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

[2023] AATA 3211

Dang and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs (Migration) [2023] AATA 3211 (11 October 2023)

Division:GENERAL DIVISION

File Number(s):      2023/5692

Re:Xuan Hung Dang  

APPLICANT

AndMinister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs

RESPONDENT

DECISION

Tribunal:Mr Rob Reitano, Member

Date of decision:                  11 October 2023

Place:Sydney

I set aside the delegate’s decision and substitute in its place a decision revoking the cancellation of Xuan Hung Dang’s Class BS Sub-class 801 Partner visa.

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

Mr Rob Reitano, Member

CATCHWORDS

MIGRATION – mandatory cancellation of Class BS Sub-class 801 Partner visa under section 501(3A) – whether there is another reason to revoke the cancellation – drug related offences – seriousness of offences – low risk of re-offending – protection of Australian community – best interests of minor children – strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia – expectations of the Australian community – decision under review set aside

LEGISLATION

Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW)
Migration Act 1958 (Cth)

CASES
CRNL v Minister Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FCAFC 138
FYBR v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCAFC 185
Hands v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCAFC 225

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

Mr Rob Reitano, Member

11 October 2023

1. Xuan Hung Dang (Mr Dang), a 41 year old citizen of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (Vietnam), was until 7 March 2023 the holder of a Class BS Sub-class 801 Partner visa (visa). On 7 March 2023, Mr Dang’s visa was mandatorily cancelled because a delegate of the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs (Minister) was satisfied that he failed the character test in s.501(7)(c) of the Act and was on that day serving a sentence of imprisonment on a full time basis. Mr Dang failed the character test because he had been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of two years and ten months.

2. Mr Dang asked the Minister to revoke the decision cancelling his visa, but the delegate dealing with that matter was not satisfied that there was a basis for doing so. Mr Dang now asks the Tribunal to make a decision setting aside that delegate’s decision, and to make a decision revoking the decision cancelling the visa so that he can remain living in Australia.

3. For the Tribunal to make that decision, Mr Dang needs to satisfy the Tribunal that there is ‘another reason’ to revoke the decision cancelling the visa because Mr Dang does not satisfy the character test ground in s.501CA(4)(b) of the Act.

4. I am satisfied that there is ‘another reason’ to revoke the decision cancelling the visa which is founded upon Mr Dang’s familial ties to Australia through his wife, her children and his sister and, so, have decided to set aside the decision refusing to revoke the decision cancelling the visa and to substitute, in its place, a decision revoking the cancellation of the visa. My reasons for doing so follow.  

   WHAT IS THE ISSUE?

5. There is no issue about the jurisdiction or power of the Tribunal to review the delegate’s decision declining to revoke the cancellation of the visa. Nor is there any issue that the Tribunal could not be satisfied that Mr Dang passes the character test in s.501 because his sentence of imprisonment precludes any such satisfaction.

6. It follows that the only issue that needs to be determined is whether I am satisfied that ‘there is another reason why the original decision [the decision to cancel the visa] should be revoked’ as provided for in s.501CA(4)(b) of the Act.

   IS THERE ANOTHER REASON TO REVOKE THE CANCELLATION?

7. Satisfaction about whether there is ‘another reason’ why a decision cancelling a visa should be revoked requires the making of an evaluative judgment about whether there is a justification or reason for revoking the mandatory decision cancelling the visa.

8. The evaluation required to be made is informed by Direction No. 99 – Visa refusal and cancellation under section 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under section 501CA (Direction) because s.499(2A) of the Act requires the Tribunal to comply with Ministerial directions in performing its functions and exercising its powers under the Act.

9. The Direction identifies principles to be applied by a decision maker in making decisions about revocation of decisions cancelling visas. It is unnecessary to set those principles out or to summarise them. I will refer to them where necessary.  

10. The Direction also refers to ‘considerations’ which are matters or factors that a decision maker must consider in making a decision, subject, of course, to them being relevant in any given case. The ‘considerations’ identify within each of them matters that must be taken into account at least so far as they may be relevant.

11. There are ‘primary considerations’ and ‘other considerations’ which are to be ‘weighed’. The first part of the task involves considering the considerations and the matters which must be taken into account within each of them that are relevant and ascribing weight to them. It is then necessary to engage in a ‘a process of balancing the different considerations, or evaluating them against and in comparison to each other, in order to arrive at a decision whether there is “another reason” to revoke the cancellation’[1].

    [1] CRNL v Minister Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FCAFC 138 at [34].

12. The obligation to consider and take into account the matters within each consideration, carries with it recognition that there must be ‘real consideration of the circumstances of the people affected … confronting what is being done to people’.[2] The obligation to consider is not devoted to some theoretical exercise or the completion of a checklist of matters that must be ticked and crossed in some mechanical way any more than the obligation to weigh things is to be approached formulaically or mathematically[3]. The decision to be made involves something that is likely to have a real, lasting, even lifelong, impact on many people, including an applicant seeking to have a decision cancelling her or his visa revoked, given that, absent revocation, an applicant will, in the ordinary course, be excluded from Australia. Further, there are ramifications for an applicant’s family, children, friends, and associates which are significant and which are especially important where they are Australian citizens or people who are entitled to live in Australia. There are also ramifications, again potentially far-reaching ones, for the community which is highlighted by the need to consider the protection of the community against criminal or other misconduct in the future. All of this points to the need to very carefully consider all things that are potentially relevant to the decision being made and weighing up the importance of all of the individual and public interests that might or will be affected.

    [2] Hands v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCAFC 225 at [3].

    [3] CRNL v Minister Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FCAFC 138 at [38].

13. ‘Primary considerations’ are generally be given greater weight than ‘other considerations’ and one or more ‘primary consideration’ can outweigh any other ‘primary consideration’. No ‘primary consideration’ or ‘other consideration’ is required to be given greater importance than any other, that is left to the decision maker and the evaluation that she or he is to make.  

14. The ‘primary considerations’ relevant to this matter involve the ‘the protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct’, ‘the strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia’, ‘the best interests of minor children in Australia’ and ‘the expectations of the Australian community’.[4] The only ‘other consideration’ relevant to this matter is the impediments to Mr Dang re-establishing himself if he is returned to Vietnam.

    [4] Paragraph 8 of the Direction.

15. I will deal with each of considerations and the matters that are relevant to each of them in turn before weighing and balancing them against each other to determine and evaluate whether there is ‘another reason’ to revoke the cancellation of the visa

    PROTECTION OF THE AUSTRALIAN COMMUNITY

16. The protection of the Australian community requires consideration of the nature and seriousness of Mr Dang’s criminal offending to date, the harm that would be done to the community if Mr Dang re-offended and the risk to the Australian community should Mr Dang re-offend or engage in other serious conduct.

17. On 24 February 2023, Mr Dang was convicted and sentenced in respect of two offences against the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW). The first offence was concerned with Mr Dang, between 24 September 2021 and 25 October 2021, knowingly taking part in the supply of a commercial quantity (a little over 71 kilograms) of cannabis leaf, which is a prohibited drug. The maximum penalty for that offence was 15 years’ imprisonment. The second offence was concerned with Mr Dang, on 29 September 2021, again knowingly taking part in the supply of an indictable quantity (a little over 9.5 kilograms) of the same prohibited drug. The maximum penalty for that offence was ten years’ imprisonment. Two other offences involving dealing with the proceeds of crime, an amount of $2,250 and some designer watches valued at $15,000, were taken into account in the sentence for the other drug offences, and so were not subject to conviction or separate sentences. Those two offences were under the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) and carried with them a maximum penalty of two years’ imprisonment.

18. The circumstances of both offences involved Mr Dang, with two other men, attending houses where cannabis leaf was found, and being involved in its drying and movement on a number of occasions. The sentencing judge found that Mr Dang was not a principal in the offending. It is important that Mr Dang was not a principal but a functionary within the operation. Mr Dang’s role according to the agreed facts before the sentencing judge was limited to drying the cannabis leaf. The gravamen of the offending involved Mr Dang’s conduct with others in ensuring that the cannabis leaf was available for supply.  

19. The sentencing judge assessed the seriousness of the supply commercial quantity offence as being in the mid-range of seriousness, and the supply indictable quantity offence as being below the mid-range of seriousness. In coming to this conclusion, the sentencing judge had regard to the role of Mr Dang in the enterprise, the quantity involved, and the motivation being financial gain for all the offences. This included the two offences that were taken into account in sentencing, which, notably, the sentencing judge described as only moderately adding to the sentence. The indicative sentences were ten months’ imprisonment for the supply indictable quantity offence, and two years and nine months for the supply commercial quantity offence and the other offences. The sentencing judge imposed an aggregate sentence of two years and ten months’ imprisonment.

20. The sentence of two years and ten months’ imprisonment reflects objectively serious offending, although it is important that that is to be assessed against maximum penalties for the respective offences of 15, ten and two years’ imprisonment. That sentence represents condign punishment for the whole of the period in which the offending occurred, which was a little over one month. I do not accept that the seriousness of the offending is ‘aggravated’ by the fact that it occurred over that period and was the subject of about 12 different instances of conduct, mainly because the whole of the conduct was charged as a single offence, and the penalty imposed was for the entire offence. There is no increase in frequency of the offending as all the offences happened at about the same time, over the same period of about one month. The cumulative effect of the offending, which comprised the four separately charged offences, even if such repeated conduct is taken into account, is reflected in the aggregate sentence imposed which I have indicated informs objectively serious offending. The offending is objectively serious, but in my assessment having regard to the nature of Mr Dang’s role, the lack of violence to people or property and the fact that there are much more serious offences, it is fairly to be described as serious, but not very serious, offending.

21. Next, it is necessary to consider the harm to the Australian community should Mr Dang offend again. There was no evidence referred to by the sentencing judge or before me about the particular harm caused by Mr Dang’s offending or the likely harm that would be caused in future should he offend again. The Minister referred to the fact that ‘drug related offences have serious social, health, and economic consequences to members of the Australian community, leading to other criminal conduct, hospital admissions, mental health issues, and loss of opportunities in life’. That too does not really focus on the likely harm caused by Mr Dang’s offending and is more of a generalisation about drug related offending. It is, nonetheless, reasonable to infer that some of those consequences may follow should Mr Dang reoffend. The harm likely to be caused by any re-offending is more likely than not significant.

22. Next, I must consider the likelihood of Mr Dang committing the same or similar offences in the future, having regard to the information and evidence available to date, and any rehabilitation since the offending. The sentencing judge referred to the assessment of Mr Dang as being of a low risk of re-offending. The sentencing judge concluded that ‘[b]oth offenders [Mr Dang was sentenced at the same time as a co-accused] prospects of rehabilitation and of not reoffending are reasonably positive, more so for Dang’. The sentencing judge noted that Mr Dang had no history of drug use, was motivated by financial gain, had been of previous good character with no prior criminal offending, had undertaken courses, and had been employed whilst on remand.

23. To these factors should be added the fact that Mr Dang was about 40 years of age when he committed the offences, he has now completed a significant part of his sentence and will be on parole for about the next 12 months, has faced the real prospect of exclusion from Australia as result of the cancellation of his visa, and significantly, has a valuable relationship with his wife who provides some protection for him against re-offending. I should note that Mr Dang’s behaviour whilst in prison was the subject of glowing comments in case notes referring to him: ‘He is a great team person who always help [sic] other inmate workers wherever needed, he works hard and is always punctual and polite’ and ‘always assisted staff during extremely busy times’ are but some examples. He also completed several courses which were delivered in Vietnamese whilst he was in prison.

24. Further, Mr Green, an expert psychologist, has very recently assessed Mr Dang’s risk of re-offending once again as being low. At least some of the criticism levelled at Mr Green’s evidence during the hearing appeared to be founded upon the fact that he did not use the Level of Service Inventory (LSI), or the matters accounted for in it, in assessing the risk of repeat offending. I simply note that there was no evidence before me that suggested that the LSI is the only, or even the best, method of assessing the likelihood of re-offending. Mr Green’s report was reasoned and the opinions he expressed were clear and understandable. His evidence in cross examination likewise supported his ultimate opinion about the risk of re-offending being low and I found it persuasive. I accept his evidence about the risk of re-offending. 

25. The Minister submitted I should not accept Mr Green’s evidence because he did not consider two factors relevant to the risk of re-offending, namely, Mr Dang’s lack of employment prospects on release into the community and his lack of arrangements so far as accommodation is concerned. Mr Green explained that he considered these two things to be less important to the question of re-offending than other things such as the existence of criminogenic factors such as a criminal history, criminal associations, substance abuse and so on. He did, however, weigh in his assessment the limitation that might be presented to Mr Dang by his lack of command of English to his employment, but it was reasonably clear from his evidence he did not consider this to be a significant matter increasing Mr Dang’s likelihood of reoffending. So far as the ‘pro-social’ factor associated with having somewhere to live, I accept the evidence that Mr Dang and his wife gave about the likelihood that they will have somewhere to live if Mr Dang is released into the community.  

26. The Minister also submitted that I should be concerned that there is no evidence that ‘Mr Dang has appropriately addressed the motivating factor for his offending’, namely financial hardship. This was said to be especially so because I could have no comfort that once in the community Mr Dang will be able to secure employment given, amongst other things, the language barrier which he also has not redressed. That submission fails to appreciate the rehabilitative, colloquially speaking ‘scarifying’, effect that specific deterrence serves in criminal sentencing which is added to in this case by the additional specific deterrent imposed by the real prospect of visa cancellation. The submission fails to deal with the fact that Mr Dang had no opportunity whilst incarcerated or in detention to address his financial hardship and there is no evidence that suggests he could have learnt English in either place. Further, the submission also fails to appreciate that the requirement is to ascertain the likelihood of re-offending and not whether is it is ‘real’ or ‘unreal’. Any assessment of the likelihood of re-offending, whether it be high, or low is always ‘real’.

27. Further, it was suggested that the sentencing judge’s observation about the need for a custodial sentence, as distinct from an intensive corrections order, were pertinent to the question of whether Mr Dang would re-offend. It need only be said that all of those comments were made against the backdrop of the sentencing judge’s opinion that the prospects of rehabilitation were reasonable, and that the likelihood of re-offending was low.

28. Having regard to the factors I have identified and especially the reasoned opinions of the sentencing judge and Mr Green I consider that Mr Dang’s risk of re-offending is low.

29. This consideration weighs against revocation of the decision cancelling the visa having regard to the serious nature of the offences and the harm that would be caused if they or conduct like them were repeated. It is the low likelihood of repeat offending that grounds my conclusion that protection of the Australian community whilst weighing against revocation, would not be given great weight and is less important than the other considerations, in particular, as will be seen the strength, nature and duration of ties Mr Dang has to his wife, stepchildren and sister which I turn to consider next.

    STRENTGH, NATURE AND DURATION OF TIES TO AUSTRALIA

30. The strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia requires consideration of the impact of my decision on Mr Dang’s immediate family in Australia who are Australian citizens, or Australian permanent residents. I am required to give more weight to any ties Mr Dang has to children who fall into any of those categories.

31. Mr Dang is married to his wife who as an Australian citizen sponsored him to come to Australia. They have been married for almost five years. They have lived together in Australia since Mr Dang arrived in Australia in the middle of 2018. They have remained in contact since Mr Dang’s arrest, both by telephone, where they speak daily, and in person, because she often visited Mr Dang in prison, other than during lockdown caused by the pandemic. She has not visited him since about August 2022 when she accepted employment in New Zealand, noting that she proposes to return to Australia permanently should Mr Dang be permitted to remain in Australia. She is presently in Australia. If the decision cancelling the visa is not revoked, his wife will either live separately from her husband in Australia or New Zealand, or she will need to move to Vietnam to live with him. Both options have significant adverse emotional outcomes for her as an Australian citizen. In addition, his wife’s evidence is that she will not be able to earn the money she earns in Australia if she moves to Vietnam, so there will be something of an adverse financial impact upon her as well.

1. Mr Dang has two stepdaughters from his marriage, who are aged 15 and 16 years. They are Australian citizens. They live with their father during the week. Before Mr Dang went into prison, he and his wife would see them on weekends and there were some occasions when they stayed the weekend. If Mr Dang returns to Vietnam, his wife will face the difficult decision as to whether she moves to Vietnam and is separated from them in all likelihood for the immediate future. Again, the prospect of her being adversely affected by a decision refusing to revoke the cancellation has significant and far reaching consequences for her and her daughters. Simply because those consequences are emotional and psychological does not make them any less important. I should give the adverse effect on Mr Dang’s wife and her daughters significant weight if Mr Dang is returned to Vietnam, because they are Australian citizens, and additionally in the latter cases because they are children.

2. Mr Dang has a sister living in Australia who is an Australian citizen, but I have no evidence other than some indirect evidence through the expert psychologist and through Mr Dang’s wife, about Mr Dang’s ties or relationship with her. I should nonetheless give some weight to that relationship as she is, after all, his sister.

3. Within this consideration I must also consider the strength, nature and duration of other ties Mr Dang has to the Australian community, having regard to the length of time Mr Dang has lived in Australia, and to give more weight to the time he has spent positively contributing to the Australian community. Mr Dang has been in Australia for a little over five years, of which he has spent about two years in prison and detention. During the first three years in Australia, he worked for some of that time as handyman. He also involved himself in the life of his wife and stepchildren. In his very short time in Australia, he has made some positive contribution to the Australia community through work and familial ties, but because his offences were committed a relatively short time after he arrived in Australia, I give this aspect of this consideration less weight because of the very short time Mr Dang has contributed to Australia.

4. In the circumstances, Mr Dang’s familial ties to his wife and his stepchildren who are Australian citizens are important, and they will each be, in one way or another, significantly adversely affected should the decision cancelling the visa not be revoked. Their position as Australian citizens who are likely to be adversely affected, even if only emotionally affected, should not be deprecated. The weight to be attributed to this consideration should also take into account that his siter is an Australian citizen and the short time Mr Dang has contributed to the Australian community. This consideration strongly favours revoking the decision cancelling the visa mainly because Australian citizens with whom Mr Dang has reasonably strong ties will be adversely affected by not revoking the cancellation.

   BEST INTERESTS OF MINOR CHILDREN IN AUSTRALIA

5. I must consider the best interests of minor children in Australia who are likely to be affected by the decision. There are two children whose interests are to be considered. They are Mr Dang’s stepchildren, the children of his current wife who are aged 15 and 16 years. They have known Mr Dang since he came to Australia in June 2018, a period of about five years, although he has been in prison and detention for a little over two of those years and has had little to do with them in that time because he did not want them to know of his offending. The two children have since Mr Dang came to Australia lived during the week with their biological father and spent time on the weekend with their mother and Mr Dang until Mr Dang went into prison. They also shared meals with Mr Dang and his wife at times. Mr Dang’s meaningful relationship with them is limited not just because of the time he has known them, but also because of the limited time he spent with them over those years.

6. It is likely that Mr Dang will play a positive role in their lives until they attain 18 years of age. There are obviously other people who can occupy a parental role for the children, in particular their biological father and their mother. Mr Dang will be able to maintain contact with them if he returns to Vietnam, especially, of course, if they and their mother move to Vietnam, but if they do not there are other means by which contact can be maintained, such as by phone and social media. I do not have any direct evidence from the children about their wishes.

7. In my assessment the best interests of the two stepchildren weighs in favour of revocation of the decision cancelling the visa but not strongly so because of the limited time the children have been in Mr Dang’s life, the limited time he has spent with them, the lack of any parental role and the short time until they turn 18 years of age.

   EXPECTATIONS OF THE AUSTRALIAN COMMUNITY

8. I am required to give consideration to the expectation of the Australian community that people who are allowed to live and be in Australia will obey Australian laws, and that where someone who has been permitted to stay in Australia ‘has engaged in serious conduct in breach of this expectation, or where there is an unacceptable risk that they may do so, the Australian community, as a norm, expects the Government to not allow such a non-citizen to enter or remain in Australia’. This means ‘non revocation may be appropriate simply because the nature of the character concerns or offences are such that the Australian community would expect that the non-citizen to no longer continue to hold a visa’.

9. I must decide whether more or less weight is to be given to the community expectation of non-revocation of mandatory cancellation ‘that might otherwise arise simply because of the nature of the non-citizen’s character concerns or offences’.[5] This involves an evaluation of how strong or important this factor is in the particular circumstances of the case.

   [5] FYBR v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCAFC 185 at [77] (Charlesworth J).

10. The circumstances of the offending arose because of financial pressure on Mr Dang precipitated by the pandemic. The existence of the pandemic and its consequences for people, like Mr Dang, were unusual and presented difficulties that were for many people out of the ordinary. Mr Green expressed the opinion that the likelihood was that Mr Dang was suffering an adjustment disorder when he offended which may have clouded his decision making. The sentencing judge identified the facts of Mr Dang’s rehabilitation up to the time of sentencing, his entering custody for the first time, and his non-English speaking background, as being relevant to the existence of ‘special circumstances’ that justified shortening his non parole period, because being in custody would be harder for him as against the general inmate population. Mr Dang has been of good behaviour during his time in prison and detention.

11. Mr Dang’s otherwise good character and the fact that these offences, albeit serious, were his only offences in Australia or elsewhere, together with the other circumstances I have referred to, mean that although this consideration favours not revoking the cancellation of the visa but not significantly so.

    IMPEDIMENTS IF REMOVED TO VIETNAM

12. This consideration requires me to take into account any impediments to Mr Dang establishing himself and maintaining basic living standards should he return to Vietnam. I need to have regard to Mr Dang’s health and age, whether he has any cultural or language barriers and any social, medical or economic support available to him should he return.

13. Mr Dang is 41 years of age and there was no suggestion that he was in other than good health. He speaks Vietnamese and no doubt has familiarity with the culture of Vietnam given that he lived there until he was about 35 years of age. I do not know what prospects he would have in getting employment in Vietnam as there was no evidence about that, but he is skilled, entrepreneurial and has worked there previously. His parents and parents in law live there.

14. Mr Dang did not address this consideration at all in his case and it was, quite properly, raised by the Minister. I do not consider that this consideration bears any material weight in favour of revocation of the decision cancelling the visa.

    THERE IS ANOTHER REASON WHY THE CANCELLATION SHOULD BE REVOKED

15. In evaluating the relevant considerations in relation to one another, it is important that the protection of the Australian community whilst weighing against revocation of the decision cancelling the visa the likelihood of repeated same or similar offending is low so that other considerations are weightier in the evaluation. The expectations of the Australian community weigh is also a matter against revocation but when regard is had to the circumstances of the offending that I have referred to, and especially that the offences involve one-off offences committed by a man who had otherwise been of good character who because of the pandemic found himself in difficult financial circumstances, it is not a consideration that carries great importance in the evaluation I must make.

16. On the other hand, Mr Dang’s ties to the Australian community involving his wife, two young stepchildren and sister weigh in favour of revocation because of the nature of the familial ties with them as they are all Australian citizens. The adverse effects on each of them are significant because of the nature of the relationship Mr Dang has with them. They will be affected significantly by a decision that leaves the revocation in place because they will either be separated from their husband, stepfather and less relevantly brother, or in the case of his wife and stepchildren will be required to leave Australia to continue in the relationship with him away from the country of their citizenship. That is, in my assessment, a weighty consideration and one that in all the circumstances outweighs the other two primary considerations. To that may be added the weight to be given to the best interests of Mr Dang’s two stepdaughters which favours revocation but which on its own would not outweigh the protection of the community and the expectations of the community.

17. I am satisfied that the importance of Mr Dang’s ties to his Australian wife, his two stepdaughters and sister outweigh the other primary considerations such that it constitutes another reason to revoke the cancellation of the visa.

    DECISION

18. I set aside the delegate’s decision and substitute in its place a decision revoking the cancellation of Xuan Hung Dang’s Class BS Sub-class 801 Partner visa.

I certify that the preceding forty-nine (49) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Mr Rob Reitano, Member

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

Associate

Dated: 11 October 2023

Date(s) of hearing:	9 October 2023
Solicitors for the Applicant:	Mr S John, DNG Lawyers and Migration
Solicitors for the Respondent:	Mr A Zhang, Clayton Utz