Ioannou and Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs
[2004] AATA 965
•15 September 2004
Administrative
Appeals
Tribunal
DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2004] AATA 965
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
) No Q2004/539
GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION ) Re ARESTIS IOANNOU Applicant
And
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
Respondent
DECISION
Tribunal Deputy President Don Muller Date15 September 2004
PlaceBrisbane
Decision The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and in substitution determines that notwithstanding ARESTIS IOANNOU does not pass the Character Test in subsection 501(6)(a) of the Migration Act 1958, his Transitional (Permanent) Visa should not have been cancelled pursuant to section 501(2) of the Act. ................SIGNED..............................
D.W. MULLER
DEPUTY PRESIDENT
CATCHWORDS
IMMIGRATION – Transitional (Permanent) Visa – Cancellation – substantial criminal record – assessed as not inherently violent – low risk of recidivism – significant compassionate claims relating to serious illness of applicant’s wife – decision set aside
Migration Act 1958: s.501(2),(6), (7), 499
REASONS FOR DECISION
Deputy President Don Muller 1. Arestis Ioannou seeks review of a decision to cancel his Transitional (Permanent) Visa (the Visa) on 23 June 2004.
2. The Visa was cancelled pursuant to s.501(2) of the Migration Act 1958, on the ground that Mr. Ioannou did not pass the Character Test set out in s.501(6)(a) of the Act, the relevant parts of which provide:
“501 Refusal or cancellation of visa on character grounds
Decision of Minister or delegate – natural justice applies
….
(2) The Minister may cancel a visa that has been granted to a person if:
(a)the Minister reasonably suspects that the person does not pass the character test; and
(b)the person does not satisfy the Minister that the person passes the character test.
Character test
….
(6) For the purposes of this section, a person does not pass the character test if:
(a)the person has a substantial criminal record (as defined by subsection (7));
Substantial criminal record
…
(7) For the purposes of the character test, a person has a substantial criminal record if:
..
(c)the person has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more; or
(d)the person has been sentenced to 2 or more terms of imprisonment (whether on one or more occasions), where the total of those terms is 2 years or more;”
3. Mr. Ioannou was represented by his solicitor, Mr. Drakopoulos, and the Minister was represented by solicitor, Mr. Lo.
4. Mr. Ioannou was convicted upon pleas of guilty in the District Court of Queensland, sitting in Toowoomba, on 12 May 2001, of unlawfully killing Craig Smerdon on 23 December 1999 and of unlawfully producing cannabis sativa in a quantity exceeding 100 plants between 13 June and 24 December 1999. In respect of the unlawful killing, he was sentenced to imprisonment for eight years. In respect of the production of cannabis sativa he was sentenced to imprisonment for three years to be served concurrently with the eight years.
5. Mr. Lo submitted that the offences committed by Mr. Ioannou were serious enough to cause apprehension that the Australian public could be put at risk if Mr. Ioannou was allowed to remain in Australia. He submitted that the drug culture was regarded by the Australian Government as a serious social and health problem for the Australian people, especially the young. He also submitted that the commission of manslaughter by Mr. Ioannou indicated a propensity for violence which could re-surface and put members of the Australian public at risk from serious physical injury. Mr. Lo submitted that the risks to the Australian public outweigh any considerations of compassion which one might feel for Mr. Ioannou, his wife or his daughter.
6. The case presented by Mr. Drakopolous on behalf of Mr. Ioannou was to the effect that:
· The commission of these crimes by Mr. Ioannou was out of character. Prior to the conviction for the offences relevant to this review Mr Ioannou had no criminal history.
· There were significant emotional and financial circumstances in the life of Mr. Ioannou at the time which explain, if not excuse, his being involved in growing cannabis sativa.
· The manslaughter was an unfortunate accident.
· Mr. Ioannou’s wife is gravely ill and she cannot travel outside Australia.
· If Mr. Ioannou is forced to leave Australia, his daughter will have to relinquish her social life and her employment to be a permanent full time carer for her mother.
7. The Tribunal had access to the following documents, among a lot of others:
· The sentencing remarks of Judge Byrne.
· Numerous references and referee reports about the character of Mr. Ioannou.
· Reports from prison psychologists and social workers.
· Documents relating to self-improvement and educational courses undertaken by Mr. Ioannou whilst he was in prison.
· A report of consultant psychologist Dr. Ian Lynagh.
8. The Tribunal also heard oral evidence from
· Mr. Ioannou
· Mr. Ioannou’s wife, Eve Ioannou
· Mr. Ioannou’s daughter, Julie Ioannou
· Dr. Ian Lynagh
· Dr. Richard Heath, Mrs. Ioannou’s treating doctor.
9. Mr. Lo called no evidence on behalf of the Minister.
10. The evidence of Mr. Ioannou and his witnesses was not challenged, was not contradicted by other evidence, nor was it inherently improbable. The Tribunal accepts the material placed before it and finds:
· Arestis Ioannou was born in Cyprus on 14 December 1957.
· His wife, Eve Ioannou, was born in Cyprus on 26 January 1956.
· Mr. Ioannou and his wife have known each other since they were small children.
· Eve Ioannou (nee Costi) migrated to Australia with her parents and siblings in 1973.
· Eve returned to Cyprus in 1978 and married Mr. Ioannou.
· Mr. Ioannou first entered Australia in November 1978, accompanied by Eve.
· Eve became an Australian citizen on 21 June 1979.
· Eve gave birth to Julie Ioannou, in Melbourne, on 29 April 1980.
· Shortly after the birth of Julie, Eve developed a serious illness from which she has never recovered.
· Mr. Ioannou and his family lived in Melbourne for 12 years between late 1978 and 1990.
· Mr. Ioannou worked as a kitchen hand, a labourer at a brick factory and served petrol at a service station. He then acquired the trade of painter.
· Mr. Ioannou has returned to Cyprus twice (for family reasons) since he first arrived in Australia. He spent ten weeks in Cyprus in 1989 and six weeks in Cyprus in 1992.
· Eve’s illness has been diagnosed as systemic lupus erythematosis, nocturnal hypoventilation requiring BIPAP ventilation, osteoporosis and hyperlipidaemia.
· In 1988, the family decided that a move to a warmer climate would make life more comfortable for Eve. Mr. Ioannou bought a car on hire purchase and drove the family to Townsville.
· Eve’s condition deteriorated in Townsville and the family returned to Melbourne.
· It was then decided that the family would move to a small country town just north of Brisbane.
· Mr. Ioannou obtained work in the Sunshine Coast area as a painter. He was out of work from time to time, including one occasion when a contractor for whom he was working went bankrupt.
· Initially Mr. Ioannou had trouble making the payments on the car he had bought in 1988 but after about three or four years he had saved enough to pay it off. When he went to pay the debt a representative of the finance company told him that the debt had been paid.
· In the mid to late 1990s the finance company repossessed Mr. Ioannou’s car and presented him with a bill for $55,000. He has been unable to pay the bill.
· In the early 1990s, Eve obtained the necessary documentation for Mr. Ioannou to apply for Australian citizenship. She was told by the person she dealt with, that it was unnecessary for Mr. Ioannou to have Australian citizenship to remain in Australia because he was married to her and she was an Australian citizen.
· Mr. Ioannou was granted a Transitional (Permanent) Visa on 1 September 1994.
· Mr. Ioannou had developed a reputation as a hardworking, quiet, mild mannered, family focussed man.
· By the late 1990s Mr. Ioannou was under a great deal of emotional and financial stress due to his wife’s illness and the large debt to the finance company. In 1999 he was introduced to a man by the name of Theodoridis, who put a proposition to Mr. Ioannou and his brother-in-law to assist in the farming of a plot of marihuana. Mr. Ioannou gave way to temptation and eventually got into serious trouble. The transcript of the District Court proceedings reveals the view that the sentencing judge took of the events of 1999.
· The Tribunal accepts and adopts the following remarks made by the sentencing judge:
“Mr Ioannou, you were aged 42 when the offences occurred. It is surprising that a man of your age became involved in the commission of such offences. You have no prior criminal history.
…
A deal of effort went into the production. The three of you assisted to dig holes and put manure into them. Pots were initially placed into the holes. Eventually a very substantial crop was developed through a relatively sophisticated system of cultivation. Water pipes irrigated the crop; a generator pumped water from a dam on the property to the crop site.
Theordoridis, expected to get ‘a couple of hundred thousand’ from his part in the venture. Both of you obviously expected considerable financial returns also.
Unfortunately, a shotgun was kept on the property. This weapon resulted in the death of Craig Smerdon shortly before Christmas, 1999.
On 20 December 1999 there had been an argument between you, Mr Costi, and Theodoridis, probably over money. Theodoridis left to go to Brisbane. There he decided to take with him a companion when eventually he returned. This was Mr Smerdon. You came to learn of Theodoridis’ proposed return, but he had not told either of you that he was bringing a companion with him. Mr Smerdon knew about the crop and expected eventually to profit out of it through his connection with Theodoridis. Mr Smerdon had told his relatives that he was going to Cairns. This was a pretext.
Smerdon and Theodoridis left Brisbane on 23 December, eventually arriving at the property. There, Theodoridis found that the water pump was working. He stopped it to attract your attention, presuming that you were working on the plantation nearby. That proved to be an accurate assumption. After the water pump was turned off, the two of you came to the area where Theodoridis and Mr Smerdon happened to be. At this stage, Mr Smerdon was in the van which Theodoridis had brought.
There a conversation took place at about 6 p.m. On the material before me, which forms the basis upon which your sentences are to be structured, Theodoridis made some comment about having bad news because of his eye, which had been injured in an altercation earlier, meaning that he could not see properly. He made some reference to the property you were working, which he described as, the farm, ‘now being owned by the big boys in Brisbane’.
Mr Ioannou then said to Theodoridis, ‘What do you mean, the farm now belongs to the big boys in Brisbane?’ and Theodoridis replied that he had someone with him in the van, that there were people outside the gate, and that there were people outside the Ioannou home in Cooroy. He said something to the effect that, ‘You got to do whatever we say because I’m going to put a bomb under your house and put your family in the ground’.
Theodoridis then apparently used his mobile phone. You, Mr Ioannou, suspected that he may have been talking to people outside the gate. You, Mr Ioannou, went into the caravan. You then saw your brother-in-law approach Theodoridis. A scuffle broke out between the two of them. Theodoridis made some threat about putting Mr Costi in a wheelchair.
At about this time, Mr Smerdon got out of the vehicle. He started assisting Theodoridis in the assault upon Mr Costi. You, Mr Ioannou, proceeded to grab your shotgun. You saw Mr Smerdon return to the van to grab a pistol and put it in the back of his pants. You then saw Smerdon grab a knife in a black sheath.
You got out of the caravan with the shotgun and walked towards the van. You saw that Mr Smerdon had taken the knife out of the sheath and was starting to walk in the direction of your brother-in-law. You told him to put the knife down; he threw the knife back through the passenger side of the van where the sliding door was open. You told Mr Smerdon to drop the gun in the back of his pants. Mr Smerdon complied, putting the gun on the ground.
At this stage, holding the weapon, you recall telling Craig Smerdon, who was then bending down, ‘Don’t touch it’. The shotgun then was discharged, and Craig Smerdon fell to the ground.
The case is being dealt with upon the basis that the weapon was discharged through your criminal negligence.
The relative failure was in permitting the discharge of the weapon at a time when it happened to be pointed towards Craig Smerdon. One shot was discharged into his back. There was an exit wound in the chest area; he did not long survive the shooting.
In these circumstances, it must be taken that there was no intention on your part to cause death or grievous bodily harm.
The weapon was discharged when you were less than 1.5 metres away from Craig Smerdon. After the shot was discharged, according to Theodoridis, you began reloading the gun. There seems to be some controversy about what happened thereafter, but no further shot was fired.
The case also must be dealt with on the basis that you made no attempt to apply the safety catch of the weapon; and had the safety catch been applied, that would have averted the death.
The two of you then left in a vehicle, with you, Mr Costi, as the driver. You knew that you had your brother-in-law, who you knew had shot Craig Smerdon and also the shotgun with which the killing had occurred. Also found in the vehicle by the police was more than five kilograms of cannabis.
…
Altogether, 1,341 cannabis plants were found growing at the property, in greater than 300 separate plots. Each group had been concealed by vegetation. The majority of the plants had been tied, staked, and pruned.
Pesticides and agricultural implements were about. There was, as I have said, a drying shed; inside was cannabis leaf. There were also seeds, and bags of leaf and stalks. Those bags weighed approximately 11 kilograms.
The plants growing at the site had the capacity to yield more than 4,000 pounds of cannabis. A value has been placed upon the crop of several millions of dollars.
This was a large sophisticated operation engaged in for profit by the three of you, one of whom, you, Mr Costi, already had received a prison sentence for a serious cannabis offence.
It is said that you are both remorseful for the events in question, and in particular for the killing of Craig Smerdon, who was not known to either of you before the occasion when you met him, barely minutes before his death.
Nothing that can now happen can be expected to ease the grief and pain that his family must suffer as a consequence of the events of that night; and it is probably but scarce consolation to them that you regret what has happened.
In forming a view about the sentences, it is appropriate that I take into account the remorse which both of you express, and the resource savings associated with the pleas of guilty.”
· The prison records show that Mr. Ioannou has completed the following programs whilst in prison:
· Cognitive Skills program on 23 February 2001 at Arthur Gorrie Correctional Centre
· Anger Management program on 18 May 2001 at Arthur Gorrie Correctional Centre
· Substance Abuse: Preventing and Managing Relapse program on 28 March 2001 at Arthur Gorrie Correctional Centre
· Preventing and Managing Relapse program for Alcohol and Other Drug use on 27 April 2001 at Arthur Gorrie Crorectional Centre
· Certificate 1 in Vocational Access (Literacy) on 15 March 2002
· Owner Builders License
· Certificate 1 in Hospitality (Kitchen Operations)
· Certificate 1 in Engineering
· Training program in Woodworking and Furnishing
· Certificate 11 in Workplace First Aid (Senior First Aid)
· Certificate of Vocational Access (Literacy and Numeracy)
· The prison records also show that Mr. Ioannou has been assessed by the prison psychologist and a social worker as not being a violent person.
“Prisoner Ioannou does not have an established pattern of violent offending or a pattern of established violence (he does not have a criminal history in Queensland other than the offences for which he is currently imprisoned) which gives rise to the question as to whether he would gain any benefits in undertaking an intensive program for violence.
Thus, it appears Prisoner Ioannou has addressed his criminogenic needs through prior program participation, and no criminogenic needs remain outstanding. Consequently, it is not believed Prisoner Ioannou would gain any benefits in undertaking an intensive program for violence.
He is currently assessed as presenting a low risk to the community (Ministerial Guideline 2.1). This assessment is made in view of the factors outlined in Ministerial Guideline 2.2:
o The prisoner has successfully completed all recommended treatment programs.
o He has been assessed as unsuitable for the Violence Intervention program on two previous occasions and has completed the Anger Management program in lieu.
o No record of breaches or incidents.
o No previous criminal history.
o He had progressed to a low security classification in April 2003 however, was re-classified in September 2003 to a medium. The applicant’s circumstances did not change during this period. In consideration of this information, it is difficult to understand the basis for this re-classification.
o He is currently accommodated in the Village, therefore demonstrating a degree of trustworthiness.
The prisoner’s residential plans have been assessed as suitable for post prison community based release in a Home Assessment Report dated 22 September 2003 (Ministerial Guideline 2.10).”
· Mr. Ioannou’s case was examined in detail by Dr. Lynagh, consultant psychologist. Dr. Lynagh interviewed Mr. Ioannou twice whilst he was in prison. He interviewed Eve on four separate occasions. He also had access to most of the documentary material available to the Tribunal. Dr. Lynagh’s opinion is:
“I find no evidence outside the offences to support the hypothesis that he is indeed a violent man and/or has criminogenic needs. As reported, his familial upbringing, his two years in the Cyprus National Service, his work history and work ethic, his involvement with his wife and daughter and theirs with him are not indicative of such a man. His presenting status, clinical profile and risk assessment contraindicate a person who has a propensity for violence and crime.
Clearly, running counter to this assessment, are the offences for which he is currently under Correctional Orders. In an attempt to understand such a man perpetrating such violence and illegal behaviour, I am of the opinion that his account - namely, an impulsive act in self-defence in a systemic drug confrontation where he felt his life was threatened – is more consistent with his pre and post-offending character and behaviour than the alternative that he is an inherently violent criminal.
Furthermore, and I am aware that this is not the critical issue, however in my opinion, the health concerns of his wife and her need for ongoing care are a factor in him being deported leaving Mrs Ioannou without his support – she is unable to travel such a distance. In addition, their 24 year old daughter’s life and employability have already been significantly jeopardized by attending to Mrs Ioannou’s day-to-day needs, a circumstance that cannot continue indefinitely.
In summary, I find Mr Ioannou’s offending is not necessarily indicative of his character, but behaviour emanating from the circumstances he chose to allow himself to become involved in. In my opinion Mr Ioannou’s risk of recidivism is low.”
· This year Mr. Ioannou has been placed on a release to work program. He immediately found work as a painter and has been offered a 12 month contract.
· Eve Ioannou is so seriously ill that her doctor has abandoned thoughts of curative treatment. The object is now palliative care. She needs “fairly sophisticated medical care – with the nearby presence of a facility of intensive care”. The prospect of her travelling overseas is out of the question. She needs the services of a carer a few hours at a time on a daily basis. She needs assistance with personal hygiene. In addition the family is now considering a move to Brisbane because the medical facilities at the Sunshine Coast are no longer sufficient for the care Eve Ioannou requires.
· Whilst Mr. Ioannou was in prison, Julie had to become her mother’s carer. Julie had to resign from her job as an apprentice chef. Julie fears that if her father is deported, she will cease to have any decent standard of work or social life. With her father being available to assist in the care, they have both been able to take turns at going to work and looking after Eve.
· If it were not for the welfare of his wife and daughter, Mr. Ioannou would have little problem in relocating to Cyprus. His parents and siblings still live there.
· Eve has on many occasions prior to his conviction offered to her husband the freedom to leave her and go and make a life for himself away from the difficulties associated with looking after her. He has declined to do so. Eve and her daughter have visited Mr Ioannou every week while he was in prison. The family has remained in constant contact with each other throughout his term of imprisonment.
· Mr. Ioannou has expressed his remorse and regret at having ever been involved in the criminal activity. He is painfully aware that the episode has brought shame on him, his wife and daughter. His imprisonment has caused serious distress to his already very sick wife. His daughter’s life has been disrupted to a very significant degree. He knows that he has been responsible for the distress experienced by his family and he has expressed a desire to make up for the last years by supporting them in the future.
11. There is no doubt that Mr. Ioannou has a “substantial criminal record” within the meaning of that term in subsections 501(7)(c) and (d) of the Act. He was sentenced to two terms of imprisonment, each of which was for a term of 12 months or more and the total of those terms was two years or more.
12. Consequently, Mr. Ioannou does not pass the character test set out in subsection 501(6)(a) and the Delegate of the Minister was entitled to cancel the visa pursuant to subsection 501(2) of the Act.
13. Notwithstanding the decision to cancel Mr. Ioannou’s visa was justified, section 501 of the Act allows for the exercise of a discretion by decision-makers in making decisions to cancel a visa.
14. Section 499 of the Act provides for the Minister to give directions to provide guidance to decision-makers in making decisions to cancel a visa. Such a direction has been made. The direction relevant to this review is Direction 21, the relevant parts of which are:
“PART 2 –EXERCISING THE DISCRETION
2.1 If a non-citizen does not pass the Character Test, decision makers must have regard to the following considerations when exercising the discretion to decide whether or not the non-citizen should be permitted to enter or remain in Australia.
…
PRIMARY CONSIDERATIONS
2.3 In making a decision whether to refuse or cancel a visa, there are three primary considerations:
(a)the protection of the Australian community, and members of the community;
(b)the expectations of the Australian community; and
(c)in all cases involving a parental or other close relationship between a child or children and the person under consideration, the best interests of the child or children.
2.4 The Government seeks to take reasonable steps to protect the Australian community from the actions of criminals and to take action to lessen the risk of crime and disorder within the Australian community. The Government is especially mindful to take reasonable steps to protect the safety of the more vulnerable members of the community, such as children and young people who are especially at risk. This is of particular importance when the offences in question are in relation to drugs and crime of violence.
2.5 The factor relevant to an assessment of the level of risk to the community of the entry or continued stay of a non-citizen include:
(a) the seriousness and nature of the conduct;
(b) the likelihood that the conduct may be repeated (including any risk of recidivism); and
(c) whether visa refusal or cancellation may prevent or discourage similar conduct (general deterrence).
….
2.7 It is the Government’s view that a sentence imposed for a crime is an indication also of the seriousness of the offender’s conduct against the community. Decision-makers should have due regard to the Government’s view in this respect, including:
(a) the extent of the person’s criminal record, including the number and nature of offences, the time between offences, and the time that has elapsed since the most recent offence;
2.8 When exercising the discretion, decision-makers must also take the following factors into account as relevant considerations:
(a) any relevant factors provided by the non-citizen as mitigating factors;
….
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
2.17 When considering the issue of visa refusal or cancellation, other matters, although not primary considerations may be relevant. It is the Government’s view that where relevant, it is appropriate that these matters be taken into account but that generally they be given less individual weight that that given to the primary considerations. These other considerations may include:
(a) the extent of disruption to the non-citizen’s family, business and other ties to the Australian community;
…
(b) genuine marriage to or defacto or interdependent relationship with, an Australian citizen….
(c) the degree of hardship which would be caused to immediate family members lawfully resident in Australia (including Australian citizens), including whether the immediate family members are able to travel overseas to visit the non-citizen, the nature of the relationship between non-citizen and the immediate family members, whether immediate family members are in some way dependant on the non-citizen for support which cannot be provided elsewhere;
(d) family composition of the non-citizen’s family, both in Australia and overseas;
….
(h) any evidence of rehabilitation and any recent good conduct
(i) whether the application is for a temporary visa or permanent;;
(j) the purpose and intended duration of the entry to or stay in Australia, including any significant compassionate circumstances;
…”
15. I believe that the turn of events for Mr. Ioannou has been tragic. He entered Australia as a newly-wed twenty one year old. His young wife soon became seriously ill. He led a quiet, hardworking family life for twenty years. He then suddenly (on the available material) became embroiled in criminal activity (growing cannabis for sale) which ended with serious consequences.
16. There is no doubt that in becoming a “farm labourer” on a cannabis plantation, Mr. Ioannou committed a serious criminal offence. Cannabis may not be in the same league as heroin or cocaine but it is nevertheless regarded by the various government agencies as a drug which can create serious problems for the Australian community.
17. The other offence, manslaughter, is difficult to assess for the purpose of this exercise. At first glance it seems to suggest that Mr. Ioannou may be a violent person and hence a danger to the Australian public. However, I tend to agree with Dr. Lynagh’s assessment that there was a significant element of self-defence in the incident. The sentencing judge treated it as a case of negligence. My conclusion is that Mr. Ioannou did not initiate the incident which led to the death of Craig Smerdon and that the conviction for manslaughter does not necessarily indicate that he is a violent person.
18. At any event it is clear that the various expert psychologists/social workers who have reported on Mr. Ioannou and researched his past and prison behaviour have reached the conclusion that the events in which he became involved in 1999, were out of character, that he is not a violent person, that there is a low risk of recidivism, that he is genuinely remorseful and that his time in prison and the resulting disruption to his family life have inflicted significant punishment and a deterrent effect on him.
19. I have come to the conclusion that the material placed before the Tribunal indicates that Mr. Ioannou will not in future be likely to be involved in activities harmful to the Australian community.
20. There is no doubt that if Mr. Ioannou is forced to return to Cyprus, it would have a devastating effect on his wife and daughter. It would certainly end his relationship with his wife and daughter for all practical purposes. These are significant compassionate grounds for allowing him to remain in Australia.
21. I believe that the Australian community represents a humane society. I do not accept that the Australian community would require the expulsion of a person who lived trouble free in this country for 20 years, who got involved in an out of character criminal activity (albeit serious), who paid for his crime by way of imprisonment and then is remorseful and unlikely to re-offend, when there are almost overwhelming compassionate reasons for allowing him to remain.
22. The Tribunal decides that the discretion should be exercised such that despite being satisfied that cancellation of the visa is justified, the power to cancel the visa should not be exercised.
23. The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and in substitution determines that notwithstanding Mr Ioannou does not pass the Character Test in subsection 501(6) (a) of the Migration Act 1958; his Transitional (Permanent) Visa should not have been cancelled pursuant to section 501(2) of the Act.
I certify that the 23 preceding paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Deputy President Don Muller
Signed: .....................................................................................
B. Hitchcock, Personal AsstDate/s of Hearing 8 September 2004
Date of Decision 15 September 2004
Solicitor for the Applicant Drakopoulos Black
Solicitor for the Respondent Clayton Utz
0
0
0