Dayoub and Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs

[2004] AATA 1088

Administrative

Appeals

Tribunal

 

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2004] AATA 1088

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )

)          No N2004/372

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION		)
Re		SALWA DAYOUB

Applicant

And MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal The Hon R N J Purvis Q.C., Deputy President

Date19 October 2004

PlaceSydney

Decision The decision under review is affirmed.

[Sgd] R N J Purvis
  Deputy President

CATCHWORDS

Immigration - spouse visa - character test – visa applicant Lebanese citizen – fraudulent Brazilian passport – use of such passport to apply for Australian visa and generally – fake impersonations – provision of misleading information – withholding of relevant information – decision affirmed

Migration Act 1958 sections 499, 501

Ministerial Direction 21

Irving v Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (1996) 139 ALR 84

Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Baker (1997) 45 ALD 136

Grigorian v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2004] AATA 648

REASONS FOR DECISION

19 October 2004 The Hon R N J Purvis Q.C., Deputy President  

the application

1.      In this application Ms Salwa Dayoub (“the Applicant”), wife of Mr Samir Dayoub (“the Visa Applicant”) is seeking a review by this Tribunal of a decision by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (“the Respondent”) made on the 18 March 2004.  By such decision the Respondent refused to grant to the Visa Applicant a subclass 309 (spouse) visa.

2.      The Respondent determined that the Visa Applicant was not of good character and declined to exercise the available discretion in his favour.

3.      In its reasons for refusing to grant the visa the Respondent, inter alia, stated with reference to the Visa Applicant (T3 pp10 and 11):

“…

·He presented a fraudulent Brazilian passport in support of his 1998 visitor visa application [(to Australia]

…

· In this application Mr Dayoub claimed to have been born in Brazil

·Therefore I belief that Mr Dayoub deliberately presented misleading information to the Department in an attempt to gain an otherwise unwarranted immigration outcome

· In his subclass 309 application Mr Dayoub did not reveal that he had previously been refused a visa to travel to Australia

…

·Given Mr Dayoub’s attempt to support a visitor visa application to Australia with a false passport I also find that this constitutes a false or misleading statement

·Mr Dayoub also failed to indicate that (sic) he had resided in South America …

·At interview he refused to provide even approximate dates for his residence in South America other than to say that it was over a period of 4-5 years

·I believe he deliberately omitted this information in order to conceal his previous visitor visa application made using a fraudulent Brazilian passport

11. During the two interviews conducted on 18 March 2004 Mr Dayoub failed to provide adequate or believable explanations for the misleading statements he has made to the Department.  Throughout the interview he was deliberately evasive, failed to provide specific details…and offered conflicting evidence.

…

Mr Dayoub’s past and present conduct demonstrates a willingness to provide false information with a view to circumventing Australia’s immigration laws.

…

13. It is clear that Mr Dayoub’s claims do DIMIA were based on calculated falsehood. I believe he attempted to mislead DIMIA officials on several occasions. An attempt to support an application with a fraudulent passport represents a serious breach of Australia’s Immigration Regulations.  Mr Dayoub subsequently attempted to conceal this behaviour through further false statements to the Department.”

the hearing

4.      At the hearing of the application the Applicant was represented by Ms Aminatta Abraham, migration agent of Joy’s Australia Immigration Service and the Respondent by Mr Domenic Gallo, Solicitor of Messrs Blake Dawson Waldron, Lawyers.

5. There was introduced into evidence the documents lodged on behalf of the Respondent pursuant to section 37 of the Administrative Appeals TribunalAct 1975 marked T1 to T15 and S1 to S3.  Written material tendered on behalf of the parties was admitted as exhibits and marked accordingly.

Exhibit No	Description	Date
A	Statement of Zlatika Alison	12 July 2004
B	Statement of the Applicant	29 June 2004
C	Statement of Ghada Dabajo	28 May 2004
D	Statement of Ali Khalil	9 June 2004
E	Certificate of good conduct by Mayor of Bterram- City, El Kouro
1	Documents referable to sponsorship the Visa Applicant
2	Document titled “Personal particulars for character assessment” (improved copy of T6 p51)
3	Statutory declaration of the Visa Applicant	18 March 2004

6.      Oral evidence was given by the Applicant, the Visa Applicant, Mrs Zlatica Alison, a friend of the Applicant, Mr Ali Kahlil, a brother of the Applicant, Mr Nigel Muir, principal migration officer for compliance Australian Embassy Beirut, Lebanon and Ms Tanya Nashar, passport officer Australian Embassy Beirut, upon which each of them was cross-examined.

the issues for determination

7.      The issues for determination in this application primarily relate to the character of the Visa Applicant and in the event of he being found to be not of good character, whether the discretionary considerations available to the Tribunal should or should not be exercised in his favour.

8.      Ms Abraham, appearing for the Applicant, in a Statement of Issues  alleged::

1)The Applicant and Visa Applicant were not aware the information which they provided to the travel agency in Lebanon was not included in the application.

2)The Visa Applicant “has been exploded (sic) emotionally and psychologically.  We believe a form of coercion was conducted with our client’s husband at the interview at the The Australian Embassy”.

3)The Visa Applicant “isn’t a convicted criminal and therefore shouldn’t be consider (sic) one”.

4)The Visa Applicant “was interrogated and under duress without any legal advice or a qualified accredited interpreter and therefore became confused in answering the questions”.

5)The Visa Applicant “was intimidated therefore The Australian Embassy in Ras Beirut, Lebanon didn’t provide our client’s husband…with procedural fairness”.

…

8)   The Visa Applicant isn’t a threat to the Australian community.

…

10)  The Visa Applicant “doesn’t recall most of the interview”.

11)The Visa Applicant’s “past conduct occurred over 10 years ago therefore the likelihood of any such conduct in the future is nil”.

9.      Most of the matters raised in the statement of issues as mentioned above will be dealt with in the course of discussing the evidence tendered before the Tribunal.  Otherwise they will be dealt with when considering the character of the Visa Applicant and the discretionary matters that warrant consideration.

legal provisions and direction

10.     The provisions of the Migration Act 1958 (“the Act”) here relevant are:

“501 (1) Refusal or cancellation of visa on character grounds

(1) 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.

…

(6) For the purposes of this section a person does not pass the character test if:

…

(c) having regard to either or both of the following:

(i)…

(ii) the persons past and present general conduct

…

the person is not of good character.

499 Minister may give directions)

(1) The Minister may give written directions to a person or body having functions or powers under this Act if the directions are about

(a) the performance of those functions; or

(b) the exercise of those powers.

(2A)A person or body must comply with a direction under subsection (1).”

11.     The words good character as used in section 501 of the Act:

“should be taken to be used in their ordinary sense, namely, a reference to the enduring moral qualities of a person and not to the good standing, fame or repute of that person in the community.  The former is an objective assessment apt to be proved as fact, where the latter is a review of subjective public opinion”.

(See Irving v Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (1996) 139 ALR 84 at 94)

12.     It is not necessary for there to be a continuance of the incidence of general conduct.  It is sufficient if incidences of general conduct be displayed but once or twice, thereby laying “the character bare very tellingly” (see Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Baker (1997) 45 ALD 136 at 142).

13.     The Ministerial Direction 21 (“the Direction”) sets out matters to which decision-makers are to have regard in determining whether or not a visa applicant is a person of good character and accordingly whether or not the person passes the character test.  One factor to be taken into account, as here relevant, is whether the Applicant has shown contempt or disregard for the law including Immigration Law (paragraph 1.9 (a) (b)).  Thus Paragraph 1.9 (b) requires consideration to be given to:

“Whether the non-citizen has in connection with any application for the grant of a visa or any kind of Government benefit, provided a bogus document or made a false or misleading statement.”

14. If the Tribunal is not satisfied that the Applicant passes the character test, the issue for determination, as already indicated above, is whether the decision of the Minister’s delegate be affirmed or set aside by exercise of the residual discretion under section 501 (1) of the Act. In making this determination the Tribunal is to have regard to the above mentioned Direction and as here relevant to the following provision:

“PART 2 - EXERCISING THE DISCRETION

2.1      If a non-citizen does not pass the Character Test,

decision-makers must have regard to the following considerations when

exercising the discretion to decide whether or not the non-citizen

should be permitted to enter or remain in Australia.

Weight of considerations

2.2      The Government is mindful of the need to balance a number of

important factors in reaching a decision whether or not to refuse or

cancel a visa.  In making such a decision, a decision-maker should

have regard to three primary considerations and a number of other

considerations.  The primary considerations are set out at paragraphs

2.3 - 2.16 and other considerations are set out at paragraphs 2.17 -

2.24. Decision-makers must have due regard to the importance placed

by the Government on the three primary considerations, but should also

adopt a balancing process which takes into account all relevant

considerations.”

15.     The three primary considerations that must be taken into account by decision-makers are the protection of the Australian community, the expectations of the Australian community and in all cases involving a parental relationship between a child or children and the person under consideration, the best interests of the child or children.

16. With reference to the protection of the Australian community the Direction provides that the factors relevant to an assessment of the level of risk to the community of the entering or continued stay of a non-citizen include the seriousness and nature of the conduct, the likelihood that the conduct may be repeated including any risk of recidivism and whether visa refusal or cancellation may prevent or discourage similar conduct. The Direction in this regard, as much as the character issue, makes specific reference to offences relating to the making of false or misleading statements in connection with entry or stay in Australia. Section 234 of the Act makes it an offence for a person to provide a statement or information that is false or misleading in connection with an application for a visa and prescribes significant sanctions for non compliance.

17.     The Tribunal has frequently emphasised the importance of the observance of truth when dealing with officials in migration matters, especially when the truth is known only to the person making the statement (Grigorian v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2004] AATA 648). It is important to note the emphasis placed on “the observance of truth”.  It is conceivable that documents can be false and information provided which is false without an applicant being aware of the inaccuracy, lack of correctness or falsity.  It is integral to an assessment of character for there to be an appropriate consideration of the state of mind of the person providing a document or information and as to whether the applicant for a visa actively engaged in a stratagem to deliberately mislead immigration officials for the purpose of gaining a benefit or advantage.  As was stated in Irving (supra) the moral qualities of a person are the factors to which attention is to be given.

relevant facvtual situation and findings of fact

18.     The Applicant, now an Australian citizen, was born in Tripoli, Lebanon on 5 June 1967.  She came to Australia with her parents, brothers and sisters in 1978 when she was then eight years of age.  She was one of nine children. Her father is deceased; her mother is a permanent resident of Australia as are all but one of her siblings and their families.

19.     In August 2003, following her divorce and the death of her father and at a time when her mother was “very sick” (Exhibit D), the Applicant as the youngest daughter, and then having the primary care of her mother, agreed to travel to Lebanon to visit  her mother’s sisters “for the last time”.  Whilst she was in Lebanon she met the Visa Applicant and married him in a religious ceremony on 28 August 2003.  She returned to Australia two weeks later.

20.     The Visa Applicant was born in Lebanon on 5 May 1967.  He is by occupation a singer and trader.  He is one of nine children born to his parents both of whom presently live in Lebanon.  The Visa Applicant and five of his siblings, all of whom are married, also live in Lebanon with their families.  Two brothers and a sister live in South America.  The Visa Applicant lives with and supports his parents.

21.     In a document entitled “Personal particulars for character assessment” (S1) signed by the Visa Applicant on 27 October 2003 it is stated that since leaving school he has been self-employed as a “cars trader” and a singer but not always in Lebanon.  He travelled to Brazil where he lived for four to five years during which time he acquired “a Brazilian Passport” at a cost of $1500.  He held the passport and used it over the period he was living in Brazil.  At all times during his residency in that country he was without a visa enabling him to reside legally in Brazil and when it was needed relied upon the false Brazilian passport.  The Visa Applicant says that he was not aware of that the Brazilian passport was false at the time it was given to him or when he used it to apply for a visa to visit Australia in 1998.  He used the passport when travelling to Europe in order to fulfil singing engagements.

22.     The Respondent maintains that the Visa Applicant was well aware of the falsity of the “Brazilian Passport” and that he used the false passport in a visa application made by him to enter Australia, this reflecting adversely on his character.  I am satisfied on the basis of the evidence tendered before the Tribunal that the Visa Applicant was well aware at all times that the passport was false.  He paid money to obtain it.  He did not apply himself to a Brazilian migration office for the passport to be issued but left the task with the person to whom he had paid the money.  He did not fill in or complete a form of application for a passport.  He did not have Brazilian citizenship.  He knew that the statement in the passport that he was born in Brazil was false.  He believed that possession of a Brazilian passport would be of greater assistance to him in his business activities, in travelling to Europe and in obtaining a visitors visa to enter Australia.  But as Mr Ali Kahlil, the brother of the Applicant, said in his evidence before the Tribunal “this is standard procedure paying money for paper”.   A visa to enter Australia was not granted to the Visa Applicant and the Brazilian passport was returned to him.  On the basis of the evidence briefly detailed above I am satisfied that at all relevant times the Visa Applicant was aware of the falsity of the Brazilian passport.

23.     The Applicant was, at the time of her marriage to the Visa Applicant in August 2003, employed as a national sales manager for her employer.  She had obtained an extension to her leave entitlement in order to travel with her mother to Lebanon and was due back in Australia shortly after the wedding.  The Visa Applicant did not have a visa to enter Australia.  The Applicant and Visa Applicant were referred by family and friends to a travel agent, Gitany Travel, a firm having offices in Lebanon and Sydney, Australia this in order that they might “fill out the application for” the Visa Applicant’s visa to Australia (Exhibit B).  A cousin of the Visa Applicant Mr Abel Dayoub, an Australian citizen was in Lebanon at the time and encouraged the couple to consult Gitany Travel, he offering to pay for the application as a wedding present.   He said he knew Mr Carlos Gitany, the consultant with Gitany Travel personally and that Carlos “would look after” them.

24.     About two weeks after the wedding the Applicant and Visa Applicant went to the agent’s office and spoke with Mr Carlos Gitany.  According to the Applicant (Exhibit B):

“…

When I attend the office with my husband in Lebanon I informed Carlos of my situation and that I have been married and divorced, as I wanted everything correct on the application and we also gave him all the information about my husband Samir Dayoub which included that he had been and worked in Brazil.  At no time did we hold any information back and Carlos assured me that everything will be done correctly as I kept repeating myself on that I wanted everything done correctly as I had to come back to Australia for work commitment. Carlos asked me to sign a blank visa application form and assured me once I fax the rest of my details from Australia that he will complete the form and submitted (sic). At no time did he show me the completed form and my husband Samir cannot speak or read English so he could not check the application.”

25.     The Visa Applicant says that he trusted Gitany Travel “after I was informed that they are specialised in the migration to Australia”.  He said that he told Carlos that he had travelled to Brazil and worked there for years and that he used to have Brazilian nationality.  Carlos allegedly said this did not matter and to “leave it to me”.  The Visa Applicant also allegedly told Carlos that he had used the false Brazilian passport when applying for the visa to enter Australia.   The Applicant says that she told the agent that she had to leave Lebanon “in a couple of days” and she “wanted everything to be right”.  Her employer in Australia had declined to extend her holiday leave.

26.     According to the Visa Applicant, Carlos replied to the effect that he knew what he was doing, it “was his job” and all the Applicant and Visa Applicant had to do were sign the application and he would fill in all the details.  This the Applicant did.  The Visa Applicant says that he did likewise and even be it he was not competent in English did not at any time have the application read over to him and indeed signed the form before details were inserted on it by Mr Carlos Gitany.  The application for a provisional spouse visa was lodged on 3 December 2003 and granted on 3 April 2004.  However, there was no mention on the visa application form of the Visa Applicant having had a Brazilian passport, of his having resided in Brazil or of his having made an earlier application to enter Australia on a visitor’s visa.

27.     The Visa Applicant made arrangements to travel to Australia.  However, on his way to the airport in Beirut he was called on a telephone by Tanya Nashar of the Australian Embassy and requested to return to the Embassy where he was asked to hand over his Lebanese passport.  Shortly after he was interviewed by Mr Muir, the questions and answers being translated for the Visa Applicant by Ms Nashar.  On behalf of the Applicant criticism was made of Ms Nashar and as to her capacity to interpret, she not being a “certified interpreter”.  Ms Nashar gave evidence before the Tribunal as to her qualifications and experience.  She was born in Canada and underwent tertiary education in Lebanon where she studied amongst other subjects Arabic.  I accept her competence even be it the Visa Applicant attributes any inconsistencies in his evidence and that of Mr Muir, to Ms Nashar, saying that she “was not good”.  Mr Muir said that he saw no indication as to the Visa Applicant not understanding what was put to him and indeed observed the Visa Applicant and Ms Nashar engaging in animated conversation.

28.     Notes made by Mr Muir during the interview at the Australian Embassy, Beirut on 18 March 2004 disclose the following (T2/7 and 8):

“-  Mr Dayoub restated that he had never been refused a visa application to Australia in the past

-  He also stated that he did not hold citizenship of any country other than Lebanon

-  The applicant also confirmed that he had never lived outside of Lebanon for more than 12 months

-  In response to a direct question Mr Dayoub indicated that he had spent 3 months in Brazil sometime in the 1990s but he could not remember the exact year

…

-  I asked the applicant if he had ever held a Brazilian passport to which he replied he had not

…

-  The applicant also initially denied having ever lodged a visitor visa application at the Australian Embassy in Brazil

-  Following further questioning he stated “maybe someone lodged an application for me, I don’t know”

- Eventually Mr Dayoub admitted to having lodged an application for a visitor visa through a migration agent (who’s name he could not recall)

-  He also then revealed that he had used a Brazilian passport in support of this application

…

-  Mr Dayoub claimed to initially believe that this passport was genuine

…

-  The applicant claims he only became aware of the fraudulent nature of the passport when he attempted to use it to obtain a Brazilian driver’s license

-  Once he discovered the passport was fraudulent Mr Dayoub claims to have alternatively – withdrawn his visitor visa application; reclaimed the passport from the agent; or left the application in place with no intention to pursue it

-  The applicant provided conflicting explanations at various stages of the interview on this point

-  Mr Dayoub claimed that he did not use his Lebanese passport to support his visitor visa application because he believed the Brazilian document would have a greater chance of success

…

-  The applicant then admitted to having spent 4-5 yeas living in Brazil and Paraguay in the 1990s

…”

29.      Mr Muir stated that he had conducted many hundreds of interviews in the course of his employment, 60 to 70 per cent of which were with the aid of an interpreter.  He said that he called for the interview having received information as to the Visa Applicant and his activities “from a variety of confidential sources”.  Included amongst which information was that the Visa Applicant had resided in Brazil and had there made application for an Australian visa.

30.     In his oral evidence before the Tribunal, Mr Muir stated that he had asked the Visa Applicant if he had ever been refused a visa application to Australia.  Whilst initially denying the same, later the Visa Applicant admitted to having resided in Brazil and having lodged the visa application.  He denied having held citizenship of any country other than Lebanon.  When asked whether he had lived overseas away from Lebanon for longer than 12 months he initially said that he had not but later admitted his residency in Brazil.  Likewise with reference to the Brazilian passport he initially denied having had one and later admitted the fact.  Mr Muir had received information from the Australian Embassy in Brazil as to the Visa Applicant having applied for a visa using a Brazilian passport.  Mr Muir further said that he had caused a letter to be sent to Gitany Travel asking for details of the information that had been given to them by the Visa Applicant and the Applicant.  The response was to the effect that the travel agent had never been given advice as to the Brazilian passport, residency in Brazil or application for an Australian visa and that the spouse visa application forms were “completed on the basis of the advice provided to them”.  Mr Muir assessed the Visa Applicant as “deliberately evasive and providing conflicting information”.  It was further his opinion that based on the conduct of the interview, the Visa Applicant sought to obscure information, was deliberately evasive and withheld information.  He concluded that the Visa Applicant’s motive for withholding information as to the previous application and the use of a false passport was that this may prejudice the spouse visa application. 

31.     Ms Tanya Nashar in her evidence said that she recalled the Visa Applicant quite clearly and had spoken to him at the Embassy on a number of occasions over the counter in addition to acting as interpreter.  She said that she formed the opinion that the Visa Applicant was “trying to hide something, he was evasive; he gave inconsistent evidence and said something different each time”.  She said that she was present as an interpreter to make sure that he understood what was being put to him “I understood what he was saying and had no difficulty”.  She said that the Visa Applicant did not complain about the interpreter and did not “express any unsatisfactory view as to how the interview was being conducted”. 

32.     Where inconsistencies occur I prefer the evidence of Mr Muir and Mrs Nashar to that of the Visa Applicant.

character

33.     As earlier indicated assessment of character is to be made on an objective basis.  It is not so much a matter of assessing what others say about the individual but rather looking to his conduct and behaviour.  The Minister’s Direction 21 is helpful in this regard and it requires the Tribunal to have regard to particular matters in determining whether or not the person passes or does not pass the character test.  Thus a person’s conduct referrable to compliance or not with Immigration Law is very relevant.  Whether a person has sought to mislead the Respondent by making false representations or by omitting to inform the Respondent of relevant factual material may well determine this issue.

34.     There is evidence before the Tribunal in the form of statutory declarations (Exhibits C, D and E) deposing to the respectability, work ethos, observed honesty, reliability and “non addict of narcotics or alcohols” of the Visa Applicant.

35.     However, other evidence before the Tribunal satisfies me that the Visa Applicant is a person not of good character.  This conclusion is based, amongst other matters, on my findings that the Visa Applicant,

a)obtained a false Brazilian passport for his own use;

b)used the false Brazilian passport whilst in Brazil, to make an application to obtain a visa to visit Australia and to travel from Brazil to Europe, whilst in Europe and to return;

c)resided in Brazil for a period of four to five years;

d)failed to enter in his application for a spouse visa the matters referred to in a) to c) above;

e)sought wrongly to cast blame upon Mr Carlos Gitany for the omission from his visitor visa of the matters referred to in a) to c) above;

f)in his interview with Mr Muir in Beirut was evasive and untruthful in answering questions put to him. The matters raised on behalf of the Visa Applicant mentioned in subparagraphs 2, 4, 5 and 10 of paragraph 8 of these reasons have not been established;

g)sought wrongly to cast blame upon Ms Nashar for inconsistencies in his answers at the interview and to put in issue the competency of her ability to interpret the English language into the Arabic language and vice versa.

hardship

36.     The Applicant regards Australia as her home.  Her family lives here. Her mother is not well, she is aged 83 years and needs the assistance that the Applicant can provide. 

37.     The Applicant stated in her evidence when asked whether she would, in the event of a visa being refused, travel to Lebanon in order to live there with the Visa Applicant “God forbid no”; “my whole family is her, my whole life is here”; “my husband is not able to make enough to support me in Lebanon”.  She has visited her husband in Lebanon in July 2004 staying with him there for nearly three weeks.

38.     The Applicant would experience hardship in the event of a visa not being available to the Visa Applicant.  This fact however is to be considered along with other matters as earlier detailed in these reasons.

discretionary considerations

39.     The conduct of the Visa Applicant whereby he was a party to obtaining a false Brazilian passport which he used to advance his own interests including an application to enter Australia on a visitor visa, the omission from the spouse visitor visa application of the material earlier identified and his evasive answers and misinformation given to Mr Muir all indicate that the Visa Applicant is not only not of good character but that such misconduct was serious.  It is indicative of a blatant disregard for the truth and in these instances for truth in connection with immigration matters.

40.     The frequency of the acts of misconduct and the fact that they extended over a lengthy period are indicative of the likelihood that the Visa Applicant will engage in like conduct again when the situation is seen to warrant it.  His conduct evidences an attitude of not caring whether statements in migration documents are true or false.  He may well adopt the same attitude in relation to like matters in the future.

41.     The Visa Applicant sought to blame others for the errors in his application form and for inconsistencies in his answers at interview.  He blamed Mr Carlos Gitany for not recording information said to have been given to him.   I do not accept that this was so.  Consistent with his conduct in Brazil the Visa Applicant only related such information as he considered would best serve his own ends.  He at interview sought to present answers which he likewise thought would serve him best.  It was only after persistent questioning that the truth emerged.  There is a distinct possibility that refusal of a visa, confirmation of the cancellation of a visa, will act as a deterrent to others presenting false or forged documents or making false or misleading statements including  the deliberate evasion of material information in connection with visa applications.  The Visa Applicant sought to mislead the migration authorities and showed a disregard for Immigration Law.  He displayed a propensity for dishonest conduct where a benefit might accrue to him.

42.     I accept that the conduct of the Visa Applicant already discussed in these reasons is such as would not be acceptable to the Australian community and such as not to warrant the grant of a visa.

43.     As I have already indicated, hardship will be experienced by the Applicant in the event of a visa not being granted to the Visa Applicant.  But it is not as if Lebanon is a country foreign to her.  She has recently visited there and spent time with her husband.  She was prepared to sign a blank form thereby declaring that the contents – of which there were not any – were true.  I do not accept her evidence as to what was said to Mr Carlos Gitany.  I prefer his statement to the Australian Embassy that he filled in the forms in a way consistent with the information given to him. 

decision

44.     I am satisfied that the primary considerations as detailed in the Ministerial Direction 21 outweigh the other matters that are to be considered in arriving at a decision in this matter.  For the reasons earlier set forth in these reasons the decision under review is affirmed.

I certify that the 44 preceding paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of The Hon R N J Purvis Q.C., Deputy President

Signed: A Krilis
           .....................................................................................
  Associate

Date/s of Hearing  19 and 20 August, 3 September 2004
Date of Decision  19 October 2004
For the Applicant  Ms A Abraham                 
Solicitor for the Respondent     Mr D Gallo