Khalil and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs (Migration) - [2023] AATA 4234

Khalil and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs (Migration) [2023] AATA 4234 (21 December 2023)
Division: GENERAL DIVISION
File Number: 2023/7667
Re:Khalil Khalil
APPLICANT

AndMinister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs
RESPONDENT

DECISION
Tribunal:Mrs J C Kelly, Senior Member
Date:21 December 2023
Place:Sydney

The reviewable decision is set aside and in substitution it is decided that there is another reason why the mandatory visa cancellation decision should be revoked under section 501CA(4) of the Act, having regard to the considerations prescribed by Direction No. 99 – Visa refusal and cancellation under section 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under section 501CA.
...............................[sgd].........................................
Mrs J C Kelly, Senior Member
CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – mandatory cancellation of visa under s 501CA(4) because applicant did not pass the character test – whether there is another reason why the cancellation decision should be revoked – Ministerial direction no.99 – protection of the Australian community – family violence – strength, nature, duration of ties to Australia – best interests of minor children in Australia – expectations of the Australian community – legal consequences of the decision – extent of impediments if removed – reviewable decision set aside
LEGISLATION
Australian Citizenship Act 1948 (Cth)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
Migration Act 1985 (Cth)
CASES
FYBR v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCAFC 185
Jacobs and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (Migration) [2020] AATA 1524
Suleiman v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 594
SECONDARY MATERIALS
Direction No. 99 – Visa refusal and cancellation under section 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under section 501CA
Royal College of Psychiatrists, ‘Depot Medication’ (April 2018) <Depot medication | Royal College of Psychiatrists (rcpsych.ac.uk)>
REASONS FOR DECISION
Mrs J C Kelly, Senior Member
21 December 2023
Introduction

The Applicant, Mr Khalil, arrived in Australia from Lebanon with his parents in October 1970. He was fifteen months old. He has resided here ever since and has never returned to Lebanon. He is now 54 years old.
He has applied to the Tribunal for merits review of the decision made by a delegate on 17 October 2023 refusing to revoke the mandatory cancellation of his Class BF transitional (permanent) visa under section 501CA(4) of the Migration Act 1985 (Cth) (the Act).
The Applicant’s visa was cancelled on 29 September 2022 pursuant to section 501(3A) of the Act because he does not pass the character test because of his substantial criminal record. He had been sentenced to imprisonment for 24 months on 29 June 2022 and was serving that sentence on a full-time basis when the decision was made. The sentence began on 19 December 2021 and ended on 18 December 2023. He was released from prison on parole on 18 June 2023 and taken into immigration detention where he remains.
Because the Applicant does not pass the character test, the only issue for the Tribunal to decide is whether there is another reason why the cancellation decision should be revoked under section 501CA(4) of the Act given the specific circumstances of his case, having regard to the considerations prescribed by ‘Direction No. 99 – Visa refusal and cancellation under section 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under section 501CA’ (Direction 99).
For the reasons that follow, I have decided to set aside the decision under review and in substitution decide that there is another reason to revoke the cancellation of the Applicant’s visa. The Applicant has been successful.
Direction 99
Paragraph 5.2 of Direction 99 sets out six principles (the Principles) that provide the framework within which decision-makers should approach the task of deciding whether to revoke the mandatory cancellation of a visa under section 501CA(4) of the Act. Informed by the Principles, the decision-maker must take into account the primary and other considerations in Part 2 of Direction 99 in deciding whether to revoke the mandatory cancellation of a visa.
Direction 99 requires that information and evidence from independent and authoritative sources should be given appropriate weight, and primary considerations should generally be given greater weight, although ‘other considerations’ should not necessarily be treated as secondary in all cases.[1]
[1] Paragraph 7(1)-(2) of Direction 99; Suleiman v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 594, [23]-[32].
I will address each of the primary and other considerations that arise for consideration in this case.
Primary considerations
Protection of the Australian community
When considering protection of the Australian community, decision-makers should keep in mind that the Government is committed to protecting the Australian community from harm as a result of criminal activity by non-citizens. Entering or remaining in Australia is a privilege conferred on non-citizens in the expectation that they are, and have been law abiding, will respect important institutions, and not cause or threaten harm to individuals or the Australian community.[2]
[2] Direction 99, paragraph 8.1(1).
There are two factors in relation to the protection of the Australian community:
(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.
The nature and seriousness of the non-citizen’s conduct to date
The Applicant’s conduct has to be considered in the context of his continuous drug use since the age of 13, his diagnosis of schizophrenia in 1989 when he was 19 years old and an unconfirmed but suspected intellectual disability. He has received the disability support pension from around the time he was diagnosed with schizophrenia. He used speed and marijuana and moved on to ice (methamphetamine).
A corrective services officer who interviewed the Applicant on 26 January 2023 during his recent incarceration recorded that the Applicant has an unconfirmed intellectual disability which if verified would increase his susceptibility (in custody) and noted that the CMO had completed a case plan and that the Statewide Disability Services (SDS) team ‘to be engaged and conduct assessment to confirm intellectual disability’. The outcome of that assessment, if any, is not available.
The following summary of the Applicant’s history of extensive criminal and other serious conduct is based on the Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions provided on behalf of the Respondent, the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs (the Respondent). The Applicant did not cavil with the summary, apart from matters I specifically address.
In total, the Applicant has been sentenced (as an adult) on more than 140 occasions (at first instance and on appeal) between July 1988 and September 2022, a period of about 35 years
He has been sentenced for 19 assaults, 36 breaches of domestic violence orders (DVO), 16 intimidation / threats related crimes, 11 property destruction offences (including one very serious “damage property by fire” offence) and 29 driving offences. In addition, the Applicant has committed multiple other offences including theft / dishonesty offences, police intimidation offences, drug offences, breaches of bail and failure to appear offences and a firearm offence.
He has been sentenced to terms of imprisonment for 65 separate offences totalling more than 30 years of imprisonment. He has served a total of about five years in prison. Before his current sentence, the longest sentence served by the Applicant was six months.
The overwhelming majority of the Applicant’s offences for which he has been sentenced are family violence related conduct, including assaults, intimidation, property destruction offences and breaches of DVOs. He has committed the majority of his crimes against his mother and one of his sisters, S. Both of them provided written and oral evidence in support of his case.
A formal counselling letter from the Department of Immigration and Citizenship, National Character Cancellation Centre dated 7 October 2008, warned the Applicant that further criminal convictions may result in his visa being cancelled pursuant to section 501 of the Act. On 11 October 2008, he signed an acknowledgement that he had received that letter and understood it. Since receiving that letter, the Applicant has been convicted of 33 further offences, resulting in 13 convictions being dealt with by way of sentences of imprisonment (totalling 82 months of imprisonment) and nine offences being dealt with by intensive correction orders (ICO) (totalling 150 months of ICOs). Some of those sentences were served concurrently.
The Applicant remembered getting the letter but could not remember exactly when. He got a mate to read it to him but he did not really understand what it meant.
On 2 September 2014, the applicant was sent a further formal counselling letter by registered post, which warned him that further criminal convictions may result in his visa being cancelled pursuant to section 501 of the Act. It is unclear whether the Applicant received that letter. The address was in the same suburb as his mother lives but was not her address. It was not the address of his sister, S.
The Applicant claims that he did not understand that he was not an Australian citizen until recently. His mother applied for Australian citizenship for herself and the Applicant in 1978. Her citizenship was approved and she became an Australian citizen in December 1979. He did not, for reasons which are discussed in relation to the consideration strength, nature, and duration of ties to Australia.
I give little weight to the warnings given. The Applicant cannot read very well. He was in prison when he received the 2008 letter. A mate read it to him. It is not clear that he received the 2014 letter. He claims to believe he was an Australian citizen until recently. He has used drugs since he was about 13 years old and has suffered from schizophrenia at least since 1988. In the circumstances, I am not satisfied that he understood the warning he was given.
On 29 June 2022, the Applicant was sentenced for his most recent offending: damage property by fire/exp > $15,000-T1, committed on 20 November 2020, and use carriage service to threaten to kill which was committed on 4 April 2021. He was sentenced to 24 months and 9 months imprisonment respectively.
The offences arose from the following incident. According to the Applicant at the hearing, he accompanied a friend (Friend A) to a property occupied by another of the Applicant’s friends (Friend B) who owed money to Friend A. The Applicant wanted to help Friend A because the Applicant had introduced Friend A to Friend B. The court found that the Applicant and Friend A went to the Friend B’s house to extort money from him. The Applicant took inflammatory material with him to set fire to Friend B’s house. He ignited curtains at the property which caused over $150,000 worth of damage. Following the damage property by fire offence, the Applicant threatened Friend A, telling him that he was going to burn him to death. According to the Applicant it was because Friend A had reported him to the police.
He has committed violent crimes and acts of family violence. The latter began in the early 1990s. His most recent family violence offences were committed on 28 December 2020. Some details of this offending are set out in relation to the consideration Family violence. Those crimes are considered to be very serious. Family violence is so regarded whether there is a conviction for the offence or a sentence imposed.
The Applicant has committed many other crimes, including against police officers, that are considered by the Australian Government and community to be serious.
His offending has been frequent. He has been sentenced to numerous terms of imprisonment. His offending has increased in seriousness as reflected in the nature and length of the sentences, culminating in his recent sentence to imprisonment for 24 months. A court must be satisfied that no other penalty is appropriate before imposing a sentence of imprisonment.[3] The cumulative effect of his repeated offending is very serious. He has demonstrated that he has no regard for the law and acts impulsively, without thinking of the consequences for the victims, which include his mother and sister on many occasions, other members of the Australian community, and himself.
[3] Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) s 5(1).
The risk to the Australian community should the Applicant reoffend
The Government’s view is that the Australian community’s tolerance for any risk of future harm becomes lower as the seriousness of the potential harm increases.
If the Applicant engages in further criminal offending, individuals in the Australian community, particularly his mother and sister, may suffer physical, psychological or financial harm.
The Applicant’s mental illness and drug use have contributed to his offending. He said that he used drugs to forget his problems and to feel calm. It has been easy to get them and hard to say no.
He has had various medications for schizophrenia since his diagnosis. He has not always been compliant but claims that he is now. He has been using his current fortnightly depot injection[4] medication for about the last five years, that is, from about 2019. He has been receiving his injections while he has been in prison and immigration detention. He said that it is alright. He does not hear voices but the side effects are not good. He takes a tablet to treat those side effects. He has told staff at the immigration detention centre that he does not want to change despite the side effects. S told the Tribunal that it has been the most effective medication with the fewest side effects.
[4] It is a special preparation of the medication, which is given by injection. The medication is slowly released into the body over a number of weeks; Royal College of Psychiatrists, ‘Depot Medication’ (April 2018) Depot medication | Royal College of Psychiatrists (rcpsych.ac.uk)
Despite being medicated for his schizophrenia over many years, the Applicant continued to offend before being taken into custody in 2021. He continued using drugs.
When he gets out, he wants to see the drug counsellor he was seeing when he was on probation who helped him reduce his drug use.
He has had many opportunities to engage with drug counselling and rehabilitation. He has not demonstrated any commitment to either. He has been subject to different kinds of sentences, including imprisonment, but none has deterred him from offending.
The Applicant said that he stopped taking drugs because he could not afford it but does not want to take them anymore because he wants to get his life in order. He does not have withdrawal or cravings for drugs.
He claims that he knows that he hung out with the wrong crowd but does not want anything to do with them if he gets out. They are nothing but trouble. He wants to do whatever he needs to, to stay off drugs because they have had a terrible impact on his life.
S claimed that more than 12 of his drug-using friends have died since he was taken into custody and that he will not mix with people who use drugs when he returns to the community. She has a rule that his friends cannot visit him at her home.
At least one of his friends who uses drugs is still alive. She has contacted him since he has been immigration detention.
There was a time in the past when the Applicant was working and not using drugs. He encountered a friend who used drugs which resulted in him resuming his drug use. He told the Tribunal that the area where his mother lives is full of drug users. It is about 10 minutes’ drive from S’s home. He intends to resume living at S’s home in a granny flat, as he did for most of the 11 years before he went to prison in 2021. During that time, he also moved around and lived in different places, including at his mother’s home.
The Applicant plans to continue taking his medication and seeing his doctor, so he stays well.
S has helped the Applicant for more than 11 years, taking him to medical appointments, shopping, preparing meals, doing laundry, and giving him lifts. Before he was taken into custody, she was controlling his finances, and giving him an amount of money each day to try to reduce his use of drugs. She is usually the person called when he is admitted to hospital. His aunt, M, has also helped him in the past and has visited him since he has been in immigration detention.
S helped him get his own public housing accommodation before he began living with her. However, he was unable to cope and tried to kill himself. He needs someone to care for him every day.
The Applicant expressed remorse for his offending, particularly against his mother and S.
The one certainty in this case is that he will have the ongoing support of his mother and S, despite their being the victims of most of his offending for more than 30 years. They see that he has a good heart when he is not drug affected and/or suffering from the symptoms of schizophrenia. S attributed his offending behaviour to the effect on him of combining drug use and his schizophrenia medication.
His mother and S believe, and the Applicant claims, that he has overcome his drug habit during the last two years. S said that he had to go ‘cold turkey’ when he went to prison in December 2021. He has not used drugs since then, including in immigration detention where he says they are available and he has been offered them. It is the longest period in his life that he not used drugs.
The Applicant has been drug free in a controlled environment while in prison and immigration detention for the last two years. He has not been subject to adverse conduct reports during those years. He claims to have greater insight into the impact that drug abuse has had on life and the consequences of further offending. Reference was made to the risk mitigation plan prepared by Community Corrections on 29 May 2023 to manage his risk of reoffending if he is released into the community. The plan refers to the support of his family, particularly of S, that if his ice use should resurface he can be referred to residential rehabilitation and will be referred again to community mental health.
His lengthy history while in the community of non-compliance with his medication, drug use, and failure to engage with drug counselling and rehabilitation, demonstrate that he has lacked motivation and self-discipline. During that time, S tried to support him. He has also had the support of his mother and of community mental health. His claims that he will remain drug free and be compliant with his medication after he has been released into the community are untested.
The Applicant’s term of imprisonment ended on 18 December 2023. Community Corrections will have no role if he is released into the community. It will be up to the Applicant, with the support of S and their mother to the extent he engages with them, to change the pattern of his life – using drugs.
I assess the Applicant’s risk of reoffending as high. However, I am not satisfied that this is a case where the harm that would be caused if it were repeated is so serious that any risk that it may be repeated is unacceptable.
The consideration protection of the Australian community weighs against revocation.
Family violence
Following are details of the most recent offences the Applicant has committed against his mother and sister.
On 8 July 2020, the Applicant threatened to slit his mother’s throat, causing her to fear for her safety. He then raised his fists to his sister’s face, threatened to burn her house down, and said that if she sent him to gaol he would kill her. He then chased his sister out of the house when she ran to get away from him. When the Applicant returned to the house, he again threatened to cut his mother’s throat and kill her and raised his fists to her face. At the time of the offences the Applicant was subject to a Final Apprehended Domestic Violence Order which protected his mother and sister and required him not to threaten, assault or intimidate his family.

On 28 December 2020, the applicant grabbed his mother around the throat and threatened her by stating:
‘You listen. If you go out this door, I will cut your throat’ ‘You hear me. If you get out this door, I want to take your head off and I'll go to gaol. I don't go to gaol before I kill you).
The Applicant was sentenced to ICOs for 18 months for the offences in July 2020 and 12 months for the December 2020 offence.
Between 2000 and 2014, a period of 14 years, the Applicant was sentenced to a total of 23 years’ imprisonment (noting that some were served concurrently) for 46 separate family violence offences against his sister and mother, including assaults, contraventions of DVOs and intimidation charges.
Despite the years of such offending, both women desperately oppose the Applicant being removed to Lebanon. I accept that neither woman fears him when he is not adversely affected by drugs and/or schizophrenia but I am not persuaded that they do not fear him during the incidents which result in them calling the police, convictions, and DVOs.
The consideration family violence weighs against revocation because of the cumulative effect of the Applicant’s 30 years of frequent offending, after multiple warnings from police and courts, and various sentences, including imprisonment.
Strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia
The Applicant’s mother, two sisters, S and N, and brother, live in the Sydney area, as does a large extended family of aunts, uncles and cousins. He currently speaks to his mother who is 76 years old and his sister S every day and to N and his brother now and then. His father died recently. He has the very strong support of his mother and S. Both will be devastated if he is returned to Lebanon, despite being the victims of his offending for about 30 years.
The Applicant also has a nephew, N’s son. He speaks to his nephew now and then.
His aunt, M, has supported him in the past and has visited him in immigration detention.
The Applicant has lived in Australia for more than 52 of his 54 years. He has never left. He speaks limited Arabic.
In May 1978, his mother applied for Australian citizenship for herself and the Applicant. The Applicant’s mother attended a citizenship interview on 28 February 1979 when a new citizenship form was completed for her. It did not include the Applicant. His mother’s application was approved on 14 May 1979 and she swore an oath of allegiance and became an Australian citizen on 12 December 1979.
She believed that the Applicant had also become a citizen. She had clearly intended that he become a citizen. However, at that time the Australian Citizenship Act 1948 (Cth) in force enabled the relevant Minister to effectively grant citizenship to a child who had not attained the age of 16 upon the application of the responsible parent who was the father. That explains why another application was filled out when the Applicant’s mother attended the citizenship interview with a friend. She did not speak English at that time.
I accept that the Applicant identified himself to be an Australian citizen for 52 years until his visa was cancelled in September 2022. If he had been a citizen, he would not be the subject of visa cancellation and consequently this proceeding.
He left school when he was about 14 years old. He cannot read, write or spell very well. He has a limited work history. He has worked in concreting and as an assistant diesel mechanic.
The consideration strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia, weighs in favour of revocation.
Best interests of minor children
The only minor child relied upon is the Applicant’s 17 years old nephew with whom he has some ongoing contact. He does not play a parental role to this child. There is no evidence from this child. The nature and extent of contact with the child over the last 17 years is not apparent.
I give this consideration negligible weight in favour of revocation.
Expectations of the Australian community
The Applicant has engaged in serious conduct as outlined above, in breach of the Australian community’s expectation that non-citizens obey Australian laws while in Australia and that the Australian community, as a norm, expects the Government to not allow such a non-citizen to remain in Australia.[5] This expectation applies regardless of whether the Applicant poses a measurable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community.[6]
[5] Direction 99, paragraph 8.5(1).
[6] Direction 99, paragraph 8.5(3).
It is not for a decision-maker to make an assessment of the community’s expectations.[7] The Tribunal must have due regard to the deemed community expectation that all persons who have committed serious criminal offences giving rise to character concerns should have their visa applications refused.[8] The decision-maker determines the appropriate weight to be given to this consideration.[9]
[7] FYBR v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCAFC 185 at [66]-[67] (Charlesworth J) and at [104] (Stewart J) and Direction 99, paragraph 8.5(4).
[8] FYBR at [75] per Charlesworth J.
[9] Jacobs and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (Migration) [2020] AATA 1524 at [72].
The Applicant’s criminal history includes repeated offences of family violence against his mother and sister, S, and offences against police officers and other serious offences over more than 30 years.
The expectations of the Australian community weigh against revocation.
Other considerations
Legal consequences of the decision
The Applicant is not the subject of a protection finding within the meaning of sections 197C(4)-(7) of the Act. Paragraph 9.1.2 of Direction 99 is relevant. He contends that the legal consequence of this decision is that he will be removed from Australia to Lebanon in violation of Australia’s international legal obligations.
The Applicant contends that he is a person who engages Australia’s non-refoulement obligations because he has a well-founded fear of persecution on the basis of his membership of a particular social group, namely people with mental illness.
Country information referred to demonstrates the following:
·Significant stigma attaches to those seeking assistance for mental health, especially to those with noticeable symptoms, who are perceived as ‘incompetent, aggressive, violent’ and unable to participate in the community;
·A number of societal groups are particularly vulnerable in relation to mental health issues, including persons with disabilities;
·persons with mental disabilities face adverse political, social, cultural, and economic conditions which have extremely detrimental effects on their rights, capacities, experiences, and quality of life;
·a recent study in 2022 into stigma in health care centres in Lebanon, shows that prejudice against people with mental illness extends to health care workers, especially doctors who demonstrated an ‘overwhelmingly negative’ attitude towards people with mental illness;
·Mental health services in Lebanon are scarce, especially outside Beirut;
·Medication is often unavailable;
·According to the World Health Organisation in 2021, the health system in Lebanon as a whole is at risk of collapse as a result of multiple crises impacting the country;
·The crises have also resulted in a brain drain in the Lebanese health sector, with 40% of doctors and 30% of registered nurses having left the country;
The Applicant claims that if he is removed to Lebanon, he will be unable to access medication or mental health treatment for his mental illness. It follows that there is a real chance that he will experience psychotic symptoms in the form of delusions, paranoia, hallucinations, and difficulties with emotional regulation which he has experienced in the past.
There is a real chance that the Applicant will:
·be subject to physical harassment, mistreatment, and threats at the hands of the general public or law enforcement officials in Lebanon;
·face systemic and discriminatory conduct that will impact his ability to subsist, including accessing accommodation and employment.
The Respondent accepted that the Applicant raised a bare claim which may give rise to complementary protection (and non-refoulement) obligations but contended that it was open to him to apply for a protection visa when he could adduce evidence and his claim would be assessed, as suggested by paragraph 9.1.2(2) in Direction 99. Therefore, consideration of his claim in this matter may be deferred.
It is open to the Applicant to apply for a protection visa. However, I will consider the Applicant’s contention because his claims have been clearly articulated and there is sufficient evidence for a meaningful assessment.
I accept the Applicant’s contentions. He is a person who engages Australia’s non-refoulement obligations because he has a well-found fear of persecution on the basis of his membership of a particular social group, people with mental illness.
Section 198(2B) of the Act provides that if the decision made under section 501(3A) is not revoked, the Applicant, who is a non-citizen, must be removed from Australia as soon as reasonably practicable.
Section 197C(1) provides that for the purposes of section 198, it is irrelevant whether Australia has non-refoulement obligations with respect to the Applicant. Section 197C(2) provides that an officer’s duty to remove a person as soon as reasonably practicable arises irrespective of whether there has been an assessment as to Australia’s non-refoulement obligations with respect to them.
The legal consequence of the decision is that the Applicant will be removed from Australia in violation of Australia’s international legal obligations.
The consideration legal consequences of decision under section 501 or 501CA weighs in favour of revocation.
Extent of impediments if removed
The Applicant is 54 years of age, with a limited work history, a 30 year history of schizophrenia for which he requires fortnightly injections and medication for the side effects of the injection, and an almost 40 year history of drug abuse. He has suffered suicidal ideation and has attempted suicide. He also has a suspected but unconfirmed intellectual disability. His education is limited and he has limited literacy in English. All those matters adversely impact his ability to establish a basic standard of living in Australia. He has been dependent on a social security benefit since about 1988.
The Applicant has had the support of his mother and, particularly, the practical, almost daily support of his sister, S, for many years. He will not have their support if he returns to Lebanon. He has no-one in Lebanon who will support him as they have.
He will face substantial barriers to establishing and maintaining a basic standard of living in Lebanon (in the context of what is generally available to other citizens of that country), including language and cultural barriers, and barriers accessing accommodation, financial support, and medication.
The impediments that the Applicant will confront if he is returned to Lebanon are so extensive, it is likely that he will not survive.
This consideration weighs in favour of revocation.
Conclusion
The primary considerations protection of the Australian community, family violence, and the expectations of the Australian community weigh heavily against revocation.
Together, the primary considerations strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia and best interests of minor children, and the other considerations, legal consequences of the decision, and extent of impediments if removed, weigh very heavily in favour of revocation.
The considerations weighing in favour of revocation outweigh those considerations weighing against revocation.
There is another reason why the mandatory visa cancellation decision should be revoked under section 501CA(4) of the Act.
DECISION
The reviewable decision is set aside and in substitution it is decided that there is another reason why the mandatory visa cancellation decision should be revoked under section 501CA(4) of the Act, having regard to the considerations prescribed by Direction No. 99 – Visa refusal and cancellation under section 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under section 501CA.

I certify that the preceding 94 (ninety-four) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Mrs J C Kelly, Senior Member

..................................[sgd]......................................
Associate
Dated: 21 December 2023

Date of hearing:

14 December 2023

Solicitors for the Applicant:

Mr G Rohan, Legal Aid NSW

Solicitors for the Respondent:

Mr A Burgess, AGS

Date of hearing:	14 December 2023
Solicitors for the Applicant:	Mr G Rohan, Legal Aid NSW
Solicitors for the Respondent:	Mr A Burgess, AGS