Dumper and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs (Migration)
[2024] AATA 2378
•11 July 2024
Dumper and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs (Migration) [2024] AATA 2378 (11 July 2024)
Division:GENERAL DIVISION
File Number(s): 2024/2558
Re:Brandon (Falamoe) Dumper
APPLICANT
AndMinister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs
RESPONDENT
DECISION
Tribunal:Senior Member George
Date:11 July 2024
Place:Adelaide
The Tribunal affirms the Reviewable Decision.
..................[Sgd].................................................
Senior Member George
CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – cancellation of Applicant’s Class TY Subclass 444 Special Category (Temporary) visa – very serious offending – family violence – decision affirmed
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ss 500(1)(ba), 501(2), 501(6)(a), 501(7)(c), 501CA(4), 501CA(4)
CASES
FYBR v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCAFC 185
SECONDARY MATERIALS
Direction No. 99, Visa refusal and cancellation under section 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under section 501CA
Direction No. 110, Visa refusal and cancellation under section 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under section 501CA paras 5.2(2), 7(2), 8.1.1(1), 8.1.1(1)(a)-(i), 8.1.1(1)(a)(ii), 8.1.1(a)(iii), 8.1.1(1)(b)(i), 8.1.2(1)-(2), 8.2(1), 8.2(3), 8.2(3)(a)-(d), 8.3(2), 8.3(2)(a)-(b), 8.4(1)-(3), 8.4(4)(a)-(h), 8.5(1)-(4), 9(1)
REASONS FOR DECISION
Senior Member George
11 July 2024
Mr Brandon (Falamoe) Dumper is aged 32 years. He was born in Auckland,[1] but migrated from New Zealand in July 1992 when he was 6 months old. He has resided in Australia since he was an infant.[2]
[1] Exhibit R2, T-Documents, G8, Personal Circumstances Form, pages 245-246.
[2] Exhibit R2, T-Documents, G14, Movement History, pages 245-246.
Mr Falamoe has an extensive criminal history of 30 convictions over a 13-year period from 2010 and he has been sentenced to terms of imprisonment.[3] On 6 November 2020, Mr Falamoe was sent a Notice of Intention to Consider Cancellation in respect of his Class TY Subclass 444 Special Category (Temporary) visa.[4]
[3] Exhibit R2, T-Documents, G4, Attachment A, Check Results Report, pages 38-40.
[4] Exhibit R2, T-Documents, G7, Notice of intention to consider cancellations, Attachment D, pages 54-57.
On 3 April 2024, considering Direction No. 99, Mr Falamoe’s visa was cancelled under s 501(2) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (“the Act”).[5] This is the Reviewable Decision.
[5] Exhibit R2, T-Documents, G3, Decision by the Delegate, pages 20-37.
Mr Falamoe lodged an application for review of the Reviewable Decision with the Tribunal on 27 October 2022.[6] The Tribunal has jurisdiction to review that decision pursuant to s 500(1)(ba) of the Act.
[6] Exhibit R2, T-Documents, G2, Application for Review of Decision, pages 4-14.
It is not in contest that Mr Falamoe has a substantial criminal record and therefore, does not pass the character test under ss 501(6)(a) and 501(7)(c) of the Act. Accordingly, the central issue in this matter is whether there is another reason why the cancellation should not be revoked.
For the following reasons, the Tribunal has decided to affirm the decision under review.
BACKGROUND AND OFFENDING
Mr Falamoe gave oral evidence in these proceedings. He also relied upon earlier written statements. Mr Falamoe’s evidence is that he has lived in Australia for over 30 years and knows nothing but life in Australia. It would cause him a severe amount of stress were he removed to New Zealand.[7]
[7] Exhibit R2, T-Documents, G13, Attachment H.1, Statement of Brandon Falamoe, page 203.
Mr Falamoe has a son, Master LFG, with his former partner, Ms CHG. Master LFG is aged 13 years. Mr Falamoe’s evidence is that, when he was in the community, he would spend time with his son. Whilst in immigration detention, Mr Falamoe communicates with his son electronically. It is clear by his evidence that Mr Falamoe loves his son deeply.
Mr Falamoe has a strong interest in fitness. Despite this, however, Mr Falamoe has suffered from the effects of excessive alcohol use. Mr Falamoe recognises that alcohol has played a significant role in his offending. Mr Falamoe wrote:
A few cases of my offending has been under the influence of alcohol where it has had an impact on my decision making and led me into getting in trouble with the law. I do not believe I have a problem with alcohol but on a few occasions it has effected my judgement.[8]
[8] Exhibit R2, T-Documents, G11, Attachment F.1, Statement of Brandon Falamoe, page 136.
Mr Falamoe gave oral evidence that he started drinking alcohol aged 14 or 15. When in the community, Mr Falamoe drinks between 10 to 20 drinks one or more times a week.
Mr Falamoe’s criminal history contains several examples of where alcohol has caused him errors of judgment.These include multiple examples of drink driving dating back to August 2011, when he was convicted of Exceed 0.02g alcohol per 100ml of blood. Police records state that:
At the time of the offence the road was wet, street lights were on, the vehicle had been driven the wrong way along Beaufort Street, a one-way street and therefore interfering with on-coming traffic.[9]
[9] Exhibit R3, Tender Bundle, TB3, Statement of Material Facts, page 49.
In March 2017, Mr Falamoe was further convicted of Exceed 0.08g alcohol per 100ml of blood. On that occasion, Mr Falamoe’s vehicle ended up on its side and caused property damage at a private residence. The police records read:
Police attended Royal Perth Hospital where it was ascertained the accused had consumed alcohol.
As a result of this the accused underwent a breath test which gave a reading of 0.130 grams of alcohol per 210 litres of breath, calculated to 0.115 grams of alcohol per 100ml of blood at the time of the occurrence.[10]
[10] Exhibit R3, Tender Bundle, TB3, Statement of Material Facts, page 80.
Mr Falamoe received a suspended period of imprisonment for this offending.[11]
[11] Exhibit R3, Tender Bundle, TB6, Sentencing Remarks, pages 222-225.
Mr Falamoe admitted to using cannabis and methamphetamine, although his evidence is that they are not a problem in his life as he does not use them anymore. Mr Falamoe denies using steroids or acid.
It is unnecessary to list Mr Falamoe’s full criminal history. Sixteen of Mr Falamoe’s offences are for driving and Mr Falamoe received multiple sanctions for these from Courts, including a suspended period of imprisonment in April 2015. On the same occasion, Mr Falamoe was also convicted for Wilfully mislead a person affecting the discharge of that person’s duty under this Act. He knowingly supplied police with a false name, said that he was from New Zealand, and that he was travelling back there in one week.[12]
[12] Exhibit R3, Tender Bundle, TB3, Statement of Material Facts, page 73.
It is material to note Mr Falamoe’s convictions for violent offending:
(a)April 2012 – Unlawfully assaulted with circumstances of aggravation. The victim was Ms CHG, who was aged 17 years at the time and of a significantly lighter stature than Mr Falamoe.[13] Mr Falamone was sentenced to a nine-month community-based order.
(b)June 2012 – Assault Occasioning Bodily Harm, which caused Mr Falamoe to breach his community-based order.
(c)January 2023 – Assault Occasioning Bodily Harm. Mr Falamoe was convicted in the District Court of Western Australia for assault occasioning bodily harm from an incident on 1 January 2019. He was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of one year and eight months.[14] In sentencing, Lonsdale DCJ remarked that substance abuse is a feature of Mr Falamoe’s offending.[15] This offending was impulsive and opportunistic and committed whilst Mr Falamoe was under the influence of alcohol.[16] Her Honour also remarked that Mr Falamoe’s driving offences “demonstrate a propensity on your part to disobey rules”.[17]
(d)April 2023 – Assault public officer; Unlawfully assault and thereby did bodily harm with circumstances of aggravation; Two counts of Assault Occasioning Bodily Harm. The civilian victims of this offending were women variously aged 60 years,[18] 41 years,[19] and 23 years.[20] Police records detail that the public officer who was assaulted was a police officer acting in the course of his duty, when he was punched in the face by Mr Falamoe.[21] Mr Falamoe was “heavily intoxicated on the night”.[22]
[13] Exhibit R3, Tender Bundle, TB3, Statement of Material Facts, page 58.
[14] Exhibit R3, Tender Bundle, TB7, Certificate of Final Outcome of Charge, page 258.
[15] Exhibit R2, T-Documents, G5, Attachment B, Sentencing Remarks, page 46.
[16] Exhibit R2, T-Documents, G5, Attachment B, Sentencing Remarks, page 44.
[17] Exhibit R2, T-Documents, G5, Attachment B, Sentencing Remarks, page 45.
[18] Exhibit R3, Tender Bundle, TB3, Statement of Material Facts, page 90.
[19] Exhibit R3, Tender Bundle, TB3, Statement of Material Facts, page 91
[20] Exhibit R3, Tender Bundle, TB3, Statement of Material Facts, page 92.
[21] Exhibit R2, T-Documents, G6, Statement of Material Facts, page 52.
[22] Exhibit R3, Tender Bundle, TB6, Transcript of Proceedings, page 235.
Mr Falamoe has broadly expressed remorse for his violent criminal offending.
During the hearing, Mr Falamoe was cross-examined on Western Australian Police incident reports that may constitute acts of family violence against three separate women. Of these, Mr Falamoe:
(a)said that a report of an assault against Ms CHG of April 2012 was inaccurate.[23]
(b)was convicted in November 2013 of Damaging property for damaging Ms CHG’s car in June 2013,[24] which also caused Mr Falamoe to be convicted of Breach of Bail Undertaking. Mr Falamoe had breached previous bail undertakings protecting Ms CHG.[25]
(c)admitted to the broad accuracy of a report from July 2013 when he assaulted Ms CHG, including throwing a knife in the presence of their son Master LFG.[26]
(d)said that he was found not guilty at trial regarding an alleged incident against a domestic partner in August 2020 after the relationship had ended,[27] although he had consumed “quite a bit” of alcohol.
(e)denies the accuracy of an alleged incident in March 2022 against a domestic partner.[28]
[23] Exhibit R1, Annexure C, WAPOL Detected Incident Report between 09:36 14/04/2012 and 19:30 14/04/2012.
[24] Exhibit R3, Tender Bundle, TB3, Statement of Material Facts, page 62.
[25] Exhibit R3, Tender Bundle, TB3, Statement of Material Facts, page 63.
[26] Exhibit R1, Annexure C, WAPOL Detected Incident Report at 14:30 02/07/2013.
[27] Exhibit R1, Annexure C, WAPOL Detected Incident Report; Exhibit R2, Tender Bundle, R3, WAPOL Detected Incident Report, page 37.
[28] Exhibit R1, Annexure C, WAPOL Detected Incident Report; Exhibit R2, Tender Bundle, R3, WAPOL Detected Incident Report, pages 23-26.
Mr Falamoe has placed numerous statements before the Tribunal from a wide range of family, friends, and colleagues. None of these witnesses raise concern that Mr Falamoe will re-offend and most of them express views that Mr Falamoe is not a risk to the community. Of note, Mr Josh Billington, a friend of Mr Falamoe’s since their teen years, provided an unsigned letter dated 20 September 2023. In that letter, Mr Billington said that Mr Falamoe had expressed “his extreme remorse for his past actions”.[29] Despite most of these witnesses expressing knowledge of Mr Falamoe’s offending, it is unclear the extent to which they know Mr Falamoe’s full criminal history.
[29] Exhibit R2, T-Documents, G13, Attachment H.3, Letter from Josh Billington, pages 221-223.
Mr Falamoe has an extensive work history in the building, mining and construction industries.[30] He is qualified to work at heights.[31] Whilst incarcerated in 2015, Mr Falamoe completed a Certificate II in Hospitality amongst other qualifications.[32]
[30] Exhibit R2, T-Documents, G10, Attachment E.2, Employment Reference, pages 129-130; G11, Attachment F.1, Curriculum Vitae, pages 139-144; Attachment; G12, Attachment G.3, Verification of Employment, pages 185-186.
[31] Exhibit R2, T-Documents, G11, Attachment F.9, pages 158-159.
[32] Exhibit R2, T-Documents, G11, Attachment F.1, Statement of Brandon Falamoe, page 137.
In a letter date 12 October 2023, a former employer, Mr Stuart Sell, described Mr Falamoe as having a commitment to safety and quality as an advanced scaffolder.[33] Mr Falamoe has also volunteered as a football coach,[34] and has a strong interest in fitness.[35]
[33] Exhibit R2, T-Documents, G13, Attachment H.6, Letter from Stuart Sell, pages 230-231.
[34] Exhibit R2, T-Documents, G10, Attachment E.2, Letter from Willagee Bear Rugby League Club Inc, page 127.
[35] Exhibit R2, T-Documents, G10, Attachment E.2, Letter from John Duff, page 128.
Mr Falamoe’s sister, Ms Monita Falamoe, provided a statement dated 28 September 2023.[36] Ms Falamoe describes her younger brother in fond terms and attributes Mr Falamoe’s offending to the negative influence of their father. In her sentencing remarks of 13 January 2023, Lonsdale DCJ observed that Mr Falamoe’s father was a poor influence on him and evidently introduced Mr Falamoe to methylamphetamine.[37]
[36] Exhibit R2, T-Documents, G13, Attachment H.5, Statement of Monita Falamoe, pages 227-229. See also Exhibit R2, T-Documents, G13, Attachment F.5, Statement of Monita Falamoe, pages 149-154.
[37] Exhibit R3, Tender Bundle, TB1, Sentencing Remarks of Lonsdale DCJ, page 4.
Ms Falamoe describes her brother as being close to his family, including his mother and son. In her statement of 8 July 2021,[38] Ms Marama Barrett-Roach made a similar observation. Ms Marama Barrett-Roach is a family friend who has know Mr Falamoe since the age of six years.
[38] Exhibit R2, T-Documents, G11, Attachment F.3, Statement of Marama Barrett-Roach, pages 145-146
Ms Falamoe addresses an incident in March 2022 when Mr Falamoe attempted to kill himself twice within a period of 24 hours. Mr Falamoe was on bail at the time. Ms Falamoe explained that by having his bail revoked Mr Falamoe would be monitored. Lonsdale DCJ referred to this period, saying:
Now, you had been on home detention bail and you had been living with your sister, but your sister withdrew her support for you due to the fact that your mental health was deteriorating and you had attempted self-harm. So you were in custody after that, but it does seem that your mental health has stabilised.[39]
[39] Exhibit R3, Tender Bundle, TB1, Sentencing Remarks of Lonsdale DCJ, page 6.
Ms Falamoe further explained that it was after this, and whilst in prison, that Mr Falamoe sought assistance from The Whitehaven Clinic. In a signed statement that has clearly been misdated “05/07/201”, Ms Falmoe’s partner, Mr Michael Hawker, says that “I will be supporting Brandon with a place to live, financially and support to make the right decision”.[40] The Tribunal notes that at the hearing, Mr Falamoe did not give evidence that he would live with Ms Falamoe and Mr Hawker if released back into the Australian community.
[40] Exhibit R2, T-Documents, G11, Attachment F.4, Statement of Michael Hawker, page 148.
The Program Director of the Addiction Recovery Process Program at The Whitehaven Clinic wrote a letter dated 20 June 2024.[41] This letter explained that Mr Falamoe has been participating in the ‘Addiction Recovery Process Program’ and the ‘Ending Patterns of Violence Program’. Mr Falamoe is reported to have “engaged extremely well in counselling and is making excellent progress on developing insight into his behavior and patterns”. A similar report was made on 19 September 2023.[42]
[41] Exhibit A1.
[42] Exhibit R2, T-Documents, G13, Attachment H.2, Confirmation of Participation, pages 219-220.
In an earlier pre-sentencing report of 4 January 2023 from The Whitehaven Clinic, Mr Falamoe’s drug and alcohol history is reported in the following terms:
From the age of 14/15yo, Brandon advised that he would drink on weekends when “catching up with friends”, but because he spent time playing touch rugby at a state level, and rugby league, he was focused on his health and fitness therefore drinking was not a key focus. Brandon recognised that his drinking “got heavier” when he started working. Initially Brandon advised, “I don’t have a problem with [drinking]”, but then later conceded, “[I realise] all my offending happened while drinking. But I don’t drink every day”.
At the age of 20yo, Brandon shared that he first tried smoking methamphetamine after his father “gave it to me” advising that his use became “pretty bad” by the time he was 21yo. Brandon advised that he stopped all use in 2014, at the age of 23yo, coinciding with “a big fall out with Dad” when he decided to assert boundaries about his father’s continued drug use advising, “I wanted out of that lifestyle… cutting him off meant a whole lot less dramas”.[43]
[43] Exhibit R2, T-Documents, G13, Attachment H.2, Pre-Sentencing Support Report, page 212.
In that same report, it is reported Mr Falamoe has “created a positive co-parenting relationship” with Ms CHG.[44]
[44] Exhibit R2, T-Documents, G13, Attachment H.2, Pre-Sentencing Support Report, page 211.
Mr Falamoe’s son, Master LFG, was born in February 2011.[45] He is an Australian Citizen.[46] He provided an unsigned and undated statement.[47] In that statement, Master LFG speaks of looking forward to seeing his father and doing fun things with him. Master LFG says that Mr Falamoe helps with his homework and teaches him new things. Master LFG expresses his love for his father than says that he will be upset if Mr Falamoe must leave. Master LFG has provided drawings and handwritten notes to that effect, and the Tribunal also has copies of family photos.[48]
[45] Exhibit R2, T-Documents, G9, Attachment E.1, Birth Certificate of LFG, page 125.
[46] Exhibit R2, T-Documents, G9, Attachment E.1, Passport of LFG, page 126.
[47] Exhibit R2, T-Documents, G13, Attachment H.12, Statement of LFG, page 244.
[48] Exhibit R2, T-Documents, G11, Attachment F.11, pages 166-181.
In a statutory declaration sworn on 20 September 2023,[49] Ms Leisha Gaitens, who is a friend of Mr Falamoe, gave evidence that Mr Falamoe has a “fantastic co-parenting relationship” with Master LFG’s mother. Ms Gaitens expressed a view that it “would be extremely detrimental to the early teen development of his son’s life” if Mr Falamoe could not remain in Australia.
[49] Exhibit R2, T-Documents, G13, Attachment H.4, Statutory Declaration of Leisha Gaitens, pages 224-226.
A friend of Mr Falamoe, Mr John Duff, provided an unsigned and undated statement.[50] Materially, in that letter Mr Duff describes the emotional support and guidance he has provided to Master LFG. Another friend, Mr Ethan Knight, noted the co-parenting relationship that Mr Falamoe has with his former partner, and Master LFG mother, Ms CHG. Mr Knight’s statement was unsigned and undated.[51] Similarly, in his undated statement, Mr Damian Vucic describes how close Mr Falamoe is with his family and that he would have no support in New Zealand were he to be retuned there.[52]
[50] Exhibit R2, T-Documents, G13, Attachment H.10, Statement of John Duff, pages 239-240.
[51] Exhibit R2, T-Documents, G13, Attachment H.9, Statement of Ethan Knight, pages 237-238.
[52] Exhibit R2, T-Documents, G13, Attachment H.7, Statement of Damiian Vucic, pages 233-234.
Mr Falamoe’s former employer, Mr Daniel Karabeleski, provided a signed but undated statement.[53] Mr Karabeleski described Mr Falamoe as being “kind, respectful and humble” and Mr Karabeleski was surprised by Mr Falamoe’s assault convictions. Mr Karabeleski describes Mr Falamoe as being a good father to Master LFG.
[53] Exhibit R2, T-Documents, G13, Attachment H.8, Statement of Daniel Karabeleski, pages 235-236.
Mr Falamoe’s former partner, and Master LFG’s mother, Ms CHG, provided a statement dated 8 July 2021. In that statement, Ms CHG says that their son “would be extremely affected mentally and physically if he wasn’t able to see his Father [whilst he was] growing up”.[54] In similar tones, Mr Falamoe’s friend, Ms Haylee Robinson, in her statement of 11 November 2021, wrote that “As a teacher having worked with many trauma [afflicted] students it is my belief that separating a child from their father at such a young age would have a detrimental impact”.[55]
[54] Exhibit R2, T-Documents, G12, Attachment G.2, Statement of CHG, pages 183.
[55] Exhibit R2, T-Documents, G12, Attachment G.4, Statement of Haylee Robinson, pages 187-188.
Ms CHG also provided an unsigned and undated statement.[56] This statement was written when Mr Falamoe was in the community. In her statement, Ms CHG described her co-parenting relationship of Master LFG with Mr Falamoe as being strong. Mr Falamoe was a positive influence on Master LFG, who became more confident and content. Ms CHG is clear that Master LFG would be devastated if his father were removed from Australia, as it would “crush our son’s heart”.
[56] Exhibit R2, T-Documents, G13, Attachment H.11, Statement of CHG, pages 241-243.
Ms CHG says she made her statement with full knowledge of Mr Falamoe’s criminal history. She does not address any issues of domestic or family violence, particularly any such violence perpetrated against her.
In her statement of 8 July 2021, Ms CHG’s mother, Ms KG, goes some way to address her knowledge of Mr Falamoe’s offending. Ms KG addresses Mr Falamoe’s driving charges and says that Mr Falamoe has “recognised the role excessive alcohol played in his behaviour”, which the Tribunal interprets to refer to Mr Falamoe’s criminal behaviour. Ms KG says:
If Brandon is removed it will have a devastating impact on myself, his son lives with us and loves to see his dad. He is so excited when they have a day planned together. [Master LFG] would be heart broken and this will impact me greatly.[57]
[57] Exhibit R2, T-Documents, G11, Attachment F.7, Statement of KG, page 157.
Mr Falamoe’s evidence is that he would lose the bond between himself and his son if Mr Falamoe is removed from Australia. Mr Falamoe has previously made voluntary child support payments and that his financial assistance will be limited if he is removed “to a country I have never worked or lived in”.[58]
[58] Exhibit R2, T-Documents, G8, Attachment E, Personal Circumstances Form, page 116.
THE CHARACTER TEST AND DIRECTION 110
The operational effect of ss 501(6)(a) and 501(7)(c) of the Act is such that the Tribunal finds that Mr Falamoe has a substantial criminal record as he has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more. Mr Falamoe does not pass the character test.
To revoke the mandatory cancellation of Mr Falamoe’s visa under s 501CA(4)(b) of the Act, the Tribunal must be satisfied that there is another reason, considering Direction No 110, to revoke the cancellation.
Direction 110 sets out Primary Considerations and Other Considerations. These are addressed under their respective headings below.
PRIMARY CONSIDERATION 1: PROTECTION OF THE AUSTRALIAN COMMUNITY FROM CRIMINAL OR OTHER SERIOUS CONDUCT
The Nature and Seriousness of the Applicant’s Conduct to Date
When assessing the nature and seriousness of a non-citizen’s criminal offending or other conduct to date, paragraph 8.1.1(1) of the Direction specifies that decision-makers must have regard to a number of factors, which the Tribunal will now turn to addressing.
Sub-paragraph (a) of paragraph 8.1.1(1) of the Direction provides that, without limiting the range of conduct that may be considered very serious, violent and/or sexual crimes; crimes of a violent and/or sexual nature against women or children (regardless of the sentence imposed); or acts of family violence (regardless of whether there is a conviction for an offence or a sentence imposed) are viewed very seriously by the Australian Government and the Australian community.
Mr Falamoe has committed violent crimes against women. He has committed family violence against Ms CHG. The Tribunal considers this criminal offending to be very serious.
Sub-paragraph (b) of paragraph 8.1.1(1) of the Direction provides that without limiting the range of conduct that may be considered serious, the types of crimes or conduct described below are considered by the Australian Government and the Australian community to be serious:
(i) causing a person to enter into or being party to a forced marriage (other than being a victim), regardless of whether there is a conviction for an offence or a sentence imposed;
(ii) crimes committed against vulnerable members of the community (such as the elderly and the disabled), or government representatives or officials due to the position they hold, or in the performance of their duties;
(i) any conduct that forms the basis for a finding that a non-citizen does not pass an aspect of the character test that is dependent upon the decision-maker’s opinion (for example, section 501(6)(c));
(ii) where the non-citizen is in Australia, a crime committed while the non-citizen was in immigration detention, during an escape from immigration detention, or after the non-citizen escaped from immigration detention, but before the non-citizen was taken into immigration detention again, or an offence against section 197A of the Act, which prohibits escape from immigration detention.
Mr Falamoe has assaulted a woman aged 60, who the Tribunal regards a vulnerable due to her age. He has also assaulted a police officer in the performance of his duties. The Tribunal considers this conduct to be serious.
Sub-paragraph (c) of paragraph 8.1.1(1) of the Direction directs a decision-maker (subject to sub-paragraphs (a)(ii), (a)(iii) or (b)(i) of paragraph 8.1.1(1) of the Direction) to the sentence(s) imposed by the courts for a crime or crimes of a non-citizen/applicant. The imposition of a custodial term is regarded as the last resort in any reasonable and correctly applied sentencing process. Custodial terms are viewed as a reflection of the objective seriousness of an Applicant’s offending.[59]
[59] Pavey and Minister for Home Affairs [2019] AATA 4198, [44].
Mr Falamoe has been imprisoned, most notably for one year and eight months for his violent offending. Mr Falamoe has also received a suspended sentence for his driving offending. This reflects the objective seriousness of Mr Falamoe’s offending.
Sub-paragraph (d) of paragraph 8.1.1(1) of the Direction points a decision-maker to the impact of offending on any victims, where this information is available and where an Applicant has been afforded procedural fairness.
The current impact of Mr Falamoe’s offending on his multiple victims is unknown to the Tribunal. The Tribunal therefore regards this consideration to be irrelevant.
Sub-paragraph (e) of paragraph 8.1.1(1) of the Direction points a decision-maker to the frequency of a non-citizen’s offending and whether there is any trend of increasing seriousness.
Mr Falamoe has been convicted of 30 offences since 2013 and his offending has been frequent. It has increased in seriousness from his earlier driving offences to his later very serious acts of violence.
Sub-paragraph (f) of paragraph 8.1.1(1) of the Direction concerns itself with an examination of the cumulative effect of an Applicant’s repeated offending.
The cumulative impact of Mr Falamoe’s repeated offending is unclear from the evidence and cannot be assessed objectively. The Tribunal therefore regards this consideration to be irrelevant.
Sub-paragraph (g) of paragraph 8.1.1(1) of the Direction points to an inquiry as to whether a non-citizen has provided false or misleading information to the Department, including by not disclosing prior criminal offending.
Mr Falamoe has not provided false or misleading information to the Department.
Sub-paragraph (h) of paragraph 8.1.1(1) of the Direction looks for evidence about whether the non-citizen has re-offended since being formally warned about the consequences of further offending in terms of the non-citizen’s migration status. The Tribunal notes that the absence of a warning should not be considered to be in the non-citizen’s favour.
There is no evidence that Mr Falamoe has offended since being formally warned about the consequences of further offending in terms of the non-citizen’s migration status.
The Tribunal notes for completeness that Mr Falamoe has criminal charges that are currently pending. From Mr Falamoe’s oral evidence, his next Court date is on 29 July 2024. By operation of law, Mr Falamoe is innocent of those charges unless it is proven otherwise. The charges, and the alleged facts that give rise to them, remain untested in the criminal Courts. The Tribunal is mindful of its duty to conduct administrative merits review and not to usurp the powers of the Courts. Accordingly, the Tribunal has not had regard to Mr Falamoe’s pending charges or the alleged offending that gave rise to them.
Sub-paragraph (i) of paragraph 8.1.1(1) of the Direction points to an inquiry where the conduct or offence was committed in another country, whether that offence or conduct is classified as an offence in Australia.
There is no evidence that Mr Falamoe has committed an offence, or other serious conduct, in another country.
The sub-paragraphs of paragraph 8.1.1(1) of the Direction, in their totality, weigh very heavily against the revocation of the cancellation of Mr Falamoe’s visa.
The Risk to the Australian Community Should the Applicant Commit Further Offences or Engage in Other Serious Conduct
Paragraph 8.1.2(1) provides that, in considering the need to protect the Australian community (including individuals, groups or institutions) from harm, decision-makers should have regard to the Government’s view 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.
Paragraph 8.1.2(2) provides that in assessing the risk that may be posed by the non-citizen 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
(b)the likelihood of the non-citizen engaging in further criminal or other serious conduct, taking into account:
i.information and evidence on the risk of the non-citizen re-offending; 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).
(c)where consideration is being given to whether to refuse to grant a visa to the non-citizen – whether the risk of harm may be affected by the duration and purpose of the non-citizen’s intended stay, the type of visa being applied for, and whether there are strong or compassionate reasons for granting a short stay visa.
Although Mr Falamoe was not represented at the hearing, he has previously been represented by lawyers. In earlier correspondence, Mr Falamoe’s lawyers have cited his remorse, employment, and rehabilitation as protective factors against recidivism.[60]
[60] Exhibit R2, T-Documents, G13, Attachment H, Letter from Estrin Saul Lawyers, pages 193-194.
The Tribunal has deep concerns about Mr Falamoe’s alcohol abuse and the decisions that he makes whilst under the influence of alcohol. Although Mr Falamoe received multiple glowing character references, none of these satisfactorily addressed Mr Falamoe’s drinking or his offending.
The evidence before the Tribunal indicates that Mr Falamoe is a good father, friend, and colleague when he is sober. The evidence from The Whitehaven Clinic indicates that Mr Falamoe is capable of self-control and that is he is benefitting from treatment. The Tribunal places weight on this evidence.
Mr Falamoe has frequently and offended when released into the Australian community. His offending has escalated in seriousness, despite numerous sanctions by Courts. He has breached Court orders on numerous occasions and demonstrated a propensity to disobey rules. Mr Falamoe has previously continued to offend despite his remorse, employment, rehabilitation, and other protective factors such as pro-social family and friends. The Tribunal is not reasonably satisfied that Mr Falamoe has a sufficient insight into the effect of alcohol upon him, or the ability to regulate himself fully when inebriated.
In the absence of any formal risk assessment, or expert evidence, the Tribunal is reasonably satisfied that Mr Falamoe would re-offend if released into the Australian community.
Mr Falamoe’s criminal offending is very serious. The substantial risk of this is being repeated is unacceptable.
The sub-paragraphs of paragraph 8.1.2 of the Direction, in their totality, weigh very heavily against the revocation of the cancellation of Mr Falamoe’s visa.
Conclusion: Primary Consideration 1
Primary Consideration 1 weighs very heavily against the revocation of the cancellation of Mr Falamoe’s visa, although this consideration is not of itself determinative.
PRIMARY CONSIDERATION 2: FAMILY VIOLENCE
“Family violence” is defined in paragraph 4(1) of the Direction to mean violent, threatening or other behaviour that coerces or controls a member of the person’s family or causes that family member to be fearful.
Paragraph 8.2(1) of the Direction informs the Tribunal of the Government’s serious concern about conferring on non-citizens who have engaged in family violence the privilege of remaining in Australia. That concern is proportionate to the seriousness of the family violence engaged in by the non-citizen as referred to in paragraph 8.2(3).
Sub-paragraph (a) of paragraph 8.2(3) of the Direction points to an inquiry of the frequency of the non-citizen’s conduct and whether there is a trend of increasing seriousness.
The Tribunal is satisfied that Mr Falamoe has committed multiple acts of family violence against Ms CHG. She was threatened, assaulted and her car was damaged. At the time, these acts were very serious and relatively frequent. However, that course of conduct evidently ceased such that Ms CHG has been able to co-parent Master LFG with Mr Falamoe
The Tribunal is not reasonably satisfied that Mr Falamoe has committed acts of family violence against any other person.
Sub-paragraph (b) of paragraph 8.2(3) of the Direction concerns itself with the cumulative effect of repeated acts of family violence.
The cumulative impact of Mr Falamoe’s family violence is unclear from the evidence and cannot be assessed objectively. The Tribunal therefore regards this consideration to be irrelevant.
Sub-paragraph (c) of paragraph 8.2(3) of the Direction directs a decision-maker to consider any rehabilitation achieved at the time of the decision, including the extent to which the person accepts responsibility for the family violence and related conduct; the extent to which the non-citizen understands the impact of his or her behaviour on the abused and witnesses; and efforts to address factors which contributed to that conduct.
The evidence from The Whitehaven Clinic refers to Mr Falamoe’s relationship with Ms CHG and shows insight into his behaviour. That Mr Falamoe and Ms CHG now co-parent Master LFG demonstrates a level of rehabilitation.
Sub-paragraph (d) of paragraph 8.2(3) of the Direction points to an inquiry as to whether the non-citizen has re-offended since being formally warned, or since otherwise being made aware by a Court, law enforcement or other authority, about the consequences of further acts of family violence, noting that the absence of a warning should not be considered to be in the non-citizen’s favour.
Mr Falamoe committed several acts of family violence against Ms CHG that required the intervention of Courts and law enforcement. Mr Falamoe then breached bail undertakings protecting Ms CHG.
Considering the sub-paragraphs in their totality, they weigh moderately against the revocation of the cancellation of Mr Falamoe’s visa.
Conclusion: Primary Consideration 2
Primary Consideration 2 weighs moderately against the revocation of the cancellation of Mr Falamoe’s visa.
PRIMARY CONSIDERATION 3: THE STRENGTH NATURE AND DURATION OF TIES TO AUSTRALIA
The Tribunal must consider any impact of its decision on the Applicant’s immediate family members in Australia who are Australian citizens, Australian permanent residents, or people who have a right to remain in Australia indefinitely.
Paragraph 8.3(2) of the Direction allows for the consideration of the strength, nature and duration of any other ties that the non-citizen has to the Australian community.
Sub-paragraph (a) of paragraph 8.3(2) of the Direction directs a decision-maker to have regard to how long the non-citizen has resided in Australia, including whether the non-citizen arrived as a young child. Less weight should be given where the non-citizen began offending soon after arriving in Australia. More weight should be given to time the non-citizen has spent positively to the Australian community.
Mr Falamoe has lived in Australia since arriving as an infant. Although he has frequently offended throughout his adult life, Mr Falamoe has contributed positively to the Australian community through his strong work history and service to sport.
Sub-paragraph (b) of paragraph 8.3(2) of the Direction directs the decision-maker to consider the strength, duration and nature of any family or social links with Australian citizens, Australian permanent residents and/or people who have an indefinite right to remain in Australia.
In addition to Master LFG, Mr Falamoe has an extensive family in Australia including:
… Grandparents Neva and Barry Dumper, Grandmother Pulpuitoto Falamoe, Mother Ingrid Dumper, Father Loma Falamoe, Sister Monita Hawker (Falamoe), Auntie Betty Dumper, Auntie Helen Dumper, Uncle Tone Falamoe, Auntie Toto Falamoe, Cousin Inga Dumper, Cousin Kingston Falamoe, Cousin Sapphire Falamoe, Cousin Giana Falamoe.[61]
[61] Exhibit R2, T-Documents, G13, Attachment H.1, Statement of Brandon Falamoe, page 204.
Mr Falamoe has a wide circle of friends and colleagues who have provided statements in support of his application.
Mr Falamoe’s grandparents, Mr Barry Eric Dumper and Ms Meya Dumper are Australian citizens.[62] The Tribunal infers from the evidence that Mr Falamoe’s family members, friends and colleagues are all Australian citizens, Australian permanent residents and/or people who have an indefinite right to remain in Australia.
[62] Exhibit R2, T-Documents, G11, Attachment F.11, Certificates of Australian Citizenship, pages 164-165.
Placing particular weight on how long Mr Falamoe has resided in Australia, including that he arrived as an infant, this consideration weighs very heavily in favour of the revocation of cancellation of his visa.
Conclusion: Primary Consideration 3
Primary Consideration 3 weighs very heavily in favour of the revocation of cancellation of Mr Falamoe’s visa.
PRIMARY CONSIDERATION 4: THE BEST INTERESTS OF MINOR CHILDREN IN AUSTRALIA AFFECTED BY THE DECISION
Paragraph 8.4(1) of the Direction obliges a decision-maker to make a determination about whether cancellation or refusal under section 501, or non-revocation under section 501CA, is in the best interests of a child affected by the decision.
Paragraph 8.4(2) provides that, for their interests to be considered, the relevant child (or children) must be under 18 years of age at the time when a decision about whether or not to refuse or cancel the visa or not to revoke the mandatory cancellation decision is being made.
Paragraph 8.4(3) provides that if there are two or more relevant children, the best interests of each child should be given individual consideration to the extent that their interests may differ.
The most relevant child in this matter is Mr Falamoe’s son, Master LFG. The Tribunal also notes that there is evidence of two cousins who are minor children.[63] Mr Falamoe has previously babysat these cousins and attended family events with them. However, there is insufficient evidence before the Tribunal to distinguish between the best interests of these cousins.
[63] Exhibit R2, T-Documents, G8, Personal Circumstances Form, pages 117-118
Sub-paragraph (a) of paragraph 8.4(4) points to a consideration of the nature and duration of the relationship between the child and the non-citizen. Less weight should generally be given where the relationship is non-parental, and/or there is no existing relationship and/or there have been long periods of absence, or limited meaningful contact (including whether an existing Court order restricts contact).
Ms CHG currently fulfils the primary parental role for Master LFG. The Tribunal harbours no concerns about Ms CHG’s adequacy to continue to parent Master LFG. Mr Falamoe is in reasonably regular contact with his son. He has previously actively co-parented whilst in the community. Mr Falamoe’s role in Master LFG’s life is parental, albeit secondary to Ms CHG’s parental role.
There is no evidence before the Tribunal that Mr Falamoe plays a parental role in the lives of his minor cousins.
Sub-paragraph (b) of paragraph 8.4(4) points to a consideration of the extent to which the non-citizen is likely to play a positive parental role in the future, taking into account the length of time until the child turns 18, and including any Court orders relating to parental access and care arrangements.
Master LFG is aged 13 and there is a reasonably lengthy time before he is an adult. Given Master LFG’s love for his father, which is reciprocated, there is scope for Mr Falamoe to play a positive parental role in Master LFG’s future and particularly during his adolescence.
There is no evidence before the Tribunal of any Court orders relating to parental access and care arrangements. However, Ms CHG and her family strongly supports Master LFG’s access to his father. Mr Falamoe has also financially supported Master LFG with voluntary child support payments
There is minor evidence before the Tribunal that Mr Falamoe plays a positive role in the lives of his minor cousins in the context of being a member of a close family, and noting that they are both teenagers.
Sub-paragraph (c) of paragraph 8.4(4) points to a consideration of the impact of the non-citizen’s prior conduct, and any likely future conduct, and whether that conduct has, or will have a negative impact on the child.
There is no evidence before the Tribunal that Master LFG or the minor cousins have been negatively impacted by Mr Falamoe’s conduct, or that they will be so impacted in the future.
Sub-paragraph (d) of paragraph 8.4(4) points to a consideration of the likely effect that any separation from the non-citizen would have on the child, taking into account the child’s or non-citizen’s ability to maintain contact in other ways.
The evidence before the Tribunal is overwhelming that Master LFG will be heart broken if his father is removed from Australia. Despite the ability of Master LFG’s ability to communicate with his father by electronic means during Mr Falamoe’s lengthy periods of incarceration and detention, this is not a full substitute for being physically present with his father.
Regarding the minor cousins, the evidence does not indicate that they will be negatively affected in any significant way if Mr Falamoe is removed from Australia.
Sub-paragraph (e) of paragraph 8.4(4) points to a consideration of whether there are other persons who already fulfil a parental role in relation to the child.
Ms CHG already fulfills a parental role for Master LFG and there is no evidence to suggest that the minor cousins do not have their parental needs fulfilled.
Sub-paragraph (f) of paragraph 8.4(4) points to a consideration of any known views of the child (with those views being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child).
Having regard to Master LFG’s evidence, he loves his father and does not want him removed from Australia.
The views of the minor cousins are not known sufficiently for the Tribunal to attribute any weight to them.
Sub-paragraph (g) of paragraph 8.4(4) points to a consideration of any evidence that the child has been, or is at risk of being, subject to, or exposed to, family violence perpetrated by the non-citizen, or has otherwise been abused or neglected by the non-citizen in any way, whether physically, sexually or mentally.
Master LFG was an infant during an act of family violence perpetrated by Mr Falamoe against Ms CHG in July 2013.[64] This violence was not directed towards Master LFG, however a knife was present and he was at risk. There is no further evidence of Master LFG being exposed to, or at risk of, violence, abuse or neglect from Mr Falamoe.
[64] Exhibit R1, Annexure C, WAPOL Detected Incident Report.
There is no evidence before the Tribunal that Mr Falamoe’s minor cousins have been, or are risk of being, exposed to violence, abuse, or neglect by Mr Falamoe.
Sub-paragraph (h) of paragraph 8.4(4) points to a consideration of any evidence that the child has suffered or experienced any physical or emotional trauma arising from the non-citizen’s conduct.
There is no evidence before the Tribunal that any minor child has suffered or experienced any physical or emotional trauma arising from Mr Falamoe’s conduct. The Tribunal therefore regards this consideration to be irrelevant.
Considering all of the evidence before it under this Primary Consideration, the Tribunal is satisfied that the best interests of minor children in Australia affected by this decision very weigh heavily in favour of the revocation of cancellation of Mr Falamoe’s visa.
Conclusion: Primary Consideration 4
Primary Consideration 4 weighs very heavily in favour of the revocation of cancellation of Mr Falamoe’s visa.
PRIMARY CONSIDERATION 5: THE EXPECTATIONS OF THE AUSTRALIAN COMMUNITY
The relevant paragraphs in the Direction
In making the assessment for weight to be allocated to Primary Consideration 5, paragraph 8.5(1) of the Direction provides that the Australian community expects non-citizens to obey Australian laws while in Australia. The Applicant has breached this expectation through his criminal conduct.
Paragraph 8.5(2) of the Direction directs that a visa cancellation or refusal, or non-revocation of the mandatory cancellation of a visa, may be appropriate simply because the nature of the character concerns or offences are such that the Australian community would expect that the person should not be granted or continue to hold a visa. In particular, the Australian community expects that the Australian Government can and should refuse entry to non-citizens, or cancel their visas, if they raise serious character concerns through conduct, in Australia or elsewhere, of the following kind:
(a)acts of family violence; or
(b)causing a person to enter into, or being party to (other than being a victim of), a forced marriage;
(c)commission of serious crimes against women, children or other vulnerable members of the community such as the elderly or disabled; in this context, ‘serious crimes’ include crimes of a violent or sexual nature, as well as other serious crimes against the elderly or other vulnerable persons in the form of fraud, extortion, financial abuse/material exploitation or neglect;
(d)commission of crimes against government representatives or officials due to the position they hold, or in the performance of their duties; or
(e)involvement or reasonably suspected involvement in human trafficking or people smuggling, or in crimes that are of serious international concern including, but not limited to, war crimes, crimes against humanity and slavery; or
(f)worker exploitation.
Paragraph 8.5(3) of the Direction provides that the above expectations of the Australian community apply regardless of whether the non-citizen poses a measurable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community.
Paragraph 8.5(4) of the Direction provides guidance on how the expectations of the Australian community are to be determined. This paragraph states:
This consideration is about the expectations of the Australian community as a whole, and in this respect, decision-makers should proceed on the basis of the Government’s views as articulated above, without independently assessing the community’s expectations in the particular case.
Paragraph 8.5(4) is consistent with the decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court in FYBR v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCAFC 185 which affirmed the approach established in previous authorities that it is not for the Tribunal to determine for itself the expectations of the Australian community by reference to an Applicant’s circumstances or evidence about those expectations. The Tribunal is to be guided by the Government’s views as to the expectations of the Australian community, which are to be found in the Direction.
Paragraph 8.5(4) contains a statement of the Government’s views as to the expectations of the Australian community, which operates to ascribe to the whole of the Australian community an expectation aligning with that of the executive government which the decision maker must have regard to.
In assessing the weight attributable to Primary Consideration 5, the Tribunal places weight on the following matters:
(a)Mr Falamoe has committed acts of family violence;
(b)Mr Falamoe has violently offended against women, including a 60 year old woman who was a vulnerable member of the community;
(c)Mr Falamoe has violently offended against a police officer in the performance of his duties;
(d)Mr Falamoe has committed numerous driving offences, including whilst intoxicated;
(e)Mr Falamoe has breach Court orders; and
(f)Mr Falamoe has been convicted for his offending and sentenced to terms of imprisonment.
Mr Falamoe’s ongoing criminal conduct raises serious concerns regarding his character. Upon consideration of the evidence before it, the Tribunal is reasonably satisfied that the expectations of the Australian community as a whole weigh very heavily against the revocation of the cancellation of Mr Falamoe’s visa
Conclusion: Primary Consideration 5
On balance, Primary Consideration 5 weighs very heavily against the revocation of the cancellation of Mr Falamoe’s visa
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
It is necessary to look at the Other Considerations listed at paragraph 9(1) of the Direction. These are considered under their respective headings below.
(a) Legal consequences of the decision
There is no evidence of any non-refoulement obligations that may arise in this matter, or that it would be impracticable to remove Mr Falamoe to New Zealand. Accordingly, the Tribunal does not consider this consideration to be relevant.
(b) Extent of impediments if removed
Mr Falamoe is a relatively young man who has a keen interest in fitness. He has maintained active and physical employment whilst in the Australian community. Although the Tribunal does not have the benefit of any medical assessments, it infers that Mr Falamoe’s physical health is good.
The Tribunal accepts Mr Falamoe’s evidence that removal to New Zealand would cause him severe stress. Mr Falamoe has clearly suffered with his mental health, and the Tribunal places weight on the evidence from The Whitehaven Clinic to this effect. Mr Falamoe has tried to self-harm, although Lonsdale DCJ remarked that Mr Falamoe’s mental health seems to have stabilised.[65] This Tribunal has no reason to depart from Her Honour’s view.
[65] Exhibit R3, Tender Bundle, TB1, Sentencing Remarks of Lonsdale DCJ, page 6.
Mr Falamoe would not suffer any language or cultural barriers in New Zealand. It is uncontentious that the social, medical and economic support systems available in New Zealand are broadly similar to those available in Australia. Although Mr Falamoe is unfamiliar with New Zealand, the impediments he would suffer in accessing those supports are minimal.
The Tribunal is satisfied that Mr Falamoe would suffer some impediments to re-establishing his employment. However, Mr Falamoe has an extensive work history and is qualified several industries from hospitality to scaffolding. On balance, therefore, this consideration weighs moderately in favour of the revocation of the cancellation of Mr Falamoe’s visa.
(c) Impact on Australian business interests
There is no evidence that Australian business interests would be compromised were Mr Falamoe’s removed to New Zealand. Accordingly, the Tribunal does not consider this consideration to be relevant.
CONCLUSION
Under s 501CA(4)(b) of the Act, there are two alternate conditions precedent to making the decision to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant’s visa: either the Applicant must be found to pass the character test; or the Tribunal must be satisfied that there is another reason, pursuant to the Direction, to revoke the cancellation. The Applicant clearly does not pass the character test.
In then considering whether there is another reason to make the decision under s 501CA(4) of the Act to revoke the mandatory visa cancellation decision, the Tribunal has had regard to the totality of the evidence and those considerations referred to in the Direction. Accordingly, the Tribunal finds as follows:
(a)Primary Consideration 1 weighs very heavily against the revocation of the cancellation of Mr Falamoe’s visa, although this consideration is not of itself determinative.
(b)Primary Consideration 2 weighs moderately against the revocation of the cancellation of Mr Falamoe’s visa.
(c)Primary Consideration 3 weighs very heavily in favour of the revocation of cancellation of Mr Falamoe’s visa.
(d)Primary Consideration 4 weighs very heavily in favour of the revocation of cancellation of Mr Falamoe’s visa.
(e)Primary Consideration 5 weighs very heavily against the revocation of the cancellation of Mr Falamoe’s visa.
(f)To the extent that they are relevant, the Other Considerations weigh moderately in favour of the revocation of the cancellation of Mr Falamoe’s visa
Consistent with paragraph 7(2) of the Direction, the Tribunal places greater weight on Primary Consideration 1 and the protection of the Australian community than it does on the Primary Considerations 2, 3, and 4. Furthermore, the Tribunal places greater weight on the Primary Considerations than the Other Considerations.
The Tribunal is guided by the principles contained in the Direction. These include paragraph 5.2(2), where the highest priority of the Australian Government is the safety of the community. The Tribunal is reasonably satisfied that the safety of the community is best served without Mr Falamoe’s presence within it.
Accordingly, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the cancellation of Mr Falamoe’s visa should be revoked. The correct and preferable decision of the Tribunal is to affirm the Reviewable Decision.
DECSION
The Tribunal affirms the Reviewable Decision
I certify that the preceding 145 (one-hundred and forty-five) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Senior Member George
............................[Sgnd]...................................
Associate
Date of Decision:
11 July 2024 Dates of Hearing: 26 & 28 June 2024 Representation for the Applicant: Self-represented
Solicitor for the Respondent: Ms Jones-Bolla
Sparke Helmore
0
2
0