LQFH and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Migration)
[2021] AATA 1141
•4 May 2021
LQFH and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Migration) [2021] AATA 1141 (4 May 2021)
Division:GENERAL DIVISION
File Number(s): 2021/0828
Re:LQFH
APPLICANT
AndMinister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs
RESPONDENT
DECISION
Tribunal:Senior Member M Griffin QC
Date:4 May 2021
Place:Sydney
The decision under review is affirmed.
................[sgd]........................................................
Senior Member M Griffin QC
CATCHWORDS
VISA CANCELLATION – refusal to revoke visa cancellation – whether the applicant passes the character test – substantial criminal record – whether there is another reason to revoke the cancellation – protection of the Australian community – best interests of minor children – other considerations – co-operation with police – harm to the applicant if removed – decision under review is affirmed.
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (‘the Act’) s 499, 500, 501, 501CA
CASES
FYBR v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCAFC 185
SECONDARY MATERIALS
Ministerial Direction 90 (15 April 2021)
REASONS FOR DECISION
Senior Member M Griffin QC
4 May 2021
The Applicant applied for review of a decision of 10 February 2021 refusing to revoke the cancellation of his Permanent Partner (subclass 801) visa.
The issue before the Tribunal is whether there is another reason why the original decision to cancel the Applicant's visa should be revoked: s 501(C)(4)(b)(ii) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (‘the Act’).
The Applicant is Vietnamese, born in that country in January 1988, who arrived in Australia for the first time on 10 November 2007 at the age of 19, at that time, the holder of a Student visa.
Since that time, the Applicant has left Australia on 19 occasions, his longest absence being for a period of almost two years, between October 2009 and 2011.
The Applicant originally came to Australia to study Applied Finance at Macquarie University. He did not complete that or any other courses. The Applicant admitted to the Tribunal, during the hearing, to being untruthful about the possession of a law degree in order to obtain entrance into a migration agent’s education scheme.
The Applicant has lived, at various times, with his mother in Australia and has supported her through ill-health (later to be discussed).
On 6 July 2012, the Applicant was granted a Temporary Partner (subclass 820) visa and subsequently, a Permanent Partner (subclass 801) visa.
On 26 April 2013, the Applicant was sentenced to be of good behaviour for the offence of dishonestly obtaining a financial advantage by deception and, apart from some other minor driving offences, on 20 August 2019 was convicted in the District Court, New South Wales, of serious fraud offences related to his falsely pretending to be a migration agent and stealing monies from innocent victims.
It is clear, on the undisputed evidence before the Tribunal, that the Applicant does not pass the character test.
ISSUES
The issue in this review is whether the original decision to cancel the Applicant’s visa should be revoked pursuant to s 501CA of the Act. The Tribunal may revoke the original decision if the Tribunal is satisfied:
(a)that the Applicant passes the character test as defined by section 501 of the Act; or
(b)that there is another reason to revoke the cancellation given the specific circumstances of the case (s 501CA(4)).
RELEVANT LEGISLATION AND POLICY
Section 501CA of the Act applies if the Minister makes a decision under s 501(3A) to cancel a visa that has been granted to a person: see s 501CA(1).
Subsection 501CA(4) provides that:
(4)The Minister may revoke the original decision if:
(a)the person makes representations in accordance with the invitation;
and
(b)the Minister is satisfied:
(i) that the person passes the character test (as defined by section 501); or
(ii) that there is another reason why the original decision should be revoked.
Subsection 501(6)(a) provides that a person does not pass the "character test" if the person has "a substantial criminal record". A person has a substantial criminal record if the person has been sentenced to a term of 12 months imprisonment or more: s 501(7)(c).
Subsection 500(1)(ba) of the Act provides that applications may be made to the Tribunal for review of decisions of a delegate of the Minister under s 501CA(4) not to revoke a decision to cancel a visa.
The Minister has made written directions pursuant to s 499 of the Act to guide decision-makers in the exercise of the power in s 501CA(4) (Direction No. 90 which commenced on 15 April 2021). The relevant paragraphs of which are set out below and describe the framework within which the Tribunal’s discretion is to be exercised.
The Preamble of Direction No. 90 sets out the objectives and principles for decision-makers, which relevantly include that:
(1)Being able to stay in Australia is a privilege.
(2)Those who engage in criminal conduct should expect to be denied the right to remain in Australia.
(3)The Australian community expects refusal of entry to non-citizens or cancellation of their visas if engaged in conduct that raises serious character concerns. This expectation applies regardless whether the person poses a measurable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community.
(4)Australia has a low tolerance of any criminal or other serious conduct by non-citizens. However, a higher level of tolerance of criminal or serious conduct may be afforded to those who have lived in Australia for most of their lives or from a very young age.
(5)Decision-makers must take into account the primary and other considerations relevant to the individual case. In some circumstances, the nature of the non-citizen's conduct, or the harm that would be caused if the conduct were to be repeated, may be so serious that even strong countervailing considerations may be insufficient to justify not cancelling or refusing the visa, or revoking a mandatory cancellation. In particular, the inherent nature of certain conduct such as family violence and the other types of conduct or suspected conduct is so serious that even strong countervailing considerations may be insufficient in some circumstances, even if the non-citizen does not pose a measureable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community.
EXERCISING THE DISCRETION
Part 2 of Direction No. 90 identifies the considerations relevant to former visa holders in determining whether to exercise the discretion to revoke the mandatory cancellation of a non-citizen's visa. It comprises four Primary Considerations and several specified, but non-exhaustive, Other Considerations, which must be taken into account.
Pursuant to Part 2 of Direction No. 90, the Tribunal must, to the extent that they are relevant to this case, take the relevant considerations (both primary and other) into account and:
(1)In applying the considerations (both primary and other), information and evidence from independent and authoritative sources should be given appropriate weight.
(2)Primary considerations should generally be given greater weight that the other considerations.
(3)One or more primary considerations may outweigh other primary considerations.
These principles are of course dependent upon the facts and circumstances of each case.
The primary considerations are:
(1) Protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct;
(2) Whether the conduct engaged in constituted family violence;
(3) The best interests of minor children in Australia;
(4) Expectations of the Australian community.
Primary Consideration 1 – Protection of the Australian community
Paragraph 8.1 of Direction No. 90 provides:
(1)When considering protection of the Australian community, decision-makers should keep in mind that the Government is committed to protecting the Australian community from harm as a result of criminal activity or other serious conduct by non-citizens. In this respect, decision-makers should have particular regard to the principle that entering or remaining in Australia is a privilege that Australia confers on non-citizens in the expectation that they are, and have been, law abiding, will respect important institutions, and will not cause or threaten harm to individuals or the Australian community.
(2)Decision-makers should also give consideration to:
(a) the nature and seriousness of the non-citizen’s conduct to date; and
(b)the risk to the Australian community, should the non-citizen commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct.
The two limbs of paragraph 8.1(2) that the Tribunal must consider when assessing the protection of the Australian community are set out below.
The nature and seriousness of the conduct
Sub-paragraph 8.1.1 of Direction No. 90 provides a list of factors to be considered in determining the nature and seriousness of a person's criminal offending or other conduct to date, which includes:
(a)without limiting the range of conduct that may be considered very serious, the type of crimes or conduct described below are viewed very seriously:
(i) violent and/or sexual crimes;
(ii) crimes of a violent nature against women or children, regardless of the sentence imposed
(iii) acts of family violence, regardless of whether there is a conviction for an offence or a sentence imposed;
(b)without limiting the range of conduct that may be considered serious, the type of crimes or conduct described below are considered serious:
(i) causing a party to enter into or being party to a forced marriage (other than being the victim), regardless of whether there is a conviction for an offence or a sentence imposed;
(ii) crimes committed against vulnerable members of the community (such as the elderly and the disabled), or government representatives or officials due to the position they hold, or in the performance of their duties;
(iii) any conduct that forms the basis for a finding that a non-citizen does not pass an aspect of the character test that is dependent upon the decision-maker's opinion…;
(iv) where the non-citizen is in Australia, a crime committed while the non-citizen was in immigration detention, during an escape from immigration detention, or after the non-citizen escaped from immigration detention, but before the non-citizen was taken into immigration detention again, or an offence against section 197A of the Act, which prohibits escape from immigration detention;
(c)the sentence imposed by the courts for a crime or crimes;
(d)the frequency of the non-citizen's offending and/or whether there is any trend of increasing seriousness;
(e)the cumulative effect of repeated offending;
(f)whether the non-citizen has provided false or misleading information to the Department, including by not disclosing prior criminal offending;
(g)whether the non-citizen has re-offended since being formally warned, or since otherwise being made aware, in writing, about the consequences of further offending in terms of the non-citizen's migration status…
The risk to the Australian community
Paragraph 8.1.2 of Direction No. 90 states that decision-makers must have regard to the following:
(1)In considering the need to protect the Australian community (including individuals, groups or institutions) from harm, decision-makers should have regard to the Government's view that the Australian community's tolerance or any risk of future harm becomes lower as the seriousness of the potential harm increases. Some conduct and the harm that would be caused, if it were to be repeated, is so serious that any risk that it may be repeated may be unacceptable.
(2)In assessing the risk that may be posed by the non-citizen to the Australian community, decision-makers must have regard to, cumulatively:
(a)the nature of the harm to individuals or the Australian community should the non-citizen engage in further criminal or other serious conduct; and
(b)the likelihood of the non-citizen engaging in further criminal or other serious conduct, taking into account:
(i) information and evidence on the risk of the non citizen re-offending; and
(ii) evidence of rehabilitation achieved by the time of the decision, giving weight to time spent in the community since their most recent offence (noting that decisions should not be delayed in order for rehabilitative courses to be undertaken).
(c)where consideration is being given to whether to refuse to grant a visa to the non-citizen whether the risk of harm may be affected by the duration and purpose of the non-citizen's intended stay, the type of visa being applied for, and whether there are strong or compassionate reasons for granting a short stay visa.
Primary Consideration 2 – Family violence
Paragraph 8.2 of Direction No. 90 states that:
(1)The Government has serious concerns about conferring on non-citizens who engage in family violence the privilege of entering or remaining in Australia. The Government's concerns in this regard are proportionate to the seriousness of the family violence engaged in by the non-citizen (see paragraph (3) below).
(2)This consideration is relevant in circumstances where:
(a)a non-citizen has been convicted of an offence, found guilty of an offence, or had charges proven howsoever described, that involve family violence; and/or
(b)there is information or evidence from independent and authoritative sources indicating that the non-citizen is, or has been, involved in the perpetration of family violence, and the non-citizen being considered under section 501 or section 501CA has been afforded procedural fairness.
(3)In considering the seriousness of the family violence engaged in by the non citizen, the following factors must be considered where relevant:
(a)the frequency of the non-citizen's conduct and/or whether there is any trend of increasing seriousness;
(b)the cumulative effect of repeated acts of family violence;
(c)rehabilitation achieved at time of decision since the person's last known act of family violence, including:
(i) the extent to which the person accepts responsibility for their family violence related conduct;
(ii) the extent to which the non-citizen understands the impact of their behaviour on the abused and witness of that abuse (particularly children);
(iii) efforts to address factors which contributed to their conduct;
and
(d)Whether the non-citizen has re-offended since being formally warned, or since otherwise being made aware by a Court, law enforcement or other authority, about the consequences of further acts of family violence, noting that the absence of a warning should not be considered to be in the non-citizen's favour. This includes warnings about the non citizen's migration status, should the non-citizen engage in further acts of family violence.
Primary Consideration 3 – Best interests of minor children in Australia affected by the decision
In relation to each child under the age of 18, decision-makers must decide whether revocation is in the best interests of that child:
(1)Decision-makers must make a determination about whether cancellation or refusal under section 501, or non-revocation under section 501CA is, or is not, in the best interests of a child affected by the decision.
(2)This consideration applies only if the child is, or would be, under 18 years old at the time when the decision to refuse or cancel the visa, or to not revoke the mandatory cancellation of the visa, is expected to be made.
(3)If there are two or more relevant children, the best interests of each child should be given individual consideration to the extent that their interests may differ.
(4)In considering the best interests of the child, the following factors must be considered where relevant:
(a)the nature and duration of the relationship between the child and the non-citizen. Less weight should generally be given where the relationship is non-parental, and/or there is no existing relationship and/or there have been long periods of absence, or limited meaningful contact (including whether an existing Court order restricts contact);
(b)the extent to which the non-citizen is likely to play a positive parental role in the future, taking into account the length of time until the child turns 18, and including any Court orders relating to parental access and care arrangements;
(c)the impact of the non-citizen's prior conduct, and any likely future conduct, and whether that conduct has, or will have a negative impact on the child;
(d)the likely effect that any separation from the non-citizen would have on the child, taking into account the child's or non-citizen's ability to maintain contact in other ways;
(e)whether there are other persons who already fulfil a parental role in relation to the child;
(f)any known views of the child (with those views being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child);
(g)evidence that the child has been, or is at risk of being, subject to, or exposed to, family violence perpetrated by the non-citizen, or has otherwise been abused or neglected by the non-citizen in any way, whether physically, sexually or mentally;
(h)evidence that the child has suffered or experienced any physical or emotional trauma arising from the non-citizen's conduct.
Primary Consideration 4 – Expectations of the Australian community
Paragraph 8.4 of Direction No. 90 provides:
(1)The Australian community expects non-citizens to obey Australian laws while in Australia. Where a non-citizen has engaged in serious conduct in breach of this expectation, or where there is an unacceptable risk that they may do so, the Australian community, as a norm, expects the Government to not allow such a non-citizen to enter or remain in Australia.
(2)In addition, visa cancellation or refusal, or non-revocation of the mandatory cancellation of a visa, may be appropriate simply because the nature of the character concerns or offences is such that the Australian community would expect that the person should not be granted or continue to hold a visa. In particular, the Australian community expects that the Australian Government can and should refuse entry to non-citizens, or cancel their visas, if they raise serious character concerns through conduct, in Australia or elsewhere, of the following kind:
(a)acts of family violence; or
(b)causing a person to enter into, or being party to (other than being a victim of), a forced marriage;
(c)commission of serious crimes against women, children or other vulnerable members of the community such as the elderly or disabled; in this context, 'serious crimes' include crimes of a violent or sexual nature, as well as other serious crimes against the elderly or other vulnerable persons in the form of fraud, extortion, financial abuse/material exploitation or neglect;
(d)commission of crimes against government representatives or officials due to the position they hold, or in the performance of their duties; or
(e)involvement or reasonably suspected involvement in human trafficking or people smuggling, or in crimes that are of serious international concern including, but not limited to, war crimes, crimes against humanity and slavery; or
(f)worker exploitation.
(3)The above expectations of the Australian community apply regardless of whether the non-citizen poses a measureable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community.
(4)This consideration is about the expectations of the Australian community as a whole, and in this respect, decision-makers should proceed on the basis of the Government's views as articulated above, without independently assessing the community's expectations in the particular case.
Other Considerations
The Tribunal must also take into account other considerations insofar as they are relevant. These considerations include (but are not limited to):
a)International non-refoulement obligations;
b)Extent of impediments if removed;
c)Impact on victims;
d)Links to the Australian community, including:
(i) strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia;
(ii) impact on Australian business interests.
International non-refoulement obligations
The considerations at paragraph 9.1 of Direction No. 90 include (but are not limited to):
(1)A non-refoulement obligation is an obligation not to forcibly return, deport or expel a person to a place where they will be at risk of a specific type of harm. Australia has Convention and Protocol non-refoulement obligations…
(2)In making a decision under s 501 or 501CA, decision-makers should carefully weigh any non-refoulement obligation against the seriousness of the non-citizen’s criminal offending or other serious conduct…
(3)However, that does not mean the existence of a non-refoulement obligation precludes refusal or cancellation of a non-citizen's visa or non-revocation of the mandatory cancellation of their visa…
(4)Claims which may give rise to international non-refoulement obligations can be raised by the non-citizen in response to a notice of intention to consider cancellation or refusal of their visa in a request to revoke the mandatory cancellation of their visa, or can be clear from the facts of the case (such as where the non-citizen holds a protection visa).
(5)International non-refoulement obligations will generally not be relevant to a consideration of the refusal, cancellation, or revocation of a cancellation, of a visa that is not a protection visa, where the person concerned does not raise such obligations for consideration and the person is able to apply for a protection visa in the event of an adverse decision.
(6)It may not be possible at the section 501/section 501CA stage to consider non refoulement issues in the same level of detail as those types of issues are considered in a protection visa application. The process for determining protection visa applications is specifically designed for consideration of non refoulement obligations as given effect by the Act. A decision-maker, in making a decision under section 501/section 501CA, is not required in every case to make a positive finding whether claimed harm will occur, but in an appropriate case may assume in the non-citizen's favour that claimed harm will occur and make a decision on that basis.
(7)Where a non-citizen, in responding to a notice for the purposes of section 501 or 501CA, makes claims which may give rise to international non-refoulement obligations as given effect by the Act, and that non-citizen is able to make a valid application for a protection visa, those claims will, if and when the non citizen makes such an application, be conclusively assessed before consideration is given to any character or security concerns associated with the non-citizen. This process would ordinarily be followed even in the highly unlikely event that consideration of the protection visa application is undertaken by the Minister personally.
(8)If, however, the refusal, cancellation or non-revocation decision is regarding a protection visa, the person will be prevented by section 48A of the Act from making a further application for a protection visa while they are in the migration zone (unless the Minister determines that section 48A does not apply to them - see sections 48A and 48B of the Act). Further, as a result of a refusal or cancellation decision under section 501 or a non-revocation decision under section 501CA, the person will be prevented from applying for any other class of visa except a Bridging R (Class WR) visa (see section 501E of the Act and regulation 2.12AA of the Regulations). In these circumstances, decision-makers should seek an assessment of Australia's international nonrefoulement obligations.
Extent of impediments if removed
Paragraph 9.2(1) of Direction No. 90 provides:
(1)Decision-makers must consider the extent of any impediments that the non citizen may face if removed from Australia to their home country, in establishing themselves and maintaining basic living standards (in the context of what is generally available to other citizens of that country), taking into account:
(a)the non-citizen's age and health;
(b)whether there are substantial language or cultural barriers; and
(c)any social, medical and/or economic support available to them in that country.
Impact on victims
Paragraph 9.3(1) of Direction No. 90 provides:
(1)Decision-makers must consider the impact of the s 501 or 501CA decision on members of the Australian community, including victims of the non-citizen's criminal behaviour, and the family members of the victim or victims.
Links to the Australian community
Reflecting the principles of Direction No. 90 at paragraph 5.2, decision-makers must have regard to Direction No. 90, paragraphs 9.4.1 to 9.4.2 provided below.
9.4.1. The strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia
(1)Decision-makers must consider any impact of the decision on the non-citizen's immediate family members in Australia, where those family members are Australian citizens, Australian permanent residents, or people who have a right to remain in Australia indefinitely.
(2)Where consideration is being given to whether to cancel a non-citizen's visa or whether to revoke the mandatory cancellation of their visa, the decision-maker must also consider the strength, nature and duration of any other ties that the non citizen has to the Australian community. In doing so, decision-makers must have regard to:
(a)how long the non-citizen has resided in Australia, including whether the non-citizen arrived as a young child, noting that:
(i) less weight should be given where the non-citizen began offending soon after arriving in Australia; and
(ii) more weight should be given to time the non-citizen has spent contributing positively to the Australian community.
(b)the strength, duration and nature of any family or social links with Australian citizens, Australian permanent residents and/or people who have an indefinite right to remain in Australia.
9.4.2 Impact on Australian business interests
(3)Decision-makers must consider any impact on Australian business interests if the non-citizen is not allowed to enter or remain in Australia, noting that an employment link would generally only be given weight where the decision under section 501 or 501CA would significantly compromise the delivery of a major project, or delivery of an important service in Australia.
DISCUSSION
Character Test
In accordance with s 501(6)(a) of the Act, the Applicant has a ‘substantial criminal record’ and accordingly, he does not pass the character test.
The question for the Tribunal is whether it is satisfied that there exists another reason for revoking the cancellation decision.
Observations, Discussion and Findings – Evidence and Credit
Prior to the hearing of this matter, the Applicant objected to various summonses requested by the Respondent on the basis of relevance and that the Applicant would be identified in these proceedings to gang members who have an interest in doing him harm. This appears to be somewhat illogical on the basis that the Applicant’s case relies, in part, on the Tribunal accepting that specific threats have been made to him and concerning him to his family members. The Applicant’s case, however, on the material, is that gang members have threatened him and therefore, are apprised of his identity. Nonetheless, in this decision, the Tribunal proposes to de-identify, as much as possible, the relevant parties associated with the Applicant for the purpose of establishing a degree of anonymity.
The evidence concerning BD
The allegations made against the Applicant by BD were denied comprehensively by the Applicant.
The Applicant gave evidence on affirmation concerning these matters. The statement of BD was merely witnessed by a police officer. That, however, is not an end of the matter in terms of whether BD's evidence should be accepted by the Tribunal.
Should the evidence given at the hearing by the Applicant concerning BD’s statement be demonstrated not to be true, there is little likelihood that there would be a prosecution for perjury. It is only in the most rare of circumstances that sworn evidence, not accepted by a Court or Tribunal could ever be, merely on that basis of rejection, the subject of a perjury prosecution.
The evidence contained in the unsworn statement of BD is of a different character, however. In the preliminary paragraphs of that statement, the witness recognises and accepts liability for prosecution for providing a false statement should the evidence be untruthful. The statement is, in fact, extraordinarily detailed as to allegations concerning dishonest behaviour by the Applicant in relation to BD, his bank accounts, the theft of his personal identity by reference to his taxation file number and his Medicare card and fraudulent behaviour in relation to BD’s mother's financial affairs.
In contrast to the position of criminal liability of the Applicant and his evidence given on this topic, should the witness BD be demonstrated to have made false and untruthful statements about the Applicant’s conduct to him, he would clearly be open to prosecution on the basis of producing a false statement against the Applicant.
In fact, such was the detail given concerning the Applicant’s opening of false bank accounts and other related matters, it would be quite possible for prosecution authorities to have documentary analysis performed on the alleged false applications and pursue inquiries as to the perpetrator of the false documents. There is evidence in immigration matters which disclose the Applicant’s signature and handwriting which may assist investigating authorities to identify the author of the alleged false applications, should they be found not to have been made by BD himself.
All of this means that there was a powerful reason for BD to provide a truthful statement.
Within the body of the statement itself are references to the relationship between himself and the Applicant, described in terms by BD as one of a sexual nature. The Applicant denied such a relationship and during the various questions asked of him, the Applicant's version of the relationship shifted somewhat from being merely an acquaintance through eventually, towards the end of his evidence, to accepting that BD obviously had a sexual interest in the Applicant, although the Applicant denied anything reciprocal in that regard. The shifting in the Applicant’s story gives rise to some concern about the truthfulness of the Applicant's denials as to the relationship and also is suggestive as to the truth of the allegations.
There is further corroboration within BD's statement when compared to the Applicant’s evidence.
The witness, BD, is said to have been a mere labourer and yet there is evidence[1] that he travelled overseas to the United States on two occasions. This accords with the evidence of the witness that he travelled at the request of the Applicant to go to the United States for the purpose of surrogacy issues. Whether that purpose is to be accepted or not, there is fundamental corroboration of the travel by the witness to the United States. On the Applicant's evidence, it seems incredible that the witness, as described by the Applicant, could ever have been in a position to afford to travel to the United States and return on two occasions without some financial assistance.
[1] Exhibit 2
More compelling evidence is to be found in the record of prison visits, subsequent to the Applicant being sentenced to a term of imprisonment in August 2019. Although the Applicant swore that the friendship between the two men ceased to exist in 2018 when the Applicant requested the witness to return monies loaned to him for the purpose of purchase of a motor vehicle, prison records demonstrate that BD visited the Applicant on eight separate occasions after he was imprisoned.
The Applicant explained these visits as attempts by him, through family members, to bring the witness to prison to discuss with the Applicant the repayment of those monies (the subject of the loan claimed to be previously made to the witness by the Applicant).
The Tribunal accepts the evidence of the prison visits and regards the Applicant's explanation, having regard to all the evidence, as inherently incredible.
Further consideration of the Applicant’s oral evidence
In the Applicant's evidence on the first day of hearing, when questioned about the statement of BD, the Applicant denied any allegations made by BD concerning dishonest behaviour and further, denied a sexual relationship with BD. The Applicant accepted only that he had met BD, felt sorry for him because he appeared to be in a socially deprived situation and homeless and with charitable intentions, assisted him to find accommodation. The Applicant’s witness, QV, supported the Applicant's evidence that BD lived at premises owned by the Applicant’s mother where the witness also lived.
The hearing of the matter was adjourned at the end of the first day in order for the Respondent to produce some corroborative evidence that BD had travelled, on two occasions to the United States, approximately at the time described in his statement.
When the hearing was resumed the next day, the Tribunal ruled that the evidence was admissible and did not ultimately prejudice the Applicant by presentation of new material. The Applicant had been made aware of BD’s statement some days before the hearing.
The Applicant resumed his evidence and there was a significant change in emphasis in that evidence concerning the relationship with BD. On the first day of hearing, the Applicant described a breakdown in the relationship in 2018 because of a failure of BD to repay a debt owed by the Applicant. The Applicant was referred, however, to eight visits to him in prison after August 2019. The Applicant's evidence was that those occasions were encouraged through friends of the Applicant to have BD discuss repayment of the debt. On the day of the resumed hearing, the Applicant said that the relationship did not breakdown until 2020, thereby perhaps explaining the visits to the Applicant in prison in a more palatable sense.
The Applicant explained the changes in his evidence on the basis that on the first day of giving evidence, the Applicant had failed to take his medication and this had made him confused. The Tribunal considers this explanation to be improbable because of the view the Tribunal has formed as to the Applicant’s credibility.
The Applicant also gave evidence as to the nature of the loan to BD. The Applicant said that although BD was saving Centrelink payments and was also working, with money given to him in cash, the Applicant had been prepared to use his own credit card to the extent of some $40,000 to purchase a motor vehicle for BD. The Applicant described the vehicle as a Porsche 2015 Cayenne. The Applicant further conceded that he recognised that these payments expected to be made by BD for the credit card at the rate of $900 per month was money that was, in part, a fraud on Centrelink in circumstances where the witness, BD, was both accepting Centrelink payments and being paid money for working at the same time.
To appreciate the full extent of the Applicant’s evidence and its effect, it is necessary both to review the transcript and actually see the recorded evidence as it was given by the Applicant. The explanations provided by the Applicant, in an attempt to explain this so-called loan for the purchase of a Porsche motor vehicle, were thoroughly risible, to the point of absurdity. The Tribunal formed the view that the evidence on this topic was inherently incredible and rejects the explanations given by the Applicant in their entirety.
A further and rather extraordinary statement was made by the Applicant during his final submissions.
On the first day of hearing the Applicant, after a degree of evasion, the Applicant ultimately accepted that although there was no sexual relationship between the pair, BD obviously had a sexual interest in the Applicant, which the Applicant found embarrassing.
In the Applicant’s final submissions, quite unprompted by the Tribunal, the Applicant accepted that he, in effect, had some sexual feelings for the witness; that he spoke to his then girlfriend about those feelings but that he did nothing physical in respect of them.
The change in versions was dramatic. The Tribunal is of the view that these variations in versions were an attempt to deal with the increasing pressure of evidence which pointed to the likelihood of BD's allegations and description of a sexual relationship being accepted by the Tribunal as correct.
The Tribunal is of the view that the Applicant's evidence on the topic of BD's statement and its implications demonstrated that the Applicant was prepared to lie in the face of the Tribunal in order to assist himself and his cause.
In the Tribunal's view, this conduct by the Applicant, the giving of untruthful evidence having sworn an oath to tell the truth, is powerful evidence of the fact that the Applicant has not really rehabilitated and the Applicant is likely to continue with the same sort of dishonest and fraudulent conduct in the future. This is a matter the Tribunal views particularly seriously and will be discussed in relation to the Applicant's risk of re-offending in relation to the first consideration of Direction No. 90.
The evidence of the Facebook post showing photographs of the Applicant, who accepts at that time, he called himself Darren, discloses that “Darren” was in a romantic relationship with a man of the same name of the witness BD. The Applicant denies that it is his Facebook account and said that it has been fraudulently confected.
The Tribunal, having regard to all the evidence of the Applicant’s dishonesty and the fact that the Tribunal has found the Applicant has lied blatantly in giving evidence, is of the view that this is further supportive evidence of the true nature of the relationship between the Applicant and BD. Such denials and lies by the Applicant absolutely undermine any claim to reform and rehabilitation.
Furthermore, the allegations of behaviour by the witness concerning the Applicant's dishonest behaviour in relation to him and his mother in respect of financial matters, in the Tribunal's opinion, is perfectly consistent with the types of behaviour for which the Applicant was sentenced to a term of imprisonment in 2019 and convicted on an earlier occasion of similar dishonest conduct in 2016.
Having regard to the view the Tribunal has formed on other evidence that the Applicant is not a witness of truth, on the whole of the evidence on this topic, the Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that BD’s statement is a truthful account of what happened. It follows that the sworn evidence on this topic given by the Applicant is, in itself, another facet of dishonest behaviour; in this case, in the face of the Tribunal in the course of his evidence. This, in turn, lends weight to the conclusion that much of what the Applicant says, which is uncorroborated, should be entirely disregarded by the Tribunal.
Further analysis of evidence
Although it was the Applicant's case that his mother's health was seriously compromised - in particular, her mental health - the effect of her evidence on this topic, given quite candidly, the Tribunal considered, was that her “mental problems” were that she had difficulty remembering. Although the Tribunal accepts that on one occasion, at the breakdown of her relationship with her husband, she was hospitalised after having taken sleeping pills, there was no other compelling evidence to suggest that she had any major mental health issues that required her son's continued physical presence with her. In fact, the evidence was that the Applicant was communicating and providing assistance to his mother by telephone while she has been in Vietnam since December 2020. There is no reason to suppose that this would be unable to continue were the country positions of the parties reversed.
The Applicant disclosed, for the first time during questioning before the Tribunal, that he suffered from bipolar disorder. There is no other evidence to this effect apart from his pointing to medication that he has been prescribed according to custodial records. Having regard to the Tribunal’s view as to the Applicant's lack of credibility, the Tribunal is not prepared to accept that he suffers from this major depressive illness described by the psychiatrist in reports before the Tribunal. In the event that the Applicant does suffer from the illness, the Tribunal is satisfied the Applicant may be adequately and appropriately treated for his condition in Vietnam.
As to the issue of the evidence relating to BD, the Tribunal, for the reasons expressed above, regards the Applicant’s explanations as to his relationship with BD overall as being inherently improbable, taking into account the entirety of the evidence on this topic.
Although the Tribunal accepts BD’s evidence about the relationship with the Applicant and the Applicant’s fraudulent conduct concerning his bank accounts, the views which the Tribunal has formed from other evidence relating to the Applicant’s lack of credibility is not dependent on this evidence. Furthermore, the views the Tribunal has formed as to the Applicant's lack of credibility are based on other evidence as described, without reference, to what the Tribunal will call the “BD” evidence. The Tribunal's opinions as to credibility, therefore, are unaffected, and not dependent in any way upon use, or part utilisation, of that BD evidence.
The Tribunal does not accept, on all the evidence, that the Applicant is in fear of returning to Vietnam. There is some evidence that, in fact, he expressed to a welfare officer while in detention that he was prepared to return to Vietnam for surgery to his hand and his “parents” were there to receive him. In fact, his mother is presently in Vietnam at the time of hearing.
The Tribunal does not accept the Facebook videos purporting to be threats to the Applicant, having regard to the view the Tribunal has formed of the Applicant's credibility. The Tribunal is not prepared to accept that evidence. That view is founded upon the view of the Applicant’s lack of credibility.
The Tribunal notes that there was a tendency by the Applicant to be evasive in the answering of questions put to him during the course of the hearing, although the Tribunal recognises that this may have been, to an extent, a consequence of the Applicant having English as a second language.
A consideration of the evidence given during the hearing, together with the objective evidence concerning the Applicant’s credibility as a witness, leads the Tribunal to conclude that the Applicant is, in fact, both dangerously deceitful, demonstrated by his continuous dishonest past behaviour. As a result, his evidence, unless supported by acceptable objective evidence, should be viewed at the least with considerable caution.
There are some aspects of the Applicant’s claims which the Tribunal is prepared to accept:
The Applicant has been offered a genuine position of employment should he be released.
The Applicant has been a member of a Christian Church and has performed laudable charitable works.
He has been, and proposes to be, a real and practical carer for his elderly mother who suffers from ill-health and mental ill-health.
Although there are witnesses and associates who speak well of him and the help given to them and the relationship with the three minor children referred to below, nonetheless, this evidence is to be viewed with some caution. The opinions expressed by those who support him are subjective and may well be affected by his ability to deceive.
The opinions expressed by the psychiatrist, Doctor Luong, the Tribunal finds, are largely founded on self-reporting by the Applicant. Specifically, the psychiatrist wrote in his most recent report, dated 12 April 2021, that the report was being given, in effect, to help the Applicant remain in Australia. This discloses, on the part of the psychiatrist, a degree of partiality for the benefit of the Applicant and the Tribunal exercises some caution in accepting the full extent of the report. However, the Tribunal is prepared to accept that the Applicant presently is being treated for a major depressive illness; the genesis of which, the Tribunal is not prepared to accept, began in his youth because of his family situation and treatment by his father.
Generally, as to credit, the Tribunal is not prepared to accept what the Applicant says on important issues unless corroborated by objective evidence. The Applicant has demonstrated a continuing behaviour of dangerous deceit in relation to his victims; the most recent offences dealt with by conviction in 2019 shows gross deception which lasted approximately 14 months.
There is also other behaviour that is consistently deceitful. As to the incoming passenger cards, it may be supposed that the Applicant was, at the very least, economical with the truth in respect of a document which was an important Commonwealth immigration document.
In relation to BD, the Tribunal accepts that the Applicant was having a relationship with him and, furthermore, his behaviour in relation to financial matters, including false applications to various banks insurance, discloses another facet of the Applicant’s worryingly deceitful behaviour.
The Applicant has also demonstrated, with respect to the traffic convictions and the offence committed whilst in immigration detention in relation to a mobile phone, a consistent disregard for laws and regulations.
An assessment, therefore, of all of these matters, leads the Tribunal to conclude that the Applicant is not creditworthy and that, in the absence of confirmatory objective evidence on particular matters, the Applicant should not be believed.
Specifically, in relation to the Facebook video clips and the uncle’s assertion that he was confronted by gang members threatening the Applicant, having regard to the totality of the Applicant’s past deceitful conduct, it is entirely possible that this evidence, promoted by the Applicant in support of the contention that he is in grave danger of his life, in the Tribunal’s view may have been fabricated and contrived by the Applicant to promote this contention. The Tribunal is not satisfied that it should act on this evidence and will not, therefore, take it into account in the Applicant’s case.
Protection of the Australian community (past conduct and future risk)
The Respondent has set out, in a convenient table, details of the Applicant’s offending history which does not appear to be in dispute:[2]
[2] Respondent’s Statement of Facts, Issues and Contention at 48.
Date Offence Sentence 26 April 2013 Dishonestly obtain financial advantage
etc by deception - T1
Section 10 bond to be of good
behaviour for two years
10 May 2018 Drive motor vehicle while licence suspended - 1st off $400 fine; disqualified from driving for 3 months 20 August 2019 Use forged document for public official to accept as genuine (Taken into account on sentencing pursuant to s 16A(2) of the CrimesAct 1914 (Cth)) 20 August 2019 Dishonestly cause disadvantage by deception Imprisonment (aggregate): 30 months, with a non-parole period of 20 months 20 August 2019 Dishonestly cause disadvantage by deception Imprisonment (aggregate): 30
months, with a non-parole period of 20 months
20 August 2019 Ask fee to assist immigration when not registered migration agent Imprisonment (aggregate): 30
months, with a non-parole period of 20 months
13 October 2020 Use or possess mobile phone/part etc in place of detention Imprisonment(without parole): 6 months, reduced on appeal to 2 months
The entirety of the Applicant’s offending (particularly the offences dealt with in 2019) overall is extremely serious, involving as it does, deeply dishonest conduct which led to innocent victims defrauded of a large amount of money. Furthermore, the seriousness of the offending is exacerbated by the fact that the behaviour of the Applicant had the real potential to bring the immigration system of Australia into disrepute. This, in the Tribunal's view, is a particularly serious matter.
The Applicant has demonstrated criminal conduct apart from the convictions of 2019 and although not charged, there are a number of matters referred to above, including the false information provided in the partner visa application, the dealings with his companion BD which demonstrate over time a continuing behaviour of dishonesty overall, with, in the Tribunal’s view, an end to benefit the Applicant.
As to the issue of rehabilitation which goes to the question of future risk, although the learned Sentencing Judge took the view that the Applicant was someone who had demonstrated rehabilitation and was likely to reform, the Tribunal has formed the view, overall, that this is simply not the case.
The Applicant, according to his own evidence, has done little and only recently has attempted to address his gambling addiction. The Tribunal regards this as being of little rehabilitative value.
It is correct to say that credit should be given to the Applicant for his assistance to the New South Wales police in providing information concerning criminal activity and that he has placed himself undoubtedly at risk of physical harm because of that.
Despite that assistance, which in the context of the entirety of the Applicant's behaviour appears, in the Tribunal's view, to be much more related to self-preservation than evidence of rehabilitation, there are other matters which the learned Sentencing Judge took into account which have proved to be illusory in terms of the Applicant’s rehabilitation and reform.
Although the Applicant had prepared a Contract of Sale for his property, on all the evidence and the subsequent history of the matter, in the Tribunal’s view, demonstrates that the Applicant has little or no intention of selling the property in order to repay his victims. He has had ample opportunity to do so since his conviction and sentencing in 2019 and the Tribunal does not accept his evidence that there is, or will be, an intention to sell the property. In fact, on all the evidence, it appears the Applicant has been entirely motivated by greed in the past.
Having regard to that finding and the various matters referred to above concerning the lack of credibility of the Applicant, the Tribunal is absolutely satisfied that not only is there a risk that the Applicant will again re-offend in the future but the real likelihood is that he will, should he remain in Australia. The Tribunal is of the view that members of the Australian public will most likely fall victim to future offending by the Applicant.
The extreme seriousness of the Applicant’s offending and the real likelihood of re-offending in the future is a particularly significant matter. The Tribunal concludes that this consideration must weigh very heavily against the Applicant.
Family Violence
There is no evidence to indicate that this consideration is relevant to this review.
Best interests of minor children in Australia
There are three minor children, V, (13 years), K, (10 years) and A, (3 years), the children of the witness QV, who appears to be a close friend of the Applicant. Because of the Applicant’s personal circumstances, he has had little contact and therefore, has formed a minimal relationship with A. The other two children are God-children to the Applicant, one of whom is profoundly deaf. Otherwise, on the evidence, it does not seem that there is any real distinction to be drawn in respect of the Applicant's relationship with each, although the Tribunal recognises that two are said to be the Applicant's God-children.
The Applicant asserts that he has a deep and close relationship with the children on account of the need to assist them because of their mother’s circumstances which include, domestic violence. The evidence is that when not in custody, he looks after them, takes them out socially, and makes payments for them. He has had regular communication with both whilst in custody, assisting both socially and in an educational sense. He specifically provides substantial assistance in speaking and learning to the child, K, who is deaf.
All children have parental figures in their lives, and on the view the Tribunal has formed about the Applicant's past and likely future behaviour, he is unlikely to provide a suitable or practical role model for them. In fact, in the Tribunal’s view, his presence in their lives may well be detrimental because of his past and particularly, his likely future conduct.
The Tribunal recognises that the children (and their mothers) may experience some loss should the Applicant be removed from Australia. Nonetheless, in all the circumstances, although this consideration carries weight in the Applicant's favour, that weight is reduced because the Tribunal is not prepared to accept the extent to which the Applicant alleges his association with the children and the children with him. That, of course, is the view formed on account of the deep lack of credibility that the evidence objectively demonstrates.
The Tribunal ultimately accepts that this consideration weighs in the Applicant’s favour.
Expectations of the Australian Community
The Australian community expects non-citizens to obey Australian laws while in Australia. Where a non-citizen has engaged in serious conduct in breach of this expectation, or where there is an unacceptable risk that they may do so, the Australian community, as a norm, expects the Government to not allow such a non-citizen to enter or remain in Australia.
This consideration has been the subject of extensive judicial discussion and ultimately determinative (see FYBR v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCAFC 185). Although these principles are discussed in relation to the former Direction No. 79, those principles are not relevantly different in principle with respect to Direction No. 90.
It is not for the Tribunal to substitute its own view for the expectations of the Australian community by reference to the Applicant’s circumstances. The Tribunal rather, must give effect to the “norm” stipulated in Direction No. 90 at 13.3(1).[3]
[3] FYBR v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCAFC 185; per Stewart J and Charlesworth J (93); (100 to 104); (68).
In this case, the Tribunal has considered the seriousness of the Applicant’s offending history together with the risk of his re-offending. Those matters, taken into account with all other personal circumstances relating to the Applicant, including those circumstances put forward by him in submissions which are in his favour, do not negate the expectations of the Australian community which require that this consideration weighs against the Applicant. There is no reason in the Applicant’s personal circumstances to displace this prima facie approach.
Having regard to the phraseology of Direction No. 90, it is impossible to accept other than this consideration, because of the Applicant’s background, criminal history and likelihood of committing further offences, weighs against the Applicant.
Other considerations
International non-refoulement obligations
A non-refoulement obligation is an obligation not to forcibly return, deport or expel a person to a place where they will be at risk of a specific type of harm.
The Tribunal does not accept the Applicant’s submissions that the issue of non-refoulement obligations arises in this case. The Applicant does not belong to a class or category of people in relation to religious or persecution of a particular type. In fact, although it is relevant to consider possible harm to the Applicant on return to Vietnam, the Tribunal is not prepared to accept that the Applicant is in such danger of harm and nothing in the Applicant’s argument engages the non-refoulement consideration pursuant to Direction No. 90.
Extent of impediments if removed
The Applicant comes from Vietnam and may be supposed to understand its culture, social norms and language. Should the Applicant's mother remain in Australia, it will be a great impediment, the Tribunal accepts, both from the point of view of her health and well-being should the Applicant to be removed. The Tribunal accepts the same should be accepted for his family and friends and the minor children with whom he has an association.
Furthermore, it is undoubted that the Applicant will find it difficult to readjust to life in Vietnam, both socially and economically, in the sense of having to find work, and also emotionally.
Although the Applicant suffers from a major depressive illness, the report by Doctor Luong, the Tribunal finds, should not be accepted as to the extent of difficulties which the Applicant will experience in obtaining medical help for his depressive illness. The problems which Doctor Luong identified that others had trouble in obtaining medication because that medication apparently was purchased, if not on the black market, at least under questionable circumstances, is not accepted by the Tribunal as being a sufficient reason to keep the Applicant in Australia. The Tribunal infers that there is appropriate medical assistance for those in that country who require mental health assistance, even in the face presently of the COVID pandemic. In fact, the Tribunal, in not accepting the full extent of the evidence of Doctor Luong, takes into account that in his most recent report the psychiatrist said that his report was being provided in order for, in effect, the Applicant to remain in Australia. That discloses a partiality in a supposed independent witness and thus, diminishes the level of acceptance of the evidence of the witness. The Tribunal also recognises, however, that medical treatment is likely to be made more difficult by the COVID pandemic.
The evidence discloses that the Applicant has other health issues which include physical injury to his left arm which requires surgery and suffered whilst in detention. The Tribunal acknowledges that these health conditions affect the Applicant but do not regard them individually or collectively as having any real impediment should the Applicant be returned to Vietnam.
Notwithstanding the matters referred to above, nonetheless, this consideration carries weight in the Applicant's favour.
Impact on victims
There is no evidence to indicate that this consideration is relevant to this review.
Links to the Australian community
Strength, nature and duration of ties
The Applicant has been living in Australia since he was 19 years of age and has attempted to pursue various tertiary courses. Part of that time was obviously spent in criminal conduct as well. The Applicant says he has a mother in Australia and other relatives and children with whom, he says, he has real connection and whom he helps. This, to some extent, has been dealt with in other parts of this decision. The Applicant has worked in Australia and it may be supposed that, in a general sense, he has contributed to Australian society. The Tribunal further accepts that he has been offered a job should the Applicant be allowed to remain in Australia. A large part, therefore, of the Applicant's adult life has been spent in Australia although he has taken trips to Vietnam. He was absent from Australia on a number of occasions including a 2-year period from October 2009. The Applicant has family and friends in Australia who will undoubtedly be affected negatively should he be returned to Vietnam.
The Tribunal accepts, therefore, that the Applicant has practical, real and substantial ties to Australia. This consideration, therefore, weighs in the Applicant’s favour.
Impact on Australian business interests
There is no evidence to indicate that this consideration is relevant to this review.
Co-operation with authorities
The category of considerations is unlimited.
The material before the Tribunal demonstrates that the Applicant has provided laudable and valuable assistance to law enforcement authorities against those who undoubtedly had the potential to cause him serious physical harm. This co-operation should be regarded as a special consideration within the framework of Direction No. 90 which itself, is not limited to the matters and considerations set out therein. It is, however, not possible to determine, particularly having regard to the view the Tribunal has formed of the Applicant's credibility, whether this assistance will continue. There is no independent evidence, in the Tribunal’s view, that this assistance to law enforcement authorities has been continuing since sentence and up to the date of hearing.
It cannot, however, be underestimated that the Applicant's assistance was of great significance to law enforcement authorities and to the welfare of Australian citizens. The Tribunal accepts the Applicant's assistance whatever may be said for his motivations, be those altruistic or otherwise.
This co-operation with law enforcement authorities is a powerful and significant factor which weighs strongly in favour of the Applicant.
Harm to the Applicant
A further special consideration within the framework of Direction No. 90 is evidence of threats to the welfare of the Applicant both in Australia or should he be returned to Vietnam. The Applicant is concerned that gangs may communicate with those who live in Vietnam, identify the Applicant, and do him serious physical harm because of his assistance to law enforcement authorities.
The Tribunal does not accept that the Applicant, should he return to Vietnam, will be in any real danger of harm. This has already been dealt with above.
However, even if the Tribunal was prepared to accept the Applicant's evidence in this regard, supported by Facebook video evidence, the Tribunal sees no reason why the Applicant could not remain relatively anonymous in that country. Furthermore, the Tribunal infers that there are supports which law enforcement authorities could provide. Although there is no specific evidence of this, the Tribunal infers that this is the case. Should that assumption not be correct, nonetheless, the Tribunal considers, on all the evidence, that there is a minimum risk to the Applicant in returning to Vietnam on the submission by him that he is in danger of harm. The risk, the Tribunal concludes, is relatively remote.
Even if the Applicant’s fear of harm was supported by acceptable evidence and accepted by the Tribunal, this consideration carries some limited weight in the Applicant's favour. The Tribunal, however, rejects the Applicant’s assertion and fear of harm, for the reasons expressed throughout this decision relating to a rejection of the Applicant’s credibility. To be clear, as has been decided above, the Tribunal is not prepared to accept so-called supportive evidence of Facebook videos and the evidence of the Applicant’s uncle concerning threats to him and his family. The Tribunal has concluded that, by reference to the Applicant’s conduct in the past and during the course of his evidence, there is a real likelihood that this evidence has been fabricated for the Applicant’s benefit.
As to the acceptance of the video Facebook evidence, this has been dealt with above.
CONCLUSION
The Tribunal has already referred to a number of features relevant within the assessment of the various considerations of Direction No. 90 which the Tribunal is prepared to accept, which operate in the Applicant's favour.
Apart from the real issues of having to re-establish himself in Vietnam, the Tribunal accepts the relationship described by the Applicant with the two minor children and notes, particularly, the weighty significance of the special other consideration the Tribunal has identified; that is, the co-operation with law enforcement authorities.
All of those factors weigh in the Applicant's favour and cannot be ignored because of the cumulative weight they bring to the ultimate disposition of this matter. However, the Tribunal is absolutely satisfied that the extent of the Applicant’s past offending, and what the Tribunal regards as the almost certain risk that the Applicant will re-offend by the same type of offending in the future, which has ramifications and detrimental effects for the victims of such offending, weighs particularly strongly against revoking the cancellation of the Applicant's visa.
Not only because of the quality of the Applicant’s past offending, but also because the Tribunal has formed the view that the Applicant has, as referred to above, simply not rehabilitated himself, the Tribunal finds, including the during the course of the Applicant's evidence, that he lacks any credibility whatsoever and the Tribunal is in no doubt, that the Applicant simply has not changed his ways.
The decision of the Tribunal, therefore, is that there is no other reason why the decision to revoke the cancellation should be reversed and the decision of the Delegate is affirmed.
DECISION
The decision under review is affirmed.
| I certify that the preceding 127 (one hundred and twenty -seven) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Senior Member M Griffin QC |
............................[sgd]............................................
Associate
Dated: 4 May 2021
| Date(s) of hearing: | 19 & 20 April 2021 |
| Date final submissions received: | 20 April 2021 |
| Applicant: | Self represented |
| Solicitors for the Respondent: | Sophie Roberts (Mills Oakley Lawyers) |
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Immigration
-
Administrative Law
Legal Concepts
-
Judicial Review
-
Natural Justice
-
Procedural Fairness
-
Jurisdiction
0