Khalil and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Migration) - [2020] AATA 4592

Khalil and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Migration) [2020] AATA 4592 (6 November 2020)
Division:GENERAL DIVISION
File Number(s): 2017/7267
Re:Mohamed Khalil
APPLICANT

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

ORAL DECISION
Tribunal:Deputy President Britten-Jones
Date:6 November 2020
Place:Adelaide

For the reasons given orally at the conclusion of the hearing of this matter, the Tribunal affirms the decision that the applicant be refused a grant of a visa under s 501(1) of the Migration Act 1958.
.............[Sgnd]..........................
Deputy President Britten-Jones
CATCHWORDS
Migration – refusal to grant Partner visa – whether the applicant is of good character – substantial criminal record – whether to exercise discretion to refuse - the best interests of minor children in Australia – risk to the Australian community – crimes of a violent nature against women – drug offences – not fully rehabilitated – not of good character – considerations in Direction No. 79 favour exercising of discretion to refuse the applicant a visa – decision affirmed
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958
CASES
FYBR v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCAFC 185
YNQY v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCA 1466
SECONDARY MATERIALS
Direction No. 79 – Visa refusal and cancellation under s 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under s 501CA, 20 December 2018
REASONS FOR DECISION

At the conclusion of the hearing of the above matter, it was announced that the decision of the Tribunal is to affirm the decision under review. The reasons for the decision follow:

I certify that the following fifty-six (56) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Deputy President Britten-Jones
.........[Sgnd]...................................
Legal and Administrative Assistant

Date of hearing:
27 and 28 October 2020,
6 November 2020

Applicant’s Representatives: Mr G Arujunan, Australia Migration Services

Respondent’s Representative: Mr A Chan, Sparke Helmore
Deputy President Britten-Jones
6 November 2020

This is an application for a review of a decision of a delegate of the respondent (the Minister) dated 9 November 2017 to refuse the applicant’s application for a Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) visa (the visa) under s 501(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).[1]
[1] All references to legislation are to the Migration Act 1958 unless otherwise stated.
The applicant does not pass the character test as defined in s 501(6) because he has a ‘substantial criminal record’. The only issue before the Tribunal is whether to exercise the discretion in s 501(1) to refuse to grant the applicant the visa.
The issue involves the exercise of a discretion guided by the considerations set out in Direction no. 79 – Visa refusal and cancellation under s 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under s 501CA (Direction 79). Section 499(2A) mandates that the Tribunal must comply with Direction 79.
Direction 79
Paragraph 6.1 of Direction 79 sets out the following objectives:
6.1 Objectives
(1)The objective of the Act is to regulate, in the national interest, the coming into, and presence in, Australia of non-citizens.
(2)Under subsection 501(1) of the Act, a non-citizen may be refused a visa if the non-citizen does not satisfy the decision-maker that they pass the character test. A non-citizen may have their visa cancelled under subsection 501(2) if the decision-maker reasonably suspects that the non-citizen does not pass the character test, and the non-citizen does not satisfy the decision-maker that they pass the character test. Where the discretion to refuse to grant or to cancel a visa is enlivened, the decision-maker must consider whether to exercise the discretion to refuse or cancel the visa given the specific circumstances of the case.
…
(4)The purpose of this Direction is to guide decision-makers performing functions or exercising powers under section 501 of the Act, to refuse to grant a visa or cancel a visa of a non-citizen who does not satisfy the decision-maker that the non-citizen passes the character test, or to revoke a mandatory cancellation under section 501CA of the Act. Under section 499(2A) of the Act, such decision-makers must comply with a direction made under section 499.
By way of general guidance, paragraph 6.2 of Direction 79 provides:
6.2 General Guidance
(1)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.
(2)In order to effectively protect the Australian community from harm, and to maintain integrity and public confidence in the character assessment process, decisions about whether a non-citizen’s visa should be refused or cancelled under section 501 should be made in a timely manner once a decision-maker is satisfied that a non-citizen does not pass the character test. Timely decisions are also beneficial to the client in providing certainty about their future.
(3)The principles provide a framework within which decision-makers should approach their task of deciding whether to refuse or cancel a non-citizen’s visa under section 501… .
The principles referred to in the General Guidance are reproduced below and constitute a framework within which decision-makers must apply the considerations in Parts A, B, or C of Direction 79:
6.3 Principles
(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 vulnerable members of the community such as minors, the elderly or disabled, should generally expect to be denied the privilege of coming to, or to 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 should be allowed to come to, or remain permanently in, Australia.
(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-citizen’s visa should be cancelled, or their visa application refused.
Paragraph 7.1(a) of Direction 79 states that a decision-maker ‘… must take into account the considerations in Part A or Part B, where relevant, in order to determine whether a non-citizen will forfeit the privilege of being granted, or of continuing to hold, a visa.’ Paragraph 8(1) of Direction 79 explains that the considerations in Part A and Part C for existing visa holders and in Part B for visa applicants are different:
Separating the considerations for visa holders and visa applicants recognises that non-citizens holding a substantive visa will generally have an expectation that they will be permitted to remain in Australia for the duration of that visa, whereas a visa applicant should have no expectation that a visa application will be approved.
The considerations relevant to visa applicants are found in paragraphs 11 and 12 of Part B of Direction 79.
Given that the applicant does not pass the character test, the following primary considerations in paragraph 11(1) of Direction 79 must be applied to the specific circumstances of his case:
(a) Protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct;
(b) The best interests of minor children in Australia;
(c) Expectations of the Australian community.
Paragraph 12(1) of Direction 79 requires that other considerations to be taken into account, where relevant, include (but are not limited to):
(a) International non-refoulement obligations;
(b) Impact on family members;
(c) Impact on victims;
(d) Impact on Australian business interests.
I mention at this point that, despite Part B of Direction 79 applying to visa applicants, there is a reference in paragraph 12 to ‘deciding whether to cancel a visa’ (emphasis added). This is clearly a typographical error and the word “cancel” should be replaced by “refuse”.
Paragraph 8(4) of Direction 79 states that ‘Primary considerations should generally be given greater weight than the other considerations.’ Paragraph 8(5) states that ‘One or more primary considerations may outweigh other primary considerations.’
Factual Background
Oral evidence was given by the applicant and a clinical psychologist. In December 2016, the applicant wrote to the Department of Immigration and Border Protection explaining that he is rehabilitated and should be granted a visa. On 8 February 2018 the applicant made a statutory declaration. The applicant also submitted an affidavit dated 7 June 2018 with 11 annexures to the Federal Court. I make the following findings of fact based on this evidence and the other written material tendered as evidence at the hearing.
The applicant was born in Egypt on 25 January 1988 and came to Australia on 20 April 2007 as a student aged 19 years. He studied an English course for six weeks and then attended TAFE for about six months. He started smoking cannabis shortly after arriving in Australia and said he smoked cannabis because he was stressed after his arrival. He was diagnosed with depression or anxiety and said that he had to see a professional. He married in 2009 and became divorced in 2011. He re-married in April 2012.
In 2009 he was convicted of the offence of having no authority to drive despite holding an international driver’s licence. He pleaded guilty and received a fine but when charged again, the case was dismissed. He said that his plea of guilty was based on a miscomprehension due to not speaking English very well and he said that he did not know what the offence was about. The summary of offence document issued by the Western Australia police recorded that he was driving after his licence had been suspended on 5 August 2009. This is a simple offence and the facts establish his guilt. I reject the applicant’s suggestion to the contrary. I do not accept the applicant’s explanation.
The applicant obtained a taxi licence in November 2011 and he drove a taxi in and around South Hedland until 2014. In 2014 and up to February 2015 he worked as a general labourer in Port Hedland.
The more serious offending began in 2013 when he pleaded guilty in the South Hedland Magistrates Court to two charges of creating false belief and received a fine of $750 on 28 November 2013. He admitted in his oral evidence that he made a statement to the police falsely accusing a former friend of stealing money from him. He said that she was taking some money from him but not all of it. In cross examination he was taken to a passage of transcript from the previous Tribunal hearing where he denied telling the police that any money had been stolen from him and that he only pleaded guilty to save time.[2] Asked about this, the applicant explained that he did not know which offence was being referred to because he did not have the National Police Certificate at the time. I do not accept this explanation. He clearly denied the offence when asked about it in the previous Tribunal hearing. I note that he properly accepted his guilt with respect to this offence at the hearing before me. However, it concerns me that he maintained that the former friend did steal some money from him. I reject this claim because there is no other evidence to support it.
[2] Exhibit 1, transcript of the Tribunal hearing on 20 February 2018 p 430 to 431.
On 26 November 2013 the applicant was arrested for possessing a prohibited drug (cannabis).
On 14 February 2014 the applicant committed an act of domestic violence against his wife. He was charged with and pleaded guilty to aggravated assault occasioning bodily harm. The summary of offence document provided:[3]
[3] Exhibit 1, summary of offence found in the statement of material facts p 321.
The accused and the victim have an 18 month old son who was not at home and they argued about his whereabouts.
The accused and victim left the house for an address in South Hedland from where the child was collected. The victim had the child on her lap in the front passenger seat as they travelled home. The argument between the victim and accused continued in the vehicle.
The accused, while driving, used his left clenched fist to punch the victim in the face multiple times. He drove into the car park … where the victim stepped out of the vehicle with her child.
The accused stepped out of the vehicle and told the victim to put the child back in the car. The victim placed the child back in the car and she was then pushed to the ground by the accused.
The victim got back up to her feet and the accused began to hit her. She ran away screaming for help and police were contacted by a witness to the incident. The accused left the area with the child.
Police attended and conveyed the victim to the South Hedland health campus for treatment to her injuries.
At about 9:45 PM on Friday, 14 February 2014, police attended… And located the accused.
He was arrested and conveyed to South Hedland police station where he participated in a electronic record of interview during which he made no admissions.
The present charge was preferred and he was released to Bail with protective conditions imposed.
As a result of the assault, the victim suffered swelling and bruising around her right eye, a scratch on her arm, a sore head and torn clothing.
The applicant in his oral evidence said that it was a once off incident and that there was no other violence in their relationship. He said that he did slap her a few times and that she went to the hospital with bruises but that they were not life threatening. He said that he regretted what he did and that there was no reason to hit her or any woman or anybody. He said that the reason for it was because his wife had left their child with persons who were not of good character. He said that his wife accepted him back into the house 24-hours after the incident and everything was back to normal and that they continued their relationship and that she provided him with a letter of support at the court hearing.
In cross examination, the applicant said he got angry and hit her but that she was hitting him very hard and that she is strong and bigger than him. He said that when he went home, four friends of hers came to attack him. He said that if he had a good lawyer, he would not have pleaded guilty. He said that he did assault her but not to the point of causing harm and that her injuries were not life threatening. He said that what he did was wrong and that he regrets hitting his ex-wife.
On 24 February 2014 the applicant received an intensive supervision order for 6 months for the aggravated assault.
On 28 February 2014 the applicant and his co-accused were pulled over by police and searched. Forty-four bags of cannabis weighing approximately 1.2 kg were found in their vehicle. He was charged with possession of prohibited drugs with intent to sell or supply (cannabis). The applicant pleaded guilty to possessing the cannabis but denied any intention to sell. After a short, contested hearing, the applicant was found guilty as charged. On 15 January 2016 he was convicted in the Perth District Court of Western Australia and sentenced to a term of imprisonment for one year and four months commencing from 27 October 2015. He maintained in his oral evidence that he had no intent to sell. He said that the judge only believed what he wanted to hear.
In the sentencing remarks of the judge, he said that he was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the applicant was knowingly involved in the sale and distribution of the cannabis and that he and the co-accused had those drugs as part of a joint criminal enterprise to sell the drugs commercially.[4]
[4] Exhibit 1, transcript of proceedings p 371.
On 1 April 2014, the applicant was again arrested for possessing a prohibited drug (cannabis). There were further arrests for cannabis possession in May 2014.
The applicant voluntarily stopped smoking cannabis in about July or August 2014 when his ex-wife was pregnant with their second child.
The applicant was fined for the two offences of possessing cannabis on 6 and 11 August 2014.
The applicant breached his supervision order because he was unable to report due to his car breaking down. He received a suspended imprisonment term of 6 months on 25 August 2014.
There was a further conviction for possessing cannabis on 12 February 2015.
The Discretion to Refuse to Grant a Visa
I turn now to consider the primary and other considerations set out above in Part B of Direction 79.
Protection of the Australian community – 11.1
I will first consider the nature and seriousness of the applicant’s conduct to date.
The applicant committed a violent crime against his wife. He repeatedly hit her to the face and pushed her to the ground. He said that he was angry, but his conduct was clearly deliberate and premeditated given that he asked his wife to put their 18-month year old child in the car. He then continued the assault outside of the car and she ran away screaming for help. The injuries were serious enough so as to require medical attention although I accept that they were not life threatening. The court imposed an intensive supervision order rather than a term of imprisonment, but I note the principle that crimes of a violent nature against women are viewed very seriously regardless of the sentence imposed. I view this act of domestic violence very seriously. It also concerns me that the applicant sought to downplay the seriousness of this offending in his oral evidence by saying that she was hitting him very hard and that she is very strong and is bigger than him.
I view very seriously the offence of possession with intent to sell or supply (cannabis). I note that the applicant has never accepted that he had an intent to sell or supply cannabis, and he maintained that position at the hearing before me. This concerns me because the sentencing judge made it clear in his remarks that the applicant was knowingly involved with the co-accused in the sale and distribution of cannabis and that he and his co-accused had those drugs as part of a joint criminal enterprise to sell the drugs commercially. This ongoing denial shows a disrespect for judicial authority and a lack of insight and understanding of his offending. It also suggests that any remorse expressed with respect to this offending is not genuine. Whilst it is clear from all of the evidence that the applicant was a habitual user of cannabis (having been convicted four times for possession), it is also clear that the applicant took the more serious step of entering into a commercial enterprise to sell and distribute cannabis. That is a very serious crime which is reflected in the sentence imposed of imprisonment for one year and four months.

The offending from 2013 to 2015 was frequent, and I take into account the cumulative effect of the repeated offending. Despite receiving an intensive supervision order on 24 February 2014 for the domestic violence offence, the applicant escalated his offending by entering into the commercial enterprise to sell cannabis. I consider that there is an increasing trend of seriousness from traffic offences, the creating false belief offence, then domestic violence and drug supply which culminated in the term of imprisonment commencing on 27 October 2015.
I turn now to the risk to the Australian community should the applicant commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct. Any further acts of domestic violence would result in serious harm. The supply of drugs to the community brings about significant harm of a social and health-related nature. The nature of this potential harm is very serious, and I consider that the applicant represents an unacceptable risk of harm to the Australian community. In these circumstances the Australian community would have a low tolerance for any risk of future harm. The cumulative effect of the offences of domestic violence and cannabis supply is so serious that any likelihood it may be repeated is unacceptable.
I accept that the applicant has participated in numerous rehabilitative programs, in particular in 2019 and early 2020, as evidenced by numerous certificates of participation in courses covering topics of life skills, men’s group, parenting, conflict resolution, anger management and drugs and alcohol.[5] Prior to 2019 the applicant participated in eight weekly Men’s Group counselling sessions in the Yongah Hill detention centre which were predominantly focussed on drugs and alcohol. I take into account that the applicant has a record of good behaviour whilst in prison and in detention. I also take into account numerous letters of support from work colleagues, family friends and a senior drug and alcohol counsellor. However, despite the applicant’s good behaviour and participation in rehabilitative courses, he failed to show genuine remorse or insight at the hearing. While he expressed remorse for his offending, he simultaneously sought to minimise the seriousness of the domestic violence and the drug supply during his evidence at the hearing. The applicant maintained his denial of having an intent to sell or supply cannabis, and he sought to justify his domestic violence by saying that his wife was hitting him and that she was a strong and big woman. At times in his evidence, he blamed others such as his co-accused or his lawyer.
[5] These certificates were tendered on 6 November 2020 after the hearing had been adjourned because of the ‘2 day rule’.
I consider that the applicant lacks the appropriate insight into the seriousness of his offending and that, as a result, he is not fully rehabilitated. The applicant’s criminal history demonstrates that he has had very little regard for the law. His claimed rehabilitation has not been tested in the community. Whilst he used to have the support of his wife, it would appear that she no longer supports him because they have divorced, and she no longer visits him. I find that there is a real and unacceptable risk that he will reoffend.
I have taken into account the written report and oral evidence from the clinical psychologist, Dr Pattni. She refers to the love that the applicant has for his two children and the time spent in prison and detention as being factors in favour of him not reoffending. She refers to the volunteer courses that he participated in including drug and alcohol, fathering, stress and anxiety management. She expressed her conclusion in respect to rehabilitation and recidivism by saying that ‘evidence based research mentioned above gives support the probability that Mr Kahlil is in a cohort group that stands an enhanced chance of positive rehabilitation.’ She said in her oral evidence that if released he would need support and that his rehabilitation would continue. When asked, she could not say that he is fully rehabilitated now but it was her view that he would fully rehabilitate because of the significant motivation supplied by his children. She concluded in her oral evidence that the applicant has a remote chance of reoffending and a good chance of rehabilitating.
I am unable to accept Dr Pattni’s opinion that the applicant only has a remote chance of reoffending. I remain very concerned by the seriousness of his offending and his oral evidence at the hearing as stated above.
Given the very serious nature of the applicant’s offending and the very real and unacceptable risk of the applicant further offending, I consider that the protection of the Australian community weighs heavily in favour of my exercising a discretion to refuse the applicant a visa.
Best Interests of Minor Children – 11.2
The applicant has two children aged five and eight years old. The applicant was taken into immigration detention 22 days after the birth of his second son. He has spent two years and five months with his first son and about 22 days with his second son. Despite this limited role in the lives of his children, I consider that the applicant would play a positive role in the future with his children. The exact nature of that role is uncertain given that his relationship with his wife has broken down and there have been proceedings in the Family Court. I note that the ex-wife has taken steps over the last two years to prevent the applicant seeing or speaking to his children. If the applicant is returned to Egypt, then the children may continue to not have contact with their father assuming that the ex-wife continues to prevent them from talking to him. I would hope that the ex-wife changes her current stance and lets the children speak to their father both whilst he is here in detention, or if he is removed to Egypt.
I find that it would be in the best interests of these children that the visa be granted to allow the applicant to carry out the role of father to these young children. However, I take into account that the children have the benefit of their mother playing a parental role. I also take into account the real risk that the applicant will reoffend and that the children may be exposed to this reoffending; noting the presence of his first child (then 2 years old) during his assault on his wife. I also take into account that the applicant has had limited contact with his second child but that he has a genuine desire to be a good father to both of them.
The applicant contended that his ex-wife is at risk of Huntington’s disease and therefore of limited capability to care for the children but I give this limited weight because, despite carrying the gene, the ex-wife has not been diagnosed with Huntington’s disease and there is no expert evidence as to when she may suffer from the disease in the future.
The best interests of minor children are a factor that weighs in favour of my exercising a discretion to not refuse to grant the visa, but there are factors that diminish its weight.
Expectations of the Australian community – 11.3
In YNQY v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection,[6] Mortimer J held that the expectations of the Australian community were inextricably linked to the other primary consideration about the protection of the Australian community, and that the expectations referred to in Direction 79 were those espoused in clause 13.3(1)[7] rather than any objective expectations put forward by an applicant. This position has been affirmed by the Full Court of the Federal Court in FYBRv Minister for Home Affairs.[8]
[6] [2017] FCA 1466.
[7] paragraph 11.3(1).
[8] [2019] FCAFC 185.
In exercising my discretion, I am also informed by the principle at paragraph 6.3(1) of Direction 79 that:
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.
The Australian community expects non-citizens to obey Australian laws while in Australia. This expectation has not been met with respect to the applicant in the past. The applicant has breached the trust that the Australian community placed in him.
The applicant’s offending of domestic violence and drug supply means that he should expect to be denied the privilege of coming to Australia.[9] He has shown a complete disregard for authority by continuing to take drugs and by refusing to accept his guilt as to the supply of those drugs.
[9] Direction 79 at 6.3(3).
Taking into account the serious nature of the offending and risk of reoffending, I find that the expectations of the Australian community weigh strongly in favour of refusing to grant the applicant a visa.
Other Considerations
The applicant made no submissions that any of the other considerations weigh in favour of not refusing to grant a visa. The applicant agreed that neutral weight should be given to these factors. The respondent noted that the only immediate family in Australia is the applicant’s ex-wife but that she is now divorced from the applicant. There was no current evidence that she would be adversely impacted by the applicant having his visa application refused. There is evidence in a letter that the ex-wife would have difficulties bringing up the children on her own,[10] but it is apparent that subsequent to that letter they became divorced and she has taken steps to prevent the applicant from seeing his children. The last time he saw his children was 7 September 2019. Although there is no current evidence about the impact a visa refusal would have on the ex-wife,[11] it can be inferred that, despite her current behaviour towards him, she would be negatively impacted by a visa refusal because he could share some of the burden of bringing up these young children. I take that into account as a factor that weighs in favour of not refusing to grant the visa.
[10] Letter from Samantha Khalil annexure 8 to applicant affidavit 7 June 2018
[11] Direction 79 paragraph 6.3(7)
I give neutral weight to the other considerations.
Conclusion as to the exercise of my discretion
I have considered the specific circumstances relating to the applicant as part of my consideration whether to exercise my discretion to refuse to grant the applicant a visa. Having considered the factors in Direction 79 I have reached the conclusion that, on balance, those factors favour the refusal of the applicant’s visa application. In particular, the primary considerations relating to the protection of the Australian community and the expectations of the Australian community are factors which weigh strongly in favour of refusing to grant a visa. These two primary considerations outweigh the primary consideration of the best interests of the children, which, on its own, weighs in favour of not refusing the visa.
Not having their father present in their lives will have a negative impact on the children and there is some evidence that the ex-wife would benefit from the applicant returning to the community, but I have to weigh that up with the protection of the Australian community and the expectations of the Australian community.
The applicant remains an unacceptable risk to the Australian community because of the real risk that he will re-offend and cause further harm to the community. The applicant has not established that he is fully rehabilitated. The nature of his offending is very serious, and he has not shown insight into his offending. The protection and expectations of the Australian community outweigh the countervailing factors.
In all of the circumstances I would exercise the discretion to refuse to grant the applicant his visa.
Decision
I am not satisfied that the applicant is of good character, and in all of the circumstances, I would exercise my discretion to refuse to grant a visa to the applicant. The decision under review should be affirmed.

Date of hearing:	27 and 28 October 2020, 6 November 2020
Applicant’s Representatives:	Mr G Arujunan, Australia Migration Services
Respondent’s Representative:	Mr A Chan, Sparke Helmore