Hassan and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Migration)

[2023] AATA 3576

Hassan and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Migration) [2023] AATA 3576 (3 November 2023)

Division:GENERAL DIVISION

File Number(s):      2023/5900

Re:Mohamad Hassan

APPLICANT

AndMinister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs

RESPONDENT

DECISION

Tribunal:Mr A. Maryniak KC

Date:3 November 2023  

Place:Melbourne

The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and substitutes it with a decision that there is another reason why the mandatory visa cancellation decision should be revoked.

...............................[sgd].........................................

Mr A. Maryniak KC

CATCHWORDS

MIGRATION – Mandatory cancellation of visa – failure to pass character test – whether another reason the mandatory cancellation should be revoked – Ministerial Direction No. 99 applied – Class UF Subclass 309 Partner (Provisional) visa – citizen of Lebanon – protection of the Australian community –serious offence – culpable driving causing death-negligent – low risk of reoffending – strength nature and duration of ties to Australia – where family members Australian citizens/permanent residents – best interests of minor children – expectations of the Australian community – legal consequences of decision – extent of impediments if removed – decision set aside and substituted

LEGISLATION

Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth)

Migration Act 1958 (Cth)

CASES

AEK20 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2022] FCAFC 175
Beezley v Repatriation Commission (2015) 150 ALD 11
Bettencourt v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (2021) 287 FCR 294
BFMV v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2021] FCAFC 199.
Bushell v Repatriation Commission (1992) 175 CLR 408, 425
CGX20 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (2021) 284 FCR 416
Drake v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1979) 2 ALD 60
Dzik v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2021] FCAFC 78
Frugtniet v Australian Securities and Investments Commission (2019) 266 CLR 250
FYBR v Minister for Home Affairs (2019) 272 FCR 454
HZCP v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2019] FCAFC 202
Jagroop v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCAFC 48
Leota v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2020] FCA 1120, [63].
Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Guo (1997) 144 ALR 567
Nathanson v Minister for Home Affairs [2022] HCA 26; (2022) 96 ALJR 737
Plaintiff M1/2021 v Minister for Home Affairs (2022) 96 ALJR 497
Shi v Migration Agents Registration Authority (2008) 235 CLR 286
Suleiman v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2018) 74 AAR 545
Tohi v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (2021) 285 FCR 187

SECONDARY MATERIALS

Direction No. 99 – Visa refusal and cancellation under section 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under section 501CA

REASONS FOR DECISION

Mr A. Maryniak KC

1. The Applicant seeks review of a decision of the Respondent made 27 June 2019 not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant’s Partner (Subclass 309) (Provisional) Visa (the visa) pursuant to s 501CA(4) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act). This review is de novo.

LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK

1. The source of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to review this matter comes from s 500(1)(ba) of the Act, together with s 25(1)(a) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth).

2. Section 501(3A) of the Act, together with ss 501(6) and (7), requires the Minister to cancel a person’s visa if the Minister is satisfied the person does not pass the character test and is serving a full-time sentence of imprisonment.

3. Section 501CA(4) of the Act confers a discretionary power on the Minister to revoke the cancellation 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.

4. In circumstances where the cancellation decision is not revoked, the right to have that decision reviewed by the Tribunal is enlivened.

5. The Tribunal must address the question of ‘another reason’ for revocation in compliance with a ministerial direction made under s 499(1) of the Act known as ‘Ministerial Direction 99’ (the Direction).[1] This commenced on 3 March 2023. The Tribunal ‘stands in the shoes of the original decision-maker’ and must make ‘the correct or preferable decision’[2] based on the material currently before it.[3]

   [1] Section 499(2A) of the Act; CGX20 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (2021) 284 FCR 416, [4] (Rares, O’Callaghan and Jackson JJ); Nathanson v Minister for Home Affairs (2022) 96 ALJR 737, 2 [4].

   [2] Drake v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1979) 2 ALD 60 at 68 (Bowen CJ and Deane J); Shi v Migration Agents Registration Authority (2008) 235 CLR 286 at [96]- [98] (Hayne and Heydon JJ); Nathanson v Minister for Home Affairs (2022) 96 ALJR 737, 2 [4].

   [3] AEK20 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2022] FCAFC 175, [25] (Wigney, Abraham and Rofe JJ); Nathanson v Minister for Home Affairs (2022) 96 ALJR 737; Dzik v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2021] FCAFC 78, [10]-[11] (Logan, Perry, and Beach JJ); Frugtniet v Australian Securities and Investments Commission (2019) 266 CLR 250 at 271 [51]; Beezley v Repatriation Commission (2015) 150 ALD 11, [68]; Shi v Migration Agents Registration Authority (2008) 235 CLR 286 at 299 [40], 315 [100], 324-325 [134]; Bushell v Repatriation Commission (1992) 175 CLR 408, 425 (Brennan J).

6. The following principles at cl 5.2 of the Direction provide a framework within which decision-makers should approach their task, including whether to revoke a mandatory cancellation:

   (1)Australia has a sovereign right to determine whether non-citizens who are of character concern are allowed to enter and/or remain in Australia. Being able to come to or remain in Australia is a privilege Australia confers on non-citizens in the expectation that they are, and have been, law-abiding, will respect important institutions, such as Australia's law enforcement framework, and will not cause or threaten harm to individuals or the Australian community.

   (2)Non-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.

   (3)The 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.

   (4)Australia 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.

   (5)With respect to decisions to refuse, cancel, and revoke cancellations 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) [sic] (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 measureable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community.

   Clause 6 of the Direction provides that, informed by the principles in cl 5.2, a decision-maker must have regard to cls. 8 and 9, where relevant to the decision. Clause 8 of the Direction identifies the following primary considerations:

   (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;

   (5)expectations of the Australian community.

7. Clause 9 of the Direction sets out a non-exhaustive list of other considerations:

   (a)Legal consequences of the decision;

   (b)Extent of impediments if removed;

   (c)Impact on victims; and

   (d)Impact on Australian business interests.

8. In applying the considerations (both primary and other), information and evidence from independent and authoritative sources should be given appropriate weight.[4] Primary considerations should generally be given greater weight than other considerations, and one or more primary considerations may outweigh other primary considerations.[5] The weighing process is a matter for the individual decision maker.[6]

   [4] Direction 99, cl. 7(1).

   [5] Direction 99, cl. 7(2).

   [6] Jagroop v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCAFC 48, [57]; Suleiman v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2018) 74 AAR 545, [23]; [28] (Colvin J).

9. The Applicant concedes, hence it is not in issue, that he does not pass the character test and the Tribunal finds accordingly.  He has a ‘substantial criminal record’.[7]  Therefore, the Tribunal is to determine whether the discretion to revoke the cancellation decision is enlivened by the Tribunal being satisfied that there is ‘another reason’ to do so.[8]

   [7] Sections 501(6)(a) and 501(7)(c) of the Act.

   [8] Plaintiff M1/2021 v Minister for Home Affairs (2022) 96 ALJR 497 (Plaintiff M1/2021), [22]-[27] (Kiefel CJ, Keane, Gordon and Steward JJ); Bettencourt v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (2021) 287 FCR 294, [27]; Tohi v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (2021) 285 FCR 187, [3]-[5] (Katzmann J); [24] (Derrington J) [103] (O’Bryan J).

SUMMARY OF DOCUMENTARY AND ORAL EVIDENCE

1. The Tribunal has considered the documentary material lodged by the parties comprising both documents formally tendered and others as set out in Annexure A to these Reasons.  The Tribunal has also considered the oral evidence given during the hearing by the Applicant, Mr HA (the Applicant’s uncle), Ms S1 (the Applicant’s older sister), Mr B1 and Mr B2 (the Applicant’s brothers), the Applicant’s mother and father, Mr Ramzi Mohammad (psychologist) and Ms Naomi Cameron (forensic psychologist). Further, the Tribunal has taken into account the written and oral submissions of the parties.

2. The 28-year-old Applicant arrived in Australia with his mother and six siblings in May 2015.  He was born in Lebanon in July 1995 and is a citizen of Lebanon of Sunni Muslim faith.[9]  The Applicant’s father left Lebanon, when the Applicant was 13 years old, arriving in Australia in October 2008 and was granted a Protection (Class XA) visa on 18 August 2011.[10] Following the family receiving permanent residency on 7 May 2015, the Applicant, his mother and siblings arrived in Australia on 18 May 2015.[11]

   [9] Applicant’s Statement of Facts issues and Contentions lodged 18 September 2023 (ASFIC), [5].

   [10] ASFIC, [15].

   [11] ASFIC [16].

3. Just over a year after arriving in Australia, on 5 June 2016, the Applicant was involved in a collision with another car, resulting in the death of the passenger and driver of that other vehicle that day.[12]  The Applicant was then held in custody from that day until 30 June 2016, when he was released on bail.

   [12] Exhibit R3, 41-42, [1]-[9].

4. On 20 July 2017, upon a plea of guilty to 2 charges of culpable driving causing death-negligent the Applicant was sentenced to 8 years and 8 months imprisonment with a non-parole period of 6 years and 2 months.[13]  Convictions and fines of $700 for summary offences of driving an unregistered vehicle and fraudulently using registration plates were also recorded.[14] The Applicant remains in prison and would now be eligible for parole, save for the consequences of his mandatory visa cancellation.

   [13] Exhibit R3, 49, [38]-[44].

   [14] Exhibit R3, 38-39.

5. The Applicant had a difficult and challenging childhood in Lebanon, inter alia, having witnessed his father being threatened and violently assaulted by affiliates of the Syrian Social Nationalist Party and his mother being shot in the head.[15] There was also an arson attack on his family home.[16]

   [15] ASFIC, [11].

   [16] Ibid.

6. From October 2008, upon his father’s necessary departure from Lebanon, the Applicant as the eldest son had to assume the ‘man of the house’ role, aged 13.[17] It became his responsibly to look after his mother and six siblings, protecting them from both the volatility and dangers of daily life in Lebanon and also from a badly-behaved next-door neighbour.[18]  This resulted in a stronger than usual bond developing between the Applicant and his mother and each of his six siblings from late 2008 onwards.[19] It is evident that the strength of that bond has continued to this day despite both the re-emergence of the father in family life, once the entire family was reunited in Australia from mid-2015, and the Applicant being in prison from July 2017.[20]

   [17] Exhibit A1, [4]; ASFIC, [12].

   [18] Exhibit A1, [5]-[6]; Exhibit R1, 193 [16]; and oral testimony of Applicant, Ms S1, and Applicant’s mother.

   [19] Exhibit R1, 194 [23].

   [20] Exhibit A3 [10]; Exhibit A4 [3]; Exhibit A5 [3].

7. The evidence before the Tribunal clearly establishes that the Applicant is extremely close to and plays an integral leading role within his family and this is in part due to the physical and mental health conditions which each of his parents endure.[21]  Even whilst in prison it is evident that the Applicant has had and has substantial regular continuing contact with his parents, siblings and nieces and nephews by either personal visits and/or video/telephone calls.[22]

   [21] Exhibit A6 1-2; Exhibit A1, [22]; Exhibit A3, [3]-[4], [7]; Exhibit A9 [9]; Exhibit A10 [7].

   [22] Exhibit A1, [23]; Exhibit A3, [3].

8. The Applicant has both expressed and displayed real remorse in the evidence before the Tribunal.[23] Such is not disputed by the Respondent. The Tribunal is satisfied that the Applicant is genuinely remorseful and that he gave his evidence truthfully. He had to grow up very quickly once his father left Lebanon and missed some schooling, and often worked at an uncle’s charcoal shop, ensuring that he protected and provided for his mother and six siblings as best he could.[24] He took on the ‘father figure’ role in the family and the Tribunal is satisfied that he still has a role of this nature in respect of his mother and six siblings to this day. 

   [23] Exhibit A1, [10]-[14]; Exhibit R1, 553 [43]-[44], 554 [49].

   [24] Exhibit A1, [4]-[6], [20].

9. From soon after his arrival in Australia the Applicant commenced doing demolition work for his uncle Mr HA’s company and continued with that employment until the fatal traffic accident and then whilst out on bail, prior to sentencing.  Whilst working there, the ute he predominantly drove was issued a ‘Fail to obey traffic lights’ infringement notice on 10 November 2015 and two ‘Exceeding speed by 15kms but less than 25kms’ notices on 13 January and 27 February 2016.[25]  The infringement notices were dated/issued on 9 March 2016 and 15 March 2016.  The Applicant’s oral evidence was that his uncle discussed these with him at the time and, although the Applicant did not and does not recall being the relevant driver of the ute on each occasion, he agreed with his uncle’s suggestion that he was the driver and accepted being nominated as such. The Applicant testified that many employees had access to the ute, but he fairly accepted that he was probably the driver on each occasion.

   [25] Exhibit R3, 1-10.

10. Save for the three traffic citations, the Applicant had led a very responsible life in Australia, albeit for just over a year, working hard and in a disciplined manner and contributing to his close-knit family life in Australia.  He was appreciative of his new life here stating, ‘Australia has given me my life back’ after his tumultuous childhood in Lebanon.[26] 

    [26] Exhibit R1, 553 [40].

11. Established or agreed facts in respect of the fatal offending underlying the sentencing are not in issue.[27] At the time the Applicant had taken his eyes off the road to turn on the demister on the windscreen which had fogged up. He did not see the red light and upon colliding with the other vehicle he immediately ran to the other vehicle to assist the victims.  He pleaded guilty at the first available opportunity. The sentencing Judge’s remarks reveal that one of the victim’s eldest daughter sadly observed the accident as it occurred.[28] 

    [27] Exhibit R3, 162-172.

    [28] Exhibit R1, 41 [4].

12. The Applicant was driving an unregistered 1999 S Class Mercedes Benz which the Applicant’s father had purchased in January 2016. The Applicant had fitted his work vehicle plates to the Mercedes, something that he testified was commonplace in Lebanon. The sentencing Judge stated, ‘It was not put that you intentionally went through the red light having seen it’.[29] The guilty plea was on the basis that the Applicant approached the intersection at ‘140km/hour in an 80 zone’, ‘failed [to observe] the applicable traffic light turn amber and then red’, ‘entered the intersection four seconds after the traffic light turned red’ and ‘speed at the point of impact was 127 kilometres an hour.’[30] The Applicant thought he was driving at between 90 to 100 kilometres an hour but ‘could not feel the speed’ because the ‘car was big’.[31] The Applicant ‘did not see the other car and did not brake at all’ and ‘had gone over to see if the lady was okay’.[32]

    [29] Exhibit R1, 42 [10].

    [30] Exhibit R1, 43 [11].

    [31] Exhibit R1, 43, [12].

    [32] Exhibit R1, 43 [13].

13. The Tribunal adopts and underscores the remarks of the sentencing Judge, including the following:[33]

    [33] Exhibit R1, 43-48.

    14.This offending is, by its nature, serious. As drivers, we all owe each other responsibility and we rely on each other discharging those responsibilities.

    As has been said, driving is an adult task with adult consequences. You will live with the certain knowledge that your conduct has caused the death of two members of our community. The burden will be heavy one, as it should be.

    15.As regards the objective gravity of your offending, it is relevant that the speed at which you were travelling was some 60 kilometres in excess of the applicable speed limit. It must have been clear to you that you were travelling in a built-up area with the likelihood of other vehicles. You told police that you did not have clear visibility; indeed you said you could not see at all whether the light was red or green. You failed to observe an amber and then red light over a significant distance which, had you been observant, would have sufficient for you to brake and avoid collision.

    16.You entered the intersection four seconds after the light turned red. Your speed at the point of impact was 127 kilometres per hour. The sad reality is that you made choices. They were choices no doubt made in seconds, but they were choices. It is also relevant to note that your offending did not involve racing; your bad driving was of relatively short duration. There was nothing erratic or concerning in your driving earlier in time. Your offending does not involve either drugs or alcohol and you immediately sought to assist the victims.

    17.The prosecution concede that this is not a high range offence of this type.

    The defence concede that this is not a low range offence. There were various submissions as to where in the mid-range your offending properly falls.
    In my view, it is more important to identify the factors relevant to objective gravity than to seek to dissect the mid-range label with ever increasing precision. It is sufficient to say that this, in my view, is mid-range offending when regard is had to the full range of circumstances which might constitute the offence of culpable driving.

    19.I accept that you are, as put by your counsel, profoundly remorseful for the very real consequences of your offending and the ongoing pain caused to the deceased families. You have expressed this continuously from an early stage and I accept that you are sorry for what you have done and not just the circumstances in which you now find yourself. You are a young man who has made a life-altering series of mistakes.

    The prosecution do not challenge the level of your remorse.

    20.You have no prior convictions or appearances and you fall to be sentenced on the basis that you are, apart from this matter, a man of good character.

    25.Prior to this incident, you would properly have been described as a diligent, hard-working young man with excellent prospects. You were full of hope and those around you saw promise. In less than a minute, that all changed forever. For you, for the victims’ families, for your family. The tragedy is compounded by the fact that this was all completely avoidable.

    29.You were assessed by Ms Carla Lechner, clinical psychologist, for the purposes of this plea. Her report is dated 4 July of this year. She says you impressed as having the capacity to reflect on the impact of your behaviour on both yourself and others and hence your immense grief about all that has occurred.

    Ms Lechner says that you currently present with symptoms of major depressive disorder and post-traumatic stress disorder and that you will need on-going psychological support in custody.

    33.You are still a young man. You were a young offender at the date of this offending and you fall to be sentenced now as a youthful offender as you have turned 21. The community must maintain a real interest in your rehabilitation as that is in the community’s best interests. While the weight afforded to rehabilitation is diminished by the nature of your offending, it remains a relevant sentencing consideration.

    34.Your prospects of rehabilitation are, in my view, excellent. This will be your first time in custody, indeed your first contact with the criminal justice system.

    It is likely to have significant deterrent effect, whatever the duration. As I have noted previously, you have no criminal history.

    37.I wish to make clear to the victim’s family before announcing sentence that this sentence does not and could never reflect the value of a life. My task is to sentence criminality, not to engage in an impossible task.

1. The Tribunal is conscious of the very severe consequences of the offending, the loss of two lives.  After the offending the Applicant was diagnosed with depression and anxiety related conditions and has attended appropriate treatment for those conditions in prison.[34] He continues to have significant mental health challenges and intends to continue to have them managed by mental health professionals in the event that he is permitted back into the Australian community.[35]

   [34] Exhibit R1, 367; Exhibit A8, 5 [36].

   [35] Exhibit R1, 203 [102].

2. It is not in issue that the Applicant has been a ‘model’ prisoner throughout his over six years in prison, resulting in his relocation to the minimum restriction ‘open’ Middleton prison, where he now is.[36] Consistent with the fact that no alcohol or drugs were associated with his offending, he has remained free of drugs and alcohol in prison and has stayed out of trouble and away from all bad influences in prison.[37] Further, it was noted by his caseworker at Loddon Prison that he presented as a ‘calming influence on those around him’ and was an ‘excellent role model to other prisoners’.[38] He has taken a committed and disciplined approach to his rehabilitation in prison and has used the time wisely. He has embraced every opportunity afforded to him to improve himself whilst imprisoned. He has successfully completed some 15 different courses including participation in a Road Trauma Support Group.[39] He has worked in metal fabrication and had roles in gardening and cleaning.[40] He has also become closer to his religious faith, including leading prayer groups,[41] and exercises regularly[42].

   [36] Exhibit R1, 362; Exhibit A8 [58].

   [37] Exhibit R1, 374; Exhibit A8, [34] and [58].

   [38] Exhibit R1, [362].

   [39] Exhibit R1, 98, 103, 106-109, 114, 678, 682-683, 685-686, 705-709.

   [40] Exhibit R1, 368, 408; Exhibit A8, [29].

   [41] Exhibit R1, 379.

   [42] Exhibit R1, 378 and 393.

3. The Applicant, by his own initiative, has developed a presentation entitled “Road Safety” aimed at educating young people about the importance of road safety prior to them obtaining their driver’s licences.[43] He intends to further develop this and other programs of this nature if he is let back into Australian society.[44]

   [43] Exhibit R1, 468-476.

   [44] Exhibit A8, [65].

PRIMARY CONSIDERATIONS

Protection of the Australian Community

1. Clause 8.1 of the Direction states:

   (1)When considering protection of the Australian community, decision-makers should keep in mind that the Government is committed to protecting the Australian community from harm as a result of criminal activity or other serious conduct by non-citizens. In this respect, decision-makers should have particular regard to the principle that entering or remaining in Australia is a privilege that Australia confers on non-citizens in the expectation that they are, and have been, law abiding, will respect important institutions, and will not cause or threaten harm to individuals or the Australian community.

   (2)Decision-makers should also give consideration to:

   a)    the nature and seriousness of the non-citizen’s conduct to date; and

   b)    the risk to the Australian community, should the non-citizen commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct.

The nature and seriousness of the non-citizen’s conduct to date

1. Under cl 8.1.1 of the Direction, the following factors are to be considered in determining the nature and seriousness of the non-citizen’s criminal and other conduct to date:

   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 197 A 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 reoffended 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 conduct or offence was committed in another country, whether that offence or conduct is classified as an offence in Australia.

2. The sentencing Judge determined the Applicant’s offending as mid-range and imposed a significant consequential term of imprisonment of 8 years and 8 months.[45] The crimes committed are clearly serious. The Applicant understands his conduct was very serious, with devastating consequences. Culpable driving causing death is a crime of violence and here it resulted in the loss of life of two people.[46]

   [45] Exhibit R1, 44 [17] and 49 [41].

   [46] Direction 99 cl. 8.1.1(a)(i).

3. The Tribunal is also to consider any frequency of offending, whether the Applicant has provided false or misleading information to the Respondent’s Department or has re-offended since being formally warned or otherwise made aware of the possible consequences of his immigration status. The Applicant had no prior criminal history. He did have three prior traffic citations which, as discussed in paragraph [19] above, he acquired in his first year driving on Australian roads as a 20-year-old. The Respondent properly submits these infringements make it improper for the Applicant’s driving manner at the time of the fatal offending to be viewed as ‘isolated’,[47] but the Tribunal is not satisfied that the earlier traffic citations constitute a developing pattern of behaviour. The Tribunal is conscious of the fact that the Applicant was a 20-year-old male with little experience driving on Australian roads which are more tightly regulated and controlled than the roads in Lebanon. Also, the Mercedes S Class he drove on the night of the offending was a very big, powerful car and the unchallenged evidence is that the Applicant was unaware of how fast he was going and did not see the red traffic light.[48]  In context, the Tribunal does not regard these citations as establishing a frequency of offending nor a trend of increasing seriousness.

   [47] Respondent’s Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions dated 4 October 2023 (RSFIC), [23].

   [48] Exhibit A1, [10]; Exhibit R1, 553 [47]; ASFIC [20].

4. There was no other offending by the Applicant. Further, there is no evidence or assertion before the Tribunal of untruthful information being provided by the Applicant to the Department nor of any previous immigration warning, in writing or otherwise.

5. The sentencing Judge’s remarks are apposite, including those quoted above in paragraph [23]. The Judge further stated:[49]

   Your prospects of rehabilitation are, in my view, excellent. This will be your first time in custody, indeed your first contact with the criminal justice system.
   It is likely to have significant deterrent effect, whatever the duration. As I have noted previously, you have no criminal history.

   Whilst general deterrence in sentencing was of particular importance ‘[s]pecific deterrence can in light of your history be given less weight.’[50]

   [49] Exhibit R1, 48 [34].

   [50] Exhibit R1, 48 [35].

6. The Tribunal finds that the nature and seriousness of the offending was serious but absent specific intention, as held by the sentencing Judge.

The risk to the Australian community should the non-citizen commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct

1. Clause 8.1.2(1) of the Direction provides:

   In considering the need to protect the Australian community (including individuals, groups or institutions) from harm, decision-makers should have regard to the Government’s view that the Australian community’s tolerance for any risk of future harm becomes lower as the seriousness of the potential harm increases. Some conduct and the harm that would be caused, if it were to be repeated, is so serious that any risk that it may be repeated may be unacceptable.

2. Clause 8.1.2(2) of the Direction states that in assessing the risk non-citizens pose to the Australian community, decision-makers must consider, cumulatively:

   a)the nature of the harm to individuals or the Australian community should the non-citizen engage in further criminal or other serious conduct; and

   b)the likelihood of the non-citizen engaging in further criminal or other serious conduct, taking into account:

   i.information and evidence on the risk of the non-citizen reoffending; and

   ii.evidence of rehabilitation achieved by the time of the decision, giving weight to time spent in the community since their most recent offence (noting that decisions should not be delayed in order for rehabilitative courses to be undertaken).

3. The Tribunal is to assess the risk posed to the Australian community if the Applicant reoffends, considering the nature of any harm and its probability. Past actions by the Applicant are legitimate predictors of future behaviour,[51] but here such actions have occurred prior to the Applicant’s rehabilitation. The Applicant’s exemplary behaviour since the relevant offending and his rehabilitation since sentencing has been consistent with that predicted by the sentencing Judge. The preponderance of evidence before the Tribunal satisfies it that the offending has impacted the Applicant deeply. He is remorseful, accepts and continues to be affected by the dire consequences of his offending and he has learned from it.

   [51] Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Guo (1997) 144 ALR 567, 578-579; Leota v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2020] FCA 1120, [63].

4. The Applicant has made significant efforts and inroads in respect of his rehabilitation, has a very strong and evident sense of responsibility and connection with his close-knit family in Australia and has behaved as a ‘model’ prisoner through his entire term of imprisonment.  He also has good employment prospects, confirmed by the Applicant’s uncle testifying that he will re-employ the Applicant, with a good work ethic and a supportive family waiting in the event he can return to the Australian community.

5. Accepting that any repeat offending by the Applicant would have very serious consequences, the Tribunal balances that against what it concludes is the low risk of any repeat offending. It is more than apparent from the Applicant’s evidence and conduct since offending that he genuinely appreciates the serious consequences of his actions and they continue to weigh heavily on him. His faultless conduct since the offending as discussed above, the consistency of such conduct over many years, the observations of the sentencing Judge and importantly the further consistent opinions of two psychologists, underscore a low risk of any reoffending. Ms Cameron, independent forensic psychologist, concluded:[52]

   It is my professional opinion that [the Applicant] has developed insight and judgment into his behaviour and is genuinely remorseful to the victims and their families. He has acknowledged that his decision-making was extremely poor in relation to the offending and that he is highly motivated to reform his life and help others avoid the same, possibly fatal, mistakes.

   Mr Hassan otherwise presents as a genuine and prosocial individual. He understands right from wrong, and as outlined has the capacity to reflect on his behaviour and acknowledge that he acted irresponsibly and without regard, with disastrous consequences. He has several protective factors that further mitigate his risk of reoffending including his realistic goals and plans, stable psychosocial factors (employment and accommodation), and strong family support.
   

   [52] Exhibit A8, [108]-[110].

   Mr Hassan currently has a low risk of reoffending and he poses a low risk to the Australian community.

6. The Applicant continues to show by his actions that he is motivated to continue his self-improvement and has stated he will continue to obtain assistance to improve his mental health if he rejoins the Australian community. Ms Cameron is of the opinion that the Applicant’s mental health will improve as he continues to obtain treatment.[53] Also, the now 28-year-old Applicant has during his incarceration taken positive steps to improve his life circumstances and prospects,[54] hence has matured through his rehabilitation in prison.[55] The Tribunal accepts that the evidence is mixed as to whether the Applicant will ever drive again.[56] It seems that he probably will.  Faint evidence before the Tribunal suggests he will have to take steps in the Magistrates Court to regain his licence and if he does drive again, it will be with the knowledge of the consequences and a more mature insight into the responsibilities that go with driving on Australian roads. In any event, Mr HA testified that he will be re-employed, whether he regains his licence or not.

   [53] Exhibit A8, [112].

   [54] Exhibit A8, [97].

   [55] See also Exhibit R1, 370-444.

   [56] Exhibit A1, [16]-[17]; Exhibit A8 [56].

7. In assessing risk, the Respondent submits there remains a real risk of reoffending and submits that his lack of re-offending whilst on bail should be disregarded because he was not permitted to drive.[57] However, such lack of reoffending is also suggestive of the fact that the Applicant respected the fact that he was not permitted to drive and was genuinely impacted by the harm he was responsible for by his offending. The Applicant’s evidence generally before the Tribunal supports this.

   [57] RSFIC, [27] and [30].

8. The Respondent submitted the Tribunal needed to treat the Applicant’s insight into his offending with caution due to his reference in his oral evidence to his car travelling ‘downhill’ at the time of the offending, in that prior to testifying at the hearing he had not specifically mentioned this aspect of the incident. However, having questioned the Applicant regarding this, and the Respondent having had the opportunity to cross-examine on this point, the Tribunal is satisfied that this does not detract from the Applicant’s genuine remorse or acceptance of responsibility for the consequences of his negligent driving. It is clear on the evidence that the Applicant both understands that he is responsible for the death of two people and he continues to be genuinely remorseful and aware of the fatal consequences of his choices at the time of the accident. The Respondent submits that the ‘downhill’ reference by the Applicant apropos of the fatal offending is a ‘new explanation’ and undermines the Applicant’s asserted insight into his offending.  The Tribunal rejects the Respondent’s characterisation.[58] It was not put to the Applicant that he was not travelling downhill at the time and other aspects of the evidence before the Tribunal support the assertion that he was driving downhill.[59] Logically such a trajectory would add some speed, but the Tribunal is not of the opinion that the Applicant’s testimony in this regard detracts from the insight he has gained from the consequences of his offending and his rehabilitation. His admissions underlying his guilty plea and facts found by the sentencing Judge are consistent, as is the fact that the Respondent does not challenge the Applicant’s genuine remorse.

   [58] See also HZCP v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2019] FCAFC 202 at [68].

   [59] Exhibit R3, 14 and 173.

9. The Tribunal notes and accepts the Applicant’s submission that the traffic citations all occurred prior to the positive impact of substantial imprisonment and the rehabilitation process upon the Applicant, none required any Court attendance or mandatory loss of licence and no related proceedings for careless driving were issued.[60] They also occurred prior to the fatal offending which, the Applicant’s evidence suggests, has had a profound and ongoing impact upon him, leaving him with a real appreciation of the serious consequences of his actions as a driver.  

   [60] Applicant Statement in Reply lodged 12 October 2023, [3].

10. In the circumstances, the Tribunal finds the risk of reoffending to be low.

11. Whilst the Tribunal finds the nature of the offending to be serious, in balancing that against its finding that the risk of the Applicant reoffending is low, the Tribunal concludes that this primary consideration weighs in favour of revocation.

Family violence committed by the non-citizen

1. This consideration is not relevant to the facts pertaining to this review.  It therefore weighs neutrally regarding revocation. 

The strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia

1. Clause 8.3 of the Direction provides:

   (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.

   (2)In considering a non-citizen’s ties to Australia, decision-makers should give more weight to a non-citizen’s ties to his or her child and/or children who are Australian citizens, Australian permanent residents and/or people who have a right to remain in Australia indefinitely.

   (3)The strength, duration and nature of any family or social links generally with Australian citizens, Australian permanent residents and/or people who have a right to remain in Australia indefinitely.

   (4)Decision-makers must also consider the strength, nature and duration of any other ties that the non-citizen has to the Australian community. In doing so, decision-makers must have regard to:

   a)the length of time the non-citizen has resided in the Australian community, noting that:

   i.considerable weight should be given to the fact that a noncitizen has been ordinarily resident in Australia during and since their formative years, regardless of when their offending commenced and the level of that offending; and

   ii.more weight should be given to the time the non-citizen has resided in Australia where the non-citizen has contributed positively to the Australian community during that time; and

   iii.less weight should be given to the length of time spent in the Australian community where the non-citizen was not ordinarily resident in Australia during their formative years and the noncitizen began offending soon after arriving in Australia.

1. The Applicant’s challenging formative years between 13 and 19 years of age were spent in Lebanon where he was essentially ‘the man of the house’. As discussed above, this amplified the very close bond which now exists between the Applicant and his mother and six siblings, all of whom are either Australian citizens or permanent residents in Australia.[61] The health challenges of the Applicant’s father also underscore the Applicant’s role and important ongoing relationship to his family in Australia.[62] The evidence before the Tribunal supports the finding that his removal from Australia will have a devastating effect upon his mother and father and a negative impact of varying yet substantial degrees upon each of his six siblings, in particular 17-year-old B2.[63]

   [61] Exhibit A1, [23]; Exhibit A3 [3] and [10]; Exhibit A4 [3]; Exhibit A5 [3]; Exhibit A10 [2] and [4]; Exhibit R1, 590-591, 599-606, 620; ASFIC, [9], [100], [111].

   [62] Exhibit A6 1-2; Exhibit A9 [9].

   [63] Exhibit A5, [8].

2. The Applicant has remained extremely close to his parents, six siblings and nieces and nephews despite having been in prison since July 2017. It is evident that the Applicant will continue to play a significant role in all of their lives because of the high regard in which he is held within the family. He also has a strong connection with his uncle Mr. HA who holds him in very high regard, as his previous and potentially future employer.[64]

   [64] Exhibit A2, [3], [6].

3. The Respondent properly highlights the short period of time the Applicant was in Australia both prior to incurring the traffic citations and the date of the fatal accident and also points out the fact that any practical support to the Applicant’s family has been provided by other siblings since the Applicant’s imprisonment since 2017.[65] However, on balance, this does not detract from the emotional support the Applicant has provided whilst in prison and the further contribution the Applicant could and most likely would make to his close family if he is to remain in Australia. He has a unique and integral role within his family which has developed over 15 years, since he was 13. This is more significant where both his parents have deteriorating health and when the closeness of the family is considered.

   [65] RSFIC, [39] and [44].

4. The Applicant has no children of his own and is single with no other ties of substance.[66]

   [66] Exhibit A8, [32]-[34]; Exhibit A1, [8].

5. The Tribunal is satisfied that this primary consideration, in balancing the strength and nature of the ties against the limited time in Australia, weighs heavily in favour of revocation.

Best interests of minor children in Australia

1. Clause 8.4 of the Direction requires decision-makers to determine, where relevant, whether revocation is in the best interests of any minor children in Australia. This provision applies only if the child is, or would be, under 18 years old at the time when the application is decided. If there are two or more relevant children, the best interests of each child affected by the decision whether to revoke cancellation of a visa should be given individual consideration, to the extent that their interests may differ.

2. It is evident that the Applicant has played a quasi-parental role within his close-knit family, with obvious yet not inconsistent limitations whilst in prison, particularly in relation to his now 17-year-old brother B2, who was only 10 years old at the time of the accident. B2 has been and continues to be significantly impacted in a negative way by the restricted access he has to the Applicant and his general absence by reason of his imprisonment.

3. It is also evident that the Applicant’s role and relationship with his seven nieces and nephews is developing, of significance and ongoing. He has nurtured and maintained an involvement and connection with his nieces and nephews, albeit within the limitations of doing so whilst in prison.[67] Accepting that parents have the ultimate role in children’s upbringing, there is still an important avuncular role for the Applicant to play in the future in the lives of each of his seven nieces and nephews, and his brother B2.  Due to his position within the hierarchy of his family, both culturally and on the evidence, he has an important ongoing role to play in respect of such minors; a role which will be severely curtailed should he be returned to Lebanon.

   [67] Exhibit A1, [3]; Exhibit A3, [8]-[9].

4. The Tribunal considers this primary consideration to be significantly in favour of revocation.

Expectations of the Australian community

1. Clause 8.5 of the Direction states:

   (1)The 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.

   (2)In addition, visa cancellation or refusal, or non-revocation of the mandatory cancellation of a visa, may be appropriate simply because the nature of the character concerns or offences is such that the Australian community would expect that the person should not be granted or continue to hold a visa. In particular, the Australian community expects that the Australian Government can and should refuse entry to non-citizens, or cancel their visas, if they raise serious character concerns through conduct, in Australia or elsewhere, of the following kind:

   a)…

   b)…

   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;…

   (3)The above expectations of the Australian community apply regardless of whether the non-citizen poses a measureable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community.

   (4)This consideration is about the expectations of the Australian community as a whole, and in this respect, decision-makers should proceed on the basis of the Government’s views as articulated above, without independently assessing the community’s expectations in the particular case.

2. The Tribunal acknowledges and accepts that the Applicant’s offending resulted in ‘serious crimes’ against women but not intentionally so. Nonetheless the offending was serious with fatal consequences.

3. Clause 8.5(3) provides that the above expectations apply regardless of whether the non-citizen poses a measurable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community. As per cl 8.5(4), this consideration is ‘about the expectations of the Australian community as a whole’, and decision makers are to proceed based on the Government’s views as articulated in the Direction, without independently assessing the community’s expectations in a particular case.

4. The expectations of the Australian community as a whole are to be considered. Guidance is provided by the reasoning in FYBR v Minister for Home Affairs (2019) 272 FCR 454 at [66] and [91]: This is essentially a deeming provision with normative principles resulting in the Australian community expectation aligning with that of the executive government.

5. The Applicant has committed serious offences and the Respondent submits that the expectations of the Australian community weighs very heavily against revocation. The Applicant’s offending as a 20-year-old non-citizen constituted a clear disregard for Australian road rules and others using the roads. The consequences of the Applicant’s offending were grave indeed.

6. The Tribunal finds that this primary consideration weighs heavily against revocation.

OTHER CONSIDERATIONS

Legal consequences of the decision

1. In the event that the decision is affirmed the Applicant would be repatriated to Lebanon. The status of Lebanon, in respect of Australians intending to travel, was updated from ‘Reconsider your need to travel’ as at 16 October 2023 to ‘Do not travel’ on 28 October 2023.  At the time of writing these Reasons, the situation in Lebanon is not improving and it is impossible to predict whether it will worsen and if so to what extent.

2. It was submitted that in the event that the Applicant were to make a protection visa application in the future, he would be unsuccessful.[68] Whilst there may be some force in that submission this Tribunal is not in a position to predict or determine the outcome of any future applications.[69] The Tribunal accepts there is a risk the Applicant would face challenges and potential homelessness, generalised or targeted violence, inadequate healthcare particularly mental healthcare and unemployment if returned to Lebanon. It is possible that some of these challenges could be eased if family members in Australia sent money to him in Lebanon to assist. On the present evidence, it appears unlikely that any extended family members in Lebanon would assist.[70]

   [68] ASFIC, [119].

   [69] BFMV v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2021] FCAFC 199.

   [70] Exhibit A1, [19]; Exhibit A4, [9]; Exhibit A9, [10].

3. In light of the unfolding and evolving situation in Lebanon, it is appropriate the assessment of the Applicant’s protection claims be deferred to the more comprehensive and conclusive s 36A process that the Applicant has stated at hearing he would apply for, in the event it is necessary to do so.  At that time, his protection claims would be relevantly assessed first before consideration was given to any character or security concerns. Upon the presently available material this consideration carries neutral weight.

Extent of impediments if removed

1. Clause 9.2 of the Direction states:

   (1)Decision-makers must consider the extent of any impediments that the noncitizen 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 substantial language or cultural barriers; and

   c)any social, medical and/or economic support available to them in that country.

2. The Tribunal must consider how removal would affect the Applicant’s basic living standards in the context of what is available to other citizens of Lebanon, not against what is available in Australia.

3. The Applicant is 28 years old, physically fit (usually working out daily at the gym)[71] save for a hip labral tear injury which forthcoming surgery should resolve.[72] He also has mental health issues which require ongoing treatment for the foreseeable future.[73] His health is otherwise good. No substantial language or cultural barriers are apparent save for the limitation that he has been absent from Lebanon since 2015.

   [71] Exhibit R1, 436.

   [72] Exhibit A8, [39].

   [73] Exhibit A8, [36]-[38].

4. However, by reason of a fracture between his father’s family members remaining in Lebanon and other evidence regarding other extended family in Lebanon, the Applicant would have to start a new life on his own in Lebanon without familial support. The Tribunal is satisfied that the Applicant would have very limited social, medical and economic support available to him compared to other citizens of his age that had grown up only in Lebanon since birth, and had their families continuing to live with them in Lebanon. His ability to gain employment in Lebanon would be limited accordingly. Such a lack of supports could only be alleviated to a limited degree with any financial assistance which may come from Australian family members. If removed from Australia, the Applicant would lose the regular contact and support of his family and his integral role within the family would diminish by reason of distance and physical separation. This would also have a negative impact upon the Applicant’s mental health.[74]

   [74] Exhibit A8, [104].

5. It would be difficult for the Applicant to establish himself and maintain basic living standards particularly in light of the uncertain future of Lebanon due to current events in the region.  His mental health is likely to deteriorate if he is removed from Australia and separated from his immediate family supports. Accordingly, the Tribunal finds that this consideration weighs in favour of revocation. 

Impact on victims

1. There is no evidence enlivening this consideration and no submissions were made in respect of it.  This consideration is hence not enlivened and carries neutral weight.

Impact on Australian business interests

1. Whilst the Applicant faintly pressed that his uncle’s demolition business may be negatively impacted by his removal from Australia, in circumstances where the Applicant has not played any role in that business since July 2017, the Tribunal finds that this consideration carries neutral weight.

CONCLUSION

1. On balance, whilst the Tribunal acknowledges the expectations of the Australian community weigh heavily against revocation of the cancellation decision, having considered the countervailing primary and other considerations weighing in favour of revocation as discussed above, the Tribunal finds in favour of revocation. Therefore, the Tribunal is satisfied there is ‘another reason’ pursuant to the Act to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the visa.

I certify that the preceding 72 (seventy-two) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Mr A. Maryniak KC, Member

................................[sgd]........................................

Associate

Dated: 3 November 2023

Dates of hearing:	19 and 20 October 2023
Advocate for the Applicant:	Mr. Rob Melasecca
Solicitors for the Applicant:	Melasecca Kelly & Zayler
Advocate for the Respondent:	Ms. Shauna Roeger
Solicitors for the Respondent	Australian Government Solicitor

ANNEXURE A

Tendering Party	Description of Evidence	Exhibit Number
Respondent	Section 501 G Documents, G1 to G1 to G7 (paged 1 to 798)	R1
Respondent	Printout of Google map search of Lebanon dated 19 October 2023	R2
Respondent	Respondent’s Tender Bundle (paged 1 to 227)	R3
Applicant	Statement of Applicant dated 15 September 2023	A1
Applicant	Statement of Applicant’s uncle/employer HA dated 14 September 2023	A2
Applicant	Statement of Applicant’s elder sister S1 dated 15 September 2023	A3
Applicant	Statement of Applicant’s younger brother B1 dated 14 September 2023	A4
Applicant	Statement of Applicant’s younger brother B2 dated 14 September 2023	A5
Applicant	Report of Ramzi Mohammad (Psychologist) dated 17 September 2023	A6
Applicant	Statement of Ramzi Mohammad (Psychologist) dated 12 October 2023	A7
Applicant	Report of Naomi Cameron (Forensic Psychologist) dated 24 June 2023	A8
Applicant	Statement of Applicant’s father dated 15 September 2023	A9
Applicant	Statement of Applicant’s mother dated 15 September 2023	A10
Applicant	US Department of State Report 2022 Human Rights Practices - Lebanon	N/A
Applicant	US Department of State Report Religious Freedom 2022 - Lebanon	N/A
Applicant	Amnesty International Report 22-23	N/A
Applicant	DFAT Country Information Report Lebanon dated 26 June 2023	N/A
Applicant	Medical Report from Glenroy Justin Avenue Medical Centre	N/A
Applicant	Inside Out Program information	N/A
Applicant	L'Orient Today Article, 7 October 2023	N/A
Applicant	Mental Health in Lebanon, 17 August 2022	N/A
Applicant	Inside Out Program certificate	N/A
Applicant	Lebanon - latest update, Smartraveller	N/A