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

CDGJ and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs (Migration) [2024] AATA 2612 (20 June 2024)
Administrative Appeals Tribunal

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )

) No: 2024/2134

GENERAL DIVISION )
Re: CDGJ
Applicant

And: Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs
Respondent
DIRECTION
TRIBUNAL:  Senior Member R Bellamy
DATE OF CORRIGENDUM:            23 July 2024
PLACE:           Brisbane

The Tribunal directs the Registrar, pursuant to subsection 43AA(1) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, to alter the text of the decision in this application as follows:
In paragraph 144, delete “and low weight under Other Consideration (a)” and substitute “low weight under Other Consideration (a) and marginal weight under Other Consideration (b)”
.................[SGD].................
Senior Member R Bellamy

Division:GENERAL DIVISION
File Number: 2024/2134
Re:CDGJ
APPLICANT

AndMinister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs
RESPONDENT

DECISION
Tribunal:Senior Member Rebecca Bellamy
Date of Decision: 20 June 2024
Date of Reasons: 22 July 2024
Place:Brisbane

On 20 June 2024, the decision under review was affirmed.

.....................[SGD]......................
Senior Member R Bellamy

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Application for Bridging E (Class WE) visa – where Applicant does not pass the character test – serious fraud against vulnerable victims – limited remorse – whether to exercise the discretion to refuse the application – consideration of Ministerial Direction No. 99 – decision affirmed
LEGISLATION
Crimes Act 1914 (Cth)
Foreign Passports (Law enforcement and Security) Act 2005 (Cth)
Migration Act 1958 (Cth)
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth)
Proceeds of Crime Act2002 (Cth)
SECONDARY MATERIALS
Direction No 99 – Visa refusal and cancellation under section 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under section 501CA
REASONS FOR DECISION
Senior Member R Bellamy
22 July 2024

The Applicant cannot be identified in this decision due to the operation of a mandatory provision of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (“the Act”).[1] She is a citizen of China,[2] who has remained in Australia for over 12 years without ever having held a substantive visa.[3] She spent three of those years in prison for serious crimes. After serving the non-parole part of her sentence, she was placed in immigration detention.[4] This matter concerns her application for a Bridging E (Class WE) visa (“visa”) which, if granted, would allow her to spend a short period in the wider community before being removed to China.[5] The reasons for my decision are lengthy. That is because it is not only the Applicant’s offending conduct, but her conduct since she was caught, that leads me to conclude that her character is such that she should not, at this time, be given even the slightest opportunity to get a foothold into the Australian community.
[1] Section 501K of the Migration Act 1958 (“the Act”).
[2] G- Documents, G4, page 610.
[3] She has held the following kinds of visas: tourist, bridging and Criminal Justice.
[4] G-Documents, G4, page 165.
[5] G-Documents, G4, pages 609 to 618.
VISA REFUSAL UNDER S 501(1) OF THE ACT
Section 501(1) of the Act provides that the Minister may refuse to grant a visa to a person if the person does not satisfy the Minister that the person passes the character test. Under s 501(6)(a) of the Act, a person will not pass the character test if they have “a substantial criminal record”. Section 501(7)(c) of the Act relevantly provides that a person has a substantial criminal record if they have “been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more”. The Applicant was sentenced to multiple periods of imprisonment for 12 months or more, so she does not pass the character test. A delegate of the Minister (“the Respondent”) refused her visa application,[6] and she applied to the Tribunal to set-aside that decision.[7] The Tribunal does not have the power to grant the visa: only to refuse to grant it or to decide that it is not refused under s 501(1) of the Act.
[6] G-Documents, G2, page 11.
[7] G-Documents, G1, pages 1 to 10.
The hearing of this application took place on 17 and 18 June 2024. The Applicant gave evidence by video, as did her husband, his two adult children, and a family friend. Another family friend gave evidence by telephone. The Tribunal received the documentary evidence that is listed in the attached exhibit list, marked “Annexure A”.
In deciding whether to exercise the discretion to refuse the visa, the Tribunal is bound by

s 499(2A) of the Act to comply with any directions made under the Act. At the time when the Tribunal decided this application, Direction No 99 – Visa refusal and cancellation under section 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under section 501CA (“the Direction”) applied.
The Direction contains nine mechanical provisions, known as mandatory considerations, which are to be applied in accordance with the guiding principles. The guiding principles in paragraph 5.2 of the Direction may be summarised as follows, as far as they relate to this decision:
·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.
·Non-citizens who engage or have engaged in criminal or other serious conduct should expect to be denied the privilege of coming to, or to forfeit the privilege of staying in, Australia.
·The Australian community expects that the Australian Government can and should refuse entry to non-citizens if they engaged in conduct, in Australia or elsewhere, that raises serious character concerns. This expectation of the Australian community applies regardless of whether the non-citizen poses a measurable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community.
·Australia will generally afford a higher level of tolerance of criminal or other serious conduct by non citizens who have lived in the Australian community for most of their life, or from a very young age. The level of tolerance will rise with the length of time a non-citizen has spent in the Australian community, particularly in their formative years.
·Decision-makers must take into account the primary and other considerations relevant to the individual case. In some circumstances, the nature of the non-citizen's conduct, or the harm that would be caused if the conduct were to be repeated, may be so serious that even strong countervailing considerations may be insufficient to justify not cancelling or refusing the visa, or revoking a mandatory cancellation.
Paragraph 6 of the Direction provides that:
Informed by the principles in paragraph 5.2, a decision maker must take into account the considerations identified in sections 8 and 9, where relevant to the decision.
Paragraphs 8 and 9 of the Direction set out Primary Considerations and Other Considerations that the Tribunal must take into account. Paragraph 7(2) provides that the primary considerations should generally be given greater weight than the other considerations, and paragraph 7(3) provides that one or more primary considerations may outweigh other primary considerations.
ARRIVAL IN AUSTRALIA
The Applicant came to Australia in March 2012 on a tourist visa when she was 30 years old.[8] She claimed to have run an English teaching school for children and adults in China, before coming to Australia. According to her, she came here for a holiday, and she wanted to visit Australia schools and universities. She said:
“I thought it would be benefit for my students if I can see what the real situation of real Australia education institutes is. I met my ex-husband in Australia”.[9]
[8] G-Documents, G4, pages 655 to 656.
[9] G-Documents, G4, page 601.
In the hearing, she disclosed that she had met a man, “Mr D” on the internet and maintained a friendship with him for two years before coming to Australia. Upon arrival, she stayed with him, and settled in Perth. After nine months, they married and she subsequently applied for a partner visa. [10]
[10] Transcript, page 46, lines 15 to 20; G-Documents, G4, page 198
The Applicant claimed Mr D was an abusive cannabis addict who pressured her for money.[11] Incident reports from 2012 and 2013 that were produced under summons by the Western Australian police indicate that it was a troubled relationship. For example, Mr D accused her of having travelled to Melbourne when she had told him she was visiting China, and he believed she was working as a prostitute.[12] On one occasion, the police escorted the Applicant to Mr D’s home to collect her belongings, without incident.[13] There is also a record of the Applicant being admitted to a mental health facility for assessment with respect to a self-harm incident.[14]
[11] G-Documents, G4, page 602.
[12] Respondent’s Tender Bundle, pages 5 to 6.
[13] Respondent’s Tender Bundle, page 5
[14] Respondent’s Tender Bundle, pages 18 to 19.
Departmental movement records show that the first time the Applicant left Australia after arriving here was in December 2014.[15] The Applicant indicated that while she was visiting China, Mr D put all her belongings in her car and left it in front of her friend’s place. She decided to leave him, but he threatened to withdraw his sponsorship for the partner visa if she did not come back.[16]
[15] G-Documents, G6, page 656.
[16] G-Documents, G4, pages 196 to199.
THE OFFENDING
From early 2013 to mid-2015, the Applicant operated a migration agency, “Jaycay Migration Agent”. She held herself out to be a registered migration agent, but she was not. She was not authorised to provide immigration assistance. While operating her business, she took money from clients for migration services that she did not render, and she presented clients with forged documents to deceive them into thinking she had provided the services.[17]
[17] G-Documents, G4, pages 52 to 66.
In January 2013, the Applicant registered an Australian Business Number. She later included this business number on contracts she made with clients of her business, which she started operating in March 2013.[18]
[18] G-Documents, G4, page 53. G-Documents, G4, page 151.
In about March 2013, the Applicant approached “Mr G” about subletting his office space. He was a registered migration agent, but he was interested in a supermarket, so he temporarily put his migration work to one side.[19]
[19] G-Documents, G3, page 53.
It is unnecessary to set out all of the Applicant’s criminal conduct in detail. Some examples of what she did to her victims will suffice. The following facts are contained in the Statement of Material Facts provided to the District Court by the Director of Public Prosecutions, the District Court sentencing remarks and the judgment of the Court of Appeal.[20]
[20] Respondent’s Tender Bundle, pages 496 to 527; G-Documents, G2, pages 50 to 75; pages 78 to 164.
In March 2013, the Applicant approached a friend, “Ms Li”, offering her free immigration assistance. Ms Li was living in Australia on a guardianship visa to provide care for her daughter who was studying in Perth. Following her engagement to a Mr Wilson, she accepted the Applicant’s offer. The Applicant told Ms Li that a “very famous lawyer” would assist in the process, and that the cost of obtaining a “marriage visa” would be $10,000. They all met with the so-called lawyer at the Applicant’s office. Ms Li and Mr Wilson paid a total of $8,500. That person was not a real lawyer.
Ms Li and Mr Wilson got married, and the Applicant attended their wedding. Around June 2013, she sent Ms Li forged documents that indicated that a valid visa application had been received by the Department of Immigration and Border Protection (as it was then known) and that she had been granted a bridging visa. The Applicant told Ms Li that she had to leave Australia and return to China to activate the visa, and then she could bring her other daughter to Australia. She told Ms Li she had to leave on 1 August 2013.
In fact, on 24 June 2013, the Applicant had lodged an invalid application for a spousal visa for Ms Li. On 26 June 2013, the Department had sent an authentic letter stating that the application was not a valid application and that a condition of the guardianship visa prevented Ms Li from applying for another visa while in Australia. Neither Ms Li nor Mr Wilson were aware of the existence of this letter at the time, although a copy of it was later found in the Applicant’s possession during the execution of a search warrant.[21]
[21] G-Documents, G4, page 152.
On or around 1 August 2013, Ms Li went to the airport to travel to China. Her guardianship visa had expired on 31 July 2013. Accordingly, she did not have a visa. While going through Customs, she was told if she did not have a new visa, she would not be allowed back into Australia. She felt she had no choice but to leave Australia, so she did.
During the Applicant’s dealings with Ms Li and Mr Wilson, she attracted the attention of the Australian authorities. On 1 August 2013, several People's Republic of China passports were intercepted in incoming mail, bound for the Applicant. On 29 August 2013, officers from the Department of Foreign Affairs (“DFAT”), the Department and the Australian Federal Police (“AFP”) executed search warrants at the Applicant’s home and office. More passports were found at her home. Prospective clients in China had sent their passports to the Applicant under the belief that she needed them for the purpose of getting visas for them. At her office, evidence was found that indicated she was holding herself out to be a registered migration agent. The letter from the Department referred to above was among those documents. Cash in the amount of $30,000 was also found. In a field interview, the Applicant admitted that she was not, and never had been, a registered migration agent. On 3 September 2013 and 25 October 2013, the Applicant voluntarily participated in recorded interviews at the Passports Office.
In the hearing, the Applicant said that, at first, she thought the search of her home related to Mr D, not her. She spoke to a lawyer who she told “Well, I’m a new migrant here, I don’t know the law here, and it’s, kind of, make me panic”. The lawyer told her there was nothing to worry about as “They may do the search, they may not do anything”.[22] She was asked if she realised something was wrong when her office was searched. She replied:
“I thought, police coming, something’s seriously going on. And then I was trying to go to the interview and ask questions about it. At that time, someone’s working with me who is the migrant agent, and the – and the – I felt that was perfectly fine”.[23]
[22] Transcript, page 21, lines 7 to 20.
[23] Ibid, page 21, lines 41 to 44.
She was then asked “Are you saying that you needed someone else to tell you that you were doing the wrong thing?” to which she replied “I seriously believe, yes, because for a new migrant, I thought I’m doing it legally”.[24]
[24] Transcript, page 22, lines 5 to 7.
Returning to Ms Li and Mr Wilson, they did not immediately realise that the Applicant had caused their problems. They initially relied on her to help them. The Applicant told Mr Wilson that the visa application was unsuccessful because the Department did not consider his relationship with Ms Li to be authentic. She told him that in order to rectify this, male persons to whom Ms Li had spoken had to confirm that they were not in a relationship with her. She held a meeting with those people which she recorded. In the meeting, she claimed to be in direct contact with the Department in a professional role regarding Ms Li’s visa application. On 28 August 2013, she sent Mr Wilson a text message claiming to have applied for an “appeal visa” for Ms Li and she asked Mr Wilson to attend her office to sign some documents.
In September 2013, the Applicant asked Mr Wilson to obtain a money order to pay visa application fees and her fees. He obtained two money orders for $740 and $3,870 and gave them to the Applicant. She also asked for $115 in cash to pay for a visitor visa application so Ms Li could visit while waiting for the spouse visa. A few days later, she asked Mr Wilson for $5,000, being a “service fee”. Mr Wilson brought $5,000 in cash to her office as she requested. In late October 2013, Mr Wilson became suspicious of the Applicant and demanded to speak with the supposed lawyer. The Applicant said she could not arrange that. Mr Wilson demanded a full refund of the money he had paid, which totalled $17,070. The Applicant refunded $5,000 and asked him to give her back receipts that she had previously given him.
Ms Li was unable to return to Australia from China until February 2015, 18 months after the Applicant had dishonestly persuaded her to leave. Ms Li and Mr Wilson ended up engaging a registered migration agent to make a new application for a spousal visa.
The learned trial Judge quoted the following from Ms Li’s victim impact statement, which he said he took into account in reaching the appropriate sentence:
“I used to be an optimistic and cheerful person. I like Australia very much and believe the people here are very friendly. I like to make friends and ever since I met [the Applicant] I treated her as a good friend and often gave her red wine. I had never doubted [the Applicant] and had fully believed in [the Applicant]'s support and help to me. It was only later that I discovered that [the Applicant] not only wanted to destroy the relationship between my husband and me, but she also tried every means to put me under financial pressure. Back then after she forged a visa and coaxed me into booking a plane ticket and going back to China, [the Applicant] used various excuses to prevent my husband from going to China to see me. She also told [Mr Wilson] that she would introduce a new wife to him. At that time my husband and I both trusted her. Since she always used the name of a lawyer and the Immigration Department, my husband never doubted…What was worse, we were far apart from each other and my English language skills were very limited back then….My life was completely disrupted during that time.
I was too helpless to eat or sleep all day long. Had it not been for my two children, I would have even wanted to commit suicide….She demanded my eldest daughter Jai Li book her flight to exit Australia within a short period of time because of the stipulation of the Immigration Department no visa is to be granted unless the applicant exits Australia.
Due to the rush the ticket costed $2,000, then she got me in Fahzu, China to book a flight to Perth Australia for my little daughter Nan Li at a cost of $1,500, She told me that her lawyer friend has a close friend working in the Immigration Department and asked me to gift $5,000 to this friend of the lawyer’s.
…For a long time I didn’t want to trust any friends anymore because I was worried that they were trying to deceive me just like [the Applicant] did….[the Applicant]’s offending has so bad impact on my daughters, who are kind girls and keen to help others, but they have been too scared to make friends at school or in life…because they are afraid of making friends with evildoers like [the Applicant]….her offending has brought great impact and trauma to our lives and have left an indelible mark in our hearts.”[25]
[25] G-Documents, G4, page 68 to 69.
Four other victims made victim impact statements. One was Ms Lu. She had first met the Applicant in early 2013 after she was referred by a friend. Ms Lu was seeking a tourist visa for a Mr Liang, with whom she was in a relationship. The Applicant did actually arrange for that tourist visa and another subsequent tourist visa.

After helping Mr Liang, the Applicant asked Mr Liang and Ms Lu if they would refer some people who would like to come to Australia. She told Ms Lu the following lies:
·she worked for a large company, and had a few departments under her;
·the business was involved in marriage visas, employer nominations, technical immigration and student visas; and
·she was from Canada and had a licence to be a solicitor.
Ms Lu referred Mr C Jiang and Mr J Jiang. The Applicant undertook to assist Mr C Jiang to get a 457 visa, being a work visa, to migrate to Australia. She told Ms Lu that there were only a limited number of positions and that the boss would give the positions to whoever paid the money first. She asked for $35,000. Mr C Jiang transferred $25,000 to Ms Lu who passed it on to the Applicant in cash. As there were limits to how much Ms Lu could withdraw in a single transaction, the Applicant took her to various bank branches to make withdrawals and she took the cash on each occasion. Ms Lu added $5,000 of her own money to make $30,000, which the Applicant agreed to accept. Mr J Jiang transferred $24,700 to Ms Lu, which she gave to the Applicant in November 2014. The Applicant had wanted $24,800 so Ms Lu paid $100 of her own money. That was also for a 457 visa. No visa applications were ever made for Mr C Jiang or Mr J Jiang.
After Ms Lu and Mr Liang got married, in July 2014, the Applicant agreed to help Mr Liang apply for a spouse visa. Mr Liang paid $8,398 for the application which, he was told, included a $2,000 fee. The Applicant told him that if he paid another $17,000 his visa could be granted earlier. He and Ms Lu paid that amount in March 2015.
The Applicant came to the attention of the authorities again on 21 December 2014. When she departed for China, her baggage was searched. Her electronic devices contained forged documents and communications between her and potential visa Applicants that suggested she had provided immigration assistance to them and received payment.
According to the Applicant, her marriage broke down in February 2015.[26] Also in February 2015, she met “Mr M”, an older gentleman with a well-established family business. According to them both, she was not well, physically or mentally, and he provided comfort to her. [27]
[26] Transcript, page 48, lines 33 to 36.
[27] Transcript, page 10, line 45 to page 11, line 2; page 20, lines 7 to 14; page 62, lines 30 to 35; page 67, lines 35 to 44.
On 26 March 2015, the Applicant’s home was searched again. In the hearing, she said by the time of that search, she had stopped her activities. She said “It is only the customers keeping – contact me and doing things” and “But the only thing is at that time I still in contact with my previous boss in relation to their refund”. She was asked “Okay, so are you saying that you did not take any more money after the March 2015 search warrant?” to which she replied “Yes”.[28]
[28] Transcript, page 21, lines 19 to 21; page 22, lines 11 to 15.
Analysis of the seized documents and digital items revealed forged Departmental documents and further evidence that the Applicant had provided immigration assistance to a large number of people, however many of those people were unable to be interviewed as they were no longer in Australia. The Applicant participated in a field interview in which she again said she was not, and had never been, a registered migration agent. When questioned about advertisements and documents such as receipt books that contained the business name “Jaycay Migration Agent” and her phone number, she said she answered the telephone for the migration agent she worked for, Mr G, who owned that business. She said she had helped him out with some translations and copying information for visa application, but she had not taken payment for providing immigration assistance: she was simply being helpful. Mr G was also interviewed and, according to him, the Applicant never worked for him, and she had no involvement at all in his migration business.
The Applicant and Mr M moved in together around May 2015.[29] In the hearing, she claimed that at that time she was “kind of, unemployed” and living on her savings. She told Mr M she had previously been working for a migration agent.[30] He paid for most of their living expenses.[31] She recalled that, after they moved in together, a lot of the victims came to their house “to visit me all the time, and then try to sort it out, what was going on, what was happening”.[32]
[29] Transcript, page 10, line 45 to page 11, line 2; page 20, lines 7 to 14; page 62, lines 30 to 35; page 67, page 35 to 44.
[30] Transcript, page 20, lines 15 to 20.
[31] Transcript, page 11, lines 30 to 37.
[32] Transcript, page 20, lines 21 to 24.
The Applicant, in fact, did take money after the March 2015 search. In 2014, she had met Ms Hao who wanted a visa for her son to come to Australia. On 11 June 2015, the Applicant told Ms Hao that the visa application had been pre-approved, and Ms Hao made a payment of $5,835. Ms Hao signed a contract with the Applicant on 16 June 2015. Two days later, the Applicant told Ms Hao the visa had been granted for one year, as long as a security deposit was paid. Ms Hao wanted to pay it directly to the Department, but the Applicant told her they would not accept cash and to pay it to her instead. On 16 July 2015, Ms Hao paid the Applicant $16,000, which she thought included $990 for medical insurance and $15,000 for the security deposit.
Ms Hao was advised by a friend that she could check her son’s visa status online. When she did, she was unable to see an application. The Applicant told Ms Hao it was not ready. Ms Hao called the Department and was told there was no application and no payments had been made. The Applicant told Ms Hao she could request a refund from the Department for the application fees. Ms Hao had paid a total of $21,835 to the Applicant. She received a refund of $200 from one of the Applicant’s associates.
Returning to Mr Liang and Ms Lu, on 10 October 2015, the Department contacted Mr Liang requesting further material for his application. He attended a meeting, and he asked about the $17,000 he had paid to speed up the process. He was told that there was no such charge. The Applicant agreed to refund the $17,000 to Mr Liang, but she never did.
The investigation into the Applicant’s offending appears to have been a complicated one, involving multiple government agencies and victims who did not speak good English. The Applicant was charged in September 2015,[33] and it took until 2020 for an indictment to be presented. The witness list on the Statement of Material Facts included 36 government officers in addition to 15 victims.[34] The learned trial Judge described the offending as difficult to detect and prosecute by reason of the language barrier, the nature of the offending, and the use of the Internet. His Honour said “full credit must be given to the investigating authorities and the professional way in which they undertook their investigation and in the way that they dealt with [the Applicant] during the search interviews”.[35]
[33] G-Documents, G4, page 196.
[34] Respondent’s Tender Bundle, pages 494 to 495.
[35] G-Documents. G4, page 66.
There were originally 43 offences on the indictment. Those charges captured the doing of various acts while not a registered migration agent, dealing with the proceeds of crime, having possession of foreign passports that were not issued to the Applicant, and dishonest use of forged documents.[36] All but 12 charges were discontinued.[37] The charges that remained were:
·10 counts of receiving a fee for giving immigration assistance while not being a registered migration agent contrary to s 281(1) of the Act;
·one count of being in possession of foreign travel documents, namely 29 passports issued by the People’s Republic of China, knowing the documents were not issued to her, contrary to s 21(4) of the Foreign Passports (Law Enforcement and Security) Act 2005; and
·one count of dealing with money with a value of $10,000 or more, that she believed to be the proceeds of crime contrary to section 400.6(1) of the Commonwealth Criminal Code.
[36] Respondent’s Tender Bundle, pages 485 to 492.
[37] Respondent’s Tender Bundle, pages 530 to 533.
However, the dishonest use of forged documents by the Applicant remained part of the factual basis of the Crown case.[38]
[38] Respondent’s Tender Bundle, pages 494 to 527.
The Applicant pleaded not guilty to all counts. The transcript of the trial is not before the Tribunal, but the material that is available indicates that the Applicant tried to put the blame on Mr G. She claimed he was the person purporting to provide immigration assistance to clients that she brought into the business. She said he did not want any financial records of his work, just cash, and did not want to meet directly with clients. Because the Applicant was prepared to work with him on this basis, he was in a “perfect position to perpetuate a fraud”. She claimed she had a reasonable excuse for possessing the passports, being that she was going to provide them to a registered migration agent to provide immigration assistance.[39] She also contended that Mr Liang and Ms Lu had received a commission from Mr G for referring the Jiangs.[40] Her defence was rejected, with the learned Judge stating “It was not the case that you were working for or with Mr [G] or any other person.”[41]
[39] G-Documents, G4page 103.
[40] Respondent’s Tender Bundle, pages 260 to 261.
[41] G-Documents, G4, page 53.
The jury convicted the Applicant of all charges, and she was sentenced to multiple terms of imprisonment of between 18 months and three years. The learned trial Judge crafted the sentences in a way that meant her total effective sentence was six years and six months imprisonment (which was later reduced on appeal). He found that she had collected fees in the amount of $227,655 and ordered her to repay $188,235, which represented the amount she had not refunded. The $30,000 found in the search of her office was forfeited to the Crown as proceeds of crime.
The learned trial Judge made the following remarks when passing sentence:
“Overall, you engaged in a prolonged, systematic, predatory and dishonest scheme…You sought to engender the trust of your clients through various means, including making some refund payments at strategic times for reputational reasons. You took significant sums of money from your clients for services that you were purportedly providing to them.
You knew, and took advantage of the fact, that your clients were vulnerable and were non-English speakers. You utilised forged documents…the evidence is consistent with the verdict of the jury that you were prepared to use forged documents for the purposes of the venture, and you must have been aware that they were false documents.
You misled clients in relation to various topics, including the fees and conditions relevant to the particular visa that they were seeking assistance in obtaining. You often failed to obtain or even submit the relevant visa application, leaving the client in a disadvantaged position which added to the burden of attempting to remedy the record or extricate themselves from the circumstances you had put them in with the authorities. On any view, you grossly abused the trust which was placed in you by those prepared to give you substantial sums of money in the hope of obtaining a lawful immigration position in this country.
As can be seen when we come to them, the victim impact statements speak to the significant personal and emotional distress that you have caused your clients. You often failed to refund the significant fees you received notwithstanding that you represented that a refund would be available if the application was unsuccessful….
When you were confronted by the victims, you blamed others and provided misleading explanations in the knowledge that the language difficulties of the clients would lessen the likelihood of them determining the true position…
You as a result unlawfully received fees for giving immigration assistance of at least $227,655. Of that amount, a sum of $188,235 is still outstanding…You should, of course, Ms [Applicant], in the course of time ensure that you comply with the repayment orders. You also actively in the course of your dealings with your clients discourage them from attending the Department of Immigration with you in order to sort out alleged issues with respect to their applications because you would have known and appreciated that there were difficulties…
Plainly, the offending was not isolated or an opportunistic one-off offence on any occasion. It was the result of calculated premeditated decisions by you at the relevant times which involve a significant effort and considerably planning, all for the purpose of deriving a commercial benefit…
It is also an aggravating feature that you were prepared to involve others and use others in the scheme to assist you for the purpose of committing the offences. As mentioned, I make no finding of the extent of their knowledge of their involvement in the criminality that you were partaking in….
There are five signed victim impact statements…In general terms they speak to the enormous mental damage and misfortune to their families that your conduct has brought upon them…The impact of the offending has gone through the various layers of the family structures in this country and also in China. The extent of the loss and damage cannot be underestimated and it will be in many respects ongoing psychologically for the victims and the indirect victims.
…there is no mitigation to be found in any material before the court which would demonstrate any degree of remorse or insight by the offender in relation to the nature and seriousness of the offending. No contrition has been expressed and no apology has been offered to the victims by the offender…
It is accepted that there is no prior criminal history in this country and therefore she is to be treated at sentence as a person of otherwise prior good character…
[With respect to a psychological report put forward by the Applicant] The marriage failed, for reasons which have been mentioned, and this placed a great deal of personal, emotional and financial stress on the offender. That is evident from the reference to the medical history of the offender in the psychological report. It is of course the case that she received, after the offending, a formal diagnosis of adjustment disorder arising out of those stressors and mental health issues…
I accept for the purpose of sentencing that they were in the background and explain in part the conduct of the offender during the relevant period of the offending… The degree of calculation, planning a premeditation is such that the offending cannot be explained as wholly caused by her personal mental health issues and stressors….
The timing of the diagnosis is consistent with the matter coming to a head and the stress being at its maximum by reason of the fact that she was clearly receiving the attention of the relevant federal authorities for her activities…
The court does accept and find that there is good prospects of rehabilitation at some future point in time somewhere…So consistent with the psychological report, I accept that the prospect based on the known information at this point in time of future offending is a low risk.”[42]
[42] G-Documents. G4, pages 49 to 75.
OTHER RELEVANT MATTERS
From December 2012 until February 2017, the Applicant was on a series of bridging visas.[43]
[43] G-Documents, G5, page 655.
Mr M found out about the Applicant’s activities when she was arrested in September 2015.[44] He put up a surety so she could be released on bail, and he paid her subsequent legal fees.[45] According to her, she had sold an apartment she owned in China, and used some of the proceeds to pay clients who were asking for refunds, and Mr M helped her to pay back a “little bit”.[46]
[44] Transcript, page 68, line 21.
[45] Transcript, page 20, line 34; page 51, lines 15 to 17.
[46] Transcript, page 50, lines 1 to 25.
The Applicant’s previous husband, Mr D, had withdrawn his sponsorship for her partner visa, resulting in the application being rejected. She appealed that decision to the Migration and Refugee Division (“the MRD”) of the Tribunal. She said she did not receive the notice of the Tribunal hearing and the case was closed in 2017.[47] In the present hearing, the Applicant was asked why she persisted with the application after the relationship broke down, and she did not give a satisfactory answer.[48] While appealing that decision in the MRD, she lodged a new partner visa application based on her relationship with Ms M. Two days after lodging the application, she was granted a Criminal Justice Visa. This had been requested by the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (“CDPP”).[49] It appears that visa was granted in February 2017.[50]
[47] G-Documents, G4, page 199.
[48] Transcript, page 48, line 32 to page 49, line 35.
[49] Respondent’s Tender Bundle, pages 289 to 294.
[50] G-Documents, G5, page 655.
The Applicant complained that the grant of the CJV stopped her second partner visa application from being progressed. In a request to the Minister for Ministerial Intervention that she made in February 2024, she said it was “procedurally unfair” for the CDPP to have requested the CJV because she was “not in imminent danger of being deported”, so the CJV was “unnecessary and against all normal guidelines”. She complained that:
“That single act and what followed on you will see has changed my life forever if the CJV had not been issued when it was not essential. I would now hold a substantive visa with my new partner of 9 years”. [51]
(Errors in original)
[51] G-Documents, G4, pages 214 to 217.
It is quite an assumption that the Applicant would have been granted a partner visa while facing serious charges.
Further, a Criminal Justice Stay Visa (“CJV”) may only be granted if there is a Criminal Justice Stay Certificate (“CJC”) or a Criminal Justice Stay warrant in force.[52] The Act provides that the Minister may issue a certificate (the CJC) to the effect that the stay of the non - citizen's removal or deportation is required for the administration of criminal justice if, relevantly:
·   an unlawful non - citizen is to be, or is likely to be, removed or deported;[53] and
·   the Minister considers that the non - citizen should remain in Australia temporarily for the purposes of the administration of criminal justice in relation to an offence against a law of the Commonwealth; and
·   the Minister considers that satisfactory arrangements have been made to make sure that the person or organisation who wants the non - citizen for the relevant purposes or the non - citizen or both will meet the cost of keeping the non - citizen in Australia (and the cost of keeping the non-citizen does not include the cost of immigration detention).[54]
[52] s 157 of the Act
[53] This criterion applies to a Criminal Justice Warrant too.
[54] s147 of the Act.
It is reasonable to infer that the Department was satisfied, based on the information at its disposal, that these preconditions existed. The evidence before the Tribunal does not support the Applicant’s claims that the application for, or issuing of, the CJV was procedurally unfair, unnecessary or against all normal guidelines.
Another of the Applicant’s complaints in her letter to the Minister was that her CJV was cancelled in April 2021 (although she must have meant 2020) because the CDPP cancelled the cost agreement that was required for the CJV, apparently to avoid the risk of paying hospital fees in the event that she caught COVID-19 and became ill. The cancelling of the CJV meant that the Applicant spent three months in immigration detention “only months before” her trial when she was “in the critical process of finalising [her] defence.” She said her lawyers at the time raised this with the CDPP and there were lengthy discussions in court about how being in detention was affecting her defence. Mr M lodged a complaint about this with the Commonwealth Ombudsman.

In her letter, the Applicant complained that the cancellation of the cost agreement was “against procedural fairness” and that it was “used as a form of incarceration”. However, the CJC criterion set out above clearly contemplate that the organisation (CDPP in this case) will have some choice in what costs it agrees to bear and in what circumstances, and that the non-citizen can agree to bear their own costs.
The Applicant claimed that when her CJV was cancelled, she was in the process of producing new significant evidence in the form of an encrypted data download from China. She said:
“I had spent months overcoming privacy regulation (sic) and two court hearings in China to obtain approval to bypass the normal privacy regulations. I was a provided a single use encryption key to commence the download”[55]
[55] G documents, G4, page 215.
However, she said, in the middle of the download, an Australian Border Force officer (who she named her in the letter to the Minister) forced her to move rooms and closed her computer, which cancelled the download. She described this as a “devastating blow” to her defence, which cost her the trial and resulted in her spending three years in gaol. She said the Department was accusing her of crimes, while at the same time, hampering her defence.
In the hearing, the Applicant explained what she meant by all that. She claimed she had been working with a man called John who she believed was her boss, and that that Mr G was “only part of it”.[56] When asked why she previously blamed Mr G rather than John, she said Mr G knew John and she did not want to “destroy his credibility”.[57] I note that, in fact, she accused Mr G in her trial of being the mastermind of a fraud.
[56] Transcript, page 24, lines 40 to 41.
[57] Transcript, page 34, lines 20 to 24.
The Applicant said she spoke with John and her Chinese clients on WeChat, which stores data in the cloud. John had paid her a commission for referring migration clients. He paid her in cash, so there were no records of that. The only way she could prove that she had done it all for John was by producing the WeChat conversations she had with him. However, the phone she used was a business phone and she had given it back to John, so she could not access those conversations. She had gone to a lot of trouble to get records of the WeChat conversations, which are stored on servers in China. That was what the single use encryption key was for. When the Applicant was asked why she gave the phone back to John if it had important evidence on it, she said that she did not know she needed the evidence until after she got rid of it. She said at the end of 2014, she decided to leave the business and John told her to return the phone. That was before the second search and her arrest in 2015. [58]
[58] Transcript. Page 33, line 35 to page 34, line 8; page 36, line 24 to page 37, line 35; page 40, line 1 to page 40, line 30.
I find this whole story implausible. First, the CJV was cancelled five and a half years after the Applicant was first charged. She had all that time to prepare her defence and try to access this information. She was in immigration detention from April to July 2020. She was back in the community for around three months between July 2020 and the commencement of her trial in October 2020.[59]
[59] G-Documents, G4, page 613.
Second, documentary evidence that is before the Tribunal shows that the Applicant used two different mobile phone numbers in the conduct of her migration business.[60] One was a mobile phone she had before she started the business.[61] She conceded that her clients were still contacting her after she returned the business phone, via WeChat, on a new iPhone that she had bought.[62] It is not clear how, given she was able to access her WeChat account from her new iPhone, she could not access the supposed WeChat messages between her and John.
[60] Respondent’s Tender Bundle, pages 497 to 498; page 519.
[61] Phone number noted in a police report at Respondent’s Tender Bundle, page 6.
[62] Transcript page 40, lines 5 to 10.
The Applicant also claimed that when clients complained and asked for refunds, she told them to speak to John because he was in charge.[63] However, the Court of Appeal judgment makes it clear that there was no credible evidence of the existence of a “boss” figure. Some witnesses said the Applicant talked about her “boss”, but they never had any dealings with that person or knew anything about their identity. One victim asked to meet the person but, “she say today, she will say to the boss is somewhere there and the other day is somewhere - somewhere else. So from beginning to the end we have never met the boss”.[64] The Court of Appeal described this “boss” as fictitious.[65]
[63] Transcript, page 40, lines 15 to 18.
[64] G-Documents, G4, page 136
[65] G-Documents, G4, pages 126, 137 and 151.
When it was put to the Applicant that there was no evidence of any “John”, she said “I have no control of what they [meaning the victims] say”. When she was asked “you’re saying they all knew John, but all of them chose not to mention John to the police or the court?” she said, “That’s their choice”.[66]
[66] Transcript, page 40, lines 20 to 30.
The Applicant’s claims about John and evidence in China appear to be fantasy. Her claimed efforts to obtain the evidence, and her blaming of others to explain the absence of the evidence, bears some similarities to the methods she used in her offending. For example, when Ms Li discovered she did not have a visa, the Applicant tried to talk her way out of that by claiming the Department had refused the visa because it was aware that she had been speaking with other men, and she held a meeting to deal with that pretend issue.
The Applicant appealed against her convictions and the severity of her sentence. Her grounds of appeal against her conviction were:
·The trial judge should not have directed the jury to consider, in relation to evidence given through interpreters, whether the interpreter had understood the question, whether the interpreter had translated the questions of counsel correctly, and whether the interpreter had correctly interpreted the answers of witnesses into English correctly;
·The trial judge misdirecting the jury as to the elements of the migration offences;
·The guilty verdicts in relation to some counts were unreasonable or unsupported by the evidence; and
·The quality of interpretation provided by an interpreter at the trial occasioned a miscarriage of justice.
The fourth ground was not pursued at the appeal hearing. None of the other grounds succeeded. All the convictions were upheld. The court, by majority, varied the sentences so that the total effective sentence was four years and nine months imprisonment. The appeal was heard in December 2022, and the decision was delivered in February 2023. The decision is lengthy and detailed. [67]
[67] G-Documents, G4, pages 77 to 164.
I will address the first ground of appeal because it is relevant to evidence that the Applicant gave in the present proceedings. The Court of Appeal observed that Mandarin speakers gave evidence through interpreters and “Unsurprisingly, issues arose during the course of the trial as a result of the use of interpreters, some of which were remarked upon by the trial judge in the absence of the jury”. The court noted some confusion when witnesses were being cross-examined about documents originally in Mandarin which had been translated into English, and on one occasion a substituted interpreter was provided to a witness who expressed concern that answers she was giving in Mandarin were not being accurately translated into English.[68]
[68] G-Documents, G4, page 142.
The learned trial Judge had given directions including that, when assessing evidence, the jury should bear in mind the context and the way in which the question was asked. His Honour talked about complexities involved in evidence given through interpreters. In particular he said:
“The interpreters are qualified and independent interpreters appointed by the court…There are obvious difficulties. The interpreter has to be able to understand the question, then translate it into the language of the witness and then translate the answer back into English. We have all played the game Chinese whispers and this is in part the difficulty that I am referring to…
So please bear these matters in mind in your deliberations because it is difficult to assess the evidence of a witness when the process is conducted through the medium of an interpreter. Has the interpreter understood the question? Has the interpreter translated the question correctly?...
If you thought answers given by a witness were unresponsive to the question, or inapposite to the question or inconsistent with other answers given, you'll need to consider if this was the result of a failure or inability, particularly for witnesses using interpreters and particularly for witnesses whose first language is not English, on their part to properly understand the question and to properly formulate the answer they were trying to give….
So members of the jury, these are just some matters that you may wish to consider when you come to assess the testimony of the witnesses. However, you should consider the whole of the evidence, including any evidence that supports any witness's evidence in your deliberations…”[69]
[69] G-Documents, G4, pages 144 to 146.
Ground 1 was that the directions invited the jury to speculate about the accuracy of the interpretation in circumstances where the accuracy of that interpretation had not been the subject of evidence or argument between the parties at trial.[70] As stated above, the Court of Appeal rejected this ground of appeal and the other two.
[70] G-Documents, G4, pages 146 to 147.
The Court was divided about whether the Applicant’s sentence was too severe. The majority held that it was. In the minority, Quinlan CJ observed that:
“…while purporting to provide assistance to the victims in return for their money, [the Applicant] did precisely the opposite. Not only did she not help her victims in their dealings with the Australian migration system, she positively hindered those victims: by lying to them, concealing the true position and using forged and misleading records.”[71]
[71] G-Documents, G4, page 92.
His Honour noted that a psychological report referred to the Applicant claiming she always wanted to help others, “a matter that the learned trial judge accepted to ‘a degree’, although it was difficult to square with the inevitable harm her offending would cause”.[72] His Honour described the harm thus:
“Finally, the impact on the victims in the present case, as the learned trial judge found, extended well beyond the obvious financial impacts. [The Applicant’s] offending, particularly as a result of the disruption and dislocation of their lives, had very substantial impacts on the victims emotionally and psychologically, and on their extended families. The personal toll on the victims, which the learned trial judge found ‘cannot be underestimated,’ is amply reflected in the victim impact statements.”[73]
[72] G-Documents, G4, page 93.
[73] G-Documents, G4, page 92.
His Honour also noted the offending served to undermine the integrity of Australia’s migration system.[74]
[74] G-Documents, G4, page 93.
The majority, Mitchell and Vaughan JJA, did not reduce any of the individual sentences or depart from the findings of the trial Judge about the facts of the offending, but they recalibrated the sentences so that the total effective sentence was reduced. Their Honours noted the multiple ways in which the Applicant deceitfully extracted money from clients, such as inflating the amount of government fees that she told clients they needed to pay. Their Honours also pointed out that refund cheques given by the Applicant bounced.
The Applicant had legal representation in her trial and her appeal. To pay for the Applicant’s legal costs, Mr M sold an apartment and withdrew over $400,000 from his superannuation.[75] He described it as an “expensive exercise”.[76]
[75] Transcript, page 64, lines 22 to 36.
[76] Transcript, page 64, lines 19 to 21.
Just before the Applicant’s release on parole, the CJV was cancelled as she would no longer be required to be in Australia for the administration of criminal justice once she had served the custodial part of her sentence. Two days before her release, on 23 January 2024, the Applicant lodged a second appeal against her convictions which focussed on the fourth (abandoned) ground in her first appeal. Documents filed on her behalf in relation to that appeal were produced under summons by the Western Australian Supreme Court in this proceeding.
An affidavit by Mr M, dated 29 November 2023, in support of the appeal, indicated that the Applicant asked him to investigate the status of the interpreters used in her trial. It is apparent that his efforts included pestering the District Court for interpreter booking forms and other documents, and enquiring into the interpreters’ qualifications. He did not get all the material he wanted, and his take on that was that the court was biased in favour of the CDPP and deliberately withheld documents to reduce the effectiveness, and cause delay to, the Applicant’s appeal. [77]
[77] Respondent’s Tender Bundle, pages 276 to 285.
A letter from the National Accreditation Authority for Translators and Interpreters (“NAATI”), dated 7 October 2022, indicated that the organisation had been asked to provide the credentials of seven people. The letter stated that there were no records in relation to one name. The rest were all listed as “certified provisional interpreter” or “certified accredited”. In particular, a “Ms F” is listed as “Certified “Provisional Interpreter (Mandarin)” and “Certified Interpreter (Cantonese)”.[78]
[78] Respondent’s Tender Bundle, pages 286 to 288.
In written submissions,[79] the Applicant referred to incompetence and bias of one “key interpreter”, and to others being unregistered and “below recognised standards”. She said Ms F interpreted for Ms Lu (although she spelt her name Liu), Mr Liang, a relative of the Jiang’s, a Mr Zeng and his daughter, and L. Chen. The Applicant referred to a report she commissions from a Dr Wang, dated 29 October 2022.
[79] TB, pages 254 to 270.
In his report, Dr Wang claimed to be an expert in interpreting, translating and linguistics.[80] He said he found many instances where Ms F had mistranslated a question or answer, or had spoken to a witness without permission. He concluded that her performance and competence fell well below the expected level for NAATI Certified Interpreters and NAATI Certified Provisional Interpreters. Dr Wang’s report is overly critical of Ms F. For example, he referred to her interpretation of the following direction from the Judge:
“[Defence] Counsel will ask you a single question…It may be yes or no to answer the question. If that's all that's required, then that is the answer… Do not be concerned about where the next question might go or anything you might wish to add. [Crown Counsel] will be given an opportunity to ask you further questions and at that time if you wish to say something further in answer to those questions, you can do so.”[81]
[80] Respondent’s Tender Bundle, pages 356 to 421.
[81] Ibid.
According to Dr Wang, Ms F rendered the direction as follows:
“The accused person's lawyer will ask you some deliberate questions, and your lawyer, he'll then straighten things out a bit”.[82]
[82] Ibid.
Dr Wang thought the word “deliberate” carried a negative connotation in Mandarin, being usually used in the context of someone doing something on purpose despite knowing that the thing is not supposed to be done. He also took exception to the use of the term “straighten things out”, saying it meant “to correct something that is crooked” or “to set something that is off-course to the right course”, like in orthodontics. He called this a significant departure from Ms F’s ethical obligation to faithfully interpret everything that is said, and that it showed a degree of partiality on her part as she chose a pejorative term to describe the defence counsel's questioning, and the Crown “as coming back…to correct or remedy an undesirable situation.”[83]
[83] Ibid.
Ms F clearly paraphrased, rather than faithfully translated, the Judge’s direction. However, her description of re-examination was accurate: the purpose being to clarify, correct or explain evidence given in cross examination. Cross examination should be a series of deliberate questions that are normally aimed at attacking a witness’s evidence and/or the witness themselves. Without further information, it is drawing a very long bow to characterise Ms F’s description of cross examination as showing bias and well below the expected standard.
Dr Wang also criticised Ms F for telling a witness: “You should tell him that in relation to this, tell him what the calls to her were about.” He said giving instructions to the witness showed partiality towards the witness or bias against the Applicant.[84] However, Ms F did not tell the witness what evidence to give: only what topic to address. While best practice is to leave it to counsel to re-ask or clarify a question, Ms F’s attempt to assist does not show bias.
[84] Respondent’s Tender Bundle, page 262.
In the Applicant’s submissions, she made much of Dr Wang’s criticisms of Ms F, and she claimed that:
“A miscarriage of justice was occasioned by virtue of the conduct of the interpreter. By this ground of appeal, the appellant complained that the quality of the interpretation provided by [Ms F] (‘the Interpreter’) constituted such a departure from a proper standard of interpretation that it led to an unfair trial. [This ground of appeal] was ultimately withdrawn due to negligence of the lawyers when they refused to follow the appellants (sic) instructions.”[85]
[85] Respondent’s Tender Bundle, page 249.
The Applicant’s Appeal Notice further said the trial required the use of six interpreters, and that none met the national guidelines for the use of interpreters or the established qualification level set out in the District Court practices (without referring to or quoting from the claimed practices). She said tens of thousands of dollars had been spent on an expert report, but her lawyers had refused to argue Ground Four or allow her to do so herself without first sacking them, after she had spent total almost $100,000. She accused her lawyers of negligence and incompetence, and of breaching “acceptable professional codes of conduct”.[86]
[86] Ibid.
The Applicant was represented in the appeal by a Queens Counsel (at the time) and a junior barrister. In Mr M’s affidavit, he said the junior had told him that the senior did not think the fourth ground of appeal would succeed and it would therefore be unethical to argue it. The Applicant had told Mr M at the time that she “hated” junior counsel for “doing this to her”. Further, in the lead up to the appeal she had asked him to confirm that the senior barrister would attend the appeal as she said she felt like he did not exist and she “compared him to her boss who no one believed existed”.[87]
[87] Respondent’s Tender Bundle, pages 282 to 283.
In her request to the Minister, the Applicant noted that Mr M had, over the years, continued to advocate on her behalf “for fair treatment”.[88] One example in the filed material is a letter Mr M wrote in September 2022 to the Prime Minister, which he copied to the State Premier, in which he complained about various government agencies.[89] He wrote that the Applicant had an “impressive list of procedurally unfair decisions from numerous State and Commonwealth Departments”. He alleged that the Western Australian Police physically assaulted the Applicant in the Perth Watch House, causing severe bruising that resembled pinch trauma. With respect to the CDPP terminating the cost agreement, he said “I believe it was a deliberate means of by-passing the court approved bail. It was an immoral and unfair move by the CDPP officer”. He also accused the CDPP “officer involved” of saying something that was “untrue or at the very least deliberately misleading”.
[88] G-Documents, G4, page 215.
[89] Respondent’s Tender Bundle, pages 289 to 294.

With respect to the alleged interruption of the data download in immigration detention, he said it was “done by [the Applicant’s] accuser the ABF”, and that “The ABF officer that closed her laptop, deliberately interfered, with full knowledge of the consequences destroying [the Applicant’s] hopes of gaining the evidence she needed in time for her trial”.
Mr M alleged that the District Court had engaged three unregistered interpreters and three underqualified interpreters. He suggested that the learned trial Judge had made misleading statements to the jury about the qualifications of the interpreters. He also alleged that, during the trial, the Judge had unreasonably refused to provide the Applicant with the audio recording of testimony that she thought had been wrongly translated. Mr M asserted that, had it been provided, “the trial could have been stopped and the interpreters replaced with a whole different outcome likely”. Mr M’s letter indicates that the sound recording was ultimately provided (after the trial), and that the CDPP got some of the audio files enhanced and transcribed for the Applicant.
Mr M received a response from a parliamentary secretary, dated 19 December 2022, that said, among other things, that:
“the interpreters at [the applicant’s] District Court of Western Australia trial were National Accreditation Authority for Translators and Interpreters (NAATI) accredited and comply with the Recommended National Standards for Working with Interpreters In Courts and Tribunal Services”.[90]
[90] Respondent’s Tender Bundle, pages 295 to 296.
Despite that assurance, the Applicant and Mr M, on her behalf, continued to pursue a narrative that that she had been wrongly convicted because of unqualified interpreters.
I note that, whatever the standard of the interpreters, it beggars belief that they could have made the kind of mistakes that would have been required for an innocent person to have been convicted of the same offence against multiple different people, and for the involvement of a mastermind to have been obscured. Further, the witnesses for whom Ms F interpreted, according to the Applicant, for did not include Ms Li. Ms Li’s husband, Mr Wilson gave his evidence without an interpreter. According to their evidence alone, the Applicant took payment for migration services while not being a registered migration agent, failed to provide those services, uttered a forged document, concealed from them an authentic document, and deceived them in other ways. When the hearing in the present application commenced, the Applicant’s second appeal was pending.
In the hearing, the Applicant sought to give the impression that she accepted that she had committed the offences, but her evidence about that was inconsistent and unconvincing. She claimed she was appealing, not to achieve not-guilty verdicts, but as a matter of principle because the interpreters in the trial were not registered. She equated that with her having held herself out to be a migration agent when she was not registered. For example, she said:
“I did something by acting like a professional person giving advice and caused a lot of problem for my friends and for these victims. And these people, yet, working in the court without a licence”[91]
and
“I am victim is because I feel the same way that I was treated by the court services that engaged with unregistered interpreters. The court services engaged with these interpreters do exactly the same as what I did to the victims”.[92]
(Errors in original)
[91] Transcript, page 27, lines 4 to 40.
[92] Transcript, page 35, lines 32 to 35.
On 25 January 2024, the Applicant was released on parole and taken into immigration detention.[93]
[93] G-Documents, G4, pages 165 to167.
On 6 February 2024, the Applicant sought Ministerial intervention (referred to above). She asked for the Minister to issue a new costs agreement and reinstate the CJV, or grant another visa pending her appeal. She then applied for the bridging visa that is the subject of this application, on the basis that she had sought Ministerial intervention.[94]
[94] G-Documents, G4, pages 609 to 614
It was submitted on the Applicant’s behalf (and not opposed) that Ministerial Guidelines provide that the Minister will not consider a request for intervention from a person whose visa application has been refused on character grounds.
In her letter to the Minister, she described the cancellation of the CJV as unfair. She sought to characterise her appeal as part of the administration of criminal justice on the basis that it was an “investigation to find out whether an offence has been committed”. She said:
“I have maintained my innocence and need to prove it. I can prove it but only if I am provided a fair opportunity to do so. I have commenced the process of gaining a new encryption key and the process can start again. Ultimately, I will prove my case it is only a matter of how much pain the authorities put me through to obtain this.
I am aware of the mandatory deportation requirement as a result of my conviction, and I need to prove my innocence, but I can’t do that in detention.
The Dept of Immigration appears to be blocking any type of visa that will enable me to stay and continue with my fight for justice and the CDPP will never ask for another CJV because they don't want me to prove my innocence…
I am now requesting this intervention as I have no other avenues to get natural justice…
My only desire is to prove my innocence and live a normal stable life with my partner.”[95]
[95] G-Documents, G4, page 217.
On 15 and 23 February 2024, the Applicant was given a Notice of Intention to Consider Refusal and a letter inviting her to respond to further information, respectively.[96] On 4 April 2024, a delegate of the Minister found that the Applicant did not pass the character test, and exercised the discretion under s501(1) of the Act to refuse to grant the Applicant the visa.[97] On 9 April 2024, the Applicant was notified of this decision,[98] and she lodged an application for review of the decision with the Tribunal on 10 April 2024.[99]
[96] G-Documents, G4, page 623 to 627; pages 628 to 630
[97] G-Documents, G2, page 11.
[98] G-Documents, G7, page 664.
[99] G-Documents, G1, page 1.
On 1 March 2024, the Applicant was informed of a removal date.[100] On 24 March 2024, she applied for a protection visa on the basis, she said, that victims and their relatives in China would harm her if she returned there.[101] On 15 April 2024, the Department refused that application, and she applied to the MRD for review of the decision. Although she did not formally make protection claims in the present application, she did give evidence that she feared she would be targeted by victims and their families in China.[102] On the second hearing day, the Tribunal was notified that she had withdrawn her application to the MRD, effectively ending her efforts to get a protection visa.[103] As her protection claims were not formally raised in this matter, and her application for a protection visa is finalised, I have not had any regard those claims or the evidence she gave in relation to them.
[100] Respondent’s Tender Bundle, page 447.
[101] G-Documents, G2, page 36.
[102] Transcript, page 56 lines 18 to page 57, line 45.
[103] Transcript, page 93, lines 25 to 36.
In the hearing, the Applicant indicated that she and Mr M discussed whether to use his money to refund the victims so she and Mr M could “have a peace – quiet life”. However, “the client have argument with me, threaten me, all sorts” so Mr M said “The only way that I can protect you is go to the court, go to the police. There is no way we can resolve this” and that is why they spent the money on legal action.[104] I do not accept this explanation, given the obvious way to for the Applicant to get her victims to leave her alone was to acknowledge guilt and make financial reparations.
[104] Transcript, page 51, lines 25 to 41.
I now turn to apply the mandatory considerations that apply in this case. I will start by addressing the legal consequences of the decision.
OTHER CONSIDERATION (A): LEGAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE DECISION
This issue was a moving feast during the hearing as the Applicant initially had an ongoing application for a protection visa and it was not clear what the grounds for her application for the bridging visa were and what the grant of that visa would achieve for her.
It was agreed between the parties that, if the bridging visa were granted, it would give the Applicant a short period, likely up to 30 days, in the community to make preparations for her deportation. If the Tribunal were to refuse her application under s 501(1) of the Act, then she would be removed directly from immigration detention, and she would most likely be precluded from applying for a visa to re-enter Australia for 12 months. That is because regulation 1.03, special return criterion 5002 the Migration Regulations 1994 relevantly provides that where a person has been removed from Australia under s 198 of the Act,[105] they will only meet the special return criteria if their visa application is made more than 12 months after their removal, unless the Minister is satisfied that there are compelling circumstances that affect the interests of Australia or there are compassionate or compelling circumstances that affect the interests of an Australian citizen, an Australian permanent resident or an eligible New Zealand citizen. It was agreed between the parties, and I accept, that the special return criteria apply to partner visas, which is the type of visa the Applicant would most likely apply for.
[105] The Applicant would be removed under s198(5) of the Act.
It is pure speculation whether any visa application the Applicant makes in the future would be successful, and the concerns the Department has about her character will likely be taken into account in any application. A refusal decision in the present case would merely delay the opportunity to make an application and deny the Applicant a short period of time in the Australian community before she is deported.
There is no bar to the Applicant’s friends or family who live in Australia visiting her in detention. It is reasonable to assume that Mr M will gather her belongings that she wishes to take back to China with her. Mr M is able to travel between Australia and China during the 12 months that the Applicant must wait to apply for a visa. He will likely incur some costs and some disruption to his business activities if he does that.
Overall, I allocate low weight in favour of granting the visa under this Other Consideration.
OTHER CONSIDERATION (b) IMPEDIMENTS
Paragraph 9.2 of the Direction directs a decision-maker to take into account the extent of any impediments that the non-citizen may face if removed from Australia to their home country, in establishing themselves and maintaining basic living standards (in the context of what is generally available to other citizens of that country), taking into account:
(a)the non-citizen’s age and health;
(b)whether there are any substantial language or cultural barriers; and
(c)any social, medical and/or economic support available to that non-citizen in that country.
The Applicant is a 42 year old woman who is able bodied. She does not presently suffer from any mental health conditions although she previously suffered from adjustment disorder. She suffers from diabetes for which she takes medication.[106] There is no evidence that her medical needs would not be adequately met in China. Having spent the first 30 years of her life in China, and having visited there in the last ten years, I am satisfied that there are not any language or cultural barriers.
[106] G-Documents, G4, page 204.
The Applicant claimed to have been awarded a Master’s degree in International Business Trade and a Bachelor’s degree in English for Business in China.[107] Her parents live in China and she is their only child. They own their home and they have been in contact with her and Mr M while she has been in Australia.[108] I am satisfied that the Applicant would have her parents’ support in China. While she said her lack of recent qualifications and work experience in China would be a problem for her, and her criminal record would preclude her from working with children,[109] I am satisfied that the Applicant has the ability to run her own business or get work in a field that does not involve contact with children.
[107] G-Documents, G4, page 199.
[108] Transcript, page 45, lines 10 to 38.
[109] Transcript, page 16, lines 35 to 41.
Mr M mentioned that the Applicant had previously assisted his business as their suppliers are in China and she speaks the language.[110] She said she was offered a job in Mr M’s business.[111] While it appears that the job would have been in Australia, I am satisfied that there is some potential for the Applicant to do some work for his business. I am satisfied that Mr M would visit the Applicant and that they would remain in touch when he is in Australia, which would provide some emotional support to her.
[110] Transcript, page 64, lines 12 to 16.
[111] G-Documents, G4, page 209.
However, this decision will not determine whether or when the Applicant is returned to China. An adverse outcome will not result in her being removed to China and a favourable outcome will not keep her in Australia or delay her removal to China. Therefore, there is not a logical connection between the decision and whether or not the Applicant will have to face any of the potential impediments mentioned. A favourable decision would pave the way for an application for a visa within the next 12 months, but that does not by any means guarantee that the Applicant would return to Australia. For these reasons I allocate only marginal weight against refusing the visa.
PRIMARY CONSIDERATION 3: STRENGTH NATURE AND DURATION OF TIES TO AUSTRALIA
The Applicant was well into adulthood when she first came to Australia, so I am satisfied that she did not spend any of her formative years in Australia. She started offending within a year of her arrival. There is little evidence of positive contributions to the Australian community prior to her incarceration. I accept that she was employed in prison including as a Charity Project Coordinator. She made items to sell for charity, and she was helpful to other inmates.[112]
[112] G-Documents, G4, pages 72 to 74; pages 206 to 207.
The Applicant does not have any biological family in Australia. She recently married Mr M, who has two adult children who are each married with two children.
Mr M’s relationship with the Applicant was described by him, his children and the Applicant as loving and happy. Mr M has high blood pressure, arthritis, sleep apnoea that is controlled by a CPAP machine, and psoriasis that is generally stress related.[113] I accept that, on top of these conditions, he is very worried that he will have to choose between living out his days with his family in Australia or with his wife in China.[114] I accept that it would be preferable for Mr M to have the Applicant back home with him for a period before she is deported, and that he would prefer that she not have to wait 12 months to apply for a visa. Travelling to China to visit her in that period might stress him physically and mentally and cause some disruption to his work in Australia.
[113] G-Documents, G4, page 200.
[114] Transcript, page 17 lines 1 to 7; page 69, lines 39 to 47.
I accept that the Applicant has a positive relationship with each of Mr M’s children and their children. She has spent significant time with each family, and she has contributed to their lives by minding the children, cooking for them, making them clothes and participating in social engagements and activities with them.[115] I accept that they would like to see the Applicant before she is removed, and that they would like her to have the opportunity to apply for a visa within 12 months, more for their father’s sake. However, I am not satisfied that they would be significantly impacted by this decision.
[115] Transcript, page 83 lines 33 to 45; page 13, lines 14 to 33.
Mr M has been looking after a 77 year old former employee who fell on hard times and has some serious health problems. At the Applicant’s suggestion, he allowed this person to live with him for very low rent. The Applicant has only known the person since she has been incarcerated: they have not lived together. I accept that the person will not have Mr M’s help for any periods when he is in China in the 12 months when the Applicant cannot apply for a visa. However, he will still have a place to live and he is currently well enough to look after himself.[116]
[116] Transcript, page 96 line 10 to page 97, line 14.
The Applicant put forward some letters from other prisoners who spoke well of her.[117] I accept that she has formed some social ties in the Australian community.
[117] G-Documents, G4, pages 573 to 575.
Overall, this Primary Consideration attracts between low and medium weight against exercising the discretion to refuse to grant the visa.
Following from that Primary Consideration, I now address Primary Consideration 4 which deals solely with the impact of the decision on the interests of minor children. The four children concerned each have two parents fulfilling the parental role. The children are not dependent on the Applicant in any way, although I accept that they enjoyed spending time with her and they would like to visit her in person. The last time she was in the wider community was November 2020, so they are used to maintaining their relationship with her remotely. I am not satisfied that they would be more than marginally impacted by this decision. I allocate low weight for this Primary Consideration.
It was not seriously contended that the decision would impact any Australian business interest. I accept that there may be some disruption to is work if Mr M spends time in China in the next 12 months but the company has 13 employees and his son is able to run it in his absence. I do not consider any weight is warranted in relation to Other Consideration (d).
There is no evidence before the Tribunal from any victims about how the decision would impact them. Other Consideration (c) is neutral.
I now turn to the mandatory considerations that concern the offending: Primary Considerations 1 and 5.
PRIMARY CONSIDERATION 1: PROTECTION OF THE AUSTRALIAN COMMUNITY
Paragraph 8.1 of the Direction requires decision-makers to keep in mind the Government is committed to protecting the Australian community from harm as a result of criminal activity or other serious conduct by non-citizens. I should have particular regard to the principle that entering or remaining in Australia is a privilege that this country confers on non-citizens in the expectation that they are, and have been, law abiding, that they will respect important institutions and that they will not cause or threaten harm to individuals or the Australian community.
In determining the weight applicable to this Primary Consideration, paragraph 8.1(2) of the Direction requires me to give consideration to:
(d)the nature and seriousness of the Applicant’s conduct to date; and
(e)the risk to the Australian community should the Applicant commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct.
The Nature and Seriousness of the Applicant’s Conduct to Date
The Applicant’s criminal offending is very serious. The learned trial Judge and all three appeal Judges made that clear in their judgments. I need not repeat their remarks; suffice to say that I respectfully agree.
With respect to Commonwealth offences, a sentence of imprisonment may only be imposed if no other available sentence is appropriate in all the circumstances.[118] Even though the Applicant did not have any previous convictions, she was given substantial periods of imprisonment with a total effective sentence of four years and nine months imprisonment.
[118] Section 17A Crimes Act 1914.

Moreover, the Applicant offended against vulnerable members of the community, namely foreigners who spoke very little, or no English. The particular provision of the Act that she contravened was created with that in mind. The Second Reading speech that introduced the offence stated:
“This initiative reflects the Government’s concern over the level and nature of complaints made against incompetent or unscrupulous agents, complaints which would be familiar to many members of this chamber. It also recognises the fact that many of those who are likely to seek the assistance of agents are among the most vulnerable in our society, sometimes having a poor grasp of English, fear of authority or meagre financial resources.”[119]
[119] Hansard, 27 May 1992, page 2937.
The Applicant advertised for clients, and she asked friends and clients to refer others to her. She offended frequently, and more and more people fell victim to her. The harm she caused extended beyond her immediate victims, and beyond financial harm.
The Risk to the Australian Community Should the Applicant Commit Further Offences or Engage in Other Serious Conduct
The Direction stipulates that in assessing the risk that may be posed by the Applicant to the Australian community, I must have regard to the following relevant matters, cumulatively:
·the nature of the harm to individuals or the Australian community should the Applicant engage in further criminal or other serious conduct;
·the likelihood of the Applicant engaging in further criminal or other serious conduct, taking into account:
oinformation and evidence on the risk of the Applicant re-offending; and
oevidence of rehabilitation achieved by the time of the decision; and
·whether the risk of harm may be affected by the duration and purpose of the Applicant’s intended stay, the type of visa being applied for, and whether there are strong or compassionate reasons for granting a short stay visa.
The nature of harm from any further offending of the kind the Applicant previously committed includes financial loss, loss of opportunities, and psychological and emotional harm. The impacts go beyond the immediate victims.
I am not satisfied that there are any strong or compassionate reasons for granting a short stay visa. I accept that, given the short duration of this particular type of bridging visa, it is most unlikely that the Applicant would have enough time to commit further offences of the kind she previously committed as those involved her endearing herself to people and gaining their trust. However, I am satisfied that she still has the mindset that led her to commit offences for the reasons that follow.
I accept that the Applicant did not commit any offences while she was on bail and that her custodial behaviour was exemplary. In prison, she participated in a few courses, such as “Plan for Personal Management” and New Opportunity for Women – Handle Personal Finances”. She also completed a course called “Standing on Solid Ground”, which is a program aimed at increasing emotional intelligence.[120] However, she has not done any courses that are targeted at fraud, which was at the heart of her offending.
[120] Applicant’s Certificates, page 1 to 3.
A prison counsellor made a clinical note of a regular counselling session, dated 10 May 2023, entitled “Suicide Risk Assessment”. [121] In it, the counsellor indicated that the Applicant was unhappy with her new cell-mate and had said she would kill herself if her situation did not change. The counsellor noted that:
“She continues to maintain a victim stance and is not accepting of her sentence length, even after successful appeal…Her personality structure renders intervention extremely difficult”.
[121] TB, page 105.
The Applicant continues to deny, minimise and justify her offending. In the hearing, she said she accepted that she did the wrong thing, however she wavered considerably under questioning. For example, she continued to maintain that she was working for someone else. She also indicated that she only realised she had done the wrong thing during her trial when she was told that if “Even if receiving (sic) one cent of the money, even if just saying one piece of advice, you’re guilty”.[122] However, she could not adequately explain why she had then appealed against her convictions. She further asserted that she was not guilty of the passports offence as she had a reason for having the passports.[123]
[122] Transcript, page 52, lines 32 to 35.
[123] Transcript, page 30, line 27 to page 31, line 30; page 52, line 37 to page 54, line 26.
Despite, saying at the hearing, “I’m terribly sorry, and I feel regret for doing that”,[124] “Lying to people, providing forged documents, that’s my bad, that’s wrong. Absolutely, you know, ashamed of myself doing that” and “I breached the trust of my friend”, [125] she has not paid any of the reparations she was ordered to pay. When the Tribunal put to her:
“Okay. What it looks like to me is that you thought it was more important to get acquitted, than for your victims to be repaid or for your husband to keep his superannuation and his unit?”
she said:
“My husband honestly believed that I am (indistinct)….And another thing is, I was told that for the appeal is to correct the mistakes that the court made, so for interpreters, that is one of the mistakes that the court made, and for other things that the judge says might be other reason that the court may make mistakes….I was just simply thinking, okay, if there is mistakes, can you please correct it.”[126]
[124] Transcript, page 24, lines 5 to 10.
[125] Transcript, page 51, lines 1 to 11.
[126] Transcript, page 53, lines 1 to 14.
The Applicant also sought to blame her ex-husband for partly creating the conditions in which she offended. She claimed that she was in a bad financial situation because Mr D was a drug addict and expected her to financially support him. She suffered domestic violence from Mr D and became suicidal at times. Additionally, she did “not have much knowledge of the law”, she “did not receive any education from Australia universities” and did not have “experience in how to survive in a foreign country”. She got into trouble with “the wrong people” and “didn’t realize it at the time”.[127]
[127] G-Documents, pages 601 to 602.
No court has accepted that the Applicant offended at the direction of someone else. Further, it does not require a university education or much knowledge of the law to know that it is wrong and illegal to obtain money by fraud. It appears that the Applicant’s moral compass and understanding of Australian societal mores is deficient.
It is clear that the Applicant does not genuinely accept responsibility for the criminality of her actions and she does not feel any obligation to repay her victims, despite a court order requiring her to do that. In her efforts to gain financially, she caused great harm to members of the Australian community, as well as people who were overseas. In her efforts to avoid the legal consequences of her crimes, she has, with Mr M’s assistance:
·Tried to place blame on the man who sub-let office space to her;
·Upon being found guilty, partly blamed her ex-husband;
·Appealed against her convictions;
·Sought Ministerial intervention; and
·Made unsubstantiated accusations of improper conduct, in court documents and/or letters to government Ministers, against:
oThe Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions, specifically an officer involved in withdrawing the costs agreement;
oBorder Force, including a named officer;
oThe Western Australian Police Service;
oThe District Court registry;
oA District Court Judge;
oBoth barristers who acted for her in her first appeal; and
oInterpreters who assisted in her trial, with particular focus on one interpreter.
It is apparent that, in the Applicant’s mind, everyone else has acted badly and is to blame for her predicament. In her request for Ministerial intervention, she said “Ultimately, I will prove my case it is only a matter of how much pain the authorities put me through to obtain this”. However, the truth is that the Applicant continues to try to manipulate the administration of justice and government to avoid the legal consequences of her offending.
This particular visa would not give the Applicant much time to re-offend, but she certainly has the propensity to do it if given the opportunity. Further, there does not appear to be any people around her who would act as restraints on any criminal behaviour. Mr M acknowledged that she was guilty “probably under the law” but that she did not do “all the nasty stuff that the judge says (sic)”.[128] His son said the Applicant’s character “is something that shouldn’t be in question”. He was aware of her offending and the impact on her victims. When asked “So knowing that, you are still of the view that her character is – that she’s a person of good character?”, he said “That’s the [person] that I know”.[129] I note that some of the Applicant’s victims initially thought she was a person of good character.
[128] Transcript, page 68, lines 32 to 48.
[129] Transcript, page 78, line 20 to page 79, line 40.
Given the Applicant’s continuing dishonest, unrepentant behaviour, I am satisfied that she retains the sort of mind-set that would lead her to re-offend if she had, in her mind, reason to. Given the serious harm from further offending, she should not be given even the smallest opportunity to do that.
Taking all the relevant factors in this Primary Consideration into account, I allocate heavy weight in favour of exercising the discretion to refuse the visa.
PRIMARY CONSIDERATION 5: THE EXPECTATIONS OF THE AUSTRALIAN COMMUNITY
The Australian community expects non-citizens to obey Australian laws while in Australia. Where a non-citizen has engaged in serious conduct in breach of this expectation, or where there is an unacceptable risk that he may do so, the Australian community, as a norm, expects the government not to allow the non-citizen to enter or remain in Australia.[130]
[130] Paragraph 8.4(1) of the Direction.
A visa refusal may be appropriate simply because the nature of the character concerns or offences are such that the Australian community would expect that the person should not be granted or continue to hold a visa. Certain types of offences are of particular concern. Those include crimes against vulnerable persons in the form of fraud. These expectations apply regardless of whether the non-citizen poses a measurable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community.[131] I have already addressed the seriousness of the Applicant’s crimes and the fact that she targeted vulnerable people including people who thought of her as a friend. I respectfully accept the Respondent’s contention that the Applicant’s offences are a serious blight on the Australian community. I add that she has shown disrespect for, and willingness to manipulate, the legal system of the community in which she seeks to remain.
[131] Paragraph 8.4(3) of the Direction.
This Primary Consideration weighs heavily in favour of refusing the visa.
CONCLUSION
I have allocated heavy weight in favour of refusing the visa under two Primary Considerations. I have allocated between low and medium weight against refusing the visa under Primary Consideration 3, low weight under Primary Consideration 4, and low weight under Other Consideration (a). These combined do not outweigh Primary Considerations 1 and 5 together. That is, even though the risk of re-offending is low, mainly due to the type of visa concerned, and there are counter-veiling considerations, the serious and harmful nature of the applicant’s offending warrants the exercise of the discretion under s 501(1) of the Act to refuse the visa application. The decision under review is affirmed. Consequently, I exercise the discretion under s 501(1) of the Act to refuse the visa application. The decision under review is affirmed.

I certify that the preceding 144 (one hundred and forty-four) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Senior Member R Bellamy

................[SGD]..............
Associate
Dated: 22 July 2024

Dates of hearing: 17 and 18 June 2024

Solicitor for the Applicant:
Mr Hamish Glennister
William Gerard Legal Pty Ltd

Solicitor for the Respondent: Ms Madisen Scott
Australian Government Solicitor

ANNEXURE A: EXHIBIT REGISTER

EXHIBIT

DESCRIPTION OF EVIDENCE

PARTY

DATE OF DOCUMENT

DATE RECEIVED

G

G-Documents

(G1 to G7, 674 pages)

R

Various

24 April 2024

A1

Applicant’s Statement of Facts Issues and Contentions

(9 pages)

A

17 May 2024

17 May 2024

A2

Applicant’s Certificates

(3 pages)

A

Various

17 May 2024

A3

Office of the Inspector of Prisons Report

(54 pages)

A

1 September 2014

17 May 2024

R1

Respondent’s Statement of Facts Issues and Contentions (16 pages)

R

6 June 2024

6 June 2024

R2

Respondent’s Tender Bundle (No. 1 to No. 23, 476 pages)

R

Various

6 June 2024

R3

Respondent’s Further Tender Bundle (No 24 to No 29, 122 pages)

R

Various

6 June 2024

[2024] AATA 2612

20 June 2024

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Administrative Law

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Natural Justice

Procedural Fairness

Statutory Construction

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL	)
)	No: 2024/2134
GENERAL DIVISION	)

Dates of hearing:	17 and 18 June 2024
Solicitor for the Applicant:	Mr Hamish Glennister William Gerard Legal Pty Ltd
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Ms Madisen Scott Australian Government Solicitor

EXHIBIT	DESCRIPTION OF EVIDENCE	PARTY	DATE OF DOCUMENT	DATE RECEIVED
G	G-Documents (G1 to G7, 674 pages)	R	Various	24 April 2024
A1	Applicant’s Statement of Facts Issues and Contentions (9 pages)	A	17 May 2024	17 May 2024
A2	Applicant’s Certificates (3 pages)	A	Various	17 May 2024
A3	Office of the Inspector of Prisons Report (54 pages)	A	1 September 2014	17 May 2024
R1	Respondent’s Statement of Facts Issues and Contentions (16 pages)	R	6 June 2024	6 June 2024
R2	Respondent’s Tender Bundle (No. 1 to No. 23, 476 pages)	R	Various	6 June 2024
R3	Respondent’s Further Tender Bundle (No 24 to No 29, 122 pages)	R	Various	6 June 2024