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

Farcas and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs (Migration) [2024] AATA 111 (25 January 2024)
Division:GENERAL DIVISION
File Number 2023/8194
Re Cosmin Farcas
APPLICANT

AndMinister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs
RESPONDENT

DECISION
Tribunal:Senior Member Theodore Tavoularis
Date of decision: 25 January 2024
Date of reasons: 2 February 2024
Place:Brisbane

Pursuant to section 43 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth), the Tribunal sets aside the decision dated 2 November 2023 made by the Respondent's delegate and substitutes it with a decision to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant's Class AS Subclass 801 Spouse visa.
.........................[SGD].............................
Senior Member Theodore Tavoularis
Catchwords
MIGRATION – Non-revocation of mandatory cancellation of a visa – where Applicant does not pass the character test – whether there is another reason to revoke the mandatory cancellation decision – consideration of Ministerial Direction No. 99 - Applicant found to have multiple protective factors in the community – strong ties to Australia – interest of relevant minor child favour revocation- considerations in favour of revocation outweigh those against- Tribunal finding there is another reason to revoke the mandatory cancellation decision- decision under review set aside and substituted.
Legislation
Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth)
Migration Act 1958 (Cth)
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth)
Cases
Bartlett v The Minister for Immigration and Boarder Protection (Migration) [2017] AATA 1561
Harrison and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (2009) 106 ALD 666
Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs v Thornton [2023] HCA 17
PNLB and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] AATA 162
Walker v Minister of Home Affairs [2020] FCA 909
Secondary Materials
Direction No. 99 – Visa refusal and cancellation under section 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under section 501CA (3 March 2023)
REASONS FOR DECISION
Senior Member Theodore Tavoularis
2 February 2024

Mr Cosmin Farcas (‘the Applicant’) is a 33-year-old man born in Romania on 6 February 1990.[1] He first arrived here on 13 November 2002 as a 12-year-old and has never departed Australia.[2] He has never acquired Australian citizenship and has remained in Australia as the holder a Class AS Subclass 801 Spouse visa (‘the Visa’).
[1] R1, p 7.
[2] R1, p 98.
This Visa was mandatorily cancelled by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs (‘the Respondent’ or ‘the Minister’) on

5 September 2022 pursuant to s 501(3A) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (‘the Act’).[3] This was as a result of the Applicant failing the character test[4] as a result of him receiving a custodial term of imprisonment of 12 months on 16 May 2022.
[3]R1, pp 99-105.
[4] Pursuant to ss 501(6)(1) and 501(7) (c) of the Act.
By representations made on 12 September 2022 the Applicant sought revocation of this mandatory cancellation decision.[5] On 2 November 2023, the Minister’s delegate decided, pursuant to section 501CA(4) of the Act, not to revoke the mandatory cancellation decision. For the balance of these Reasons I will refer to this particular decision as the ‘Decision Under Review’.
[5] R1, p 60.
There followed an application to this Tribunal on 4 November 2023.[6] Shortly after filing of the instant application, the Tribunal conducted a case management direction hearing by telephone as a result of which this application was set down for an in-person hearing on

15 and 16 January 2024 (‘the Hearing’), before me. The Hearing received both written and oral evidence. The written evidence was reduced to an agreed[7] exhibit list. A true and correct copy of which is attached to these Reasons.
[6] R1, p 1.
[7]Transcript, p 2, lines 9-36.
Oral evidence was received from:
·the Applicant;
·his aunt, Ms Daniela Duga;
·his partner, Ms Nicole Fraser; and
·his mother, Ms Victoria Duga.
LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK
Revocation of the mandatory cancellation of visas is governed by s 501CA(4) of the Act. Relevantly, this sub-section provides that:
(4)       The Minister may revoke the original decision if:
(a)the person makes representations in accordance with the invitation; and
(b)the Minister is satisfied:
(i)     that the person passes the character test (as defined by section 501); or
(ii)    that there is another reason why the original decision should be
revoked.
I am satisfied that the Applicant made the Representations required by s 501CA(4)(a) of the Act. There remain two issues presently before the Tribunal. They are:
(a)whether the Applicant passes the character test; and if not
(b)whether there is another reason why the decision to cancel the Applicant’s Visa should be revoked.
Does the Applicant pass the character test?
The Applicant fails the character test as a matter of law.[8] It is plain from his criminal history history that he has received a sentence of imprisonment of 12 months or more[9] and thus has a ‘substantial criminal record’[10] which compels this Tribunal to find that he is a person who does not pass the character test. The threshold giving rise to such a finding is met as a result of sentences imposed upon the Applicant on 16 May 2022 by the Beenleigh Magistrates Court for which he received terms of imprisonment of 12 months or more.[11]
[8]Harrison and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (2009) 106 ALD 666 at [63].
[9] Section 501(7)(c) of the Act.
[10] Section 501(6)(a) of the Act.
[11]R1, p 31.
IS THERE ANOTHER REASON WHY THE DECISION TO CANCEL THE APPLICANT’S VISA SHOULD BE REVOKED?
Section 499(2A) of the Act provides that the Minister may give written directions to a person or body having functions or powers under the Act if the directions are about either the performance of those functions or the exercise of those powers. For present purposes in reviewing a non-revocation decision pursuant to s 501CA(4) of the Act, the Tribunal must have regard to the ‘Ministerial Direction No. 99 – Visa refusal and cancellation under section 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under section 501CA’ (‘the Direction’).
For the purposes of deciding whether or not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of a

non-citizen’s visa, the Direction contains several principles that must inform a decision maker’s application of the considerations relevant to the decision. The principles that are found in paragraph 5.2 of the Direction are as follows:
1Australia 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.
2Non-citizens who engage or have engaged in criminal or other serious conduct should expect to be denied the privilege of coming to, or to forfeit the privilege of staying in, Australia.
3The Australian community expects that the Australian Government can and should refuse entry to non-citizens, or cancel their visas, if they engaged in conduct, in Australia or elsewhere, that raises serious character concerns. This expectation of the Australian community applies regardless of whether the non-citizen poses a measurable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community.
4Australia has a low tolerance of any criminal or other serious conduct by visa applicants or those holding a limited stay visa, or by other non-citizens who have been participating in, and contributing to, the Australian community only for a short period of time.
5With respect to decisions to refuse, cancel, and revoke cancellation of a visa, Australia will generally afford a higher level of tolerance of criminal or other serious conduct by non-citizens who have lived in the Australian community for most of their life, or from a very young age. The level of tolerance will rise with the length of time a non-citizen has spent in the Australian community, particularly in their formative years.
6
Decision-makers must take into account the primary and other considerations relevant to the individual case. In some circumstances, the nature of the

non-citizen’s conduct, or the harm that would be caused if the conduct were to be repeated, may be so serious that even strong countervailing considerations may be insufficient to justify not cancelling or refusing the visa, or revoking a mandatory cancellation. In particular, the inherent nature of certain conduct such as family violence and the other types of conduct or suspected conduct mentioned in paragraph 8.55(2) (Expectations of the Australian Community) is so serious that even strong countervailing considerations may be insufficient in some circumstances, even if the non-citizen does not pose a measurable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community.
Paragraph 8 of the Direction sets out five Primary Considerations that the Tribunal must take into account and they are:
(1)protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct;
(2)whether the conduct engaged in constituted family violence;
(3)the strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia;
(4)the best interests of minor children in Australia; and
(5)expectations of the Australian community.
Paragraph 9 of the Direction sets out four Other Considerations which must be taken into account. These considerations are:
(a)legal consequences of the decision;
(b)extent of impediments if removed;
(c)impact on victims; and
(d)impact on Australian business interests.
PRIMARY CONSIDERATION 1: PROTECTION OF THE AUSTRALIAN COMMUNITY
In considering this Primary Consideration 1, paragraph 8.1(1) of the Direction compels decision-makers to keep in mind the Government is committed to protecting the Australian community from harm as a result of criminal activity or other serious conduct by
non-citizens. Decision-makers should have particular regard to the principle that entering or remaining in Australia is a privilege that this country confers on non-citizens in the expectation that they are, and have been, law abiding, that they will respect important institutions and that they will not cause or threaten harm to individuals or the Australian community.
In determining the weight allocable to this Primary Consideration 1, paragraph 8.1(2) of the Direction requires decision-makers to consider:
(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.
I will consider each in turn.
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 the following:
(a)without limiting the range of conduct that may be considered very serious, the types of crimes or conduct described below are viewed very seriously by the Australian Government and the Australian community:
(i)     violent and/or sexual crimes;
(ii)    crimes of a violent nature against women or children, regardless of the sentence imposed;
(iii)   acts of family violence, regardless of whether there is a conviction for an offence or a sentence imposed;
(b)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;
(iii)   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));
(iv) 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;
(c)with the exception of the crimes or conduct mentioned in subparagraph (a)(ii), (a)(iii) or (b)(i) above, the sentence imposed by the courts for a crime or crimes;
(d)the frequency of the non-citizen’s offending and/or whether there is any trend of increasing seriousness;
(e)the cumulative effect of repeated offending;
(f)whether the non-citizen has provided false or misleading information to the Department, including by not disclosing prior criminal offending;
(g)whether the non-citizen has re-offended since being formally warned, or since otherwise being made aware, in writing, about the consequences of further offending in terms of the non-citizen’s migration status (noting that the absence of a warning should not be considered to be in the non-citizen’s favour).
(h)where the offence or conduct was committed in another country, whether that offence or conduct is classified as an offence in Australia.
Summary of the Applicant’s offending
The Applicant has an offending history that, in term of sentencing dates, runs from
[12] See [19]-[21] of these Reasons wherein I acknowledge High Court authority binding this Tribunal not to take into account offending committed by a person when they were a child, and no conviction is recorded despite a finding of guilt, that offence is not to be taken as a conviction for any purpose. This would mean the number of offences committed by the Applicant that I would be able to take into account for present purposes would reduce from 97 to 88 and the totality of sentencing episodes would reduce from 13 to 11.
October 2006 to June 2023, some 17 years.[12] It is a history involving the commission of something in the order of 97 separate offences that were dealt with at 13 separate sentencing episodes. The history commences in 2006 and involves the commission of 14 offences until about March 2011. There follows a lull from March 2011 until about mid-2016. Thereafter, he has something in the order of 11 convictions in 2016, one conviction in 2017, no convictions in 2018, 20 convictions in 2019, two convictions in 2020, one conviction in 2021, 37 convictions in 2022 and seven convictions in 2023. It is, without question, a lengthy and intensively committed offending history regardless of the five year lull between March 2011 and mid-2016.
His offending is multidimensional and has seen the imposition of sentences in the following realms:
·the non-recording of a conviction;
·the recording of a conviction with no further punishment;
·the imposition of fines;
·the making of non-custodial orders such as community service, probation, orders for restitution;
·early release from custodial terms on parole; and
·sentences of time in actual custody with a recognition of pre-sentenced custody being deemed as time already served.
Thornton[13]
[13]Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairsv Thornton [2023] HCA 17.
This Applicant has convictions as a juvenile and as an adult. His sentencing history invites discussion about the extent to which this Tribunal can have regard to his convictions imposed on him as a juvenile at the respective sentencing hearings on 17 October 2006 and 18 January 2008. The resulting question is whether the High Court’s decision in Thornton restricts this Tribunal’s capacity to have regard to these convictions in circumstances where none of that offending appears to have resulted in the recording of a conviction.
In assessing the extent to which Thornton binds this Tribunal, it must be understood Thornton specifically stands for the proposition that s 184 of the Youth Justice Act 1992 (Qld) and s 12(3) of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) engage the provisions of s 85ZR(2) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) such that where an offence is committed by a person when they were a child, and no conviction is recorded despite a finding of guilt, that offence is not to be taken as a conviction for any purpose.
I will therefore not take into account the Applicant’s commission of nine offences dealt with at the sentencing episodes on 17 October 2006 and 18 January 2008 when he was a child. In addition, my abovementioned descriptive comments of the Applicant’s offending should be read in light of the extent to which Thornton applies to his criminal history for present purposes.[14]
[14] See [17]-[18] of these Reasons.
Paragraph 8.1.1 Considerations
Paragraphs 8.1.1(1)(a)(i), (ii) and (iii): the chapeau to these three paragraphs stipulates that without limiting the range of conduct which may be considered very serious, the types of crimes described as ‘violent and or sexual crimes’, ‘crimes of a violent nature imposed against women or children (regardless of the sentence imposed)’ and ‘acts of family violence (regardless of whether there is a conviction or a sentence )’ are viewed very seriously by the Australian Government and the Australian community.
Both in its Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions (‘SFIC’) and during closing submissions, the Respondent’s representative conceded that none of the Applicant’s offending falls within the auspices of paragraphs 8.1.1(1)(a)(i), (ii) and (iii) and that it would otherwise be unsafe to apply the ‘very serious’ descriptor to the totality of his unlawful conduct in this country. This does not mean the Applicant will escape with a finding from this Tribunal that his offending has been merely ‘serious’. I will have more to say about the precise categorisation I am prepared to make about the Applicant’s offending later in these Reasons.
Paragraph 8.1.1(1)(b): the chapeau to this paragraph does, without particular limitation, categorise unlawful conduct that the Australian Government and the Australian community regard as being ‘serious’. The Applicant has no conviction arising from him causing a person to enter into a forced marriage or as a result of him otherwise being a party to a forced marriage.[15] Given the formulation of the character test referable to the instant decision, which test the Applicant fails as a matter of law,[16] I am not required to make any finding about whether any of his conduct forms the basis for a finding that the he does not pass an aspect of the character test that is dependent on my opinion.[17] The material contains no reference to any crime committed by the Applicant during his time in immigration detention.[18]
[15]Pursuant to paragraph 8.1.1(1)(b)(i) of the Direction.
[16] See [8] of these Reasons.
[17] Pursuant to paragraph 8.1.1(1)(b)(iii) of the Direction.
[18] Pursuant to paragraph 8.1.1(1)(b)(iv) of the Direction.
However, the Applicant does have convictions for crimes committed against government representatives or officials in the performance of their duties.[19] The criminal history contains four convictions (from 2011 to 2023) involving the Applicant assaulting or obstructing police officers in the course of their duties. Members of the police force are at the coalface of the maintenance of law and order in our community. Members of our community are fundamentally entitled to go about their business without fear that someone else in the community will interfere with that fundamental right by conducting themselves in an unlawful and potentially dangerous manner. Offending against the apparatus charged with responsibility for regulation of people’s conduct in the community, is a direct challenge to the state’s responsibility to keep its citizens safe from unlawful conduct.
[19] Pursuant to paragraph 8.1.1(1)(b)(ii) of the Direction.

I agree with the Respondent’s observation in its SFIC: by reference to both the text of the Direction as well as the general societal view that offences against police officers, protective services officers and emergency workers, such offending ought to attract particular denouncement.[20] The Applicant’s convictions for crimes against police officers most certainly renders the totality of his offending conduct as (at a minimum) ‘serious’.
[20]Paraphrasing R2, p 15 [31].
Paragraph 8.1.1(1)(c): in applying this particular paragraph, I am precluded from taking into account sentences imposed on this Applicant for:
(i)any violent offending he may have committed against women and children;[21]
(ii)acts of family violence;[22] and
(iii)any sentence he received relating to conduct whereby he caused a person to enter into (or to become a party to) a forced marriage.[23]
[21] Paragraph 8.1.1(1)(a)(ii) of the Direction.
[22] Paragraph 8.1.1(1)(a)(iii) of the Direction.
[23] Paragraph 8.1.1(1)(b)(i) of the Direction.
As I have already found, the Applicant has no convictions falling within the auspices of any of the offending prescribed in the three categories described in the immediately preceding paragraph. But that is not the end of the enquiry for this particular paragraph of the Direction which compels me to look at sentencing options imposed by courts for the Applicant’s offending. It is plain that the Applicant has experienced virtually the full range of sentencing options from courts dealing with his offending. On multiple occasions, a particular sentencing option(s) has been imposed on him. This includes the imposition of multiple custodial terms which represent the last resort in the sentencing hierarchy. Custodial sentences should be viewed as a reflection of the objective seriousness of the totality of this Applicant’s unlawful conduct.[24]
[24]PNLB and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] AATA 162.
I am satisfied that the sheer scope of sentencing modalities imposed on the Applicant together with the equally significant number of those sentences both strongly militate in favour of a finding that the totality of his conduct must now be found to be (at a minimum) ‘serious’. I so find.
Paragraph 8.1.1(1)(d):
Two questions are posed by this paragraph. The first is whether the Applicant’s offending has been frequent? The Applicant has, as an adult, some 88 convictions that were dealt with at 11 sentencing episodes during the period September 2009 until June 2023. This equates to convictions for offending at the rate of over six offences per year for each year of his offending history as an adult. For the 14 years of his offending as an adult he has found himself before the courts for sentencing on 11 occasions. This is plainly frequent offending.
The second question raised by this paragraph is whether the Applicant’s pattern of offending demonstrates any trend of increasing seriousness? Even a cursory view of the sequence of offences particularised in the criminal history (committed as an adult) demonstrates its seriousness from its outset. For example, his third conviction (as an adult on 28 January 2011) was for ‘assault or obstruct police officer’.[25] His fourth and fifth convictions (as an adult) on 8 March 2011 were respectively for ‘stealing’[26] and ‘unlawful entry of vehicle for committing indictable offence’.[27] The remainder of his offending involves the commission of offences that are, without question, offences of a similar ilk involving unlawful conduct in the realms of burglary, dishonesty, breaking and entering, illicit drugs and other offences relating to motor vehicles including convictions for unlawful use of a motor vehicle and unlicensed driving.
[25] In breach of s 790(1) of the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld).
[26] In breach of s 398(1) of the Queensland Criminal Code 1899 (Qld).
[27]In breach of s 427(1) of the Queensland Criminal Code 1899 (Qld).
There is therefore no requirement to identify any trend of increasing seriousness in the Applicant’s offending as an adult. I am easily satisfied it has been (at a minimum) ‘serious’ from its outset. I have no difficulty in concluding that my findings about (1) the frequency of the Applicant’s adult offending and (2) the nature of its seriousness from its commencement cumulatively lead me to a finding that the totality of the Applicant’s conduct (as an adult) has indeed been (at a minimum) ‘serious’. I so find.
Paragraph 8.1.1(1)(e): this paragraph looks for any cumulative effects to be taken from an unlawful non-citizen’s offending. There are at least four such effects able to be gleaned from his criminal history as an adult. First, he has not experienced any deterrent effect from the progressively applied sentencing regime imposed by the courts. Indeed, the most recent conduct convicted from December 2019 onwards involves some 69 convictions (as an adult) and is surely indicative of an offender committing crimes with a significantly greater abandon and recklessness than was the case earlier in the history. It is thus difficult to see how the Applicant experienced any deterrent effect from the 17 offences he committed as an adult during the period September 2009 to February 2017.
Second, the Applicant’s offending history seems demonstrative of a person who has abjectly failed to develop any measure of respect for (1) the lawful authority represented by a person statutorily charged with responsibility for executing a function of the state (such as police); and (2) a lawfully made instrument compelling him to do or refrain from doing something or to otherwise discharge a specific obligation(s). I have earlier referred to the Applicant’s convictions against police officers. The history also contains repeated failures to appear in accordance with a previously provided undertaking to appear, to comply with lawfully imposed conditions as to bail and the breach of a community service order.
Third, such is the vastness of this Applicant’s offending history (as an adult) that we do not know, with any clinical certainty, precisely what, if any, psychopathological symptoms lie behind it. At the hearing, he spoke of an adverse relationship with both alcohol and illicit drugs, particularly after the death of his sister in 2016. But this cumulative effect is not just about the nature and extent of the Applicant’s substance abuse issues. It has more to do with the fact that we simply do not know the nature of any psychopathological symptoms behind it. Very often in these cases, an applicant says, ‘the drugs made me do it’. Here, there is reference to substance abuse in the factual milieu of the charged conduct but the Applicant is carrying (or at least was carrying) psychological difficulties when offending. We do not know what they are in a clinical sense. I am of the view that this conundrum comprises a particular cumulative effect of his offending (as an adult).
Fourth, I again refer to the nature and extent of the Applicant’s offending as an adult. The policing and regulation of offending comprising the commission of something in the order of six offences a year, together with appearances before sentencing courts on 11 occasions during its 14 year history is surely conduct that has consumed more than its fair share of the community’s law enforcement, judicial sentencing and custodial resources. This inordinate consumption of those resources does, without question, amount to a cumulative effect of this Applicant’s repeated offending.
The abovementioned four cumulative effects of the Applicant’s offending thereby cause this paragraph 8.1.1(1)(e) to strongly militate in favour of a finding that the Applicant’s offending in this country (as adult) has (at a minimum) been ‘serious’.
Paragraph 8.1.1(1)(f): this Applicant has never departed Australia since his initial arrival in November 2002 as a 12-year-old. He has thus not been compelled to complete any incoming passenger card requiring disclosure of any conviction in Australia. I am not aware of anything else in the material evidencing the Applicant’s provision of false or misleading information to the Respondent’s Department. This paragraph should be put to one side and rendered neutral for present purposes.
Paragraph 8.1.1(1)(g): the material has nothing to say about the Applicant receiving any formal warning from either the Respondent’s Department, or any other source, about the impact of any subsequent offending thereby imperilling his Visa status to remain here. This paragraph should be put to one side and rendered neutral for present purposes.
Paragraph 8.1.1(1)(h): the Applicant came here as a 12-year-old in November 2002 and, of course, had not compiled any criminal history in his country of origin. He has not left Australia since arriving here and has thus not had any opportunity to engage in any unlawful conduct abroad which could be classified as an offence in Australia. This paragraph can be put to one side and rendered neutral for present purposes.
Conclusion about the nature and seriousness of the Applicant’s conduct
I have applied each of the relevant paragraphs appearing in paragraph 8.1.1(1) of the Direction. Earlier in these Reasons, I made a finding that the structure of paragraph 8.1.1(1)(a) of the Direction does not safely facilitate the application of the ‘very serious’ descriptor to the nature and seriousness of the Applicant’s conduct. That said, I have little difficulty in adopting a finding that the totality of his conduct can now be found to have been ‘particularly serious’ within the context of the Direction. I adopt the following commentary in the Respondent’s SFIC which puts the position more eloquently than me:
‘Each of the Applicant's offences represents a departure from the conduct reasonably expected of visa holders and, taken together, reflects an indifference for the Applicant's responsibilities to the Australian community. It is the Respondent's submission that, considered cumulatively, the Applicant's criminal history ought to be viewed as particularly serious within the context of Direction 99.’[28]
[28] R2, p 18 [41].
I therefore conclude (and find) that the totality of this Applicant’s unlawful conduct in this country can be readily characterised as ‘particularly serious’.
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 risk to the Australian community, a decision-maker 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 of it being repeated may be unacceptable.
Paragraph 8.1.2(2) provides that in considering the risk to the Australian community, a decision-maker must have regard to the three following factors on a cumulative basis:
(a)the nature of the harm to individuals or the Australian community should the non-citizen engage in further criminal or other serious conduct;
(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 the most recent offence; and
(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.
The nature of the harm to individuals or the Australian community were the Applicant to engage in further criminal or other serious conduct
As I have outlined earlier, the Applicant’s offending, in terms of the nature of offences committed, has been quite diverse. In terms of the nature of harm that would be experienced by any future victim, it seems clear that re-commission of violent conduct would have a quite conceivable physical, psychological, measurably material and potentially catastrophic impact on a victim.
The nature of these harms is evidenced by the nature of the Applicant’s offending history:
·property and fraudulent offending: offences involving the direct unlawful taking of the property of others and the taking of such property by fraudulent means involves depriving lawful owners of property of the enjoyment and/or utilisation of their lawfully acquired property. Unlawfully taking something from someone else necessarily causes the victim demonstrable material harm because the value of that item to that person is thereby lost;
·breach of orders: I have earlier referred to the Applicant’s multiple breaches of lawfully made instruments compelling him to do or refrain him from doing something, including a failure to comply with a lawful direction or order from a police officer. Such orders (both written and oral) are imposed to deal with or regulate unlawful conduct. Were the Applicant to again breach these types of instruments, the community’s policing, judicial sentencing and custodial resources would again be consumed. The community is thereby compelled to meet this cost;
·traffic offending: any recommission of the Applicant’s offences at the wheel of a motor vehicle would expose members of the road-using public to serious and even catastrophic harm. I have previously written of the significant risk to other road users that can result from the irresponsible and/or unlawful driving, management and control of a motor vehicle;[29]
·illicit drug offending: the Applicant has multiple convictions for possession of dangerous drugs as well as charges associated with such conduct such as possessing paraphernalia for the consumption of such substances and possession of property having been used in connection with the commission of a drug offence. This conduct necessarily involves a likelihood of the continued presence of such substances in our community that results in well-publicised physical, psychological and potentially catastrophic harm to both drug-users and their families.
[29]Bartlett v The Minister for Immigration and Boarder Protection (Migration) [2017] AATA 1561 at [43].
Having regard to the totality of the Applicant’s unlawful conduct, the nature of harm that it would cumulatively represent to either individual victims or the Australian community would range from psychological harm, physical harm, measurably material harm up to, quite conceivably, catastrophic harm in the event of its recommission. I so find.
The likelihood of the non-citizen engaging in further criminal or other serious conduct
I will firstly review the Respondent’s position on the level of recidivist risk now represented by this Applicant. I then propose to review the Applicant’s own evidence and the evidence he adduced from other witnesses in an effort to ‘tease out’ any elements now favourable to the Applicant regarding his recidivist risk.
The Respondent’s position on risk
There is a ready acknowledgement from the Respondent that the Australian community can be reasonably expected to tolerate a certain level of recidivist risk referrable to non-citizens. However, the Respondent says that such tolerance or acceptance is inversely related to a person’s recidivist risk and level of consequential harm. The Respondent’s primary position is that this Applicant represents an unacceptable risk because his offending is of such a nature that it precludes any element of tolerance or acceptance such as to accordingly render him an ‘unacceptable risk’.
The Respondent’s additional position is that the Applicant’s offending has been so serious such that any risk of its recommission should now be considered to be unacceptable and to otherwise not be countenanced. The Respondent places reliance on paragraph 8.1.2(1) of the Direction, part of which says: ‘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.’ I am not certain that this submission is on firm ground for a couple of reasons.
First, the Respondent’s submission about the unacceptability of recommission of the Applicant’s offending is postulated in global terms. That is, the Respondent submits that ‘the Applicant’s offending is so serious….’, meaning the totality of his offending is so serious that it precludes any level of tolerance or forbearance. That submission is at odds with paragraph 8.1.2(1) which specifically says ‘some conduct and the harm that would caused were it to be repeated….’
As I have mentioned, the nature of the Applicant’s offending is extensive and multi-faceted. Offending in the realms of (1) a breach of an undertaking to appear; (2) a breach of bail conditions; and (3) petulance (or indeed, violence) towards a police officer by failing to follow a lawful direction is not offending that can now be reasonably found to be preclusive of any tolerance or forbearance. On the other hand, the unlawful taking of someone else’s property either in the form of break and entering or burglary offending or in the unlawful use of motor vehicles, is offending that strikes at the heart of the community’s right to acquire, use and enjoy lawfully acquired property. Similarly, intensely committed offences around the possession of illicit drugs strikes at the heart of the community’s expectation of safety and good public order which is something directly undermined by heavy users of opioid substances who become serial offenders.
Second, this global theming behind unacceptability of any risk of the Applicant reoffending is not consistent with the Direction’s methodology in attributing ‘very serious’ or ‘serious’ descriptors to a non-citizen’s offending. Here, I have agreed with the Respondent’s caution around attributing the ‘very serious’ descriptor to the totality of the Applicant’s offending due to a lack of certainty or safety in finding that any of the offending falls within the auspices of paragraph 8.1.1(a) of the Direction. I have also agreed with the Respondent’s assessment of the Applicant’s conduct as ‘serious’ to ‘particularly serious’.
I am not comfortable with an attribution of total unacceptability of any risk of the Applicant reoffending in circumstances where (1) not all of his offending has carried much seriousness; and (2) where the global descriptor attributed to it within the structure of the Direction is ‘serious’ or ‘particularly serious ’.
The Respondent identifies the following factors referrable to its assessment of the Applicant representing an unacceptable recidivist risk:
·there is no expert, independent and clinical evidence before the Tribunal assessing the Applicant’s level of recidivist risk and that all we have is the Applicant’s say-so that his offending days are behind him and that he is not going to offend again;
·the Applicant has failed to experience any form of deterrent effect from previously imposed sentences designed to convince him that further offending will most likely be met with more severe or punitive sentences. The Respondent suggests that the Tribunal should not find that any future ‘Sword of Damocles’ over the Applicant in the form of a future mandatory cancellation will be any more dissuasive of his propensity to offend than was the cause with the progressively applied sentencing regimes imposed on him in the past; and
·the Respondent refers to the Applicant’s acceptance that almost all of his criminal charges were committed while under the influence of illicit drugs and/or alcohol. While it may be said he has a convincing pattern of abstaining from illicit substance and alcohol abuse in the closed confines of prison and/or immigration detention, his capacity to resist the lure of more freely available illicit drugs and alcohol in the community remains to be tested.

The Respondent then acknowledges the following things:
·the absence of offending for the period 2012-2016 is demonstrative of the possibility that the Applicant can live in the Australian community as a law-abiding citizen;
·the murder of the Applicant’s sister in 2016 can be regarded as a contributing factor towards his resumed pattern of recidivism after her death; and
·the Applicant has engaged in some measure of rehabilitative treatment but has, in the course of such treatment, denied having a significant drug and alcohol problem which may be indicative of him being either less than truthful with clinicians or otherwise not fully cognisant of the extent of his psychopathological symptoms predisposing him to the abuse of illicit substances/or alcohol.
The Respondent’s position then crystallises into this:
‘the Respondent submits that the Tribunal can have no confidence that the Applicant will not return to drugs and alcohol if the Reviewable Decision is set aside. Having regard to the Applicant's history with drugs and alcohol, the Respondent contends that the Applicant presents a heightened risk to the Australian community if the Reviewable Decision is set aside.’[30]
[30] R2, p 21 [56].
The Applicant’s Evidence
The Applicant’s written evidence comprises two statements. The first is dated 5 September 2023 and appears as an attachment to his Personal Circumstances Form (‘PCF’).[31] At the instant Hearing, I referred him to this document and he confirmed its contents were true and correct and that he had no changes to make to it.[32] In this first statement the Applicant referred to the childhood trauma he claims to have experienced which, in turn, led him to a relationship with illicit drugs and alcohol when aged 15-16 years.[33] He claims to have suffered ‘….physical abuse, sexual abuse, mental abuse, emotional abuse and numerous years of neglect and abandonment.’[34] He says that by his early teens he was a ‘…daily user of marijuana and was also consuming alcohol whenever possible which led from almost all my criminal charges being committed whilst under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol.’[35]
[31] R1, pp 75-77.
[32]See generally, Transcript, p 7, lines 12-42.
[33] R1, p 75.
[34] R1, pp 75-76.
[35] R1, p 76.
The abovementioned trauma was experienced during the time the Applicant was placed in a Romanian orphanage with his sister when they were both very young. Their time in the orphanage came to an end in 2002 when they (i.e. the Applicant and his siblings) came to Australia and reunited with their mother. He described his ensuing early years in Australia as loving and productive. In this first statement he notes that ‘We are a close loving family, and I was able to engage with educational and vocational opportunities in this country and worked productively in the tiling industry.’[36]
[36] R1, p 76.
His sister’s time in Australia was tragically short-lived. She was one of two victims of a double murder committed on 25 January 2016. The circumstances of the murder are particularly heinous and do not need repeating here. In this first written statement the Applicant says the murder of his sister caused him to lose ‘…much of the positive trajectory of my life’ and that he ‘made poor decisions isolating myself from my supportive family and engaging in heavy marijuana use and associating with negative influences.’[37] The loss of his sister appear to have deeply affected the Applicant and his family more generally. This first statement says this:
‘This heinous murder of my beloved sister, and the circumstances around that murder, have deeply affected me deeply [sic] because I was very close to my sister, and her death still affects me and my family very much because she left 3 children's [sic] behind that my mother is looking after now. I feel so sad for my mother that she has to bury her own daughter and raising her grandchildren.’[38]
[37] R1, p 76.
[38] R1, p 76.
The Applicant says he turned to abusing illicit drugs and alcohol as a means of dealing with the challenges to his mental health resulting from the trauma he had cumulatively experienced in his life to that point. He now says that he can overcome any craving or predisposition towards substance abuse as a result of (1) the support he has from his family;[39] (2) ‘God’;[40] and (3) ‘…strength within myself I have refrained from drug use and recognising the importance of not involving myself with previous negative influences.’[41]
[39] R1, p 76.
[40] R1, p 76.
[41] R1, p 76.
He describes the process of overcoming a propensity to abuse illicit substances and alcohol as a progressive one and he openly acknowledges that such an endeavour ‘has a high rate of failure during your first attempt….it is commonly said amongst all rehabilitation programs that 99% of all cases will relapse at least once.’[42] The Applicant has arrived at an understanding that if he remains committed to a process designed to cause him to overcome his addiction, his chances of successfully doing so ‘increase tremendously, as every unsuccessful attempt will highlight contributing factors that led to your lapse and in turn will enable you to develop new strategies and method to ensure your success.’[43]
[42] R1, p 76.
[43] R1, p 76.
He claims to have had ‘great success’[44] for a number of years while in the community without clinical rehabilitative assistance and with only the support of his family. He is open about his addiction and says ‘I have been battling my addiction with methamphetamine over the last 4 years and have lapsed once in the last 3 years, which once again led me to making decisions (that actually against my nature) and lead me here.’[45] The current level of the Applicant’s insight into and extent to which he has overcome his addiction is put in these terms:
‘I have since been able to identify the causes that lead to my lapse and was able to plan and create new strategies to ensure that it will never happen again. It has now been over 14 months of me being completely drug and alcohol free. This is the first time in my life since first trying drugs and alcohol that I have been able to achieve this, and each day off [sic] abstinence is its own motivation for me to continue on this journey. Alongside the countless other motivators that I have. I recognise that I will need to keep working on myself and using support and my love for my partner and child to keep growing and maintaining the positive choices I have been making.’[46]
[44] R1, p 76.
[45] R1, pp 76-77.
[46] R1, p 77.
He is of the belief that he is not the same person today that he was at the time he was consuming illicit drugs and committing offences. He says the existential threat represented by permanent removal from Australia and permanent separation from his family ‘… can not [sic] be compared to any other hardship that I have ever faced. It has forced me to become an entirely different person.’[47]
[47] R1, p 77.
The Applicant’s second statement[48] does, for all intents and purposes, constitute a response to the Decision Under Review. I took him to this second statement during the Hearing and he confirmed that its contents were true and correct and that he did not have any changes to make to it.[49] He takes issue with the delegate’s finding that he has not experienced any deterrent effect from previous non-custodial sentences imposed on him. The Applicant says the difference in his circumstances now is that his placement in immigration detention together with the prospect a future cancellation of his Visa were he to resume a pattern of offending in the community, now represents ‘a massive deterrent from me reoffending’.[50]
[48] A1.
[49] See generally, Transcript, p 8, lines 1-19.
[50] A1, p 1.
In terms of rehabilitation, the Applicant says in this second statement that ‘I have now addressed my substance abuse issues and have not used in over 16 months….I have undertaken and continuing and willing to continue on my rehabilitative journey. These rehabilitative efforts demonstrate my sincere, concerted and focussed effort to change my life for the better’.[51]
[51] A1, p 1.
The Applicant was extensively cross-examined. He was not an easy witness to

cross-examine and I am not certain about the reason for this. There may be several factors behind it. It may be the case that the Applicant was overwhelmed at the Hearing and not able to properly understand what was being put to him. It may be the case that he is a person of (and I say this with great respect to him and without the benefit of independent clinical opinion to this effect) low cognition with an inability to understand concepts behind questions put to him. Or it may be the case that his apparent nervousness and incapacity to understand questions were feigned in an effort to avoid providing a direct answer to a question because he knew that in doing so he could possibly harm his prospects of a successful outcome.
I am not inclined to the view that the Applicant was being deceptively self-serving while giving his oral evidence as a means of furthering his own interests and protecting a desired outcome. I am inclined to the view that, like the overwhelming number of self-represented applicants in these matters, the Applicant brought to the Hearing a level of technical and cultural unfamiliarity which often predisposed him to wrongfully assume that his

cross-examiner was deliberately attempting to cause him to give responses that were harmful to his own interests.
I do not think this is the case for couple of reasons. First, the Respondent’s representative is a duly experienced practitioner in this area who, in my experience of her, has always engaged in every proceeding before me with the utmost integrity and professionalism, especially in cases involving self-represented litigants. Second, even though the Applicant at first appeared to either not comprehend or follow what was put to him he eventually came around to providing (on most occasions) something that could be loosely called a cogent and logical response, consistent with the material before the Tribunal. However and overall, the transcript of the Applicant’s oral evidence is difficult to follow and contains a type of ‘stuttering’ tone and hesitating pattern.
But, having the benefit of actually hearing the Applicant’s oral evidence personally given before me and being able to observe his demeanour while giving that evidence, I am satisfied that the Applicant (1) accepted the totality of his offending history (as an adult) ; (2) accepted the sheer scope of it, both in terms of the number of his convictions and sentencing hearings and the extent to which his offending adversely impacted both its victims and the community’s resources in dealing with it.
Following questions about his offending, the Applicant was taken to the type of rehabilitative engagement he would be engaged with if returned to the community. He referred to having recently (i.e. a week before the instant Hearing) commenced consultations with a ‘criminal psychologist’ called ‘Cassandra’[52]. He said that he started seeing Cassandra because he wanted to obtain a support letter from her for use in the instant proceeding. No such letter from Cassandra is before the Tribunal. He said that Cassandra had asked him for ‘$2000 upfront’ to continue the consultations and that he did not have those funds because he was providing child support to the mother of his biological child.
[52] See generally, Transcript, p 39, lines 15-27.
As an alternative to seeing Cassandra, the Applicant spoke of attending another service where he could attend sessions for no fee. He unconvincingly described this alternative as follows:
‘MS LETCHER-BOLDT: Okay. If you were returned to the Australian community, do you plan to take up any programs in the community or see anyone in the community?
APPLICANT: ---Yes. I was going to see Cassandra.
MS LETCHER-BOLDT: You want to see Cassandra?
APPLICANT: ---Yes. Continue seeing Cassandra.
MS LETCHER–BOLDT: Okay. And that will be dependent on you coming up with over $2,000?
APPLICANT: ---Yes. Correct. She’s – there’s another place, there’s another – that I can get free – sessions for free. But that’s when I get out.
MS LETCHER-BOLDT: Which place is that?
APPLICANT: ---There’s a few of them.
MS LETCHER–BOLDT: Which one would you go with – if you were to enter the Australian community, which one would you choose?
APPLICANT: ---With Cassandra to be honest. I just want Cassandra. But Cassandra said she would refer me to where I can get 10 sessions for free. But I just thought that if I pay for it, it would be much helpful.
MS LETCHER-BOLDT: Okay. But that requires you to save up a bit of money?
APPLICANT: ---My parents they should pay for it when I spoke to them.’[53]
[53] Transcript, p 40, lines 44-45; p 41, lines 1-14.
The Applicant was asked about the extent to which he comprehended the impact of his criminal offending on the Australian community and he responded in these terms:
‘MS LETCHER-BOLDT: Okay. Mr Farcas, what do you think the impact of your criminal offending has been on the Australian community? Have you thought about that before?
APPLICANT: ---I’ve thought about it and I’m really sorry. I’m truly, truly sorry and I regret everything I’ve done. And I apologise to the community. I wish I could just take it all back. I’m truly sorry. Every day I wake up and, especially in the detention centre, I just think about it and I regret it so much. Like, you know, I feel sorry.’[54]
[54] Transcript, p 44, lines 13-19.
He was then asked about how the Tribunal could now accept that he represented a lower recidivist risk if returned to the community in circumstances where past sentences have not deterred his recidivism. He responded with the following:
‘MS LETCHER–BOLDT: You’ve previously committed a number of offences and you’ve received different sentences, different kinds of sentences, for those offences. Sometimes fines, sometimes convictions, sometimes certain conditional liberties, and sometimes you’ve been sent to jail. Why do you think, this time, if you were given another nother [sic] chance, you wouldn’t commit another offence?
APPLICANT: ---So when I’ve – because I – I’ve really 100 per cent changed. I’m really changed 100 per cent and I know in my heart that I’ve dedicated myself 100 per cent. I know that I’ve changed. And I became Christian. And it’s been a very long time since I’ve touched drugs. I’m off the drugs. I really hated [sic] it. I’m really against it. If I know anyone who’d be doing it I will stay away from them. Last time I’ve done something like this, I’ve committed, I was only in there for two, three months and I came out when I’ve done it. But this time I’ve been – I’ve committed offences – this time I’ve been for almost two years without drinking alcohol or doing drugs. And I have changed 100 per cent. This shock of getting my visa cancellation and going back to jail and all this and all the suffering that I’ve caused my family and myself, I’m not going through this again. I’m not going to commit – 110 per cent – like I will never do such thing again. I know in my heart. I have no worry.’[55]
[55] Transcript, p 44, lines 21-39.
If returned to the community, the Applicant spoke of having accommodation arranged with his uncle and aunt who reside on the Gold Coast. He spoke of having an alternative residential option by going to live with his partner, Ms Nicole Fraser who lives in the Brisbane suburb of Rochedale. He told the Hearing that his aforementioned uncle on the Gold Coast would be able to offer him work as a tiler in his tiling business. He told the Hearing about his aunt and uncle owning and operating a tiling business which seemed to be doing well enough to enable his uncle (himself a tiler) to offer him employment in that business. The Applicant seemed well-intended towards returning to the tiling trade. He described his post-release plan as (1) going to reside with his aunt and uncle; (2) getting a job as a tiler in his uncle’s tiling business; and (3) ‘After I save about $20,000…’[56] he could then go and reside with his partner at Rochedale and buy his own utility vehicle for his work as a tradesman.[57]
[56] Transcript, p 45, line 34.
[57] See generally, Transcript, p 44, lines 45-47; p 45, lines 1-35.
The Applicant also told the Hearing of his intention to maintain a connection with his faith as a means of keeping himself on the straight and narrow. He spoke of ‘…going to church. Because I’m Christian now. I have dedicated my life to God. I have been baptised in the detention centre.’[58]
[58] Transcript, p 45, line 46; p 46, lines 1-2.
The Applicant was then taken to the state of his mental health and, in particular, to a specific portion of the IHMS[59] records[60] which contained a clinical record dated 17 November 2023 which reveals the Applicant’s then legal representative suggesting that he obtain a mental health diagnosis to assist with a contemporaneous visa application. He was taken to a specific part of those IHMS records which recorded ‘[the Applicant] Stated that his lawyer has suggested him to get a mental health diagnosis to help him with his visa application. Requesting to see a psychiatrist. he thinks he has underlying mental health issues such as depression and PTSD.’[61]
[59] International Health and Medical Services.
[60] A3.
[61] A3, p 2 of 60.
The Applicant was asked about this particular extract from the IHMS records and he said the only reason he made reference to mental health symptoms was ‘Because I was thinking about getting deported and all of those things, you know?’[62] It transpires that the Applicant does not claim to have any adverse mental health symptoms affecting his well-being and that he has never been diagnosed with either depression or PTSD:
[62] Transcript, p 48, lines 33-34.
‘MS LETCHER–BOLDT: Do you think today that you have depression?
APPLICANT: ---No. Today?
MS LETCHER BOLDT: Today. As in today?
APPLICANT: ---Yes.
MS LETCHER–BOLDT: Okay. And now, do you still think that you might have a mental health condition such as PTSD?
APPLICANT: ---No.
MS LETCHER-BOLDT: And have you ever been diagnosed with depression or PTSD?
APPLICANT: ---No.
MS LETCHER-BOLDT: Never?
APPLICANT: ---Never.
MS LETCHER–BOLDT: You’ve never been diagnosed?
APPLICANT: ---No.
MS LETCHER-BOLDT: Do you think that you are depressed, not just depressed today, but as in now, do you still think that you might have a mental health condition such as depression?
APPLICANT: ---No.’ [63]
[63] Transcript, p 48, lines 38-45; p 49, lines 1-8.
The Applicant denied having any symptoms of mental illness or mood disorder. He attributed whatever he told the clinician that now appears in the IHMS record of

17 November 2023 to have been the result of him feeling stressed at the risk of an adverse outcome in terms of his Visa status to remain here:
‘MS LETCHER–BOLDT: From 17 November 2023 when you met with a mental health consultant?
APPLICANT: ---Yes.
MS LETCHER–BOLDT: It says that you denied any symptoms of mental illness or mood disorder. Do you agree with that?
APPLICANT: ---Yes. I believe so. I believe I did have like a lot of stress on my mind. But, you know, but it’s not mentally ill or nothing. It’s just stress, like I’m stressed at the moment, you know? Just stressing of I don’t know what the future will hold. But I don’t take medication for it. I’m 100 per cent in my right mind. I’ve got my head on my shoulders. I’m sober.’[64]
[64] Transcript, p 54, lines 13-22.
The evidence of the Applicant’s partner, Ms Nicole Fraser
Ms Nicole Fraser is the long-term partner of the Applicant. They have been together for about the past three years. She provided both oral and written evidence to the instant Hearing. Her written evidence consists of two documents appearing in the material. I took her to both of these statements at the commencement of her oral evidence and she confirmed that both of them were true and correct and that she did not have any changes to make to them.[65] The first of those statements is dated 26 May 2023[66]; and the second is undated but was received by the Tribunal at the end of November 2023.[67] In the second of her statements, Ms Fraser spoke about the Applicant’s kindly disposition and of his willingness to assist others in times of need. She cites these features being ‘…just a few of the reasons that I fell in love with him.’[68] She has observed ‘…a big change in his attitude and his strong desire to leave the mistakes he has made in the past and be a productive member of society.’[69]
[65] See generally, Transcript, p 69, lines 18-35.
[66] R1, p 92.
[67] A7.
[68] A7.
[69] A7.

Her second statement makes reference to the Applicant’s four-year-old biological son,

Child S, and Ms Fraser says she knows ‘how much [the Applicant] wants to be there as a father and good role-model while his son grows up.’[70] Her second statement makes reference to ‘two avenues of support’ available to the Applicant to ensure he does not reoffend if returned to the community and that he will live otherwise a normal life:
‘Cosmin has made it known that he fully intends to get the support he needs to live a better life. Two avenues of support I have discussed with Cosmin are with a recognised drug treatment program – Drug Arm at Annerley and also treatment with a qualified Psychologist through Ahead Psychology. Both of these I have sourced and made relevant enquiries to have Cosmin booked in once a release date to the community. Cosmin told me about his undertaking course at the detention centre, to help him understand the terrible impact drugs have had on his life, and on the life of his family, as well as the life of the victims of his crimes. Cosmin tells me all the time that he is so sorry for the things he did. We have spoken on the phone.’[71]
[70] A7.
[71] A7.
Ms Fraser was then cross-examined. She was initially asked about the extent of her knowledge of the Applicant’s criminal history and she knew that ‘He does have a history that has a lot of charges in it to do with stealing, to do with drugs. And then there’s offences for driving….So I am aware of his history. Yes.’[72] Ms Fraser was also familiar with the Applicant’s past substance abuse issues involving alcohol and illicit drugs.
[72] Transcript, p 70, lines 38-41.
Ms Fraser confirmed that she has a ‘very close relationship’[73] with Child S and that only the previous week she had taken Child S to see the Applicant in immigration detention. She was next asked whether she knew where the Applicant intended to reside if returned to the community and she responded in these terms:
‘MS FRASER: Look, we’re going to be getting a place immediately. I do have a couple of options. But look, you know, we’re just obviously waiting to see how this goes and the dates, et cetera. So we will be residing together. We’ve spoken about this. And yes, look, we’ve talked about the type of place, where we would like it to be as well, in what area, and just you know, making sure we’re putting things in place that, you know, we don’t – we don’t want any of the previous lifestyle anywhere near us. Yes. We want to live differently.
MS LETCHER–BOLDT: So it’s your understanding, Ms Fraser, that you and Mr Farcas would live together. Is that right?
MS FRASER---A hundred per cent, yes. Correct.’[74]
[73] Transcript, p 71, line 19.
[74] Transcript, p 71, lines 25-35.
Ms Fraser stated that she and the Applicant had discussed different avenues for his rehabilitative support in the event of his return to the community. She variously spoke of (1) facilitating the Applicant’s attendance at sessions with a psychologist and to be ‘happy to assist with paying’[75] for those sessions; (2) facilitating the Applicant’s placement ‘into recognised drug treatment programs. So I have spoken to DrugARM at Annerley. So they’ve got a program which they would be happy to take him in as soon as he is released.’[76];(3) having identified a specific psychology clinic and that she has ‘spoken to Ahead Psychology. And they would also be happy to obviously have Cosmin as a patient.’;[77] and (4) having spoken to the Applicant and him telling her of his intention of going to ‘his own doctor and getting the mental health plan. I believe….he’s taken some steps towards that whilst being in the immigration centre.’[78]
[75] Transcript, p 72, line 24.
[76] Transcript, p 72, lines 31-33.
[77] Transcript, p 72, lines 40-41.
[78] Transcript, p 73, lines 4-6.
She was questioned about the type of work the Applicant would do if returned to the community. She referred to the Applicant going to work with his cousin which involved a full-time role from 6 am to 4 pm from Monday to Friday.[79] Ms Fraser also told the Hearing that her career has been in the recruitment field and that she has a ‘….solid career in HR and labour hire.’[80] In terms of the types of work she could get him into she said ‘…I have also spoken to [the Applicant] about being placed onto one of my client’s sites to do blue collar work. So not so much has a tradesman but maybe as a trade assistant in an engineering environment.’[81] She was otherwise confident that in terms of the Applicant’s capacity to find employment ‘…I could certainly assist and put him into work immediately.’[82]
[79] See generally, Transcript, p 73, lines 32-37.
[80] Transcript, p 73, lines 41-42.
[81] Transcript, p 73, lines 42-44.
[82] Transcript, p 73, lines 46-47.
Ms Fraser confirmed that she was ‘obviously close’[83] with Child S and that she does know Child S’s biological mother.[84]
[83] Transcript, p 74, line 25.
[84] Transcript, p 74, line 27.
The evidence of the Applicant’s mother, Ms Victoria Duga
The Applicant’s mother is Ms Victoria Duga. She has provided two written statements for the instant proceeding. I took her to both of those statements (respectively dated
[85] R1, p 93.
[86] A8.
[87] See generally, Transcript, p 92, lines 11-47; p 93, lines 1-8.
[88] A8.
14 May 2023[85] and 30 November 2023[86]). She confirmed that both of those statements were true and correct and that she did not have any amendments to make to them.[87] In her second of those statements, the Applicant’s mother made reference to the horrific circumstances of her daughter’s murder in 2016 and said ‘This has changed all our lives permanently and has made a massive impact leading to some of the poor choices Cosmin has made.’[88]
She claims to ‘…have seen a big change in my son over the recent months and I am so happy that he is wanting to live a life focussed on obtaining full-time employment and being a great role model to his young 4 year-old-son.’[89] She confirmed the Applicant has an offer of employment with her sister’s and brother in-law’s tiling business if returned to the community. She confirms the Applicant has become ‘….aware that he must make big changes in how he lives…’[90]
[89] A8.
[90] A8.
Ms Victoria Duga was then cross-examined. She was asked about the extent of her understanding of the Applicant’s criminal history. She thought ‘…he did some stealing, but he wasn’t’ guilty for all, ….he was always such a good boy, a very good son, and everything started to happen when my daughter got killed. That happened in 2016.’[91]
[91] Transcript, p 94, lines 17-20.
She was then asked about the extent of her knowledge of the Applicant’s substance abuse history with illicit drugs and alcohol. She said she first noticed he was having substance abuse difficulties when the relationship with Child S’s biological mother came to an end.[92] She confirmed that her son ‘admitted’[93] his substance abuse issues with drugs and alcohol after the time of her daughter’s (and the Applicant’s sister’s) murder in 2016.
[92] See generally, Transcript, p 95, lines 1-4.
[93] Transcript, p 95, line 34.
There followed a question about the extent of her knowledge of any plans of the Applicant to engage with rehabilitation if returned to the community. She responded with the Applicant obtaining employment with the tiling business of her sister and brother-in-law.[94] In terms of residential arrangements, Ms Victoria Duga told the Hearing of the Applicant’s intention to go and reside with Ms Fraser in the event of his return to the community. Ms Victoria Duga confirmed that she has visited the Applicant both in prison and immigration detention.[95]
[94] See generally, Transcript, p 95, line 41-44; p 96, lines 1-14.
[95] See generally, Transcript, p 97, lines 40-46; p 98, lines 1-4.
The evidence of the Applicant’s aunt, Ms Daniela Duga
Ms Daniela Duga is the Applicant’s maternal aunt. She provided both oral and written evidence to the instant Hearing. At the beginning of her oral evidence I took her to both of her written statements which are respectively dated 12 May 2023[96] and her second undated statement which was received by the Tribunal on 30 November 2023.[97] With reference to both written statements she confirmed that both of them were true and correct and that she did not have any changes to make to them.[98]
[96] R1, p 97.
[97] A5.
[98] See generally, Transcript, p 105, lines 35-46; p 106, lines 1-28.
Ms Daniela Duga was also cross-examined. She was asked about the extent of her knowledge of the Applicant’s criminal history and she said it amounted to ‘Just what my sister told me…..I don’t know much about it. Like, she told me he was doing bad stuff because of drugs, he was different people, and yes.’[99] She confirmed that if the Applicant were returned to the Australian community she and her husband would be able to offer the Applicant employment in the tiling business they own and operate. She said the tiling work for the Applicant would be done on the Gold Coast.
[99] Transcript, p 107, lines 20-22.
Ms Daniela Duga was also asked about whether she knew where the Applicant would reside in the event of his return to the community and she said ‘I think with his mum. Definitely with his mum.’[100] She told the Hearing that although that she has not discussed with the Applicant any possibility of him going to live with her and her husband she said:
‘I didn’t know nothing about him living with me. If he wants to, I can offer him a room. I do have a four-bedroom house and it’s only me and my husband. I want to help as much as I could. If they [sic][the Applicant] want to work, I gave [sic] them work, you know.’[101]
[100] Transcript, p 107, line 47.
[101] Transcript, p 108, lines 1-5.
Ms Daniela Duga also spoke of the Applicant’s apparent realisation of the extent of his past wrongdoing and of an intention to live a normal life devoted to the care of his infant son, Child S: ‘And he understood everything he [the Applicant] was doing, and he wants to make a better life for him and his son. He has a son here. A little boy.’[102]
[102] Transcript, p 108, lines 14-16.
Findings about risk
I sought to review and understand the scope of the material before the Tribunal and, in terms of the extent to which it speaks to the Applicant’s recidivist risk, I make the following findings:
·absence of clinical evidence: the Applicant now claims to have overcome his past pre-disposition towards substance abuse, be it in the realm of illicit drugs or alcohol. He claims to have been abstinent from drugs and alcohol for a period of 16 months. The difficulty with the evidence in this regard is that there is little or no independent clinical evidence supporting a likelihood that he will remain abstinent if returned to the community. Be that as it may, there is the treatment record of the psychiatrist, Dr Jillian Spencer appearing in the IHMS records in which Dr Spencer observed (on 11 August 2023) the following:
‘Mental health history:
Says he never engaged with mental health services prior to detention.
Reported having depression when his sister was murdered. Given Diazepam by GP after his sister died, ceased when he went to jail. ;
No other mental health medications.
No hospitalisations for his mental health or emergency department presentations.’[103]
[103] A3, p 22 of 60.
Thus, even if a clinician did become involved in assessing and diagnosing any mental health symptoms in this Applicant, one wonders what, if any, such symptoms would be identified. It is undeniable that the Applicant’s past substance abuse issues will most likely require a level of remedial management and control in the event of his return to the community. Two things can be said about that: (1) the Applicant appears to understand the level of importance attaching to an ongoing pattern of engagement with some type of rehabilitative oversight if returned to the community; and (2) the genuine evidence of Ms Fraser who will do her level best to ensure the Applicant becomes, and stays involved in, such rehabilitation.
To my mind, the significant ‘unknown’ from the clinical evidence is the extent to which the dreadful circumstances of the murder of the Applicant’s sister traumatised him to the extent that such trauma could now be said to lie behind his offending since 2016. Prior to his sister’s murder, the Applicant had (as an adult) convictions for five offences. After her murder he was convicted of (as an adult) some 83 offences. There is repeated reference to the sister’s murder in much of the clinical evidence before the Tribunal but there is no specific clinical evidence around how the consequential trauma he must have experienced caused him to so intensively offend after her death;
·certainty of housing: it seems clear from the evidence that a plethora of residential opportunities await the Applicant upon a return to the community. It is safe to find that he could reside with (1) his mother; (2) his partner, Ms Fraser; and (3) his uncle and aunt. Each of these destinations could immediately and safely house the Applicant and there is little or nothing in the evidence to suggest otherwise;
·certainty of employment: it also seems clear from the evidence that the Applicant has firm and genuine prospects of employment if returned to the community. While he spoke of going to work on a rural property in Mudgee, New South Wales with a person known to his family, the much more likely scenario is that he will go to work in the tiling business operated by his uncle and aunt. There is little to doubt the likelihood that if returned to the community, this Applicant will immediately commence working in the tiling trade;
·family support: while I will address her evidence in more detail later in these Reasons, there is nothing before me to doubt the evidence of Child S’s biological mother who is quite supportive of the Applicant playing a fatherly and quite ‘involved’ role in the future life of Child S. Child S’s biological mother makes it clear that ‘Even though Cosmin and I are not together, we are on good terms and speak often on the phone and video conferencing together with our child. We are like best friends and want the best for our child.’[104]
Likewise, it is difficult to cavil with the evidence of Ms Fraser, the current partner of the Applicant. She is a significant personal and emotional support for the Applicant. She facilitates (and will very likely continue to facilitate) the growing nature of the Applicant’s parental involvement with Child S. She intends that they reside together upon his return to the community and she will do virtually whatever it takes to facilitate his smooth transition back into the community including (1) ensuring he maintains a pattern of rehabilitative involvement; and (2) assist him, if required, with finding blue-collar, labouring type employment through her work as a human resources consultant dealing with placement of prospective employees into such roles.
The Applicant’s mother has the responsibility of raising the children of the Applicant’s deceased sister. According the evidence, the biological father of those children is not around to provide any sort of parental support and that responsibility has fallen upon the Applicant’s mother. His mother would, of course, welcome the Applicant back into the community because it is clear she regards him as a loving son, but in another way, she requires him as a physical presence in the family structure given the absence of a father figure. The Applicant’s parents separated when he was two and the evidence says his father lives in Spain with his second wife and eight children.[105]
The Applicant’s uncle and aunt appear to be financially successful and otherwise people of certain means. They appear to know something of his offending but despite that, they are nevertheless prepared to immediately offer him reliable employment and safe lodgings in their own home; and
·other protective factors: there are two additional protective factors. The Applicant is clearly aware that he were to recommence a pattern of offending in the community such as to re-engage the legislative auspices around visa cancellation that he would, once again, become the subject of this type of proceeding. I am satisfied that the Applicant understands and is aware of the existential threat to his Visa status if he recommences a pattern of offending upon a return to the community. The Applicant spoke of a new-found Christian faith. I cautiously accept, but do not allocate much weight to, any protective element behind his evidence that ‘…I live in harmony with Bible principles,…there are many Bible principles….that suggests the use of illicit drugs can lead to immoral lifestyle and choices that are considered a sin….the Bible also teaches to obey the law of the land.’[106]
[104] A9.
[105] R1, p 79.
[106] R1, p 77.
Assessment of recidivist risk
I have had regard to the material before me. I appreciate the relative lack of clinical evidence now before the Tribunal. As against that, what clinical evidence there is seems to suggest that trauma related to the horrendous murder of the Applicant’s sister in 2016 lies at the heart of the majority of his offending as an adult. Were the evidence to be in a perfect state of presentation, the Tribunal would have clinical opinion about the extent to which this trauma has affected the Applicant. Be that as it may, I am satisfied that the cumulative effect of (1) the level and quality of protective supports around the Applicant; and (2) his realisation that further offending will quite likely and existentially impact his Visa status to remain here, now renders this Applicant a low to moderate risk of reoffending.
Having regard to these protective and other factors, I otherwise do not consider this Applicant should now be categorised as someone representing an unacceptable recidivist risk if returned to the community.
Sub-paragraph 8.1.2(2)(c)
The Direction also contains a reference to sub-paragraph 8.1.2(2)(c). With reference to this specific sub-paragraph, this matter does not involve a ‘refusal to grant a visa to a
non-citizen’. It involves an application for the ‘revocation’ of a decision refusing to revoke the earlier mandatory cancellation of the Applicant’s Visa. This specific paragraph is not relevant to determination of this application.
Conclusion of Primary Consideration 1:
With reference to the weight attributable to this Primary Consideration 1:
(a)I have found that the nature and seriousness of the totality of the Applicant’s conduct to date has been particularly serious;
(b)I have found that recommission of almost any aspect of the Applicant’s offending would result in harm to either individual victims or the Australian community ranging from psychological harm, physical harm, measurably material harm up to, quite conceivably, catastrophic harm;
(c)I have found that this Applicant represents a low-moderate risk of reoffending and that having regard to the protective and other factors around him, he does not represent an unacceptable recidivist risk if returned to the community.
My analysis of the material leads me to a finding that this Primary Consideration 1 confers a strong, but not determinative, level of weight towards this Tribunal affirming the Decision Under Review.
PRIMARY CONSIDERATION 2: FAMILY VIOLENCE
The Respondent contends there is no evidence presently before the Tribunal that the Applicant has engaged in family violence and that this Primary Consideration 2 should weigh neutrally.[107] This position did not change at the Hearing.[108] I agree and will proceed on that basis.
[107] R2, p 22, [61].
[108] See generally, Transcript, p 6, lines 6-9.
PRIMARY CONSIDERATION 3: THE STRENGTH, NATURE AND DURATION OF TIES TO AUSTRALIA
Paragraph 8.3(1) of the Direction states:
(1) Decision-makers must consider any impact of the decision on the non-citizen’s immediate family members in Australia, where those family members are Australian citizens, Australian permanent residents, or people who have a right to remain in Australia indefinitely.

There followed questions about the nature and extent of the Applicant’s relationship with the children of his brother Doru Farcas, namely, Child Ca and K. He was initially asked about Child K and he said he keeps in contact with her ‘Every couple of days.’[175] In terms of his relationship with Child K, the Applicant said ‘We have a perfect relationship…[Child K] lives with my mother most days of the week. And then goes back to her mother’s house for like a couple of days, then lives with my mum for five days during school, and then goes to her mother for the weekend. Lives with my mother basically.’[176] The Applicant confirmed that the same type of arrangement applies to Child Ca and that is because, according to him, both of these children ‘…they love living with my mother. Because the way she cooks food and lets them do whatever they want to do.’[177]
[175] Transcript, p 61, lines 24-25.
[176] Transcript, p 61, lines 27-33.
[177] Transcript, p 61, lines 36-37.
The Applicant also told the Hearing that his brother Doru Farcas ‘…lives with my mum at the moment because he is taking care of my mum…’[178] and that, for all intents and purposes, Child K and Ca live with their father (Doru Farcas) and the Applicant’s mother (Victoria Duga).[179] The Applicant agreed that the primary caregiver for Child K and Ca is ‘…their father. He works as a tiler and he is always there to provide for them.’[180] The Applicant confirmed that he spoke with Child Ca ‘…daily, at least twice per day.’[181]
[178] Transcript, p 61, lines 39-40.
[179] See generally, Transcript, p 61, line 42.
[180] Transcript, p 61, lines 44-45.
[181] Transcript, p 62, lines 1-2.
Finally, the Applicant was asked whether any of his siblings assist with the care of the deceased sister’s children, Child L, R and J. The Applicant said:
‘Yes. They come, like at the moment during the school holiday. So they – one week they stay at my mum’s house, the other week they stay at my auntie’s in Gold Coast. Yes, but apparently next week they’re going back to school so they have to go back to their grandparents’ house.’[182]
[182] Transcript, p 62, lines 9-13.
The Applicant was not cross-examined about the two minor children of his cousin, Adrian Duga and the material appears to be otherwise silent about the nature and extent of the Applicant’s relationship with these two children, Child O and C.
Application of factors at paragraph 8.4(4) of the Direction to the remaining relevant minor children
Sub-paragraph 8.4(4)(a): there seems little or nothing to cavil with a finding that the Applicant has been known to these other relevant minor children for all of their lives. With the possible exception of Child L and perhaps her siblings Child R and Child J, the Applicant is known to these children as a loving uncle as opposed to someone having parental oversight over them. This is not to suggest that the Applicant has never played a parental role in the lives of some of the children. The tragic loss of the Applicant’s sister compelled her three children to reside with the Applicant, his mother and some of these other minor children. I hesitate to make a finding of there having been long periods of absence or limited meaningful contact between the Applicant and these other minor children. This is because the evidence suggests he has remained in contact with them either through face-to-face visits or via telephone or video call modalities. The nature and duration of the Applicant’s involvement in lives of the other relevant minor children thus far makes it clear that their cumulative best interests militate in favour of the allocation of a moderately strong level of weight in favour of the Applicant’s Visa status to remain in Australia being restored to him.
Sub-paragraph 8.4(4)(b): it cannot be safely said that the Applicant is likely to play a positive ‘parental role’ in the future lives of these children until they each attain the age of 18 years. However, the sheer number of these children, the impending health difficulties of his mother and other contingencies involving the Applicant’s brother, Daniel Farcas (and father of Child D) mean that circumstances may well arise compelling the Applicant to perhaps take on a more parental role in the lives of at least some of these children at some stage before they attain the age of 18 years. In cumulative terms, there are plenty of parenting years left to run before each of these children attain the age of 18 years which gives the Applicant ample time and opportunity to take on a more parental role should that be required. The extent to which the Applicant is likely to play a positive parental role in the future lives of these other relevant children is something that causes this Tribunal to find that their best interests militate in favour of the allocation of a moderately strong level of weight in favour of the Applicant’s Visa status to remain in Australia being restored to him.
Sub-paragraph 8.4(4)(c): there is no evidence before the Tribunal about the extent to which any of these other relevant minor children have been impacted by the Applicant’s prior conduct and how, if at all, any of them would be impacted if the Applicant recommenced the commission of such conduct. This sub-paragraph can be put to one side and rendered neutral for present purposes.
Sub-paragraph 8.4(4)(d): I have earlier referred to the Applicant’s evidence that he has kept in contact with most, if not all, of these other relevant minor children by way of video calls and telephone calls. This level of communication seems to be consistent such that the Applicant was able to recall how many times per week or per month he would communicate with each child. He was able to counterpoint that evidence by readily telling the Tribunal which of the children had been able to visit him while incarcerated and which of the children had not done so and the reason for this. For present purposes it can be safely found that were the Applicant be removed to Romania, this level of telephonic or electronic contact could continue with these other relevant minor children in Australia. While it can be accepted that the Applicant has maintained a level of non-in-person contact with most, if not all, of these other relevant minor children, I will not allow this sub-paragraph to unduly moderate the weight ultimately allocable to this Primary Consideration 4.
Sub-paragraph 8.4(4)(e):
during cross-examination the Applicant readily agreed that (1) the three children of his deceased sister are primarily parented by their paternal grandmother; (2) Child Ca and K are primarily parented by his brother/ their biological father and the Applicant’s mother; and (3) Child D is primarily parented by that child’s biological mother. It is safe to find that the two children of his cousin (Adrian Farcas) comprising Child O and C are primarily parented by either or both of their parents. While it can be accepted that these other relevant minor children are primarily parented by others, I will not allow this sub-paragraph to unduly moderate the weight ultimately allocable to this

Primary Consideration 4.
Sub-paragraph 8.4(4)(f): we do not have any known views of any of these other relevant minor children about any permanent removal of the Applicant from Australia. Most of these children could perhaps be regarded as mature enough to express such views but ultimately, no such views appear in the evidence. This sub-paragraph can be put to one side and rendered neutral for present purposes.
Sub-paragraph 8.4(4)(g) and (h): the material contains no evidence referrable to either of these sub-paragraphs both of which should be put to one side and rendered neutral for present purposes.
Findings about the other relevant minor children
In more usual circumstances, it could be found that the Applicant’s future role in the lives of these other relevant minor children would much more likely be in a role as ‘present and loving uncle’ as opposed to a parental role with some measure of ‘hands-on’ responsibility. But the circumstances of this Applicant are not usual. His sister was tragically lost as a result of a heinous murder. This initially compelled the Applicant to assist his mother with the care of the deceased sister’s three minor children. They are now cared for by their paternal grandmother whose health is less than certain. It is not a stretch of the evidence to suggest that (1) were the Applicant to return to the community and adopt the responsible lifestyle of working for a living and providing for those around him; and (2) there were to be a further decline in the health of the maternal grandmother caring for these three children, the Applicant could be called upon to, as it were, ‘up the ante’ from a role as a present and loving uncle into a more parental role for the three children of his deceased sister.
Likewise, a similar argument could be made about the two children of the Applicant’s brother (Doru Farcas) who at the moment appear to be primarily parented by the Applicant’s mother and his brother/their father. But the evidence contained references to the brother’s prolonged absences on work commitments and the mother’s (Ms Victoria Duga) apparently declining state of health. As the Applicant said in cross-examination, these two children have a preference for staying with their grandmother/the Applicant’s mother. Were something to happen to her, there would be a parental gulf quite similar to that which arose in relation to the three children of the deceased sister when she was lost. Again, it would not be a stretch of the evidence for such a confluence of factors – not at all outside the realms of reasonable possibility – for the Applicant to be compelled to ‘up the ante’ from a role as a present and loving uncle into a more parental role for these two children of his brother in the event of the Applicant’s mother’s infirmity precluding her from continuing with her current parental role for these two children.
I am of the view and I find that the cumulative best interests of these other relevant minor children militate in favour of the allocation of a moderately strong level of weight in favour of this Tribunal restoring the Applicant’s Visa status to remain in Australia.
Conclusion: Primary Consideration 4
I have assessed and allocated weight to the best interests of Child S and the other relevant minor children by reference to the evidence and how that evidence speaks to each of the relevant sub-paragraphs at 8.3(4) of the Direction. I have allocated heavy weight to the best interests of Child S and I have allocated moderately strong weight to the cumulative best interests of the other relevant minor children. Having regard to these two respective weights deriving from the relevant sub-paragraphs of 8.4(4) of the Direction, I am led to a finding that this Primary Consideration 4 must be found to be of very heavy weight in favour of revocation of the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant’s Visa.
PRIMARY CONSIDERATION 5: EXPECTATIONS OF THE AUSTRALIAN COMMUNITY
The Direction makes clear that the expectations of the Australian community apply regardless of whether the non-citizen poses a measurable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community.[183] The Direction further explains:
‘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 [in paragraph 8.5(1)–(3) of the Direction], without independently assessing the community’s expectations in the particular case.’[184]
[183] Paragraph 8.5(3) of the Direction.
[184] Paragraph 8.5(4) of the Direction. Paragraph 8.5(4) codifies the position laid down by the Full Court of the Federal Court in FYBR v Minister for Home Affairs (2019) 272 FCR 454.
With reference to the propositions in paragraph 8.5(1) of the Direction, this sub-paragraph is expressed thus:
1The Australian community expects non-citizens to obey Australian laws while in Australia. Where a non-citizen has engaged in serious conduct in breach of this expectation, or where there is an unacceptable risk that they may do so, the Australian community, as a norm, expects the Government to not allow such a non-citizen to enter or remain in Australia.
This Applicant has breached the Australian community’s expectations by his record of criminal offending in this country which is evidenced by a significant number of breaches of the Australian criminal law. Therefore, the Australian community, ‘as a norm’ expects the Australian Government not to allow him to remain in Australia.
The Direction also states that visa cancellation or refusal, or non-revocation of a 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:[185]
(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.
[185] Paragraph 8.5(2) of the Direction.
The Applicant’s criminal history contains multiple convictions (as an adult) engaging the operative effect of the abovementioned sub-paragraph 8.5(2)(d) by virtue of his convictions for: (1) ‘assault or obstruct police officer’ (three convictions); (2) ‘contravene direction or requirement’ (three convictions); and (3) ‘fail to comply with requirement to stop vehicle’ (one conviction). This offending constitutes the commission of a crime(s) against a government representative or official in the performance of their duties. The commission of these offences means the Australian community expects that the Australian Government can and should refuse to set aside the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant’s Visa.
The remaining question is whether there are any factors which modify the Australian community’s expectations. This question is informed by the principles in paragraphs 5.2(4), (5) and (6) of the Direction. In summary these are:
(a)Australia has a low tolerance of any criminal or other serious conduct by visa applicants or those holding a limited stay visa;
(b)the Australian community has a low tolerance of any criminal or other serious conduct by non-citizens who have been participating in, and contributing to, the Australian community for only a short period of time;[186]
(c)Australia will generally afford a higher level of tolerance towards criminal or other serious conduct by non-citizens who have lived in the Australian community for most of their life or from a very young age;[187]
(d)the community’s level of tolerance will rise based on the length of time a non-citizen has spent in this country and, in particular, whether their formative years were spent here;[188]
(e)the nature of a non-citizen’s conduct, or the harm that would be caused if the conduct were to be repeated, may be so serious that even strong countervailing considerations may be insufficient to justify a visa outcome that is not adverse to the non-citizen;[189] and
(f)if a non-citizen’s unlawful conduct is inherently of the type captured by any of the categories stipulated in paragraph 8.5(2)(a)-(f)(inclusive) of the Direction, then even strong countervailing considerations may not assist a non-citizen even where the non-citizen does not pose a measurable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community.[190]
[186] Paragraph 5.2(4) of the Direction.
[187] Paragraph 5.2(5) of the Direction.
[188] Paragraph 5.2(5) of the Direction.
[189] Paragraph 5.2(6) of the Direction.
[190] Paragraph 5.2(6) of the Direction.
In relation to sub-paragraph (a) of the immediately preceding paragraph [179], the term ‘limited stay visa’ is not defined in the Act. The Applicant in this case held an AS Subclass 801 Spouse Visa until it was mandatorily cancelled on 5 September 2022.As the Applicant continued to hold this Visa until it was mandatorily cancelled, it can be safely concluded that this Visa permitted the Applicant to remain in Australia without any end point on his stay. Further, it is can also be concluded that if his Visa was not mandatorily cancelled in September 2022, the Applicant would have continued to hold the Visa and thus remain in Australia indefinitely. As the Visa permitted the Applicant to remain in Australia without any limit on the duration of his stay, the Visa held by the Applicant cannot be classified as a limited stay visa.[191] Therefore this sub-paragraph (a) is not applicable to the Applicant.
[191]Walker v Minister of Home Affairs [2020] FCA 909 at [29].
In relation to sub-paragraph (b) of the abovementioned paragraph [179], the Applicant has resided in Australia from late November 2002.[192] He is currently aged 33 years. He has a history of remunerative employment in Australia. He has fathered one biological child in Australia. Whatever participation in, and contribution to, the Australian community he may have made during his time here cannot be safely found to have been ‘short’. Therefore, the Australian community’s tolerance is not lowered by this part of the principles in 5.2(4) of the Direction.
[192]R1, p 98.
In relation to sub-paragraph (c) of the abovementioned paragraph [179], I repeat that the Applicant resided in Australia since late 2002 when he was 12 years of age. He is currently 33 years of age. He has spent almost 66 percent of his life in this country since his initial arrival as a 12-year-old. This means the Australian community has a higher than usual tolerance of criminal or other serious conduct by this Applicant.
In relation to sub-paragraph (d) of the abovementioned paragraph [179] I am of the view that the 22 year period of time the Applicant has spent here facilitates a slight raising of the community’s level of tolerance for his offending. This finding can be augmented due to him having spent his formative years in this country given that he arrived as a 12 year old and has never departed since.
In relation to sub-paragraph (e) of the abovementioned paragraph [179], I am not of the view that the balancing exercise between (on the one hand) the harm that would be caused by the Applicant recommitting his criminal offending of the same type and magnitude already committed and (on the other hand), whatever countervailing considerations may work in his favour, is necessarily a principle referable to the community’s expectations for present purposes. This is because I am of the view that the nature and extent of the Applicant’s offending and the harm resulting from it thus far has been of such a particularly serious magnitude as to potentially dispel any applicable countervailing considerations.
In relation to sub-paragraph (f) of the abovementioned paragraph [179], I have found that at least part of the Applicant’s offending is captured by sub-paragraph 8.5(2)(d) of the Direction.

Having regard to the above discussion around sub-paragraphs (a)–(f) (inclusive) referenced in paragraph [179] of these Reasons, I am of the view that the Australian community’s expectations are not modified such that the community does not have a higher than usual tolerance of criminal conduct by the Applicant. Because of the particularly serious nature of the Applicant’s offending, this Primary Consideration 5 compels a finding that the community expects that the Australian Government can and should refuse to set aside the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant’s Visa. I so find.
Conclusion: Primary Consideration 5
Primary Consideration 5 confers a heavy level of weight in favour of this Tribunal affirming the Decision Under Review.
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
Other Considerations (a): Legal consequences of the decision; (c): Impact on victims and (d): Impact on Australian business interests
I am of the view that the totality of the evidence before the Tribunal does not compel ventilation or analysis of any of the three abovementioned Other Considerations (a), (c) and (d) of the Direction. I will put these Other Considerations to one side and allocate neutral weight to each of them.
Other Consideration (b): Extent of impediments if removed
Factors to be taken into account
Paragraph 9.2 of the Direction directs a decision-maker to take into account the extent of any impediments that the non-citizen may face if removed from Australia to their home country, in establishing themselves and maintaining basic living standards (in the context of what is generally available to other citizens of that country), taking into account:
(a)the non-citizen’s age and health;
(b)whether there are any substantial language or cultural barriers; and
(c)any social, medical and/or economic support available to that non-citizen in that country.
Paragraph 9.2(1)(a) :the Applicant made a surprising claim in his evidence given in cross-examination about the reason behind him being sent to see a psychologist (Mr Greg Hutcheon) whose report appears in the material.[193] The Applicant claimed he was sent to Dr Hutcheon because of an apparent diagnosis that he was suffering from two types of cancer. The implausibility of this claim can be readily seen from the following portion of the transcript:
[193] A2.
‘APPLICANT: ---Because – I started seeing him [Mr Hutcheon] because I have two type of cancers and I wanted to talk to him about getting the blood sample. But then I started talking to him about God and then we just – from that conversation it went on and I never end up telling him that I have two type of cancers and – yes, that’s why I wanted to see him because – yes.
MS LETCHER–BOLDT: What are the two types of cancers that you have, Mr Farcas?
APPLICANT: ---I have hernia. So when I go to toilet sometimes I bleed, like when I go a number two blood comes out and it’s disgusting.
MS LETCHER–BOLDT: Hernia or haemorrhoids?
APPLICANT: ---Haemorrhoids and hernia.
MS LETCHER–BOLDT: Haemorrhoids?
APPLICANT: ---Yes, like - - -
MS LETCHER–BOLDT: And, sorry, who told you that those types of cancers?
APPLICANT: ---A doctor told me a long time ago that – yes, when I was living in New South Wales.
MS LETCHER–BOLDT: Did you go to the hospital?
APPLICANT: ---Yes. Yes, and he gave me some medication. I stopped taking them after like three, four month’s because I was getting better and - - -
MS LETCHER–BOLDT: So, sorry, that you were told you have a hernia, which you were told is a type of cancer and you were told that you have haemorrhoids, which are a type of cancer?
APPLICANT: ---Yes. Yes.
MS LETCHER–BOLDT: Is that what you were told?
APPLICANT: ---Yes. Yes.
MS LETCHER–BOLDT: And did you tell your family that you have two types of cancer?
APPLICANT: ---Yes. Yes, I was like – yes, I was telling them that I was taking medication. I didn’t like the taste of the medication. It made me throw up sometimes.
MS LETCHER–BOLDT: But did you tell them that you had two types of cancers?
APPLICANT: ---Yes.
MS LETCHER–BOLDT: And presumably that would be in your medical records?
APPLICANT: ---I never actually told the doctors here at detention centre.
MS LETCHER–BOLDT: Why not?
APPLICANT: ---I don’t know because I’m scared of operations. I’m really scared of operations, that’s – that’s the reason.
MS LETCHER–BOLDT: I’m just surprised, Mr Farcas, if you were told that those are types of cancers because my understanding is that a haemorrhoid and a hernia are not types of cancers?
APPLICANT: ---I forgot what it’s called actually the cancer that I have but it’s true, I do have two type of cancers. That’s what my doctor said to me. When I go to toilet, it’s a – in-hair growing and I bleed when I go to toilet. That’s one type of cancer and, yes, they said that I need a – and I even have like scars like down there where the first operation I have they took some stuff out. I can show you I have the proof.’[194]
[194] Transcript, p 28, lines 28-44; p 29, lines 1-30.
Of course, there is no clinical proof of any cancer diagnosis involving this Applicant. I will find (1) that he does not have cancer; and (2) that the extent of his physical maladies comprise, at worst, haemorrhoids and a hernia.
In terms of any mental health issues, the Applicant was asked whether he is suffering from depression and he twice replied ‘No’.[195] He was asked whether he has a mental health condition ‘PTSD’ and he replied with ‘No’.[196] He was then asked whether he has ever been diagnosed with depression or PTSD and he twice replied with ‘No’ and once replied with ‘Never’.[197] I again refer to the case note of the psychiatrist Dr Jillian Spencer made on 11 August 2023 wherein Dr Spencer noted the following:
‘Mental health history:
Says he never engaged with mental health services prior to detention.
Reported having depression when his sister was murdered. Given Diazepam by GP after his sister died, ceased when he went to jail. ;
No other mental health medications.
No hospitalisations for his mental health or emergency department presentations.
No family history of mental illness..’[198]
[My emphasis]
[195] See generally, Transcript, p 48, lines 39-45.
[196] See generally, Transcript, p 49, lines 1-2.
[197] See generally, Transcript, p 49, lines 4-8.
[198] A2, p 22 of 60.
Given (1) the Applicant’s evidence in cross-examination that he is not experiencing symptoms of, or otherwise suffering from, depression or PTSD, and (2) the above observations of Dr Jillian Spencer, I will find that the Applicant is not suffering from any currently diagnosed mental health symptoms.
The Applicant is aged 33 years and will shortly turn 34. Putting aside the respective conditions of hernia and haemorrhoids, the Applicant is otherwise in the prime of his life and of normal health. For reasons I have stipulated, he does not have any currently diagnosed mental health symptoms. The Applicant’s age and health are not impediments to his return and re-settlement in Romania.
Paragraph 9.2(1)(b): at the Hearing, the Applicant was cross-examined about the extent of his familiarity with the Romanian language. This is what transpired between him and the Respondent’s representative:
‘MS LETCHER–BOLDT: So you lived in Romania for the first 11 to 12 years of your life; is that right?
APPLICANT: ---Yes. Yes.
MS LETCHER–BOLDT: And I take it that you speak Romanian; is that correct?
APPLICANT: ---Yes, I do speak – not very well but - - -
MS LETCHER–BOLDT: Not well. Do you ever speak it with your family?
APPLICANT: ---Yes, we do sometimes.
MS LETCHER–BOLDT: Which family do you speak - - -?
APPLICANT: ---With my mother.
MS LETCHER–BOLDT: Any of your siblings?
APPLICANT: ---Yes, with my older brother.
MS LETCHER–BOLDT: And did you speak Romanian or English with your grandparents?
APPLICANT: ---We speak broken English. We speak Romanian the most.’[199]
[199] Transcript, p 9, lines 23-26.
The Applicant resided in Romania for the first 12 years of his life. This equates to completion of primary school in that country and perhaps commencement of secondary school. He did not leave Romania at such a young age such as now to not be able to recall virtually anything about his life there. He left as a 12-year-old and he must surely be found to carry some cogent memory of the cultural norms of that country. It should be remembered (and can safely be found) that many of cultural norms and practices were most likely maintained and perpetuated by the Applicant’s family in Australia after their arrival here.
The Applicant does have a capacity to speak and communicate in Romanian which he speaks with his family and, in particular, his mother and his older brother. The language of choice in his communication with his grandparents is/was ‘Romanian the most’. I will find that there are no substantial language or cultural barriers impeding the Applicant’s return and re-settlement in Romania.
Paragraph 9.2(1)(c): in terms of any publicly available medical support the Applicant may require for his hernia and/or haemorrhoids conditions in Romania, he will have available to him the same level of such medical care in the context of what is generally available to other citizens of that country. It would be astonishing for the Applicant to suggest, and for this Tribunal to find, that the Romanian public health system does not have the capacity to deal with a hernia and/or haemorrhoids condition affecting a member of its population. While the Applicant may find the Romanian health system not identical to that which he has come to know in Australia, I will nevertheless find that there are no issues around medical support available to the Applicant in Romania impeding his return and re-settlement in that country.
The position may be found to be somewhat different and perhaps more in the Applicant’s favour with regard to social and/or economic support available to him in Romania. Most often in these type of applications, a returnee does have at least one or several relatives or contacts in their country of origin with whom contact can be made for the purposes of facilitating – even on a short term basis – a returnee’s re-settlement. But there seems to be a dearth of such relatives and/or contacts for this Applicant in Romania. This is because while he did once have relatives – indeed close relatives – living in Romania, most or all of them have now left Romania.
As I have referred to earlier, the Applicant has a sister and two brothers living in England. The sister has been living there for most of her life and the two brothers moved to England about four and a half years ago.[200] The Applicant’s parents separated when he was two and the evidence says his father lives in Spain with his second wife and eight children.[201]
[200] See generally, Transcript, p 51, lines 16-46.
[201] R1, p 79.
During cross-examination, the Applicant was asked about his siblings in England and the following transpired about him possibly going to reside there:
‘MS LETCHER–BOLDT: If you were returned to Romania would you be able to move to England like your siblings have?
APPLICANT: ---Yes. That’s correct.
MS LETCHER–BOLDT: Where do your siblings live in England?
APPLICANT: ---Manchester.
MS LETCHER–BOLDT: All three in the same place?
APPLICANT: ---Yes.
MS LETCHER–BOLDT: And what do they do there?
APPLICANT: ---They work as construction.
MS LETCHER–BOLDT: In construction?
APPLICANT: ---Yes. Correct.
MS LETCHER–BOLDT: What kind of construction?
APPLICANT: ---Building houses.
MS LETCHER–BOLDT: All three of them build houses?
APPLICANT: ---Yes. They’re building houses.
MS LETCHER–BOLDT: Do you keep in touch with them?
APPLICANT:---Yes. Correct. I do.
MS LETCHER–BOLDT: How often?
APPLICANT: ---Every, I don’t know, probably every couple of weeks. We just – yes – we’d have like - - -
MS LETCHER–BOLDT: Would you say that you have a close relationship?
APPLICANT: ---Yes. We do have a close relationship. We don’t talk that much. We just like on each other’s pictures on Facebook and we talk maybe once a fortnight, just have like a three-way video call. That’s about it.’[202]
[202] Transcript, p 52, lines 35-46; p 53, lines 1-11.
Of course, the Respondent’s representative is rightfully entitled to put this type of question to the Applicant. However, during the Hearing I expressed my misgivings about the Tribunal relying on the Applicant’s response to a question he was not really qualified to answer. The Applicant is not an expert on Romanian visa/migration law and cannot point to any expert advice in his possession confirming that upon arrival in Romania he would automatically be able to resettle in England and join his siblings there. Ultimately, the point went nowhere because the Respondent’s representative told the Tribunal she would not be relying on the Applicant’s answer to any extent.[203] The Tribunal appreciates this concession.
[203] See generally, Transcript, p 53, lines 13-45; p 54, lines 1-2.
In terms of findings on the questions of social and/or economic support, my findings are these:
·I accept that most, if not all, of the Applicant’s immediate family has left Romania. But this does not mean he can automatically join them either in England or Spain. Therefore, in terms of social support, the Applicant will be very much on his own if returned to Romania. In the Applicant’s own words:
‘I don’t even know anybody in Romania. I don’t even know if I’ll be (indistinct) there. Like I have nowhere to go to. Like I don’t even0 [sic] no [sic] nobody, not even a friend on Facebook. I feel like my life’s over if I were to get deported. I don’t even want to think about stuff like that. But I have to. It just kills me inside. I just want to be with my family.’;[204]
·I accept that he will thus be deprived of the economic ‘support’ that would otherwise be represented by the advantage of having short to medium term accommodation available to him with either a sibling or other close relative in Romania;
·I accept that to whatever extent he may be able to source any available government-provided economic support (such as Centrelink as we know it in this country) he will be able to do so to the same extent as is generally available to other citizens of that country. It can also be accepted such support may not be at a level equivalent to that available to him in Australia in terms of him meeting his recurring cost of living expenses in Romania.
[204] Transcript, p 48, lines 3-7.
Findings about impediments
Given the relevance of sub-paragraph (c) of paragraph 9.2(1) of the Direction to the Applicant’s circumstances, I am of the view that this Other Consideration (b) confers a moderately strong level of weight in favour of this Tribunal exercising the power to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant’s Visa.
Findings: Other Considerations
The allocation of weight to the Other Considerations in the present matter can be summarised as follows:
(a)legal consequences of the decision: is of neutral weight;
(b)extent of impediments if removed: is of moderately strong weight in favour of revocation;
(c)impact on victims: is of neutral weight;
(d)impact on Australian business interests: is of neutral weight.
CONCLUSION
Under s 501CA(4)(b) of the Act, there are two alternate conditions precedent to the exercise of the power to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant’s Visa: either the Applicant must be found to pass the character test; and if not, I must be satisfied that there is another reason, pursuant to the Direction, to revoke the cancellation. As noted (and found) previously in these Reasons, the Applicant does not pass the character test.
In considering whether there is another reason to exercise the power afforded by s 501CA(4)(b)(ii) of the Act to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant’s Visa, I have had regard to the considerations referred to in the Direction. I find as follows:
·Primary Consideration 1: carries a strong, but not determinative weight in favour of affirming the Decision Under Review;
·Primary Consideration 2: is of neutral weight;
·Primary Consideration 3: is of a heavy weight in favour of setting aside the Decision Under Review;
·Primary Consideration 4: is of very heavy weight in favour of setting aside the Decision Under Review;
·Primary Consideration 5: carries a heavy weight in favour of affirming the Decision Under Review;
I have outlined the weight attributable to each of the Other Considerations. I am of the view (and I find) that the combined weights I have allocated to Primary Considerations 3, 4 and Other Consideration (b) are sufficient to outweigh the combined weights I have allocated to Primary Considerations 1 and 5.
A holistic application of the considerations in the Direction therefore militates in favour of this Tribunal finding that there is another reason to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant’s Visa.
DECISION
Pursuant to section 43 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth), the Tribunal sets aside the decision dated 2 November 2023 made by the Respondent's delegate and substitutes it with a decision to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant's Class AS Subclass 801 Spouse visa.

I certify that the preceding 210 (two hundred and ten) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Senior Member Theodore Tavoularis

...............[SGD]..................
Associate
Dated: 2 February 2024

Dates of hearing: 15 and 16 January 2024

Applicant: Self-represented litigant

Solicitor for the Respondent: Ms Emma Letcher-Boldt (Lawyer)

Clayton Utz Lawyers
ANNEXURE A

EXHIBIT

DESCRIPTION OF EVIDENCE

DATE OF DOCUMENT

DATE RECEIVED

RESPONDENT SUBMISSIONS

R1

Section 501G documents

Various

14 November

2023

R2

Respondent’s Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions

22 December 2023

22 December 2023

APPLICANT SUBMISSIONS

A1

Applicant’s statement

Undated

30 November

2023

A2

Report by Greg Hutcheon

2 September 2023

30 November

2023

A3

Clinical Records

Various

6 December 2023

A4

List of family members from PCF

Undated

4 December 2023

A5

Letter of support from Daniela Duga

Undated

30 November

2023

A6

Letter of support from Juliana Duga

Undated

30 November

2023

A7

Letter of support from Nicole Fraser

Undated

30 November

2023

A8

Letter of support from Victoria Duga

Undated

30 November

2023

A9

Letter of support from Mary Fate

Undated

3 December 2023

A10

Birth and baptism certificate

Various

30 November

2023

A11

Course completion certificates

Various

30 November

2023

[2024] AATA 111

25 January 2024

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Administrative Law

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Procedural Fairness

Statutory Construction

Jurisdiction

Dates of hearing:	15 and 16 January 2024
Applicant:	Self-represented litigant
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Ms Emma Letcher-Boldt (Lawyer)
Clayton Utz Lawyers

EXHIBIT	DESCRIPTION OF EVIDENCE	DATE OF DOCUMENT	DATE RECEIVED
RESPONDENT SUBMISSIONS
R1	Section 501G documents	Various	14 November 2023
R2	Respondent’s Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions	22 December 2023	22 December 2023
APPLICANT SUBMISSIONS
A1	Applicant’s statement	Undated	30 November 2023
A2	Report by Greg Hutcheon	2 September 2023	30 November 2023
A3	Clinical Records	Various	6 December 2023
A4	List of family members from PCF	Undated	4 December 2023
A5	Letter of support from Daniela Duga	Undated	30 November 2023
A6	Letter of support from Juliana Duga	Undated	30 November 2023
A7	Letter of support from Nicole Fraser	Undated	30 November 2023
A8	Letter of support from Victoria Duga	Undated	30 November 2023
A9	Letter of support from Mary Fate	Undated	3 December 2023
A10	Birth and baptism certificate	Various	30 November 2023
A11	Course completion certificates	Various	30 November 2023