Denizgezen and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (Migration)
[2016] AATA 727
•20 September 2016
Denizgezen and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (Migration) [2016] AATA 727 (20 September 2016)
Division
GENERAL DIVISION
File Number
2016/3533
Re
Ali Riza Denizgezen
APPLICANT
And
Minister for Immigration and Border Protection
RESPONDENT
DECISION
Tribunal Regina Perton, Member
Date 20 September 2016 Place Melbourne The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.
[sgd].......................................................................
Regina Perton, Member
MIGRATION – refusal of visa – character test – criminal record - protection of Australian community - risk to the Australian community should the conduct be repeated –– whether risk of future harm acceptable - exercise of discretion – decision under review affirmed
Migration Act 1958 ss 499(1), 499(2A), 501(2), 501(6), 501(7)
Direction No. 65 – Visa Refusal and Cancellation under s501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under s501CA
REASONS FOR DECISION
Regina Perton, Member
20 September 2016
Ali Riza Denizgezen is a citizen of Cyprus and Turkey. He arrived in Australia on 15 April 2003 on a visitor (Class FA) visa and has remained ever since. On 22 September 2009 Mr Denizgezen applied for a Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) visa and Partner (Residence) (Class BS) visa sponsored by his then partner, an Australian citizen. On 15 June 2016 a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Border Control (the Minister) refused the partner visa on the basis that Mr Denizgezen did not pass the character test due to his criminal record and the nature of his convictions. The delegate decided to exercise the discretion under s 501(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act) to refuse to grant the visa. Mr Denizgezen seeks review of that decision.
LEGISLATIVE BACKGROUND
Under s 501(1) of the Act the Minister may refuse to grant a visa if the Minister reasonably suspects that the person does not pass the character test and the person does not satisfy the Minister that the person passes the character test (s 501(6)).
The character test is set out in s 501(6) of the Act, which provides that a person does not pass the character test if one of a number of grounds in s 501(6)(a) to (d) is met. Section 501(6)(d) of the Act provides:
(d) in the event the person were allowed to enter or to remain in Australia, there is a risk that the person would:
(i) engage in criminal conduct in Australia; or
(ii) harass, molest, intimidate or stalk another person in Australia; or
(iii) vilify a segment of the Australian community; or
(iv) incite discord in the Australian community or in a segment of that community; or
(v) represent a danger to the Australian community or to a segment of that community, whether by way of being liable to become involved in activities that are disruptive to, or in violence threatening harm to, that community or segment, or in any other way; or
…
Under s 499(1) of the Act, the Minister may give directions to a person or body performing functions or exercising powers under the Act, with which, in accordance with s 499(2A), the person or body must comply. On 22 December 2014 the Minister issued Direction no. 65 - visa refusal and cancellation under s501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under s510C (Direction no. 65) which came into operation on 23 December 2014.
Direction no. 65 provides guidance for decision-makers when making decisions to refuse or cancel a visa under s 501 of the Act, including the exercise of the discretion to decide whether a non-citizen should be permitted to enter or remain in Australia in circumstances where that person does not pass the character test.
Paragraph 6.3 sets out the principles behind Direction no. 65:
6.3 Principles
(1) Australia has a sovereign right to determine whether non-citizens who are of character concern are allowed to enter and/or remain in Australia. Being able to come to or remain in Australia is a privilege Australia confers on non-citizens in the expectation that they are, and have been, law-abiding, will respect important institutions, such as Australia's law enforcement framework, and will not cause or threaten harm to individuals or the Australian community.
(2) The Australian community expects that the Australian government can and should refuse entry to noncitizens or cancel their visas if they commit serious crimes in Australia or elsewhere.
(3) A non-citizen who has committed a serious crime, including of a violent or sexual nature, and particularly against vulnerable members of the community such as minors, the elderly or disabled, should generally expect to be denied the privilege of coming to, or to forfeit the privilege of staying in, Australia.
(4) In some circumstances, criminal offending or other conduct, and the harm that would be caused if it were to be repeated, may be so serious, that any risk of similar conduct in the future is unacceptable. In these circumstances, even other strong countervailing considerations may be insufficient to justify not cancelling or refusing the visa.
(5) Australia has a low tolerance of any criminal or other serious conduct by people who have been participating in, and contributing to, the Australian community only for a short period of time. However, Australia may afford a higher level of tolerance of criminal or other serious conduct in relation to a non-citizen who has lived in the Australian community for most of their life, or from a very young age.
(6) Australia has a low tolerance of any criminal or other serious conduct by visa applicants or those holding a limited stay visa, reflecting that there should be no expectation that such people should be allowed to come to, or remain permanently in, Australia.
(7) The length of time a non-citizen has been making a positive contribution to the Australian community, and the consequences of a visa refusal or cancellation for minor children and other immediate family members in Australia, are considerations in the context of determining whether that non-citizen's visa should be cancelled, or their visa application refused.
Paragraph 7 of Direction no. 65 sets out how to exercise the discretion:
(1) Informed by the principles in paragraph 6.3 above, a decision-maker:
a) must take into account the considerations in Part A or Part B, where relevant, in order to determine whether a non-citizen will forfeit the privilege of being granted, or of continuing to hold, a visa; or
b) must take into account the considerations of Part C, in order to determine whether the mandatory cancellation of a non-citizen’s visa will be revoked.
Paragraph 8 requires decision-makers to take into account the primary and other considerations relevant to the individual case:
(1) Decision-makers must take into account the primary and other considerations relevant to the individual case. There are differing considerations depending on whether a delegate is considering whether to refuse to grant these to a visa applicant, cancel the visa of a visa holder, or revoke the mandatory cancellation of the visa. These different considerations are articulated in Parts A, B and C. Separating the considerations for visa holders and visa applicants recognises that non-citizens holding a substantive visa will generally have an expectation that they will be permitted to remain in Australia for the duration of that visa, whereas a visa applicant should have no expectation that a visa application will be approved.
(2) In applying the considerations (both primary and other), information and evidence from independent and authoritative sources should be given appropriate weight.
(3) Both primary and other considerations may weigh in favour of, or against, refusal, cancellation of the visa, or whether or not to revoke a mandatory cancellation of a visa.
(4) Primary considerations should generally be given greater weight than the other considerations.
(5) One or more primary considerations may outweigh other primary considerations
MR DENIZGEZEN’S CRIMINAL CONVICTIONS
Mr Denizgezen’s criminal history in Australia as shown in a National Police Certificate issued by the Australian Federal Police on 22 February 2016 is as follows:
Court Court Date Offence Court Result Sunshine Magistrates Court 4 September 2015 Unlawful Assault Criminal Damage (Intent Damage/Destroy) On both charges: Convicted. Community Correction Order for 12 months. Heidelberg Magistrates Court 13 June 2012 Drive Whilst Authorisation Suspended Imprisonment 1 month wholly suspended for 12 months. Heidelberg Magistrates Court 9 August 2011 Contravene Family Violence Intervention Order (2 Charges) Convicted. Adjourned to be of good behaviour until 8 September 2012. Heidelberg Magistrates Court 27 June 2011 Contravene Family Violence Intervention Order Without conviction. Adjourned to be of good behaviour until 28 June 2012. Pay $400 to the court fund. Broadmeadows Magistrates Court 6 June 2007 Recklessly Cause Injury (2 Charges) On both charges: Convicted. Fined $1,500.
Mr Denizgezen’s conviction record certificate from the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus shows the following:
Date Offence Sentence 23 June 1998 Kidnapping or Obucting [sic] in order to Subject Person to Grievous Hurt. 100,000,00 TL (Turkish Lira) 23 June 1998 Assault Causing Actual Bodily Harm Conviction 23 June 1998 Grievous Harm Conviction 27 June 2001 Not complying with Personal Mobilization Call 2,000,000 TL (Turkish Lira) Bail bond for one year. MR DENIZGEZEN’S HISTORY
Mr Denizgezen was born in Cyprus. He is now 36 years of age. He arrived in Australia in April 2003 on a visitor visa. He accompanied his first wife who was visiting her relatives. He and his first wife’s first child, a daughter, was born in Australia in July 2003. A son was born in November 2004. Mr Denizgezen stated that he and his first wife separated before he met his second wife who was his sponsor in relation to the visa under consideration.
Mr Denizgezen indicated that his first wife had lodged a claim for a protection visa in which he was part of the family unit. The claim was unsuccessful. His first wife and their two children remain in Australia. He said that he sees his children regularly. Mr Denizgezen told the Tribunal that he does not know his first wife’s present visa status in Australia or whether she has re-partnered.
Mr Denizgezen’s parents and siblings live in Cyprus. Mr Denizgezen stated that he had completed his compulsory two year military service before he came to Australia.
Mr Denizgezen met his sponsor, Ms Reyes, in December 2006 at a local café. Ms Reyes is an Australian citizen of Filipino background. She had three children by her previous husband who are all now adults. Mr Denizgezen and Ms Reyes were married in July 2007. Their daughter was born in January 2008.
Mr Denizgezen also has a son to a former Australian girlfriend but he has lost contact with her and with the boy and is unaware of their whereabouts.
Mr Denizgezen states that he now has another partner who is of Laotian background. He stated that they are still together but she did not appear before the Tribunal nor did she provide a witness statement. None of his previous partners, including his sponsor for the visa, provided statements to the Tribunal nor did any appear at the hearing. Mr Denizgezen was the only witness.
No decision was made on the application for a partner visa until 14 February 2013. Mr Denizgezen and the sponsor’s relationship had been at an end for two years by then. The Minister’s delegate initially refused the visa on the basis that Mr Denizgezen did not meet the health criteria for the visa. Mr Denizgezen applied for review to the Migration Review Tribunal (MRT). On 18 November 2014 the MRT set aside the delegate’s decision and remitted the application for reconsideration with a direction that Mr Denizgezen met the prescribed health criteria for the visa.
On 13 February 2015 Mr Denizgezen’s solicitors responded to a Departmental request for an update on his circumstances. They responded with information concerning parenting orders in place for Mr Denizgezen and Ms Reyes’ daughter; updated police certificates for convictions between 2007 and 2012 with Mr Denizgezen’s explanations of the circumstances in which the offences occurred; reports concerning programs undertaken as a result of the convictions and a psychiatric report prepared in 2012.
On 30 March 2016 the Minister’s delegate sent Mr Denizgezen a Notice of Intention to Consider Refusal of his visa on the basis that the delegate considered he may not pass the character test. Following a lack of response on his part (or from the solicitors who had previously acted for him), Mr Denizgezen’s visa was refused.
HOW DO THE PRIMARY AND OTHER CONSIDERATIONS APPLY TO MR DENIZGEZEN?
The three primary considerations are set out in Part B of Direction no. 65:
11 Primary considerations – visa applicants
(1) In deciding whether to refuse a non-citizen’s visa, the following are primary considerations:
a) Protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct;
b) The best interests of minor children in Australia;
c) Expectations of the Australian Community.
Protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct
Paragraph 11.1 under Part B of Direction no. 65 states:
(1) When considering the protection of the Australian community, decision-makers should have regard to the principle that the Government is committed to protecting the Australian community from harm as a result of criminal activity or other serious conduct by non-citizens. There is a low tolerance for visa applicants who have previously engaged in criminal or other serious conduct. Decision-makers should also give consideration to:
a) The nature and seriousness of the non-citizen's conduct to date; and
b) The risk to the Australian community should the non-citizen commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct.
Paragraphs 11.1.1 and 11.1.2 of Direction no. 65 describe a number of principles that must be taken into account in considering the nature and seriousness of the criminal offending or other conduct to date. Pursuant to Paragraph 11.1.1(1):
a) The principle that, without limiting the range of offences that may be considered serious, violent and/or sexual crimes are viewed very seriously;
Mr Denizgezen’s offences have primarily been the infliction of domestic violence against three of his partners and breaches of apprehended violence orders that they have been taken out against him. In each instance his partners have alleged that he struck them. Victoria Police records indicated that the latest conviction involved Mr Denizgezen breaking a window with a hammer to gain access to his partner’s car when she refused him entry to it.
Whilst Mr Denizgezen’s offences have not resulted in actual imprisonment, he was given a suspended one month sentence on 13 June 2012 in relation to driving whilst his licence was suspended. Mr Denizgezen claims to not have known of the suspension as he had left the address shown on his car licence and did not receive the notice.
As per paragraph 11.1.1(1)(b) of Direction no. 65:
The principle that crimes committed against vulnerable members of the community (such as minors, the elderly and the disabled), or government representatives or officials due to the position they hold, or in the performance of their duties, are serious;
Mr Denizgezen’s offences were directed at his partners.
Pursuant to paragraph 11.1.1(1)(c) of Direction no. 65:
Where the non-citizen is in Australia, that a crime committed while the non-citizen was in immigration detention; during an escape from immigration detention; after the non-citizen escaped from immigration detention, but before the non-citizen was taken into immigration detention again is serious, as is an offence against section 197A of the Act;
This factor is not relevant in this matter.
As per paragraph 11.1.1(1)(d) of Direction no. 65:
d) The principle that any conduct that forms the basis for a finding that a non-citizen does not pass a subjective limb of the character test is or is not of good character under section 501(6)(c) is considered to be serious;
Mr Denizgezen’s conduct in attacking his partners physically is serious.
As per paragraph 11.1.1(1)(e) of Direction no. 65:
e) The sentence imposed by the courts for a crime or crimes;
Mr Denizgezen was given community based orders in relation to the domestic violence he inflicted. The driving conviction resulted in a suspended sentence.
As per paragraph 11.1.1(1)(f) of Direction no. 65:
f) The frequency of the non-citizen's offending and whether there is any trend of increasing seriousness;
Mr Denizgezen has been convicted of assaults on his first and second wives and the person he claims to still be his partner. Victoria Police records indicate that the latest conviction involved following his partner’s car, blocking her way as she tried to elude him and breaking her car’s window when she refused him entry to the car. The earlier domestic violence incidents have involved bruising to the victims’ faces. The offences appear to have become more violent as the years have passed. Mr Denizgezen appears to have persisted in physically attacking his partners despite earlier convictions and attendance at courses as directed by the courts.
A report dated 31 May 2012 from the Family Violence Intervention Program run by Kildonan Uniting Care states that Mr Denizgezen had participated in workshops in the Men’s Behaviour Change Program between March 2011 and November 2011.
In an email dated 27 May 2016 to an unidentified recipient, Caitlin Roberts of Sunshine Community Correctional Services confirms that she is the officer assigned to Mr Denizgezen. She goes on to state:
…
…I believe he is currently on a spousal visa however this is with an ex-partner (he has had and ended a further relationship since then).
Ali has advised me that he is in the process of applying for permanent residency…
There is also a full IVO between Ali and Maristel Myers whom I believe was his partner for his spousal visa. Mr Denizgezen is also on his Order for Family Violence offences against his more recent ex-partner.
Last I spoke to Ali, he was living in his car and trying to find stable accommodation. Further, I believe Ali is working casually as a labourer.
Ali is engaging with his Community Correction Order, attending the Change About Program every Tuesday…at Carlton Justice Centre…
Mr Denizgezen could not clearly recall the circumstances leading to the offences committed against his first and second wives. He admitted losing his cool in relation to the 2015 offence against his latest partner.
In Cyprus, prior to Mr Denizgezen’s arrival in Australia, he was given fines for being part of a group that abducted and assaulted a person. Mr Denizgezen told the Tribunal that he was not part of the plan or the assault which was committed by friends with whom he had gone out driving with that evening. Mr Denizgezen said that his fine relating to military service arose when he came back late from leave.
As per paragraph 11.1.1(1)(g) of Direction no. 65:
g) The cumulative effect of repeated offending;
Mr Denizgezen has inflicted harm on three partners. Despite undertaking relevant courses and psychological treatment following the first two domestic violence offences, he continued the pattern in relation to his latest partner with the 2015 conviction for a similar but even more violent offence.
As per paragraph 11.1.1(1)(h) of Direction no. 65:
h) Whether the non-citizen has provided false or misleading information to the department, including by not disclosing prior criminal offending;
There is no evidence before the Tribunal to suggest that Mr Denizgezen has done so.
As per paragraph 11.1.1(1)(i) of Direction no. 65:
i)Where the offence or conduct was committed in another country, whether that offence or conduct is classified as an offence in Australia.
The offences committed in Cyprus would be likely to be classified as offences here.
Conclusion regarding the seriousness of the offences
The Tribunal concludes that the offences are serious.
The risk to the Australian community should Mr Denizgezen commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct
Paragraph 11.1.2 of Direction no. 65 states:
(1) In considering whether the non-citizen represents an unacceptable risk of harm to individuals, groups or institutions in the Australian community, decision-makers should have regard to the principle that the Australian community's tolerance for any risk of future harm becomes lower as the seriousness of the potential harm increases. Some conduct and the harm that would be caused if it were to be repeated, is so serious that any risk that it may be repeated may be unacceptable.
(2) In addition, decision-makers should have regard to the principle that Australia has a low tolerance of any criminal or other serious conduct by visa applicants or those holding a limited stay visa, reflecting that there should be no expectation that such people should be allowed to come to, or remain permanently in, Australia.
(3) In considering the risk to the Australian community, decision-makers must have regard to, cumulatively:
a) The nature of the harm to individuals or the Australian community should the non-citizen engage in further criminal or other serious conduct; and
Taking into account the nature of the convictions for offences involving domestic violence, the Tribunal finds that there would be significant harm to individuals or the Australian community should Mr Denizgezen engage in further criminal or other serious conduct, as per paragraph 11.1.2(3)(b) of Direction no. 65 below:
The likelihood of the non-citizen engaging in further criminal or other serious conduct, taking into account:
i. information and evidence from independent and authoritative sources on the likelihood of the non-citizen reoffending; and
ii. evidence of rehabilitation achieved by the time of the decision, giving weight to time spent in the community since their most recent offence (noting that decisions should not be delayed in order for rehabilitative courses to be undertaken); and
iii. the duration of the intended stay in Australia.
In his oral evidence, Mr Denizgezen said that he is remorseful and expressed regret over his actions in committing the offences, which were unintentional. He spoke about incurring an injury and having a difficult time financially as a result. Mr Denizgezen had almost completed a course which was part of his sentence following the latest conviction which he said had made him realise that he needed to control his temper better. Mr Denizgezen said that the intervention order in relation to his most recent partner was taken out by her father, not by his ex-partner.
On the basis of all the material, the Tribunal finds that while the risk of re-offending is low to moderate, it is not insignificant. This criterion weighs in favour of refusing the visa on character grounds.
Best interests of minor children in Australia affected by the decision
Mr Denizgezen has four children in Australia, at least one of whom is an Australian citizen. He provided a copy of an order made by the Federal Magistrates Court on 9 July 2012 in relation to the child born in January 2008 to him and his second wife. Mr Denizgezen had initiated the proceedings stating in his trial affidavit that he had separated from his second wife after she took out an intervention order against him on 11 February 2011. The orders made by the Magistrate included that the child lives with the mother; that both parties share equal parenting responsibility; that any communication be via text message and that the parties attend mediation with Relationships Australia or other accredited agency in 12 months to discuss time spent by with her when she commences kindergarten or school. Changeovers were to occur at the Preston Police Station or Berry Street (children’s protection organisation) with initial contact with the father commencing on Sunday 15 July from 1.00pm to 5.30pm, every second Sunday for a period of four weeks. Thereafter, contact with the father was on every second Sunday from 10.00 am to 5.30 pm for a period of four weeks. Thereafter, Mr Denizgezen was entitled to spend time with his daughter from 1.00pm on Saturday to 5.30pm on Sunday on alternative weeks with the changeover to be at the police station or Berry Street. This period was then extended from 10.00am to 5.30pm on Sunday on alternative weeks. Mr Denizgezen was also given two hours over lunchtime on the child’s birthday and Christmas Day. There was also an order allowing the mother to take the child to the Philippines for three weeks in late September 2012.
Mr Denizgezen told the Tribunal that he regularly sees that daughter as well as the son and daughter from his first marriage. The only documentary evidence provided was within the trial affidavit dated 3 July 2012:
12. I have two other children from a previous relationship…On 15 December 2008, by consent, the court provided me spending time with … [children’s names] every second weekend Saturday to Sunday. However, by agreement with my ex-wife I have spent time on a much liberal basis to date.
Mr Denizgezen said the changeover was usually at McDonald’s. He does not go to his first or second wife’s homes to pick them up. Mr Denizgezen does not know the whereabouts of another son, born to a previous girlfriend. He stated that his current partner has a daughter whom he cares about.
Mr Denizgezen said that in terms of financial support, he buys the children what they need or want. He occasionally gives cash to them to give to their mothers. There is no evidence of a regular financial support regime.
Mr Denizgezen told the Tribunal that he had last seen the three children on the weekend of 25-26 June 2016, a few days before he was taken into immigration detention on 28 June 2016.
The trial affidavit for the Federal Magistrates’ Court proceedings indicates that following allegations by his second wife concerning his mental status, a psychiatric assessment was undertaken in May 2012. Mr Denizgezen conceded that he was stressed following his separation from his second wife and was referred for psychological treatment in late February 2011. A psychiatrist’s report dated 15 May 2012 was prepared at the request of Mr Denizgezen’s solicitors for the family law proceedings. Dr Adam Deacon concluded that Mr Denizgezen presented with some personality traits that may have contributed to problems in the marriage and after separation. He suggested Mr Denizgezen may benefit from counselling to assist him further in the adjustment to separation so he does not engage in any untoward behaviour.
A supervision report by Ricky Hazelhoff dated 23 January 2012 stated that there had been nine supervised visits at McDonald’s on Thursdays as from 8 September 2011. She stated that the visits were very successful and there had been no hassles during handover by the mother. The supervisor commented on the strong bond between the daughter and Mr Denizgezen. The supervisor also reported that the last visit had been on 29 December 2011 when Mr Denizgezen brought the two children from his first marriage along and noted that the three children got on well. The supervisor commented that Mr Denizgezen had shown good parenting skills. She also stated that the mother has stated that the father has never harmed any of the children, he was just aggressive with herself.
The best interests of the children would be for their father to be with them physically in Australia. This primary criterion weighs in favour of not refusing the visa.
Expectations of the Australian Community
As has been pointed out in Direction no. 65, the Australian community would expect a person who has committed violent offences towards three partners over a period of several years to be refused a spousal visa that related to a relationship that ended many years earlier with the sponsor taking out an intervention order against him due to domestic violence. The Tribunal finds that this criterion weighs in favour of refusing the visa.
Other considerations – visa applicants
Paragraph 12(1) of Direction no.65 sets out other considerations that must be taken into account where relevant. The considerations include but are not limited to:
a)International non-refoulement obligations;
b)Impact on family members;
c)Impact on victims;
d)Impact on Australian business interests.
There is no evidence before the Tribunal that Mr Denizgezen will be at risk of any harm if he is required to return to Cyprus or Turkey. He was a member of the family unit when his then wife applied for a protection visa. He acknowledged to the Tribunal that he did not claim to be a refugee and despite being given the opportunity by the Tribunal, did not explain or did not know why his wife had applied for a protection visa. The Tribunal had no information before it concerning the application or the decision to refuse the protection visa which was refused and finalised in April 2006.
Mr Denizgezen’s only family members in Australia appear to be his children. There is no evidence, beyond Mr Denizgezen’s assertion, that he is still partnered to his latest victim as she did not provide any evidence to support him.
The only evidence available on the ongoing impact on the victims has been their taking out intervention orders to prevent contact with Mr Denizgezen.
There does not appear to be any significant impact on Australian business interests if Mr Denizgezen is refused the partner visa. He described his occupation as bricklayer. He has also worked as a labourer. No details of whom he worked for have been provided.
CONCLUSION
The primary consideration regarding protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct, which weighs in favour of refusal of the visa, should be given great weight given the nature of the conduct and the lengthy period over which the offences occurred. The expectations of members of the Australian community, as described in Direction no. 65, would also lead to refusal of the visa given the violent behaviour exhibited by Mr Denizgezen.
On the other hand, the primary consideration regarding Mr Denizgezen’s ties to his children and their rights to be with their parent, which weighs against refusal of the visa, should also be given significant weight. However, whilst the rights of the children are very important, their mothers and any future partners of their father should not have to fear or experience violence.
The balancing act in cases such as this one is difficult. However, the outcome will ultimately be determined in accordance with the Tribunal's obligation, pursuant to Direction no. 65, to make a finding as to whether the risk of Mr Denizgezen causing future harm to members of the Australian community is unacceptable. The Tribunal finds that it would be unacceptable.
Having regard, in particular, to the principles referred to in Direction no. 65 and the findings made in relation to those principles, the Tribunal concludes, that the preferable decision in this case is that the application for the visa be refused.
DECISION
The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.
62.
63. I certify that the preceding 61 paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Ms Regina Perton, Member
[sgd]-....................................................................
Associate
Dated 20 September 2016
Date of hearing 12 September 2016 Counsel for the Applicant
Advocate for the Applicant
Solicitors for the Applicant
Rolf Sorensen
Sulaika Dhanapala
D & M Lawyers
Advocate for the Respondent Lachlan Gell Solicitors for the Respondent Clayton Utz
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Immigration
-
Administrative Law
Legal Concepts
-
Judicial Review
-
Procedural Fairness
-
Statutory Construction
-
Jurisdiction
-
Natural Justice
2
0
1