tribunal has found that there is a real risk of the Applicant engaging in further criminal or other serious conduct.
After giving thoughtful and thorough consideration to this primary consideration, the Tribunal concludes that the protection of the Australian community primary consideration weighs against the revocation of the cancellation of the Applicant’s visa. The Tribunal considers that there is a real risk that the Applicant will reoffend, and if the Applicant repeats his serious offending it will likely result in sexual violence against members of the Australian community. In this case, considering the seriousness of the conduct, the potential harm to the community were the Applicant to reoffend, and the real risk of reoffending, the Tribunal considers that the protection of the Australian community and its members are best served by the Applicant no longer being present in Australia.
The Tribunal attributes significant weight against the revocation of the cancellation of the Applicant’s visa to the primary consideration of the protection of the Australian community.
PRIMARY CONSIDERATION B: THE BEST INTERESTS OF MINOR CHILDREN IN AUSTRALIA
Paragraph 13.2(1) of the Direction compels a decision-maker to make a determination about whether revocation is, or is not, in the best interests of a child who may be affected by cancellation of the Applicant’s visa. Paragraphs 13.2(2) and 13.2(3) respectively contain further stipulations. The former provides that, for their interests to be considered, the relevant child (or children) must be under 18 years of age at the time when a decision about whether or not to revoke the mandatory cancellation decision is being made. The latter provides that if there are two or more relevant children, the best interests of each child should be given individual consideration to the extent that their interests may differ.
Paragraph 13.2(4) of the Direction provides a list of factors which must be considered under this consideration where relevant. These are:
“a) The nature and duration of the relationship between the Child and the non-citizen. Less weight should generally be given where the relationship is non-parental, and/or there is no existing relationship and/or there have been long periods of absence, or limited meaningful contact (including whether an existing Court order restricts contact);
b) The extent to which the non-citizen is likely to play a positive parental role in the future, taking into account the length of time until the Child turns 18, and including any Court orders relating to parental access and care arrangements;
c) The impact of the non-citizen’s prior conduct, and any likely future conduct, and whether that conduct has, or will have a negative impact on the Child;
d) The likely effect that any separation from the non-citizen would have on the Child, taking into account the child’s or non-citizen’s ability to maintain contact in other ways; e) Whether there are other persons who already fulfil a parental role in relation to the Child;
f) Any known views of the Child (with those views being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the Child);
g) Evidence that the non-citizen has abused or neglected the Child in any way, including physical, sexual and/or mental abuse or neglect; and
h) Evidence that the Child has suffered or experienced any physical or emotional trauma arising from the non-citizen’s conduct.”
The Applicant has three minor children, aged 12, 10 and 7 years.
The Applicant said that his children needed him to remain in Australia so that he could help raise them and provide them with encouragement. He said that he had very strong ties with all three of his children as he had been their primary caregiver prior to his detention. He said that he had paid child support payments in relation to the children after he had been detained.

The Applicant indicated that his children needed their father. He said that the children had all told him that they felt lonely without him and wanted him to be released so that they could spend time with him. The Applicant said that he also felt that he needed to remain in Australia to ensure that the children were raised in the Christian faith and that he could teach them about Christianity. He said that raising his children as good Christians would be good for them, his family and for the Australian community.
The Applicant said that, if his visa were to remain cancelled, he would be permanently separated from his children as they would not be able to visit him in China.
The Applicant also indicated that, he couldn’t use Skype or Facebook to communicate with his children from China, as there were severe restrictions on Internet use in China. He said that, if he used other applications to communicate with his children, he would be targeted by the Chinese government for persecution, as the Chinese government would eavesdrop on his communications with his children and discover that he was a Christian.
The Tribunal would describe the nature of the relationship between the Applicant and his children as a parental one marked by a long period of absence owing to his detention since 2015. The Applicant has claimed, and the Tribunal accepts, that prior to his incarceration in 2015, he was the primary caregiver to the children as his wife worked full-time as a graphic designer.
It appears that, if he was allowed to remain in Australia, his role would be much more limited. As mentioned previously, the Applicant has not seen his children in person since 2015, when he was imprisoned. The Applicant said that, when he was first imprisoned, he would speak with his children on a daily basis. He said that, after his divorce to his wife was finalised in August 2016, his wife would only allow the children to speak with him on a fortnightly basis. The Applicant said that he has spoken with his wife and she has tentatively agreed for the Applicant to see the children on a monthly basis, that is, once a month, if he were allowed to remain in Australia. Therefore, if the Applicant were to remain in Australia, it appears that his contact with his children would be very limited.
The extent to which the Applicant is likely to play a positive parental role in the future if he were allowed to remain in Australia will be greatly influenced by the limited personal contact he is likely to have with his children. It will also very much depend on whether he will return to reoffending, thus causing further trauma for the children as a result of future incarceration and probable removal from Australia.
The impact the Applicant’s prior conduct on the children is not immediately ascertainable. From the Applicant’s evidence, it appears that the children have suffered from the Applicant’s absence by way of missing him. As mentioned previously, if the Applicant reoffends in the future, the Applicant’s children would be likely to be similarly adversely affected.
If the Applicant’s visa remains cancelled and he has to leave Australia, the Tribunal considers that his children will continue to be negatively affected in that they will continue to be unable to spend time with the Applicant in person. While the Tribunal is willing to accept that the Applicant and his children can maintain contact over the telephone and by other electronic means, the Tribunal accepts that this is, of course, no substitute for the opportunity for the children to spend some time, however limited, with their father.
If the Applicant’s visa remains cancelled and he has to leave Australia, this would also mean that the children would be deprived of any financial support that the Applicant could provide to the children by being employed locally. However, noting the Applicant’s prior history of employment in China, the Tribunal considers that the Applicant may be able to provide some financial assistance from overseas.
The Tribunal has considered that the Applicant’s wife fulfils the primary parental role in relation to the children.
The Tribunal has not heard any express evidence from the children in relation to whether they wish their father to remain in Australia. However, from the evidence given by the Applicant, and the correspondence each of the children sent the Applicant while he was in prison, the Tribunal is willing to accept that the children, who miss their father, would want their father to remain in Australia.
There is no evidence that the Applicant has abused or neglected any of his children. However, the Tribunal has considered the effect on the children of the Applicant’s prior offending and thus his separation from the children.
There is no direct evidence that any of the children have suffered any physical or emotional trauma arising from the Applicant’s conduct other than the effects of separation mentioned previously.
The Tribunal observes that neither the Applicant’s ex-wife, nor his children, provided evidence in support of the Applicant’s case. The Applicant told the Tribunal that he had asked his ex-wife to provide evidence for the purpose of the hearing but that she had told him that she was unwilling to do anything to support him. It is unclear, in these circumstances, whether any of the children could have put information before the Tribunal in support of their father’s application for review. However, on one view, the Applicant’s ex-wife’s refusal to assist the Applicant with his application by providing evidence to the Tribunal may suggest that she did not consider that her children’s best interests would be severely adversely affected by the Applicant’s removal from Australia.
It is difficult on the limited evidence before the Tribunal to make an individual assessment of the interests of each child. The Tribunal knows that each child has written to the Applicant while he was in prison and accepts the Applicant’s evidence that he has remained in contact with each of the children during his incarceration.
Conclusion: Primary Consideration B
The Tribunal finds that it is in the best interests of each of the Applicant’s three children for the Tribunal to revoke the cancellation of the Applicant’s visa so that they may each have the opportunity to have contact in person, however limited, with the Applicant.
The Tribunal finds that the best interests of each of the Applicant’s children, and this primary consideration, weigh moderately in favour of revocation of the cancellation of the Applicant’s visa.
PRIMARY CONSIDERATION C: THE EXPECTATIONS OF THE AUSTRALIAN COMMUNITY
Paragraph 13.3(1) of the Direction states:
“The Australian community expects non-citizens to obey Australia’s laws while in Australia. Where a non-citizen has breached, or where there is an unacceptable risk that they will breach this trust or where the non-citizen has been convicted of offences in Australia or elsewhere, it may be appropriate to not revoke the mandatory visa cancellation of such a person. Non-revocation may be appropriate simply because the nature of the character concerns or offences are such that the Australian community would expect that the person should not hold a visa. Decision-makers should have due regard to the Government’s views in this respect.”
How are those expectations determined?
In Doan and Minister for Home Affairs (Migration) [2019] AATA 169 (“Doan”) I found that the decisions of Uelese v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCA 348, Afu v Minister for Home Affairs [2018] FCA 1311 and YNQY v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCA 1466 (“YNQY”) establish that:
·the concept of community expectations is not a matter to be measured as though it is a provable fact. It is not a consideration dealing with any objective, or ascertainable expectations of the Australian community. It is an assessment of community values made on behalf of that community; and
·the government’s views in relation to community expectations are to be found in Direction 65 itself. It is open to the Minister to make a statement of the government’s views as to the expectation of the Australian community, as it has in Direction 65, and for the Tribunal to act on that statement.
In Doan I found that the primary consideration of expectations of the Australian community may weigh in favour or against whether or not to revoke cancellation.
In YNQY, Mortimer J accepted that the expectations of the Australian community consideration is inextricably linked to the other primary consideration of protection of the Australian community. There is no doubt that this is the case, especially considering that the vast weight of the principles in paragraph 6.3 of the Direction relate most directly to the protection of the Australian community and the expectations of the Australian community regarding its protection.
Thus, the Tribunal considers that, in both the matters that the Tribunal considers in relation to the expectations of the Australian community, and the weight to be attributed to those expectations, the Tribunal should give appropriate weight to consideration of the expectations of the Australian community regarding its protection.
However, In Doan I found that, in addition to the matters provided for in paragraph 13.3(1) of the Direction and the various principles in paragraph 6.3 of the Direction which inform the expectations of the Australian community regarding its protection, the government’s views in relation to community expectations are also informed by:
·whether an Applicant has lived in the Australian committee for most of their life or from a very young age;
·the length of time a non-citizen has been making a positive contribution to the Australian community; and
·the consequence of visa refusal or cancellation for minor children and other immediate family members in Australia.
In the present case, the Applicant failed to meet the expectation of the Australian community to abide by the law. The Tribunal considers that the Australian community expects the Australian government to cancel the visas of non-citizens if they commit serious crimes in Australia or elsewhere[14]. In the present matter the government has acted in accordance with that expectation as was required by section 501(3A) of the Act.
[14] see paragraph 6.3(2) of the Direction.
The Tribunal considers that the Australian community would find that the Applicant’s conduct was very serious and that non-citizens who commit serious crimes should generally expect to forfeit the privilege of staying in Australia.[15]
[15] see paragraph 6.3(3) of the Direction.
Against the expectations of the Australian community in relation to its protection, the Tribunal considers that the Australian community would place weight, in the Applicant’s favour, on the negative consequences of non-revocation on the Applicant’s children and that the Applicant has lived in Australia for some 18 years.
Conclusion: Primary Consideration C
Overall, given the very serious nature of the Applicant’s offending, that there is a real chance that he will reoffend, and notwithstanding the negative effects on the Applicant’s children if the cancellation of his visa is not revoked, the Tribunal finds that the Australian community would consider that the risk of future harm to the community is unacceptable and that the Tribunal should not revoke cancellation of the Applicant’s visa.
The Tribunal finds that this consideration weighs against revocation of the cancellation of the Applicant’s visa. The Tribunal places moderate weight on this consideration in favour of non-revocation of the cancellation of the Applicant’s visa.
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
There are five “other considerations” disclosed in the Direction under paragraph 14(1):
(b)International non-refoulement obligations;
(b)Strength, nature and duration of ties;
(c)Impact on Australian business interests;
(d)Impact on victims;
(e)Extent of impediments if removed.
(a) Non-Refoulement Obligations
Paragraph 14.1 of the Direction provides:
“(1) 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. Australia has non-refoulement obligations under the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees as amended by the 1967 Protocol (together called 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 reflects Australia’s interpretation of those obligations and, where relevant, decision-makers should follow the tests enunciated in the Act.
(2) The existence of a non-refoulement obligation does not preclude non- revocation of the mandatory cancellation of a non-citizen’s visa. This is because Australia will not remove a non-citizen, as a consequence of the cancellation of their visa, to the country in respect of which the non-refoulement obligation exists.
(3) Claims which may give rise to international non-refoulement obligations can be raised by the non-citizen in a request to revoke under s501 CA the mandatory cancellation of their visa, or can be clear from the facts of the case (such as where the non-citizen held a protection visa that was mandatorily cancelled).
(4) Where a non-citizen makes claims which may give rise to international non-refoulement obligations and that non-citizen would be able to make a valid application for another visa if the mandatory cancellation is not revoked, ił is unnecessary to determine whether non-refoulement obligations are owed to the non-citizen for the purposes of determining whether the cancellation of their visa should be revoked.
(5) If, however, the visa that was cancelled was a Protection visa, the person will be prevented from making an application for another visa, other than a Bridging R (Class W R) visa (section 501 E of the Act and regulation 2.12A of the Regulations refers). The person will also be prevented by section 48A of the Act from making a further application for a Protection visa while they are in the migration zone (unless the Minister determines that section 48A does not apply to them — sections 48A and 48B of the Act refer).
(6) In these circumstances, decision-makers should seek an assessment of Australia’s international treaty obligations. Any non-refoulement obligation should be weighed carefully against the seriousness of the non-citizen’s criminal offending or other serious conduct in deciding whether or not the non-citizen should have their visa reinstated. Given that Australia will not return a person to their country of origin if to do so would be inconsistent with its international non-refoulement obligations, the operation of sections 189 and 196 of the Act means that, if the person’s Protection visa remains cancelled, they would face the prospect of indefinite immigration detention.”
On the last day allowable under the Act, the Applicant provided the Tribunal and the Respondent with an email in which the Applicant relevantly stated:
“I am attending to Hillsong Church since I came to Villawood Detention Centre as I am a christian, I found the peace and joy in the christian home of the freedom religion, my christian life has become enrich and meaningful. It won’t be happen living in China because the government persecut all the christian and turn them into prison if they arrested, how much painful that people who have no human right of christian living in China. Thanks God, Australia is a freedom religion country that I am blessing live in.
I have attached some of the news that it downloan from internet to prove the real situation what was happen for the christian living in China.
Therefore, for this reason, we can see it is very dangerous for me to live in China.”
The Applicant attached five Internet articles to his email. The articles were all from December 2018 and January 2019. The articles all appeared to have been written following the closures of three unauthorised churches, and the arrest of some of their leaders and followers, by the Chinese government. The articles describe the leaders of two of the churches as being outspoken and fiercely critical of China’s control of religion.
The Applicant said that the reason he had submitted the articles just prior to hearing, was because up until recently, he had been unaware of what he called the persecution of all Christians in China. He said that recently two members of the Hillsong church, who had Chinese heritage, had told him that all Christians in China were persecuted. He said that he then researched the issue on the Internet and found the articles which he provided to the Tribunal. The Applicant said that China was an atheist country and that it did not tolerate any religion. He said that he had been raised a Buddhist and admitted that neither he nor his family had never been harmed or persecuted for their Buddhist faith.
The Respondent had provided to the Tribunal and the Applicant a report by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade entitled “DFAT country information report People’s Republic of China” dated 21 December 2017.
That report indicated that the Chinese Constitution provided for religious freedom. The report indicated that Chinese law recognised a number of religions including Catholicism and Protestantism. The report provided that members of these religions must register their membership with the government. The report indicated that registered religious organisations may own property, published literature, train and approve clergy, collect donations and conduct charitable activities. The report stated that government subsidies were available for the construction of state-sanctioned places of worship and religious schools. The report stated that unregistered religious organisations were illegal and vulnerable to punitive official action. The report provided that registered religious adherents could proselytise in registered places of worship and in private settings but not in public. The report stated that registered religious organisations may not distribute unapproved literature nor associate with unregistered religious groups.
The report stated that that, broadly speaking, religious practice in China is possible within state-sanctioned boundaries, as long as such practices do not challenge the interests or authority of the Chinese government. The report indicated that in addition to the state-sanctioned Catholic and Protestant churches in China, the government permitted friends and family to hold small, informal prayer meetings without official registration. The report indicated that the leaders of both registered and unregistered churches are subject to greater scrutiny than ordinary worshippers and that church leaders who participate in protest activity on behalf of their congregations or elsewhere are at high risk of official sanction but that this is likely to relate more to their activism than to their religious affiliation or practice. The report indicated that members of unregistered churches who participate in human rights activism are at a high risk of official discrimination and violence, as are their families. The report indicates that the adverse attention relates to their activism and association with unregistered and illegal organisations, rather than specifically to their Christian faith.
The Applicant indicated that he was aware that he could apply for a Protection visa in relation to his claims of fearing persecution in China as a Christian.
The Tribunal has very little evidence before it to make a thorough assessment of the Applicant’s claims. If the Applicant genuinely fears persecution by the Chinese government, the Tribunal considers that it is very likely that he will lodge a Protection visa application. Once that application is lodged, Direction No 75 – Refusal of Protection Visas Relying on Section 36(1C) and Section 36(2C)(b) (“Direction 75”) ensures that his claims to be a refugee or to fall within the complementary protection regime will be considered.

The Direction states that Australia will not remove a non-citizen to a country in respect of which non-refoulement on obligations exist. However, it appears to be possible for the law to dictate that, in certain circumstances, a person in respect of whom protection obligations exist (which include Australia’s non-refoulement obligations), must be removed from Australia regardless of Australia’s international non-refoulement obligations. That possibility arises because it is possible that a person who is found to meet the refugee or complementary protection criteria will be refused a protection visa under section 36(1C) or 36(2C)(b) as being a danger to Australian security or the Australian community. This possibility is envisaged in Direction 75. It is also possible that a person who meets the criteria in section 36 of the Act will be refused a protection visa under section 501 of the Act (however, in that case, an assessment of Australia’s non-refoulement obligations will arise again for consideration).
If this situation were to eventuate, that Australia has protection obligations in respect of a person, but that the person is not granted a Protection visa, it is still possible for the Minister to personally intervene by the exercise of one of a number of discretionary powers to grant the non-citizen a visa, most obviously the Minister’s discretionary powers in section 195A, section 417 and section 501J of the Act. However, all of these powers are only exercisable if the Minister thinks that it is in the public interest to do so. In circumstances where a non-citizen’s visa has been cancelled under section 501(3A) for having a substantial criminal record, it may be difficult for the Minister to think that it is in the public interest to grant such non-citizen a visa (however, presumably the public interest in not breaching Australia’s non-refoulement obligations would be considered in coming to a decision regarding the overall public interest).
If the Minister did not exercise one of his discretionary powers to grant the non-citizen a visa, the effect of section 198, when read with section 197C of the Act, appear to be that the non-citizen would be required to be removed from Australia regardless of Australia’s international non-refoulement obligations.
Nevertheless, in this case, the Tribunal considers that there is only a very remote possibility Australia will breach any non-refoulement obligations in respect of the Applicant. It appears from the limited information before the Tribunal that the Applicant’s refugee claims are particularly weak. The Applicant has never suffered harm or persecution because of his religion in the past, including when he was living in China. Indeed, it is apparent from the Applicant’s evidence that he was unaware of any persecution of Christians by the Chinese government up until very recently. The Applicant’s description of the practice of his faith in Australia appears to be that of a follower of mainstream Protestantism. He has not reported that he has been involved in any religious or political activism, or indeed public practice of his faith. Rather, he told the Tribunal that, before he was incarcerated, his Christian practice involved attending church on Sundays and praying and reading the Bible at home. The Applicant has indicated that he is not a religious leader and did not indicate that he had any interest in becoming one in the future. The Applicant gave no indication that he intended to practice his faith in China in any different way than he had in Australia. The information that the Applicant has provided to the Tribunal would tend to indicate that, if the Applicant returned to China and wished to continue his religious practice, he would be likely to do so as a member of the registered Protestant church rather than as a leader, that he would attend church and pray and read the Bible at home and would not involve himself in political or religious activism. As this would be the likely extent of his practice, the information provided by both the Applicant and the Respondent would appear to indicate that there is no real chance that the Applicant would suffer serious harm, or a real risk that the Applicant would suffer significant harm, by the Chinese government, on account of his religion. Thus, the Tribunal considers it likely that the Applicant will not be found to be a person in respect of whom Australia owes protection obligations, and that he will be refused a Protection visa on that basis. If this is correct, the removal of the Applicant from Australia will not result in any breach of Australia’s international non-refoulement obligations.
The Tribunal does not accept the Applicant’s claim that the Chinese government would be eavesdropping on telephone conversations with his children or on other computer applications, discover that he was Christian, and persecute him as a consequence. There is no evidence before the Tribunal that the Chinese government is undertaking such activities, especially in relation to regular members of mainstream churches.
The potential difficulties for the Applicant in China in respect of the practice of his religion which would not amount to persecution are discussed below under the consideration of impediments to the Applicant re-establishing himself in China.
Any claims that the Applicant has to fear persecution in China will be considered thoroughly if he makes a Protection visa application. In this case, the Tribunal considers that there is only a very remote possibility that Australia will breach any non-refoulement obligations in respect of the Applicant.
The Tribunal gives this consideration no weight in this case.
b) Strength, nature and duration of ties
The Applicant first arrived in Australia some 18 years ago in 2001 and has lived here for almost all of the time since then. The Applicant was 30 years old when he arrived in Australia.
The Applicant began offending in late 2006 or early 2007, just over five years after first arriving in Australia.
The Applicant’s three children are all Australian citizens and the Applicant has friends in Australia who have written letters in support of the Applicant. The best interests of each of that Applicant’s children have been considered as a primary consideration above. As found above, the Applicant’s immediate family members in Australia, his three Australian children, will be adversely affected if the cancellation of his visa is not revoked. Apart from his three children, the Applicant does not have any immediate family in Australia. It appears that the closest of his friends are former fellow inmates that the Applicant met during his time in prison.
The Tribunal considers that the Applicant has ties to Australia, having lived here for 18 years, having all three of his children being born and raised in Australia and that he has worked in the Australian community. The Applicant has also given evidence that he has been an active member of the churches which he has attended in Australia since becoming a Christian after his first offending. Because the Applicant has committed violent sexual crimes against women during both periods in which he was employed, it is somewhat difficult to ascertain whether the Applicant was contributing positively to the Australian community.
The Tribunal also considers that the Applicant’s ties to those outside of prison and immigration detention have weakened. Of the 10 letters in support of the Applicant provided recently in relation to the cancellation of the Applicant’s visa, only one, the letter from Mr Weiqi Zhang, was from someone the Applicant knew before he was imprisoned. All of the 10 other letters are from former inmates or people that the Applicant met in prison or immigration detention.
The Tribunal has also considered the effect of non-revocation on the Applicant under this consideration. If it had not, the Tribunal would have considered the effect on the Applicant, other than as regards to non-refoulement and impediments upon return, separately, as an “other” consideration. The Tribunal considers that the non-revocation of the cancellation decision would have a significant negative effect on the Applicant. The Applicant would be permanently separated from his children and the country in which he has resided for 18 years. The Applicant will lose the chance spend time with his children in person.
Overall, the Tribunal finds that this consideration weighs in favour of the revocation of the cancellation of the Applicant’s visa. The Tribunal places moderate weight on this consideration in the Applicant’s favour.
(c) Impact on Australian business interests
Neither party has argued that this consideration is relevant in the current matter. In the circumstances the Tribunal places no weight on this consideration.
(d) Impact on victims
There is no direct evidence of the impact of a decision not to revoke on members of the Australian community including victims of the Applicant’s behaviour and their family members. Given the severe negative effects of the Applicants offending as recorded in the victim impact statements of the four victims, the Respondent invited the Tribunal to draw the inference that the victim’s would welcome a decision not to revoke cancellation. While I see some force to that argument, the Tribunal considers that the prudent course in the absence of direct evidence of the impact of a non-revocation decision is to place no weight on this consideration. In these circumstances the Tribunal places no weight on this consideration.
(e) Extent of impediments if removed
The Tribunal finds that the Applicant would not face any cultural or language barriers if he were to return to China. He lived in China for the first 30 years of his life. The Applicant has two sisters living in China and his parents and a brother live in Hong Kong. There is no evidence before the Tribunal as to whether the Applicant would be likely to receive any support from the Chinese government.
The Applicant has told the Tribunal that he does not have a house or any assets in China and that he transferred all of his assets in Australia to his wife upon his imprisonment. The Tribunal finds that it will indeed be difficult for the Applicant to re-establish himself in China both financially and in circumstances where he will be dearly missing his children.
The Tribunal observes that the Applicant appeared to have been gainfully employed in China in the past and that this augurs well for his prospects of employment in the future. The Applicant has an information technology qualification from China, and vocational qualifications in carpentry, textile fabrication and warehousing. The Applicant also has experience in Australia and previously in China as a masseur. Whereas he is prohibited from providing services a masseur in Australia, there is nothing to indicate that the Applicant could not provide those services in China, nor is there anything the Tribunal can do to prevent him from doing so. The Tribunal considers that, given the circumstances of his previous offending, the Applicant should never be allowed to provide massage services again. If he were to do so in China, that may present a risk to women in China but as the Tribunal has indicated, there is nothing the Tribunal can do to prevent the Applicant from working as a masseur in China and the Tribunal is primarily concerned with the safety of the Australian community and not that of the Chinese community in China.
The Tribunal has considered that, if the Applicant decides to continue practising his Christian faith in China, he is likely to find that the freedom available to practice ones religion in China is far more restricted than in Australia. However, as the Tribunal has discussed above under consideration of Australia’s international non-refoulement obligations, it appears likely that the Applicant could continue to practice his faith as he has in Australia without any excessive interference by the Chinese government.
The Tribunal does not accept the Applicant’s claim that the Chinese government would be eavesdropping on telephone conversations with his children or on other computer applications, discover that he was Christian, and persecute him in consequence. There is no evidence before the Tribunal that the Chinese government is undertaking such activities, especially in relation to regular members of mainstream churches.
The Tribunal finds that this consideration weighs in favour of revocation. The Tribunal attributes low weight to this consideration in the Applicant’s favour.
Conclusion: Is there Another Reason to Revoke the Cancellation of the Applicant’s Visa?
The Tribunal has found that the primary consideration of the protection of the Australian community weighs significantly against revocation of visa cancellation. Similarly, the Tribunal has found that the primary consideration of the expectations of the Australian community weighs moderately against revocation of visa cancellation. The Tribunal has found that the Applicant’s offences were very serious, that there would be great harm to the Australian community or to members of the community if they were repeated and that there is a real risk that the Applicant will re-offend. The Tribunal has also found that the Australian community would expect that the Tribunal not revoke cancellation of the Applicant’s visa, notwithstanding the harm to his children that non-revocation would cause.
On the other hand, the Tribunal has found that the primary consideration of the best interests of minor children, in this case, each of the Applicant’s children, weighs moderately in favour of revocation of the cancellation decision. The Tribunal has found that each of the children would be adversely affected if the cancellation decision is not revoked and that it is in the best interests of each child that the Tribunal revoke cancellation. In addition, the Tribunal has found that the consideration of the strength, nature and duration of ties of the Applicant to Australia weighs in favour of revocation of the cancellation decision and attributed moderate weight to this consideration. The Tribunal has found that the Applicant will be significantly adversely affected if the cancellation decision is not revoked. Finally, the Tribunal has found that the consideration of the extent of impediments if removed weighs in favour of revocation of the cancellation decision and attributed low weight to this consideration.
After considering all of the relevant considerations in this matter and the weight that I have attributed to them, informed by the principles in paragraph 6.3 of the Direction, I have decided that the primary considerations of the protection of the Australian community and the expectations of the Australian community outweigh all other considerations in the Applicant’s favour.
The Tribunal has found that the Applicant does not pass the character test and that there is not another reason why the cancellation decision should be revoked.
Therefore, the Tribunal finds that the Minister’s delegate’s decision, to refuse to revoke the decision to cancel the Applicant’s visa, is the correct decision.
DECISION
The decision under review is affirmed.
I certify that the preceding one hundred and eighty-two [182] paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Member Tigiilagi Eteuati

............................[sgd]...........................................

Associate

Dated: 27 February 2019

Date of hearing:		19 February 2019
Applicant:		In Person
Solicitor for the Respondent:		Mr David McLaren MinterEllison
Annexure 1 – Exhibit Register
Exhibit Number		Description of Evidence
G1		Section 501 G-Documents;
A1		Applicant’s Submission dated 12 February 2019
A2		Letter of Support from Pastor dated 30 November 2018
A3		Letter of Support dated 4 October 2018
A4		Document titled ‘China’s pre-Christmas Church crackdown raises alarm’ dated 18 December 2018
S1		Supplementary Document: Agreed Facts dated 2 February 2008 (Reference S11: pp 155-158)
S2		Supplementary Document: Statement of Facts dated 13 May 2015 (Reference S29: pp 251-254)
S3		Supplementary Document: Risk Assessment Report made by Psychologist Ms Jenny Howell dated 11 August 2008 (Reference: S37: pp 310-317)
S4		Supplementary Document: Report made by Mr Sam Borenstein dated 16 June 2015 (Reference: S37: pp 300-309)
S5		Supplementary Document: Certificates of Conviction (Reference: S41: pp 329-332)
S6		Supplementary Document: Victim Impact Statement and accompanying documents (Reference: S11: pp 163-174)
S7		Supplementary Document: Victim Impact Statement and accompanying documents (Reference: S11: pp 175-181)
S8		Supplementary Document: Victim Impact Statement dated 26 June 2015 (Reference: S37: pp 287-292)
S9		Statement of Decision from Health Care Complaints Commission dated 7 October 2015 (Reference: S46: pp 341-347)
S10		Witness Statement dated 24 May 2009 (Reference: S4: pp 66-69)
S11		Witness Statement dated 13 September 2007 (Reference: S4: pp 73-76)
S12		Visitor log in relation to the Applicant from Villawood Immigration Detention Centre (Undated) (Reference: S44: pp 338)
S13		Emails dated 06 January 2009 to 27 March 2009. (Reference: FS12: pp 33-35)
S14		Psychology Service Progress Notes in relation to the Applicant from Ms Julia Weinstein dated 4 July 2017 to 27 October 2017 (Reference: FS20: pp 52-54)
S15		‘STABLE 2007 – Tally Sheet’ from Ms Julia Weinstein dated 8 December 2017 (Reference: FS21: pp 55-61)
S16		Letter from Sex Offenders Programs – NSW Corrective Services to the Applicant dated 22 March 2018 (Reference: FS24: p 82)
S17		DFAT Country Information Report – People’s Republic of China dated 21 December 2017 (Reference: FS26: 86-117)
S18		Letters of Reference from various businesses (reference: S12: 184-186)
S19		Character Reference dated 12 June 2015 (Reference: S37 page 319)
S20		Character Reference dated 14 May 2015 (Reference: S37 page 320)
S21		Statement from Applicant’s ex-wife (undated) (Reference: S12: Page 196)