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

Ibrahim and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Migration) [2020] AATA 3822 (1 October 2020)
Division:GENERAL DIVISION
File Number(s): 2020/4175
Re:Samer Ibrahim
APPLICANT

AndMinister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs
RESPONDENT

DECISION
Tribunal:Member Rebecca Bellamy
Date:1 October 2020
Place:Brisbane

The decision under review is affirmed.
.........................[SGD]..............................................
Member Rebecca Bellamy
CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Non-revocation of mandatory cancellation of a Class WE Subclass 050 Bridging Visa E (General) 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. 79 – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth)
CASES
Afu v Minister for Home Affairs [2018] FCA 1311
FYBR v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCA 500; FCAFC 185
Gaspar v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCA 1166; (2016) 153 ALD 337
Marzano v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCAFC 66; (2017) 250 FCR 548
Minister for Home Affairs v Buadromo [2018] FCAFC 151
Suleiman v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 594
Uelese v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCA 348
YNQY v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCA 1466
SECONDARY MATERIAL
Direction No 79 – Visa refusal and cancellation under s501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under s501CA
REASONS FOR DECISION
Member Rebecca Bellamy
1 October 2020
THE ISSUE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL

The Applicant is a 44-year-old citizen of Lebanon[1] who relocated to Australia in July 2001[2] when he was 25 years old.
[1] Exhibit G1, Section 501 G-documents, G2, page 44.
[2] Ibid, page 51.
On 12 March 2019, a delegate of the Minister (“the Respondent”) mandatorily cancelled the Applicant’s Class WE Subclass 050 Bridging Visa E (General) visa (“visa”) under s 501(3A) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (“the Act”) on the basis that he did not pass the character test and he was serving a full time custodial sentence. In March and December 2019, the Applicant made written representations to the Respondent requesting revocation of the cancellation of his visa (“revocation request”). On 8 July 2020, the Respondent decided not to revoke the cancellation.
The Applicant subsequently lodged an application for review in this Tribunal on 13 July 2020. The Tribunal has jurisdiction to review that decision pursuant to s 500(1)(ba) of the Act.
The hearing of this application proceeded on 16 September 2020. The Applicant did not have legal representation. He gave evidence by video conference. The Tribunal also received the written evidence that is listed in the attached exhibit list, marked “Annexure A”.
LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK
Revocation of the mandatory cancellation of visas is governed by s 501CA(4) of the Act. Relevantly, this provides that:
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.
The Applicant made the representations required by s 501CA(4)(a) of the Act. Thus, the issue is whether the discretion to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant’s visa may be exercised. As a starting point, it is necessary to refer to the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia’s observations in Minister for Home Affairs v Buadromo:[3]
“…there has been some discussion in the authorities as to whether s 501CA(4) contains a residual discretion in the decision-maker by reason of the use of the word ‘may’ in the chapeau of the subsection, or whether the balancing of the factors favouring a refusal to revoke the cancellation is part of the one exercise of determining whether there is another reason the original decision should be revoked. The weight of authority in this Court favours the latter view…”[4]
[3] [2018] FCAFC 151.
[4] Ibid, [21], citing, inter alia, Gaspar v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCA 1166, (2016) 153 ALD 337, [38] (North ACJ); Marzano v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCAFC 66, (2017) 250 FCR 548, [31] (Collier J, with whom Logan and Murphy JJ agreed).
There are therefore two issues presently before the Tribunal:
·whether the Applicant passes the character test; and
·whether there is another reason why the decision to cancel the Applicant’s visa should be revoked.
If the Applicant succeeds on either ground, the weight of authority indicates that the Tribunal must find that the cancellation of the Applicant’s visa must be revoked.[5]
[5] Ibid.
Does the Applicant Pass the Character Test?
The character test is defined in s 501(6) of the Act. Under s 501(6)(a), a person will not pass the character test if they have “a substantial criminal record”. This phrase, in turn, is relevantly defined in s 501(7)(c), which provides that a person will have a substantial criminal record if they have “been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more”.
The Applicant has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of five years with a non-parole period of three years and three months. Accordingly, there is no doubt that the Applicant has a “substantial criminal record” and, therefore, he does not pass the character test. He cannot rely on s 501CA(4)(b)(i) of the Act for the mandatory cancellation of his visa to be revoked.
Is There Another Reason Why the Cancellation of the Applicant’s Visa Should be Revoked?
In considering whether to exercise the discretion in s 501CA(4) of the Act, the Tribunal is bound by s 499(2A) to comply with any directions made under the Act. In this case, Direction No 79 – visa refusal and cancellation under s501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under s501CA (“the Direction”) has application.
For the purposes of deciding whether or not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of a non-citizen’s visa, paragraph 6.3 of the Direction,[6] contains several principles that must inform a decision maker’s application of the considerations in paragraphs 7 and 8.
[6] Reproduced below at paragraph 104.
Paragraph 7(1) of the Direction provides that:
Informed by the principles in paragraph 6.3 above, a decision-maker:
…
b) must take into account the considerations in Part C, in order to determine whether the mandatory cancellation of a non-citizen’s visa will be revoked.[7]
[7] The Direction, sub-paragraph 7(1)(b).
Paragraph 8(1) of the Direction provides that:
Decision-makers must take into account the primary and other considerations relevant to the individual case. There are differing considerations depending on whether a delegate is considering whether to refuse or grant a visa to a visa Applicant, cancel the visa of the visa holder, or revoke the mandatory cancellation of the visa. These different considerations are articulated in Parts A, B and C...
Part C provides for the decision-maker to take into account “Primary Considerations”[8] and “Other considerations”.[9] The Primary Considerations are set out in paragraph 13.(2) of the Direction (contained in Part C) and they are:
(a)Protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct;
(b)The best interests of minor children in Australia; and
(c)Expectations of the Australian community.
[8] The Direction, paragraph 13.
[9] The Direction, paragraph 14.
The Other Considerations are set out in paragraph 14(1) of the Direction (contained in Part C) and they are:
(a)International non-refoulement obligations;
(b)Strength, nature and duration of ties;
(c)Impact on Australian business interests;
(d)Impact on victims; and
(e)Extent of impediments if removed.
I note the importance of the Other Considerations being “other” considerations, as opposed to “secondary” considerations. As noted by Colvin J in Suleiman v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection:[10]
“…Direction 65 [now Direction 79] makes clear that an evaluation is required in each case as to the weight to be given to the 'other considerations' (including non‑refoulement obligations). It requires both primary and other considerations to be given 'appropriate weight'. Direction 65 does provide that, generally, primary considerations should be given greater weight. They are primary in the sense that absent some factor that takes the case out of that which pertains 'generally' they are to be given greater weight. However, Direction 65 does not require that the other considerations be treated as secondary in all cases. Nor does it provide that primary considerations are 'normally' given greater weight. Rather, Direction 65 concerns the appropriate weight to be given to both 'primary' and 'other considerations'. In effect, it requires an inquiry as to whether one or more of the other considerations should be treated as being a primary consideration or the consideration to be afforded greatest weight in the particular circumstances of the case because it is outside the circumstances that generally apply.”[11]
[10] [2018] FCA 594.
[11] Ibid, [23].
BACKGROUND AND OFFENDING
The Applicant was born in Lebanon. He married there and had a child, a son who is now 21 years old. The marriage ended before he came to Australia in 2001. His father, all five of his siblings and his son live in Lebanon. His mother is deceased.
The Applicant has a substantial criminal history that started with minor traffic infringements and some property offending and culminated in the very serious offence that triggered the mandatory cancellation of his visa.
Traffic offences
On 4 September 2003, the Applicant committed the following traffic infringements:
·     “drive using hand-held mobile phone”;
·     “fail to display ‘L’ on car as required”; and
·     “learner not accompanied by driver/police officer/tester”.[12]
[12] Exhibit G1, Section 501 G-documents, G2, pages 21 to 22; Exhibit G2, Supplementary Section 501 G-Documents, SG1, page 306.
In November 2004, he committed the offence of “be carried in conveyance taken w/o consent of owner”[13].
[13] Exhibit G2, Supplementary Section 501 G-Documents, SG1, page 306.
In November 2006, he committed:
·“negligent driving (not occasioning death/gbh)”; and
·“not give particulars after crash” (x 2).[14]
[14] Ibid, page 319.
The Tribunal asked him about that offending episode and he merely responded that it was a long time ago.[15]
[15] Transcript, page 46, lines 28 to 32
The sentences imposed for the offences set out above included fines and a three-year good behaviour bond.
In 2007, he was sentenced to fines and disqualification for:
·“drive on road etc while license suspended”;
·“not stop at stop line at red light”;
·“be carried in conveyance taken w/o consent of owner” (committed in 2005)[16]; and
·“drive on road etc while license suspended”.
[16] Exhibit G2, Supplementary Section 501 G-Documents, SG1, page 307; Exhibit G1, Section 501 G-documents, G2, page 21.
In addition to those offences that were dealt with by courts and appear in the Applicant’s criminal history, the Applicant was caught speeding on several occasions. Between 2003 and 2005 he was caught speeding by more than 15 km/h on four occasions, and speeding by more than 45 km/h on one occasion. In 2010 and 2011 he was caught speeding by more than 20 km/h on three occasions.[17] He was sentenced to fines for these infringements.
Criminal offences
[17] Exhibit G2, Supplementary Section 501 G-Documents, SG1, pages 318 to 321.
On 24 March 2005 the Applicant received stolen property. He subsequently, on 12 March 2007, failed to appear in accordance with his bail undertaking. He was ultimately convicted of both offences on 3 March 2008. He appealed against the severity of each sentence. The sentence for receiving stolen property remained at 24 months imprisonment, and the non-parole period was set at 15 months. For failing to appear in accordance with a bail undertaking, he was sentenced, on appeal, to a 12-month good behaviour bond. He had been in custody since 3 December 2007. After being released from prison in March 2009 he returned to live with his wife and children.[18]
[18] Transcript, page 18, Lines 16 to 18
On 22 February 2010 the Applicant and a co-offender dealt with stolen property. On 29 June 2011, he was convicted by a jury of:
“dispose of property, namely a large quantity of boxes of Arnott’s biscuits, the property of Arnott’s Biscuits Limited, which said property had before then been stolen outside New South Wales, namely in the State of Queensland, knowing the said property to have been stolen.”[19]
[19] Exhibit G1, Section 501 G-documents, G2, page 34.
On 7 October 2010, he again received stolen property.[20]
[20] Ibid, page 346.
In November 2011, he was sentenced to imprisonment for four years and four months, backdated to 17 June 2011, with a non-parole period of two years and four months.
The Transcript of the learned Judge’s sentencing remarks included the following:[21]
[21] Ibid, G2, pages 34 to 42.
“The Crown case was presented as a case of joint criminal enterprise by which principle they each assume responsibility for the criminality of the conduct of the other in the course of the crime. There are some differences in what each did, but by and large, the culpability of each of these two men is approximately the same for the objective criminality involved.
The value of the truckload of biscuits which was stolen was roughly $27,500. The Arnott’s biscuits were located in a storage yard in Queensland, about which of course somebody must have known. The offender Ibrahim hired a Toyota Tarago vehicle for purposes associated with the offence and it may or may not have been used to travel to Queensland and back in order to facilitate possession of the stolen property…the jury found, and I have no doubt, that both these offenders had knowledge of the theft of the property at least immediately before or at the time it was stolen in Queensland.
A vehicle by the name of an Isuzu truck used for the purpose of actually transporting the load of biscuits from Queensland down to Sydney and that was done. Again, I do not know whether one of the offenders was driving the truck but certainly somebody was and I have no doubt that they knew about it. So the biscuits were transported to Sydney and these two men before me today were in possession of a large part of the stolen shipment within a very short time after the theft.
The police would seem to have had some information about this matter and by dint of fairly effective policing work they were on the job at a point when the movement of most of the biscuits from the Isuzu truck into a storage warehouse in Kingsgrove was being affected (sic). Accordingly it was possible for video footage to be obtained of both the offenders in association with this disposal. Both of them went to the warehouse to facilitate the disposal of the stolen property. They supervised or assisted in the unloading of the stolen biscuits…
…
… there is a principle of law that receiving may be regarded more seriously than larceny, and that is reflected in the different penalties that are applicable. Since at least the early nineteenth century receiving and its kindred offences in the modern form of disposing and so on, are punishable more heavily than larceny. Of course there will be many particular cases where this is not so, but in general there is a significant penalty for receiving. The Crown case was not put on the basis that the offenders participated in the actual theft in Queensland (they have not been charged with theft) but as Courts have said over the centuries if there were fewer receivers there would be fewer thieves. General deterrence is important in sentencing in a case such as this.
… It was a planned offence. People who receive stolen goods such as this for on-sale to the public plainly do so for commercial gain. It is not an offence that springs forth out of some sudden onrush of anger or passion. It is par excellence an offence of planning….
It is significant that the offence was committed in company. Offences committed in company are normally regarded by the law as more dangerous than offences committed individually, although again there will be many exceptions to that principle.
I note that both offenders have records of previous convictions and it is not my task here (and indeed I am not permitted) to sentence them again for prior offences committed by them. I would not do that, it would be unfair. However, in each case the fact that similar offences have been proved against them previously and that they have been punished for them demonstrates that in each case the individual in question is having difficulty in learning a lesson…
Let me make it perfectly clear that these are offences for which nothing other than a sentence of full time custody is appropriate.”
In December 2011, the Applicant was sentenced to nine months imprisonment for the “receive property-theft = serious indictable offence > $5000” that he committed in October 2010. He unsuccessfully appealed the severity of that sentence.
On 17 December 2013 the Applicant was released on parole.[22] He returned to live in his family home with his wife and children. On 1 February 2014, while still on parole, the Applicant was involved in a scheme to destroy a commercial premise by fire for the purpose of insurance fraud. He was arrested and remanded in custody on 17 July 2014. As a result of the arrest, his parole was revoked on 31 July2014.[23]
[22] Exhibit G2, Supplementary Section 501 G-Documents, SG3, page 381.
[23] Exhibit G1, Section 501 G-documents, G2, pages 24 to 26
While he was in prison, his wife ended their relationship.[24]
[24] Transcript, page 30.
As the Applicant was serving a sentence of imprisonment, his visa was mandatorily cancellation on 9 June 2015.[25] This cancellation arose from the offence involving the Arnott’s biscuits and the sentence of imprisonment imposed for that.
[25] Exhibit G1, Section 501 G-documents, G4, page 172.
On 21 October 2015, he completed his parole period for that offence and he was released on bail.[26] That day he was taken into Immigration Detention.[27] While in Immigration Detention, the Applicant used methamphetamine and became addicted to it. He stated that he started using it because family issues lead to depression and he thought he needed something to help him forget and relax.[28] After the Applicant made representations as to why the cancellation should be revoked, the Respondent revoked it on 5 October 2016,[29] and the Applicant was released from Immigration Detention.[30] I note that, at the time the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant’s visa was revoked, he was regularly using an illicit drug. I do not have before me a copy of the Applicant’s request for revocation and I cannot tell whether he lodged it after he had started using methamphetamine, but I do have the Respondent’s internal revocation memorandum,[31] which was helpfully provided by the Respondent’s legal representative after an issue relating to that revocation was raised by the Applicant in his written submissions. That memorandum, not surprisingly, makes no reference to the Applicant being a methamphetamine addict.
[26] Exhibit G2, Supplementary Section 501 G-Documents, SG3, page 381.
[27] Exhibit G1, Section 501 G-documents, G2, page 27.
[28] Transcript, page 11, lines 30 to 37.
[29] Exhibit G1, Section 501 G-documents, G4, page 172.
[30] Ibid, G2, page 27.
[31] Exhibit R2, Revocation Memorandum dated 5 October 2016.

After his release from Immigration Detention in 2016, the Applicant returned to the family home with his wife, with whom he had reconciled.[32] He initially told the Tribunal that he immediately stopped using methamphetamine for the benefit of his children and to start a new life.[33] However, he later said he continued to use methamphetamine, and he was using it around twice a week. He said he gave up methamphetamine completely two weeks after his wife again separated from him.[34] That occurred in 2017. In a letter included in his revocation request in 2019 he explained that, because he was using “ice”, he became paranoid and accused his wife of cheating and this resulted in him having to leave the family home.[35]
[32] Transcript, page 11, lines 40 to 44; page 30.
[33] Transcript, page 11, lines 14 to 24.
[34] Transcript, page 33.
[35] Exhibit G1, Section 501 G-documents, G2, page 66
In 2018, the Applicant was found guilty in a Judge alone trial of “intentionally or recklessly destroying premises by fire where there was more than $15,000 worth of damage”.[36] On 23 January 2019 he was sentenced to imprisonment for five years commencing on 1 November 2016 with a non-parole period of three years and three months.[37] In passing sentence, Hunt J said:
[36] Ibid, page 23.
[37] Ibid, page 20.
“In short this offender had some telephone contact with Mr Abraham and with Mr Nasser in advance of Mr Nasser and Mr Ibrahim attending, on the early evening of 1 February 2014, premises in…Regent’s Park, where there was a business…that was part-owned and managed by Josh Abraham.
This offender, at the apparent direction of Mr Abraham, removed stock from the business premises into vehicles which were ultimately driven away. Thereafter, on closed-circuit television, this offender was observed with gloves on his hands assisting Mr Nasser who was undertaking actions that, on my determination, were consistent with covering up activation sensors as part of the alarm system at the grocery store.
I was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Mr Ibrahim was a participant in a joint criminal enterprise with Mr Abraham and Mr Nasser that resulted in the setting fire to the premises, and significant damage being occasioned, in the early hours of 2 February 2014. There is no evidence that Mr Ibrahim was involved in the ignition of the fire…
At the time that the premises were ignited, and Mr Nasser and other unknown associates left the premises at speed, the premises were quickly engulfed by flame and smoke, a number of residents who lived in residential premises above the grocer area needed to leap to safety, a number of them suffered smoke inhalation injuries and were treated in hospital, but happily there were no permanent damages (sic) occasioned to those people.
It must have been a terrifying event for each of those people and I detail the evidence about that in more detail in the sentence remarks that relate to Mr Abraham.
Mr Nasser was sentenced on the basis that he was reckless as to the existence of people living upstairs. In these matters I am satisfied, given Mr Ibrahim’s familiarity with the rear section of the premises by having driven into that area, later driven out, and been in that area from time to time loading goods from the retail premises into a vehicle, that he too was reckless as to the existence of people living upstairs.
I am not in a position to make a finding beyond reasonable doubt that he actually knew that. Similarly there is no evidence of any financial reward, if any, paid or payable, to Mr Ibrahim because of his involvement in this matter.
The offence, to my mind, is aggravated because it was done without regard to public safety. The offender’s record of previous convictions, to which I will return to, disentitles him to leniency but does not otherwise aggravate the objective seriousness of the matter. The offence was committed in breach of conditional liberty, that is that Mr Ibrahim was on parole at the time of the commission of the offence…
… the objective seriousness of the offence is above the mid-range but not reaching the high range…As I have said, his record disentitles him to leniency and in combination with other matters persuades me that he has moderate prospects of rehabilitation. I’m not in a position to find that he is unlikely to re-offend.
…
Community Corrections assesses Mr Ibrahim as being a low to medium risk of reoffending. Mr Ibrahim denied his involvement in the offence to the author of the pre-sentence report…It is noted…that Mr Ibrahim continued to profess his innocence and did not believe that he was part of the plan to burn down the premises. That said, in an unsworn document before the Court dated 3 September 2018, Mr Ibrahim accepts the Court’s decision in relation to his criminal liability. He blames himself for being in his current circumstances and relevantly apologises for the harm caused to the community on victims, “No-one deserves what happened and I do not wish that upon anyone”… I am prepared to find that Mr Ibrahim is on the balance of probabilities at this stage and since September last year remorseful, although that remorse was relatively late in coming.”[38]
[Underlining added]
[38] Ibid, pages 24 to 28.
His Honour noted, in the sentencing remarks, that the Applicant had assisted the police by providing “valuable intelligence material” that “meant that the investigation was able to focus in a particular way which had the effect both of strengthening the material available against Mr Ibrahim but also strengthening the material against Mr Abraham and the prospects of successfully prosecuting that person increased”.[39] In relation to this assistance, the Applicant told the Tribunal that the police had approached him and that he was a suspect at that point.[40]
[39] Ibid, page 30.
[40] Transcript, page 45, lines 30 to 46.
A document prepared by the Crown, setting out the case against the Applicant, noted that he was caught on CCTV footage assisting the other two men at various times between 8.13pm and 9.38pm on the night of the arson.[41] This is significant as it shows that the Applicant knew the fire would be lit at a time of night when it is dark and it is assumed that most people are in their homes, increasing the importance of checking whether there were residential dwellings above or near the shop.
[41] Exhibit G2, Supplementary Section 501 G-Documents, SG3, page 399.
The Applicant said he wanted nothing to do with the fire and that he did not benefit from it in any way. He said he was asked by his co-offender to put “some stuff’ in his car and take it out of the shop. He gave it back to his co-offender the next day.[42]
[42] Transcript, page 28, lines 11 to 15.
He said that he had no idea that people lived above the shop.[43] The learned sentencing Judge found him to have been reckless as to that fact and I accept that finding. When the Applicant was asked if he enquired about whether there would be any danger to the surrounding buildings or people when he realised the plan was to set fire to the shop, he said he thought it was only going to be a small fire. He said:
“(Indistinct) insurance - a little - a little fire - to claim his insurance money. Because the business wasn’t running good then he was getting the threat (sic) by some other community members. That was his - his excuse. But his main goal - his main point was that to - to collect the million dollars.[44]
[43] Transcript, page 43.
[44] Transcript, page 44, lines 10 to 15.
When asked if he enquired about the safety risk to other people, he said he could not remember.[45]
[45] Transcript, page 44, lines 1 to19.
I do not accept that the Applicant thought the fire would only be small given his earlier evidence that the owner planned to make an insurance claim for a million dollars, and his evidence that the shop was three stories high.[46]
[46] Transcript, page 43, line 37.
PRIMARY CONSIDERATION A – PROTECTION OF THE AUSTRALIAN COMMUNITY
In considering this Primary Consideration A, paragraph 13.1(1) of the Direction compels decision-makers to have regard to the principle that the Government is committed to protecting the Australian community from harm as a result of criminal activity or other serious conduct by non-citizens. This paragraph stipulates that 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 applicable to Primary Consideration A, paragraph 13.1(2) of the Direction requires decision-makers to 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 Applicant’s Conduct to Date
When assessing the nature and seriousness of a non-citizen’s criminal offending or other conduct to date, paragraph 13.1.1(1) of the Direction specifies that decision-makers must have regard to a number of factors, including:
(a)The principle that, without limiting the range of offences that may be considered serious, violent and/or sexual crimes are viewed very seriously;
(b)The principle that crimes of a violent nature against women or children are viewed very seriously, regardless of the sentence imposed;
(c)The principle that 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, are serious;
(d)Subject to paragraph (b) above, the sentence imposed by the Court for a crime or crimes;
(e)The frequency of the non-citizen’s offending and whether there is any trend of increasing seriousness;
(f)The cumulative effect of repeated offending;
(g)Whether the non-citizen has provided false or misleading information to the department, including by not disclosing prior criminal offending;
(h)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);
(i)Where the non-citizen is in Australia, that a crime committed while the non-citizen was in Immigration Detention; during an escape from Immigration Detention; or after the non-citizen escaped from Immigration Detention, but before the non-citizen was taken into Immigration Detention again is serious, as is an offence against section 197A of the Act.
The Applicant’s offending broadly falls into three categories: traffic offences, property offences and the most recent offence involving fraud and arson. His numerous traffic offences not only include offences of dishonesty (riding in stolen vehicles), but also offences that are of the kind that tend to increase the risk of a collision, thus demonstrating a disregard for public safety and the rules that govern our roads. The offending episode where he drove negligently and failed to give his particulars after a collision is especially demonstrative of this attitude. The Applicant’s explanation for his traffic offences was that he was an “idiot” and “careless”.[47] That is an understatement. While the traffic offending is reasonably dated, the Applicant’s disregard for public safety was noted by Hunt J when sentencing the Applicant for his most recent offending.
[47] Transcript, page 46, Lines 20 to 38.
There was an escalation in the seriousness of the Applicant’s offending with three receiving stolen property offences between 2005 and 2011. Each of those three offences attracted a lengthy sentence of imprisonment, the first being two years, the second being four years and four months, and the third being nine months. Each sentence included a substantial non-parole period. These sentences of imprisonment reflect the seriousness of the offending on each occasion. As Woods J pointed out in relation to the theft of $27,500 worth of biscuits, the Applicant had knowledge of the theft of the biscuits and of their movement from Queensland to Sydney, and:
“It was a planned offence. People who receive stolen goods such as this for on-sale to the public plainly do so for commercial gain. It is not an offence that springs forth out of some sudden onrush of anger or passion. It is par excellence an offence of planning…”[48]
[48] Exhibit G1, Section 501 G-documents, G2, page 36.
Despite having been incarcerated on two previous occasions, and despite being on parole, the Applicant then became involved in a joint criminal enterprise involving arson and insurance fraud. This represents his most serious offending, and it attracted a sentence of five years imprisonment.
In relation to that offending, the Applicant knew he was taking goods from the shop for a fraudulent purpose, being that the owner would claim they had been destroyed in the fire but in fact retain possession of them. Hunt J found that he was reckless as to the existence of people living above the shop and that he acted in disregard of public safety. In addition to the specific risk to persons living above the shop, the fire posed a general risk to members of the community and firefighters. The potential for the fire to cause injury, death or damage to other properties is obvious. As it happened, no-one was killed or permanently injured but residents in the units above had to jump to safety and some were hospitalised with smoke inhalation injuries.[49]
[49] Exhibit G2, Supplementary Section 501 G-Documents, SG3, page 402.
Overall, the Applicant has been sentenced to a total of 12 years and one month imprisonment. The Applicant’s offending shows a longstanding disregard for the law, a disregard for the safety of members of the Australian community and a preparedness to commit serious crimes despite the threat of imprisonment.
I do not consider factors (a) to (c) or (g) to (i) of paragraph 13.1.1(1) of the Direction apply to the Applicant’s offending or circumstances.
The rest of the relevant sub-paragraphs of paragraph 13.1.1(1) of the Direction, in their totality, weigh heavily against revocation of the cancellation of the Applicant’s visa.
The Risk to the Australian Community Should the Applicant Commit Further Offences or Engage in Other Serious Conduct
Paragraph 13.1.2(1) provides that in considering the risk to the Australian community, a decision-maker must have regard to the two following factors on a cumulative basis:
- paragraph 13.1.2(1)(a) requires me to consider the nature of the harm to individuals or the Australian community should the non-citizen engage in further criminal or other serious conduct; and
- paragraph 13.1.2(1)(b) requires me to consider the likelihood of the non-citizen engaging in further criminal or other serious conduct, taking into account available information and evidence on the risk of the non-citizen reoffending.
Nature of harm should the Applicant engage in further criminal or other serious conduct
Given the Applicant’s disregard for public safety, evident in his traffic offending and the involvement in the attempted insurance fraud, I am satisfied that any further offending by the Applicant of any kind could well involve a risk to the safety of members of the Australian community. It was by sheer good fortune that the people in the units above the shop were awake and physically able to escape the fire. The harm from further traffic offending or from further involvement in the deliberate large-scale destruction of property includes physical injury or even death.
The harm from dealing in stolen property is primarily that it fuels theft of property. The harm flowing from theft against individuals includes financial loss, loss of items of personal or sentimental value and a sense of violation. The harm flowing from theft against businesses includes commercial losses and damage to property. The harm from financial crime, such as insurance fraud, tends to adversely affect the community as a whole in the form of higher premiums (or other costs) and a greater degree of scrutiny applied to honest claimants.
Overall, the harm from further offending should the Applicant engage in further criminal or other serious conduct is serious and potentially catastrophic.
Likelihood of engaging in further criminal or other serious conduct
In the Applicant’s revocation request form, in response to a question asking what factors helped to explain his offending, he said that gambling led him to be in a lot of debt and he started suffering from anxiety and depression.[50] He told the Tribunal that he had had a gambling addiction, primarily involving poker machines.[51] He said he would gamble whenever he had the money, after paying for family expenses, and that gambling was the main reason he got involved in criminal activities. He engaged in crime to obtain money to gamble and to pay gambling debts. He recalled doing a gambling course in 2009 which he said did not help.[52] He later said that he used to send money to his parents in Lebanon to take care of his son during the time when he was gambling.[53]
[50] Exhibit G1, Section 501 G-documents, G2, page 58.
[51] Transcript, page 7.
[52] Transcript, page 22, Lines 19 to 21.
[53] Transcript, page 39, Lines 20 to 34.
The Applicant told the Tribunal that he had received the load of stolen biscuits because he was desperate for money to gamble.[54] He said that after he was released from jail in December 2013 his gambling problem was not as bad as it had previously been because he had started to become more responsible towards his family and children and he had chosen to become a better person. He had a job that he loved and was, in his words, a “hard-working man, a family man”[55]. In his revocation request he said, after being released from prison in 2013, he made a promise to his wife and children that he would not leave them, but he returned to gambling.[56] He told the Tribunal that he did a gambling course in 2013 called “The First Bet” and has not done any courses since then. Instead he uses his “inner strength” to face any challenge in life and to become a better, responsible person.[57]
[54] Transcript, page 23, Lines 7 to 12.
[55] Transcript, page 27.
[56] Exhibit G1, Section 501 G-documents, G2, page 64.
[57] Transcript, page 32, Lines 33 to 44.
When asked why he became involved with the attempted insurance fraud, he said it was because his co-offender was part of the same community - they used to live in the same area in Lebanon and they knew each other from a long time ago.[58] He said he wanted nothing to do with it but he could not say no because he felt embarrassed to reject anyone from that community of friends. He said he did not help to burn the shop and was not there when it happened. However, he conceded that he knew the plan was to burn down the shop.[59]
[58] Transcript, page 28, lines 19 to 20.
[59] Transcript, page 28.
I note that neither gambling nor a sense of obligation explains the Applicant’s traffic offences, which he explained as him being “careless” and “an idiot”.
The Applicant said that the day he got arrested (for his involvement in the arson/insurance fraud) was the most devastating day of his life,[60] and that he has had a lot of depression in the last six or seven years.[61] He said he had “a couple” of sessions with a counsellor for psychological issues in 2014.[62]
[60] Transcript, page 27, lines 27 to 29.
[61] Transcript, page 24, lines 10 to 13.
[62] Transcript, page 33, lines 1 to 2.
I have before me a report by Mr Sam Borenstein, clinical psychologist, dated 31 August 2018.[63] This report contains some inaccuracies, such as the years when the Applicant was incarcerated and an assertion that the Applicant was granted refugee status by the Australian government, so I have some concerns about its reliability. Mr Borenstein reported that the Applicant told him that he stopped gambling when he went to prison and had not gambled since. He reported a traumatic childhood in Lebanon defined by civil war. He described his life before his arrest in July 2014 as “very good” and then it became “a nightmare”. He told Mr Borenstein that by leaving the shop before the fire started, he considered that he was not involved in the fire and had done nothing wrong. I note that the Applicant’s reported assertion that he had done nothing wrong seems to ignore his involvement in disabling the shop’s alarm and moving goods so his co-offender could fraudulently claim they had been destroyed.
[63] Exhibit G2, Supplementary Section 501 G-Documents, SG3, pages 357 to 364.

Mr Borenstein reported the Applicant describing interrupted sleep, nightmares and intrusive thoughts regarding trauma in Lebanon. Mr Borenstein diagnosed the Applicant with Chronic Adjustment Disorder with Mixed Anxiety and Depressive Mood and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder stemming from his childhood in war-torn Lebanon. The Applicant has not undergone any counselling or taken any medication for any psychological condition/s since this report.
The Applicant told the Tribunal, about that time:
“Yes, I was going through a hard time, I was off work, wasn’t working, I couldn’t support the family back in Lebanon, my son, I couldn’t support him because I was off work for a couple of months and I was worried to get sent back to jail after deciding to get on the right track. I didn’t want my life to be interrupted again by prison, of (sic) court, of any kind of that path, and the family issues as well, that was the main reason for me going through depression, depression time.[64]
[64] Transcript, page 63, lines 1 to 20
In a Pre-sentence report, in September 2018, the Applicant was assessed to be a low to medium risk of reoffending. The author of the report used the Level of Service Inventory – Revised (LSI-R) which was described as an actuarial risk assessment/needs tool.[65] I do not have a more current psychological report or expert risk assessment before me.
[65] Exhibit G2, Supplementary Section 501 G-Documents, SG3, pages 354 to 355
The Applicant asserted that he poses zero risk of re-offending.[66] He said, in his revocation request, he is a different person today to the person he was at the start of his last period of incarceration because he has changed his morals and values. He said his goal in life was to get his family back together.[67] In a letter to the Tribunal, dated 11 September 2020,[68] he said
“I have messed up in the past by breaking the law and have been silly, irresponsible and careless person, but that was in the past, we’re all human beings and we all make some mistakes my errors being pretty bad I admit and do regret.
As you will become aware from my old submissions I had a very serious and strong heart attack. The heart attack in some strange way I’m thankful for; it was the biggest ever wake- up call in my entire life. So I decided to turn this into a positive and I worked towards a healthier life style. Fortunately I’ve always had some strength and had a strong will. This too obviously has become a motivating factor in my life and it also ties in with my motivation I get from my children.
[66] Transcript page 66, lines 40 to 43.
[67] Exhibit G1, Section 501 G-documents, G2, Page 68
[68] Exhibit A5, Statement of the Applicant dated 11 September 2020.
The Applicant said that in Immigration Detention drugs are readily available but he does not give in to temptation and does not use drugs.[69]
[69] Transcript, page 34, lines 45 to 48
I have before me some letters of support that appear to have been prepared for the Presiding Judge in the 2018 sentencing proceedings and some letters of support that were prepared for this matter. With the exception of letters from a Mr and Mrs Issa, they broadly assert that the Applicant is of good character and/or note that the Applicant is committed to change or that he has changed. Given the Applicant’s history of offending, I question the judgment of anyone who describes him as being of good character. Further, his adult step-daughter displayed an even more concerning lapse in judgment in the following passages of her letter, in which she placed the blame for the cancellation of the Applicant’s visa on the Respondent rather than the Applicant:
“…by doing this you guys are creating a massive gap and putting us all through a difficult time for the rest of our lives…
You guys already have created mental health issues in my sister [name redacted] and my little brother [name redacted] and myself too. We are all very upset and worried and you guys have created a fear in the heart of our Australian family of losing our father forever.”[70]
[70] Exhibit A8, Statement of the Applicant’s Stepdaughter and Daughter, undated.
I give very little weight to these letters of support and I have little confidence in the ability of any of these people to act as protective factors should the Applicant’s visa be returned to him.
The Applicant remains separated from his wife and she has not provided a letter of support. If the Applicant’s visa is returned to him, he plans to live with a friend he has known since childhood, Mr Issa, and Mr Issa’s wife. They have each written letters of support acknowledging the Applicant’s offending in a general sense and pledging their support.[71] The Applicant also intends to get work in the construction industry and he has provided a letter that purports to be a job offer from a construction company.[72] The signature block merely says “Director, Mohamad” which does not inspire confidence that it is a genuine business or a genuine offer. However, I am satisfied that the Applicant was able to obtain casual work in the construction industry over several years and he would be able to do so again. I am satisfied that the Applicant would have stable accommodation and at least casual employment, however he had both those things previously when he committed offences.
[71] Exhibit A6, Statement of Mr Issa, undated and Exhibit A7 Statement of Mrs Issa, undated.
[72] Exhibit A10, Letter of Support of the Director of GTR Construction Group dated 7 August 2020.
The Applicant told the Tribunal that he did not plan to get treatment for his psychological, drug or gambling issues. Instead, he said his children are a big part of his motivation in life.[73] The Applicant’s step-daughter has been a part of his life since 2005 at the latest, his biological daughter was born in 2006, and his biological son was born in 2010. That is, he has committed serious offences despite having children.
[73] Transcript, page 37, lines 10 to 19
The Applicant has abstained from drugs since sometime in 2017, and he has avoided them in Immigration Detention despite them being readily available, according to him. I am not so concerned with the Applicant’s illegal drug use as there is no evidence that it previously led him to commit other crimes.
The Applicant was living in the community between October 2016 and September 2018. Between an unknown time in 2017 and September 2018, he did not offend. However, this alone does not persuade me that the Applicant is successfully rehabilitated as he has gone for lengthy periods before without offending such as between March 2009 and February 2010, and between October 2010 and June 2011.
The Applicant committed the property offences to acquire money because of his gambling addiction. He told Mr Borenstein he had not gambled since he went to prison. It appears that he was referring to his parole being revoked in July 2014.. The Applicant had a gambling addiction for many years, he has had minimal treatment for it, and he does not intend to seek treatment.
Importantly the Applicant did not participate in the attempted insurance fraud for financial gain but because he felt he could not refuse a request from his co-offender.
The Applicant was diagnosed with some severe psychological conditions in 2018 when he said he was going through a difficult time. He said his mental health tends to suffer when he is in a difficult situation, and that he has not taken any medication for depression, anxiety or post-traumatic stress because he does not like medication.[74]
[74] Transcript, page 50.
The Applicant has previously resolved to abstain from offending: he said when he was released from prison in 2013, he promised not to leave his family again. Since he was assessed as having a low to medium risk of re-offending in September 2018, he has not undergone treatment for any psychological conditions or for any of the factors that predisposed him to offend, being the gambling addiction and a sense of obligation to comply with the wishes of others in his community. Since that risk assessment, he has been in the highly structured environments of prison and Immigration Detention. I am not persuaded by the evidence before me that the Applicant presents a lower risk of re-offending now than he did in September 2018.
I find that there is a low to medium risk that the Applicant will engage in further offending of the kind he has previously engaged in.
Conclusion: Primary Consideration A
Primary Consideration A weighs heavily against revocation of the cancellation of the Applicant’s visa.
PRIMARY CONSIDERATION B: THE BEST INTERESTS OF MINOR CHILDREN IN AUSTRALIA
Paragraph 13.2(1) of the Direction compels a decision-maker to make a determination about whether revocation is in the best interests of a child who may be affected by cancellation of the Applicant’s visa. Paragraphs 13.2(2) and 13.2(3) respectively contain further stipulations. The former provides that for their interests to be considered, the relevant child (or children) must be under 18 years of age at the time when a decision about whether or not to revoke the mandatory cancellation decision is being made.
The Direction sets out a number of factors to take into consideration with respect to the best interests of minor children in Australia. Those include, relevantly:
·     the nature and duration of the relationship between the child and the person, noting that less weight should generally be given where there have been long periods of absence, or limited meaningful contact (including whether an existing Court order restricts contact);
·     the extent to which the person is likely to play a positive parental role in the future, taking into account the time until the child turns 18, and including any Court order relating to parental access and care arrangements;
·     the impact of the non-citizen’s prior conduct, and any likely future conduct, and whether that conduct has, or will have a negative impact on the child;
·     the likely effect that any separation from the non-citizen would have on the child, taking into account the child’s or non-citizens ability to maintain contact in other ways;
·     evidence that the non-citizen has abused or neglected the child in any way, including physical, sexual and/or mental abuse or neglect;
·     whether there are other persons who already fulfil a parental role in relation to the child; and
·     any known views of the child.
The Applicant has two minor children in Australia, a daughter, Child A, who is 14 years old and a son, Child B, who is nine years old. He also has an adult stepdaughter in Australia and an adult son who lives in Lebanon. Until some time in 2017, he lived in the family home except for the periods when he was incarcerated. His relationship with Child A and Child B has been significantly interrupted by his incarceration. He has been incarcerated during the following periods:
·     December 2007 to March 2009 (one year and two months);
·     June 2011 to December 2013 (two years and six months);
·     July 2014 to October 2016 (two years and three months); and
·     September 2018 to the present (two years).
Since the birth of Child A, the Applicant has spent nearly eight years, being more than half of her life, incarcerated. Since the birth of Child B, the Applicant has spent six years and nine months, being more than two thirds of Child B’s life, incarcerated.
Where the Applicant was in prison in 2008 and between 2011 to 2013 his wife looked after the children with some support from her family.[75] When the Applicant was in prison between 2014 and 2016, his wife supported herself and the children.[76] The children currently live with her.
[75] Transcript, page 21, Page 24, lines 16 and 17.
[76] Transcript, page 29, Lines 33 to 45.
When asked in his revocation request form to describe his relationship with his minor children, the Applicant described himself as “the pillar of the family and the role model and teacher”.[77] The evidence before me does not support this: the Applicant’s wife has consistently been in the family home caring for the children while the Applicant has been in and out of prison for committing serious offences. The Applicant further said that without him in his children’s lives they would live like orphans.[78] Again, the evidence does not support this. I reject these contentions. There is no suggestion that the Applicant’s wife will not continue to fulfil the parental role for these children or that she does provide adequate care for them. I find that the Applicant’s wife will continue to be the primary carer of Child A and Child B, fulfilling a positive parental role for each.
[77] Exhibit G1, Section 501 G-documents, G2, page 54.
[78] Ibid, page 54.
The Applicant contended that if he is deported it would “leave a big lack of mental health” in his children’s lives.[79] Further, his adult step-daughter said:
“You guys already have created mental health issues in my sister [Child A] and my little brother [Child B] and myself too. We are all very upset and worried and you guys have created a fear in the heart of our Australian family of losing our father forever. [Child B] is mostly affected as he does not understand it because he’s so young.”[80]
[79] Transcript, page 37, Lines 37 to 39.
[80] Exhibit A8, Statement of the Applicant’s Stepdaughter and Daughter, undated
The Applicant’s step-daughter did not identify, or describe the symptom of, the mental health problems to which she referred. There is no medical or psychological evidence, or evidence from the children’s mother, supporting her contention. Nor is there any expert evidence to the effect that either child is likely to suffer any mental health problems if the Applicant is deported.
The Applicant described himself as being very much involved in his children’s lives. He said after he separated from his wife, he continued to see his children on a frequent basis,[81] and he financially supported them.[82]
[81] Transcript, page 30.
[82] Transcript, page 31, lines 26 to 31.
Child A has provided a letter of support.[83] In it she does not provide any information about her relationship with the Applicant or any activities she has done with him or contact she has had with him. Rather she speaks about the role she wants the Applicant to play in her life in the future and her worry about his welfare if he is returned to Lebanon.
[83] Exhibit A8, Statement of the Applicant’s Stepdaughter and Daughter, undated.
Child B has also provided a letter of support.[84] In it he says that he loves speaking to the Applicant and he misses the Applicant taking him to the park with Child A and playing together, eating together as a family, and the Applicant teaching him maths. He says he is concerned about the Applicant’s “serious heart problems” and that he fears losing the Applicant. Child B’s belief that the Applicant has serious heart problems is evidently having a negative effect on him, burdening him with worry at such a young age. When I asked the Applicant if he told Child B about his heart condition, he said “My whole family - if not the whole community - knows about my heart condition”.[85] It is not clear on the evidence exactly what heart condition the Applicant has and whether it is serious. I will address this below under Other Considerations. For present purposes, I am satisfied that the Applicant has told people, including his family, that he has serious heart problems, and this is weighing on his young son.
[84] Exhibit A9, Statement of the Applicant’s Son, undated.
[85] Transcript, page 42, lines 25 to 35.
There is a letter before me from the Applicant’s wife addressed to the Presiding Judge with respect to the sentencing proceedings in September 2018. In it, she described the Applicant as having been a good provider for the family, and being positive, honest and loving towards her and their children. She added that her family would be devastated if the Applicant were sentenced to full time incarceration.[86] She has not provided a letter of support with respect to these proceedings, so it is not known whether she maintains that view.
[86] Exhibit G2, Supplementary Section 501 G-Documents, SG3, page 367.
If his visa is returned to him, the Applicant intends to spend time with his children, and he indicated that there would be no problem between him and his wife about him spending time with the children.[87] However, he conceded that he had not spoken with his wife recently.[88]
[87] Transcript, page 12, lines 1 to 7.
[88] Transcript, page 37, line 9.
The Applicant said his wife would not be able to afford to fly the children to Lebanon to visit him.[89] The Applicant gave evidence that in 2017 his wife and children went to Hawaii for a holiday.[90] He also gave evidence that his wife was reliant on Centrelink for a period[91] and subsequently secured employment in childcare – and I note that childcare work is generally not well paid. I am not prepared to discount the possibility that the Applicant’s wife could afford to take the children to Lebanon, but I am not satisfied that she would necessarily choose to do that or that it would be a regular occurrence.
[89] Exhibit G1, Section 501 G-documents, G2, page 67.
[90] Transcript, page 33, lines 40 to 45.
[91] Transcript, page 7, line 45.
I am satisfied that the Applicant has an emotional bond with his children, and that he fulfils a parental role when he is in the community, and to a lesser extent when he is incarcerated. I am not satisfied that either child is suffering mental health problems because of their separation from the Applicant or because of the cancellation of his visa. Nor am I satisfied that they are likely to suffer mental health problems if he is deported, although they will suffer some emotional hardship and miss out on having their father present in their lives. I am satisfied that, if the Applicant is allowed to return to the community, he could play a positive role in their lives for many years to come, provided he does not commit further offences. The Applicant has put his interests and wants before the best interests of his children in the past and, while he expressed a resolve to put his children first now, it is not known whether he will do so.
The Applicant told the Tribunal he maintains contact with his adult son in Lebanon via WhatsApp,[92] and he described their relationship as “a best friend”.[93] I am satisfied he could maintain contact with Child A and Child B from Lebanon in a similar way.
[92] Transcript, page 38, lines 40 to 45.
[93] Transcript, page 41, lines 19 to 22.
I find that the best interests of Child A and Child B favour revocation of the cancellation of the Applicant’s visa. The best interests of Child B attract slightly more weight because he is younger which creates more potential for the Applicant to make a positive contribution in his life while he remains a minor. However, I give less weight to this Primary Consideration because of the Applicant’s long absences from the children’s lives, the uncertainty about how much of a positive role the Applicant would play in their lives if he were returned to the community, his ability to maintain contact with them from Lebanon via electronic means of communication, the lack of evidence that they would suffer psychological harm if he were to be deported, and the fact that the Applicant’s wife has consistently fulfilled the parental role throughout their lives and will continue to do so.
Conclusion: Primary Consideration B
The best interests of the Applicant’s two minor children favour the revocation of the cancellation of his visa to a limited extent.
PRIMARY CONSIDERATION C – THE EXPECTATIONS OF THE AUSTRALIAN COMMUNITY
The relevant paragraphs in the Direction
In making the assessment for weight to be allocated to Primary Consideration C, paragraph 13.3(1) of the Direction provides that I should consider whether the Applicant has breached, or whether there is an unacceptable risk that he would breach, the trust of the Australian community. Moreover, I should proceed on the basis that the Australian community expects that the Australian government can and should cancel a person’s visa if they commit serious crimes. Non-revocation 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 hold a visa. I must have due regard to the Government’s views in this respect and any overarching principles in the Direction.

The concept of community expectations is not a matter to be measured as though it is a provable fact. It is an assessment of community values made on behalf of the community. It is not for the Tribunal to determine for itself the expectations of the Australian community by reference to an Applicant’s circumstances or evidence about those expectations. The Government’s views in relation to community expectations are to be found in the Direction.[94]
[94] Uelese v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCA 348; Afu v Minister for Home Affairs [2018] FCA 1311; YNQY v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCA 1466 and FYBR v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCA 500.
This approach was confirmed recently by the Full Court of the Federal Court in FYBR v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCAFC 185 (“FYBR”). In FYBR the Full Court also established that the principles in paragraph 6.3 of the Direction can inform the weight to be attributed to the expectations of the Australian community. The attribution of weight to this consideration is a matter for the relevant decision-maker.
Paragraph 6.2(1) of the Direction states 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. The principles below are of critical importance in furthering that objective, and reflect community values and standards with respect to determining whether the risk of future harm from a non-citizen is unacceptable.”
Those principles, set out in paragraph 6.3 of the Direction, are:
(1)Australia has a sovereign right to determine whether non-citizens who are of character concern are allowed to enter and/or remain in Australia. Being able to come to or remain in Australia is a privilege Australia confers on non-citizens in the expectation that they are, and have been, law-abiding, will respect important institutions, such as Australia’s law enforcement framework, and will not cause or threaten harm to individuals or the Australian community;
(2)The Australian community expects that the Australian Government can and should refuse entry to non-citizens, or cancel their visas, if they commit serious crimes in Australia or elsewhere;
(3)A non-citizen who has committed a serious crime, including of a violent or sexual nature, and particularly against women or children or vulnerable members of the community such as the elderly or disabled, should generally expect to be denied the privilege of coming to, or forfeit the privilege of, staying in Australia;
(4)In some circumstances, criminal offending or other conduct, and the harm that would be caused if it were to be repeated, may be so serious that any risk of similar conduct in the future is unacceptable. In these circumstances, even other strong countervailing considerations may be insufficient to justify not cancelling or refusing the visa;
(5)Australia has a low tolerance of any criminal or other serious conduct by people who have been participating in, and contributing to, the Australian community only for a short period of time. However, Australia may afford a higher level of tolerance of criminal or other serious conduct in relation to a non-citizen who has lived in the Australian community for most of their life, or from a very young age;
(6)Australia has a low tolerance of any criminal or other serious conduct by visa Applicants or those holding a limited stay visa, reflecting that there should be no expectation that such people be allowed to come to or remain permanently in Australia; and
(7)The length of time a non-citizen has been making a positive contribution to the Australian community, and the consequences of a visa refusal or cancellation for minor children and other immediate family members in Australia, are considerations in the context of determining whether that non-citizens Visa should be cancelled, or their visa application refused.
Analysis – Allocation of Weight to this Primary Consideration C
Accordingly, in assessing the weight attributable to Primary Consideration C, it is necessary to have regard to the following matters:
·the Applicant relocated to Australia in 2001 when he was 25 years of age. He has been part of the Australian community for 19 years;
·he commenced offending two years after relocating in 2003;
·his offences include very serious, and persistent, offending;
·he was not deterred from re-offending even by lengthy sentences of imprisonment. He committed his most recent, and most serious, offence while on parole;
·there is a low to moderate risk that he will re-offend;
·his offending demonstrates a disregard for the law and for the safety of the members of the community that he seeks to re-enter;
·he has a solid work history, having worked in the construction industry in casual and full-time roles since relocating to Australia.[95] Since 2001, he has been an active member of his local mosque and participated in community events such as special occasions and burials;[96] and
·if he is removed to Lebanon, it will adversely affect his adult step-daughter (addressed below under Other Considerations), and his two biological minor children (addressed above under Primary Consideration B).
Conclusion: Primary Consideration C
[95] Exhibit G1, Section 501 G-documents, G2, page 59; Transcript, aged 18, lines 44 to 46.
[96] Transcript, page 8
The Applicant has repeatedly breached the trust of the Australian community. Taking all of the above matters into account, Primary Consideration C weighs heavily against revocation of the cancellation of the Applicant’s visa.
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
It is necessary to look at the Other Considerations listed at paragraph 14(1) of the Direction. I will now consider each of the five stipulated sub-paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e).
(a) International non-refoulement obligations
The Applicant does not make any claims with respect to Australia’s non-refoulement obligations, and none arise on the evidence. This Other Consideration is not relevant.
(b) Strength, nature and duration of ties
The Applicant came to Australia at the age of 25. Over the last 19 years, when not incarcerated, he was employed, and he was an active member of his local mosque. However, he commenced offending only two years after arriving in Australia and offended regularly over the next 11 years. He is entitled to limited weight under paragraph 14.2(1)(a) of the Direction.
The Applicant has a wife, adult step-daughter, and two minor children in Australia. Until 2017 they were all one family unit. Non-revocation will adversely affect his two biological children who are Australian citizens, as discussed under Primary Consideration B.
The Applicant’s step-daughter said the following, in the letter of support she provided:[97]
I have known [the Applicant] since 2005 when he married my mum and I started living with them since then he has been the one who raised me until now. [The Applicant] has always been like a dad to me he never made me feel like I’m just his step daughter, he has been like a real Dad from the beginning. [The Applicant] was always there for me when I needed a dad. I had a big gap in my life when my real father left me when I was still young [the Applicant] was good at helping fill this gap.
When [the Applicant] became even more of a part of my life he eventually closed this gap completely forever. If he was to leave now I would be left with a new horrible gap in my life.
…
I believe sending him back to Lebanon which is the country of war is not a fair idea and against humanity to separate a father from his kids, destroying the whole family and by doing this you guys are creating a massive gap and putting us all in through a difficult time for the rest of our lives…
[97] Exhibit, A8. Statement of the Applicant’s Stepdaughter and Daughter, undated.
I accept that the Applicant’s stepdaughter regards him as a father figure, that she has a positive relationship with him and that his deportation would have a negative impact on her. However, she is an adult and has been without the Applicant’s physical presence in her life for much of the last 12 years.
The Applicant’s wife instigated their separation in 2017 and she has not provided a letter of support. Nor, according to the Applicant, has she been in contact with him recently. He said he has not been able to provide any financial support while he has been incarcerated, which indicates that his wife is not presently reliant on financial support from him. In the past when the Applicant has been absent, she has received help from her family. I am not satisfied that she would be significantly negatively impacted if the Applicant were to be deported.
There are some letters of support before me that indicate that the Applicant has ties to his local community, and Mr and Mrs Issa appear to be good friends of his. The Applicant said he keeps in touch with all of his former employers. I accept that the Applicant has some longstanding social ties in the Australian community.
Overall, I am satisfied that the strength, duration and nature of ties to the Australian community weighs moderately in favour of revocation.
(c) Impact on Australian business interests
The Applicant does not claim that his removal from Australia would adversely impact on Australian business interests. This consideration is not relevant to the determination of this application.
(d) Impact on victims
This Other Consideration (d) requires a decision-maker to assess the impact of a non-revocation decision (i.e. where the Applicant does not get his visa restored to him) upon, inter alia, the Applicant’s victim(s). There is no evidence before the Tribunal relating to the impact that the Applicant’s continued presence in Australia would have on any victims. This Other Consideration (d), is therefore neutral.
(e) Extent of impediments if removed
As a guide for exercising the discretion, paragraph 14.5(1) 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:
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.
The Applicant is 44 years old and able bodied. He attends the gym regularly and he considers himself capable of engaging in work in the construction industry.
The Applicant’s father, three brothers, two sisters and adult son live in Lebanon. His son and two of his brothers live with his father. One brother is married, and both his sisters are married.[98] The Applicant’s father is retired and owns his own home.[99] The Applicant’s brothers who live with their father have irregular employment. The Applicant indicated that it is difficult to get work in Lebanon.[100] The Applicant’s adult son is studying accounting.[101]
[98] Transcript, page 38, lines 14 to 29.
[99] Transcript, page 41, lines 24 to 30.
[100] Transcript, page 41, lines 34 to 45.
[101] Transcript, page 42, lines 7 to 10.
In June 2019, the Applicant suffered a heart attack while exercising in the gym. He now has two stents in his left artery and takes five medications daily. A discharge medication list dated 14 June 2019 lists the following daily medications and reasons for each medication:
·asprin, thin blood;
·atorvastatin, cholesterol;
·metoprolol, heart;
·ramipril, blood pressure; and
·ticagrelor, thin blood.[102]
[102] Exhibit G1, Section 501 G-documents, G2, page 84.
The medical evidence does not disclose a diagnosed, named, heart condition. When asked whether he had an underlying heart condition, the Applicant did not give a responsive answer but pointed the Tribunal to the medical documents that he had provided.[103]
[103] Transcript, page 9.
A document entitled “Progress Notes Medical, Final Report”, dated 26 May 2020,[104] describes the Applicant as an active smoker with a family history of cardiovascular disease. It contains the note:
“reports has been well and is back to normal. Training at the gym with no issues”.
[104] Exhibit A13, Applicant’s Clinical Records.
It recommends:
·considering taking the Applicant off Ticagrelor;
·counselling regarding smoking cessation needs to be re-enforced; and
·a follow up in one year.
The medical evidence, as a whole, indicates that the Applicant has a family history of cardiovascular disease, he suffered a heart attack while exercising in June 2019, and he was put on medications that appear to be intended to reduce the risk of another heart attack. It further indicates that as at May 2020, he may have been able to stop taking one of the blood thinners, he had continued to smoke despite being counselled to stop, and he was well and training at the gym regularly. (I note that the Applicant told the Tribunal that he has quit smoking, which must be a recent development). He told the Tribunal that he occasionally feels heart pain and his heart races for a while before going back to normal. He said he has not reported this to the medical staff in Immigration Detention.[105] The fact that he has not reported it and keeps exercising suggests that he is not very concerned about it. On the evidence before me, the most I can find is that the Applicant has an elevated risk of heart attack which he is currently managing. I am not satisfied that he has a serious heart condition, or that it is deteriorating rapidly as is contended in his written submissions.[106]
[105] Transcript, page 49, lines 15 to 40.
[106] Exhibit A1, Applicant’s Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions dated 18 August 2020, page 3.
The Applicant contends that the medication he takes may not be available in Lebanon or may be unaffordable as it is hard to get work in Lebanon. The Applicant provided a document downloaded from a United States Government Internet site entitled “Lebanon International Travel Information”[107] that says:
“Due to the current economic situation in Lebanon on, some medications are not available in pharmacies and medical facilities.”
[107] Exhibit A3, Articles lodged on 18 August 2020 regarding travel information and warnings for Lebanon.
He provided another document downloaded from an Australian Government Internet site entitled “Lebanon Travel Advice & Safety | Smart Traveller”[108] that says:
“The standard of medical facilities and care in many of Lebanon’s large hospitals is generally as good as in Australia. Most recommended hospitals are private and expensive. You’ll probably have to pay up-front.”
[108] Ibid.
There is no evidence before me that the particular medications the Applicant takes would be unavailable in Lebanon. Further, regard must be had to the ambit of paragraph 14.5(1) of the Direction which stipulates that the extent of any impediments the Applicant may face in terms of establishing himself and maintaining basic living standards is to be considered in the context of what is generally available to other citizens of the country to which he will return. The Applicant will be entitled to pharmaceuticals and medical services in the same manner and to the same extent as other Lebanese citizens. He will also have access to the same level of government/social support that is available to other Lebanese citizens.
The Applicant is prone to suffering severe symptoms of anxiety, depression and stress in times of adversity. He does not want to be deported and if he is, it is reasonable to conclude that he will feel distressed about that. However, he plans to live in his father’s home along with other members of his family[109], so he will have family support very close by. He does not engage in counselling or take medication for psychological symptoms in Australia so it seems unlikely that he would seek those types of treatment in Lebanon.
[109] Transcript, page 39, line 43 to page 40, line 2.
The Applicant works in the construction industry and it does not appear that his symptoms have significantly impacted his ability to do that sort of work, although I accept that it will be more difficult to secure paid work in Lebanon than in Australia.
The Applicant told the Tribunal that his family in Lebanon rely on his financial support and they would not be able to support him.[110] However, earlier he had said he could not send money to support his son when he was incarcerated,[111] and he could not support his family in Lebanon when he was in the community but unemployed.[112] His family in Lebanon must have managed financially without his help for much of the last 12 years. I am satisfied that the Applicant would have accommodation in Lebanon and that his family would assist him to maintain basic living standards.
[110] Transcript, page 65, line 44 to page 66, line 6.
[111] Transcript, page 39, lines 29 to 30.
[112] Transcript, page 63, lines 14 to 20.
The Applicant lived in Lebanon until the age of 25. He speaks Arabic which is the main language spoken in Lebanon.[113] There are no significant or substantial language or other cultural barriers to the Applicant’s return and re-establishment in Lebanon.
[113] Transcript, page 39, lines 39 to 41.
The Applicant has provided some new articles and travel advice that indicate that there is a danger of terrorist attacks in Lebanon.[114] These generally appear to be aimed at government or military apparatus and western targets. He also provided an article reporting clashes between religious groups. I accept that the security situation in Lebanon is less stable than Australia, and there is a higher risk of violence. However, according to the Applicant, his father lives in an Alawi community, which is his family’s religion,[115] and he has not expressed an intention to work for the government or military forces or to engage in other types of behaviour that may make him a target of violence. Nor did he claim that any member of his family or anyone he knows of in Lebanon has been the victim of societal violence. I do not consider that there is any more than a remote risk that the Applicant would be the victim of societal violence in Lebanon.
[114] Exhibit A14, Articles lodged on 11 September 2020 regarding Lebanon.
[115] Transcript, page 40, line 7.
I am not satisfied that there is any significant impediment to the Applicant’s successful re-settlement in Lebanon.
This Other Consideration (e) weighs slightly in favour of revocation of the reviewable decision.
CONCLUSION
In considering whether there is another reason to exercise the discretion afforded by

s 501CA(4) of the Act to revoke the mandatory visa cancellation decision, I have had regard to the considerations referred to in the Direction. I find as follows:
·Primary Consideration A weighs heavily in favour of non-revocation;
·Primary Consideration B weighs moderately in favour of revocation; and
·Primary Consideration C weighs heavily in favour of non-revocation;
·To the extent that Other Considerations (b) and (e) weigh in favour of revoking the mandatory visa cancellation decision, they cannot, even when combined with Primary Consideration B, outweigh Primary Considerations A and C.
Consequently, I cannot exercise the discretion to revoke the cancellation of the Applicant’s visa.
DECISION
The decision under review is affirmed.

I certify that the preceding 138 (one hundred and thirty-eight) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Member Rebecca Bellamy

..........................[SGD]..............................................

Associate
Dated: 1 October 2020

Date of hearing: 16 September 2020

Applicant:
Appeared by video-link

Solicitors for the Respondent: Mr Adam Ray, Clayton Utz
ANNEXURE A – EXHIBIT LIST

EXHIBIT No

DESCRIPTION OF EVIDENCE

PARTY

DATE OF DOCUMENT

DATE RECEIVED

G1

Section 501 G-Documents (G1 to G22 pages 1 to 303)

R

-

28 JUL 2020

G2

Supplementary Section 501 G-Documents (SG1 to SG3 pages 304 to 403)

R

-

4 SEP 2020

R1

Respondent’s Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions (16 pages)

R

3 SEP 2020

4 SEP 2020

R2

Revocation Memorandum dated 5 October 2016

R

6 OCT 2016

16 SEP 2020

A1

Applicant’s Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions (6 pages)

A

18 AUG 2020

18 AUG 2020

A2

Applicant’s Medical Records – Wagga Wagga Base Hospital

A

-

18 AUG 2020

A3

Articles lodged on 18 August 2020 regarding travel information and warnings for Lebanon x 7:

·     Smartraveller.gov.au: “Lebanon Travel Advice & Safety”

·     Reisewarmung.net: “Current travel advisories for Lebanon”

·     Safetravel.govt.nz: “Lebanon”

·     Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Romania: “Travel Alerts – Lebanon”

·     Federal Department of Foreign Affairs FDFA, Switzerland: “Travel Advice for Lebanon”

·     Department of State - Bureau of Consular Affairs, United States of America: “Lebanon International Travel Information”

·     Security Bureau, Hong Kong: “Outbound Travel Alert – Lebanon”

A

-

18 AUG 2020

A4

Applicant’s Reply Submission

A

11 SEP 2020

11 SEP 2020

A5

Statement of the Applicant

A

11 SEP 2020

13 SEP 2020

A6

Statement of Mr Issa

A

-

11 SEP 2020

A7

Statement of Mrs Issa

A

-

11 SEP 2020

A8

Statements of the Applicant’s Stepdaughter & the Applicant’s Daughter

A

-

11 SEP 2020

A9

Statement of the Applicant’s Son

A

-

11 SEP 2020

A10

Letter of Support of the Director of GTR Construction Group

A

7 AUG 2020

11 SEP 2020

A11

Letter of Support from Sheik Mohamed Bellal (Alawi Youth Movement Centre)

A

12 AUG 2020

11 SEP 2020

A12

Letter of Support from Br Ch Emmed Salim Abboud JP (Alawi Youth Movement Centre)

A

12 AUG 2020

11 SEP 2020

A13

Applicant’s Clinical Records

A

-

11 SEP 2020

A14

Articles lodged on 11 September 2020 regarding Lebanon:

·     ABC News: “Beirut port on fire again, a month after crippling ammonium nitrate explosion” (10 September 2020)

·     ABC News: “Crisis hits Lebanon’s hospitals, among the best in the Mideast” by Sarah el Deeb (22 July 2020)

·     The Daily Star Lebanon: “Kaftoun shooting suspect escapes ISF in Akkar” (10 September 2020)

·     The Daily Star Lebanon: “Uptick in boats of Lebanese, Syrian migrants: Cyprus” (6 September 2020)

·     The Daily Star Lebanon: “Lebanese Army shoots down Israeli drone” (10 September 2020)

·     The Independent: “Child killed in sectarian clashes south of Beirut amid fears of new conflict” by Bel Trew (28 August 2020)

·     Lebanese Broadcasting Corporation International, Lebanon News: “Large fire erupts in Beirut port area (Videos)” (10 September 2020)

·     Lebanese Broadcasting Corporation International, Lebanon News: “Moment when new fire erupted at Beirut port (Video)” (10 September 2020)

·     United Nation Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia: “ESCWA warns: more than half of Lebanon’s population trapped in poverty” (19 August 2020)

·     National News Agency: “The Israeli enemy forces dropped flare bombs over the outskirts of Mays Al-Jabal” (1 September 2020)

·     National News Agency: “Enemy planes breach Lebanon’s airspace over the South and Kesrouan” (23 August 2020)

·     National News Agency: “Two enemy tanks violate the technical fence in Kroum alSharaqi” (23 August 2020)

·     National News Agency: “Perpetrator arrested for wounding four soldiers during an army ambush in Rashaya” (29 August 2020)

·     National News Agency: “Wanted man blows himself up as ISF raids his apartment over Kaftoun shooting” (24 August 2020)

·     National News Agency: “Shooting in Khalde, army intervenes to contain situation” (1 September 2020)

·     The Sydney Morning Herald: “Deadly clashes south of Lebanese capital” by Tom Perry (28 August 2020)

·     United Nations “UNIFIL statement on firing incidents along the Blue Line” (26 August 2020)

A

-

11 SEP 2020

[2020] AATA 3822

1 October 2020

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Administrative Law

Statutory Interpretation

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Procedural Fairness

Statutory Construction

Jurisdiction

Remedies

Date of hearing:	16 September 2020
Applicant:	Appeared by video-link
Solicitors for the Respondent:	Mr Adam Ray, Clayton Utz

EXHIBIT No	DESCRIPTION OF EVIDENCE	PARTY	DATE OF DOCUMENT	DATE RECEIVED
G1	Section 501 G-Documents (G1 to G22 pages 1 to 303)	R	-	28 JUL 2020
G2	Supplementary Section 501 G-Documents (SG1 to SG3 pages 304 to 403)	R	-	4 SEP 2020
R1	Respondent’s Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions (16 pages)	R	3 SEP 2020	4 SEP 2020
R2	Revocation Memorandum dated 5 October 2016	R	6 OCT 2016	16 SEP 2020
A1	Applicant’s Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions (6 pages)	A	18 AUG 2020	18 AUG 2020
A2	Applicant’s Medical Records – Wagga Wagga Base Hospital	A	-	18 AUG 2020
A3	Articles lodged on 18 August 2020 regarding travel information and warnings for Lebanon x 7: · Smartraveller.gov.au: “Lebanon Travel Advice & Safety” · Reisewarmung.net: “Current travel advisories for Lebanon” · Safetravel.govt.nz: “Lebanon” · Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Romania: “Travel Alerts – Lebanon” · Federal Department of Foreign Affairs FDFA, Switzerland: “Travel Advice for Lebanon” · Department of State - Bureau of Consular Affairs, United States of America: “Lebanon International Travel Information” · Security Bureau, Hong Kong: “Outbound Travel Alert – Lebanon”	A	-	18 AUG 2020
A4	Applicant’s Reply Submission	A	11 SEP 2020	11 SEP 2020
A5	Statement of the Applicant	A	11 SEP 2020	13 SEP 2020
A6	Statement of Mr Issa	A	-	11 SEP 2020
A7	Statement of Mrs Issa	A	-	11 SEP 2020
A8	Statements of the Applicant’s Stepdaughter & the Applicant’s Daughter	A	-	11 SEP 2020
A9	Statement of the Applicant’s Son	A	-	11 SEP 2020
A10	Letter of Support of the Director of GTR Construction Group	A	7 AUG 2020	11 SEP 2020
A11	Letter of Support from Sheik Mohamed Bellal (Alawi Youth Movement Centre)	A	12 AUG 2020	11 SEP 2020
A12	Letter of Support from Br Ch Emmed Salim Abboud JP (Alawi Youth Movement Centre)	A	12 AUG 2020	11 SEP 2020
A13	Applicant’s Clinical Records	A	-	11 SEP 2020
A14	Articles lodged on 11 September 2020 regarding Lebanon: · ABC News: “Beirut port on fire again, a month after crippling ammonium nitrate explosion” (10 September 2020) · ABC News: “Crisis hits Lebanon’s hospitals, among the best in the Mideast” by Sarah el Deeb (22 July 2020) · The Daily Star Lebanon: “Kaftoun shooting suspect escapes ISF in Akkar” (10 September 2020) · The Daily Star Lebanon: “Uptick in boats of Lebanese, Syrian migrants: Cyprus” (6 September 2020) · The Daily Star Lebanon: “Lebanese Army shoots down Israeli drone” (10 September 2020) · The Independent: “Child killed in sectarian clashes south of Beirut amid fears of new conflict” by Bel Trew (28 August 2020) · Lebanese Broadcasting Corporation International, Lebanon News: “Large fire erupts in Beirut port area (Videos)” (10 September 2020) · Lebanese Broadcasting Corporation International, Lebanon News: “Moment when new fire erupted at Beirut port (Video)” (10 September 2020) · United Nation Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia: “ESCWA warns: more than half of Lebanon’s population trapped in poverty” (19 August 2020) · National News Agency: “The Israeli enemy forces dropped flare bombs over the outskirts of Mays Al-Jabal” (1 September 2020) · National News Agency: “Enemy planes breach Lebanon’s airspace over the South and Kesrouan” (23 August 2020) · National News Agency: “Two enemy tanks violate the technical fence in Kroum alSharaqi” (23 August 2020) · National News Agency: “Perpetrator arrested for wounding four soldiers during an army ambush in Rashaya” (29 August 2020) · National News Agency: “Wanted man blows himself up as ISF raids his apartment over Kaftoun shooting” (24 August 2020) · National News Agency: “Shooting in Khalde, army intervenes to contain situation” (1 September 2020) · The Sydney Morning Herald: “Deadly clashes south of Lebanese capital” by Tom Perry (28 August 2020) · United Nations “UNIFIL statement on firing incidents along the Blue Line” (26 August 2020)	A	-	11 SEP 2020