Lumanovski and Minister for Home Affairs (Migration) - [2019] AATA 681

Lumanovski and Minister for Home Affairs (Migration) [2019] AATA 681 (13 February 2019)
Division:GENERAL DIVISION
File Number: 2018/7032
Re:Mr Fari Lumanovski
APPLICANT

AndMinister for Home Affairs
RESPONDENT

DECISION
Tribunal:Ms Anna Burke AO, Member
Date:13 February 2019
Place:Melbourne

The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and in substitution decides that the applicant not be refused a Bridging Visa E under s 501(1) of the Migration Act 1958.
.........[sgd]...............................................................
Ms Anna Burke AO, Member
Catchwords
MIGRATION – visa refusal – applicant is a citizen of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) – applicant applied for a Bridging visa –– applicant does not pass character test in s 501(6) of the Migration Act 1958 – applicant not of good character on account of criminal conduct – whether discretion to refuse visa should be exercised –applicant does not present unacceptable risk of re-offending– impact on family and business interest - decision under review set aside.
Legislation
Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975
Migration Act 1958
Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981
Cases
Rokobatini v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (1999) 90 FCR 583
Jupp and Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2002] AATA 458
Rabino and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] AATA 999
Singh and Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2004] AATA 370
NDFN and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (Migration) [2017] AATA 892
Zefis and Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2002] AATA 700
Secondary Materials
Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (Cth), Ministerial Direction No 65 – Visa refusal and cancellation under s 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a Visa under s 501 CA, 22 December 2014
The Criminal Code of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (1 November 1996) International Labour Organization
<
REASONS FOR DECISION
Ms Anna Burke AO, Member
13 February 2019
INTRODUCTION

On 5 July 2018 a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs (the Minister) (the delegate) issued a notice of intention to consider refusal to grant Mr Lumanovski (the Applicant) a Bridging E (Class WE) visa (bridging visa) under s 501(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act). On 15 August 2018 Mr Lumanovski provided a response to the notice.
On 19 November 2018 a delegate of the Minister made a decision to refuse

Mr Lumanovski’s application for a bridging visa under s 501(1) of the Act. The delegate found that Mr Lumanovski did not pass the character test, as set out in s 501(6)(a) of the Act. In particular, the delegate found that Mr Lumanovski failed to meet s 501(7)(c) of the Act, as he has a substantial criminal record. The delegate found that there were no sufficient countervailing considerations in Mr Lumanovski‘s case to warrant the Australian community accepting any level of risk and decided to exercise the discretion to refuse the visa. In accordance with s 501(1) of the Act, the consequence of this decision was that Mr Lumanovski’s application for a bridging visa was refused.
On 30 November 2018 the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal) received an application from Mr Lumanovski lodged under s 500(1)(b) of the Act seeking review of the decision to refuse to grant his visa. At the time, Mr Lumanovski was being held at Yongah Hill Immigration Detention Centre. At the hearing of his application on 31 January and

1 February 2019, Mr Lumanovski was represented by Ms Tanya Skvortsova of counsel, instructed by Mr Lawson Bayly of Lawson Bayly Lawyers and Migration Agents Pty Ltd. Mr Adam Cunynghame, of Sparke Helmore, appeared for the Minister. The Minister lodged a set of paginated G-Documents in accordance with s 500(6F) of the Act. The Applicant also provided a number of written statements.
BACKGROUND
Mr Lumanovski is a 44 year old Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) national of Albanian heritage who originally came to Australia on 16 July 1997 as the holder of a Visitor visa (Subclass 676). He was subsequently granted numerous bridging visa’s until his departure on 17 February 2001.
Mr Lumanovski’s son, Ferdi Lumanovski (Ferdi) was born in FYROM to
Ms Zamire Mustafovska, now Ms Lumanovska (Zamire) on 22 November 1996. On
5 August 2008 Zamire and Ferdi entered Australia as holders of Contributory Parent (Temporary) visas, as dependants on Zamire’s parent’s visa.
In 2011 Mr Lumanovski and Zamire reconnected and began speaking online. They subsequently entered into a relationship and were married in FYROM on
25 May 2011.
On 25 December 2012 Mr Lumanovski arrived in Australia as the holder of a Provisional Partner visa and he has not departed the country since. On 16 September 2014
Mr Lumanovski was granted a Permanent Partner visa. On 7 April 2017 he applied for Australian citizenship by conferral.
On 27 April 2018 a delegate of the Minister cancelled Mr Lumanovski’s partner visa as he was found to have provided incorrect information on his visa application and on his incoming passenger card where he indicated that he had never been charged or convicted of a criminal offence in any country. Additionally, he provided a bogus document to the Department of Home Affairs (the Department) in support of his visa application, namely a penal clearance certificate indicating that he had no convictions in the FYROM. Mr Lumanovski’s application for Australian citizenship by conferral was refused on the basis that the Applicant was not a permanent resident at the time of the decision because his partner visa had been cancelled.
On 4 May 2018 Mr Lumanovski attended the Department to apply for a Bridging visa E (Class WE) while he awaited the Tribunal’s review of his permanent visa cancellation (this matter is still before the Migration and Refugee Division of the Tribunal). He was taken into detention whilst attending the Department and has remained in detention since. This review relates to the refusal of Mr Lumanovski’s bridging visa, which he has sought so that he can remain in the community pending the review of his substantive visa.
ISSUES
There are two central issues before the Tribunal in this application for review:
(a)does Mr Lumanovski pass the character test in s 501(1) of the Act? and
(b)if he does not pass the character test, should the Tribunal exercise its discretion to not refuse the visa?
LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK
Section 501(1) of the Act gives the Minister the power to refuse to grant a visa if a visa applicant is unable to satisfy the Minister that he or she passes the character test. The term character test is defined in section 501(6) of the Act. Relevantly for this matter, s 501(6) provides that:
(6)For the purposes of this section, a person does not pass the character test if:
(a)the person has a substantial criminal record (as defined by subsection (7)…
(c) having regard to either or both of the following:
(i)the person’s past and present criminal conduct;
(ii)the person’s past and present general conduct;
(7)For the purposes of the character test, a person has a substantial criminal record if:
…
(c)the person has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more
Mr Lumanovski has conceded that he does not pass the character test, as he has a substantial criminal record, which leaves the Tribunal to determine whether there is another reason to revoke the visa cancellation under s 501(1) of the Act. If a person is found not to pass the character test, the discretion to refuse the visa must be considered. Under s 499(1) of the Act, the Minister may give written directions to a person or body having functions or powers under the Act if the directions are about the performance of those functions or the exercise of those powers. A person or body having those functions or powers, including the Tribunal, must comply with any relevant direction (s 499(2A) of the Act; see also Rokobatini v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (1999) 90 FCR 583 at 591, per Katz J). Direction No. 65 – Visa refusal and cancellation under s 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under s 501CA (the Direction) is a direction made under s 499 of the Act and provides a guide for decision-makers performing functions or exercising powers under s 501 of the Act (paragraph 6.1(4) of the Direction).
Paragraph 6.1 of the Direction outlines the objectives of the Act and the Direction, stating in part:
(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.
…
Paragraph 6.2 of the Direction sets out General Guidance relating to the Government’s intent:
(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.
…
(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 relevant factors that must be considered in making a decision under section 501 of the Act are identified in Part A and Part B…
The principles referred to in the General Guidance and reproduced below, constitute a framework within which decision-makers apply the considerations in Parts A, B, or C of the Direction (para 6.3):
(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 a 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.
In deciding whether to exercise the discretion to refuse to grant a visa, the Tribunal should have regard to the primary and other considerations in Part B of the Direction. Paragraph 11(1) of the Direction provides that the primary considerations are:
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 the Direction provides that the other considerations that must 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.
Paragraph 8(4) of the Direction states that primary considerations should generally be given more weight than the other considerations. Paragraph 8(5) states that one or more primary considerations may outweigh other primary considerations.
EVIDENCE
Mr Lumanovski’s criminal offending
The following table has been derived from records against Mr Lumanovski, as outlined in a National Police Certificate dated 2 July 2018 and a translated extract from the penal records of the Republic of Macedonia dated 3 November 2017:

COURT

COURT DATE

OFFENCE

COURT RESULT

Dandenong Magistrates Court

20 Feb 2014

Poss/carry/use unregistered handgun

Possess drug of depend.
– prescript drug

Theft

Possess ammunition without license

One month imprisonment.
concurrent
sentence is wholly suspended under section 27 of the sentencing act 1991. Operational period is 12 months

With conviction, fined an aggregate of $1500.00

With conviction fined an aggregate of $1500.00

With conviction fined an aggregate of $1500.00

Municipal Court Bitola

7 April 2009

Article 140 unlawful detained another
Article 396 unlawful keeping of weapons
Article 378 falsifying a document

Incarceration for a Term of 3 years and 11 months

Municipal Court Bitola

20 April 2000

Article 268 counterfeiting money

Incarceration for a Term of 3 months

Municipal Court Bitola
26 September 2003
Article 297 endangering traffic safety

Probation sentence of 3 months conditional sentence

Municipal Court Bitola
22 February 2008
Article 140 unlawful detained another

Incarceration for a Term of 3 years and 3 months

Municipal Court Bitola

3 February 2009

Article 378 falsifying a document

Incarceration for a Term of 6 months

Municipal Court Bitola
2 February 2015
Unknown

Incarceration for a Term of 2 years

In addition to Mr Lumanovski’s criminal history is his serious action of wilfully providing a bogus document, concealing his criminal history in the FYROM in order to increase the likelihood of a positive outcome on his visa application. From the outset of the proceedings Mr Lumanovski did not deny his actions of providing the bogus document and advised the Tribunal that he was willing to make frank admissions in respect of how he obtained this document.
Mr Lumanovski provided a written statement to the Tribunal and gave oral evidence.
Australian convictions
A summary of charges dated 17 January 2001 provided the following information; that on 16 January 2001 the police executed a search warrant on Mr Lumanovski’s home as a result of information received. The search warrant was issued under the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981. During the search a .38 calibre revolver was found in the second bedroom. It was on the floor behind a small chest of drawers in one corner and was found to be loaded. Located loose in the chest of drawers were two further .38 rounds. Whilst the police were searching the premises, a vehicle arrived at the front of the house. The vehicle was searched and the driver of the car was found to be in possession of 19 packets of Demazin tablets. The driver of the car was arrested and on interview advised that she had purchased the Demazin at the request of her boyfriend, Mr Lumanovski. Mr Lumanovski attended the police station the day after the search by appointment and provided a statement consistent with that given to the Tribunal.
Mr Lumanovski advised the Tribunal that his Australian convictions in 2014 related to offences he committed in 2001. He advised the Tribunal that when he was living in Australia in 2001 he used to go for early morning runs along Dandenong Creek and one day he noticed a black bag in the grass on the bank of the creek so he looked inside the bag where he found clothing (jumpers/T-shirts), money, a loaded gun and ammunition. He stated that he knew he had done the wrong thing in not taking the bag to the police but he decided to spend the money and keep the gun. He said he was around 24 years of age at the time and that it was common in his country for people to own guns. He stated that he had no reason or purpose to keep the gun but it was simply a cultural thing so he had left the gun and ammunition in his room.
In respect of the conviction for possession drug of dependence Mr Lumanovski told the Tribunal that this matter was in respect of Demazin he had purchased over the counter without prescription to send overseas to his mother. He stated that his mother suffered from chronic sinus issues and this particular medicine could not be obtained in FYROM. He stated that his uncle had previously sent the medication to his mother but that since he arrived in Australia he would often buy a sufficient supply so that if someone was returning home he could give them several packets to provide to his mother. He said he had asked his girlfriend to help buy this medicine at the time so that his mum would have enough. He kept the receipts just in case and said he did not realise it was offence to purchase such quantities.
Under cross-examination, Mr Lumanovski disputed the amount of Demazin found in his possession, stating that each packet would have only had 7 to 14 tablets and he could not possibly have had as many tablets as the police had inferred.
Mr Lumanovski stated that the police left a card at his house after the search and he had contacted them on those details and arranged an interview which he attended the next day. He stated that he was provided with no paperwork in respect of the issues and was unaware that he had been charged with any offences. He left the country shortly after this as he had been advised that his father was suffering from health problems and he needed to return to FYROM.
Mr Lumanovski said he was unaware of any of these outstanding charges until after his return to Australia in 2012 when he applied to become a security guard. He was not granted a security guard license and the police sent him a letter in respect of the charges. He attended the Dandenong Magistrates Court and pled guilty to all the offences, for which he received a suspended sentence and fines.

Mr Lumanovski stated that when he applied for his partner visa in FYROM in 2011 he was unaware of these criminal charges in Australia. When he completed his passenger incoming card he was unaware of these criminal charges in Australia. He said that when he applied for Australian citizenship he did not realise that these charges were considered criminal because he had not been sent to jail.
FYROM convictions
The Tribunal had before it the original and translated extract of the penal records of

Mr Lumanovski from the Municipal Court Bitola in the Republic of Macedonia. There is no other documentary evidence before the Tribunal in respect of these charges. The Tribunal has relied upon the extracts of the criminal code of the FYROM provided by the Respondent to understand the convictions that have been recorded.
Taking the convictions in chronological order, firstly:
Penal item K0002998 on 20 April 2000 incarceration for three months pursuant to article 268(4): a person who releases in circulation false money which he had received as real, or a person who knows the false money were made, or that false money were released in circulation, and who does not report this, shall be punished with a fine, all with imprisonment of up to three years.
Mr Lumanovski stated he was unaware of this matter and could not have appeared in the court in Bitola or been incarcerated as he was residing in Australia in April 2000. As there was no corroborating evidence in respect of this charge, such as sentencing remarks and Mr Lumanovski was not in FYROM at the time of the conviction, the Tribunal places little weight upon this conviction.
Secondly:
Penal item K0017130 on 26 September 2003 probation sentence of three months pursuant to article 297(3): a person who commits a crime for items 1 and 2 out of negligence shall be punished with a fine, or with imprisonment of up to one year. Article 1 being a participant in traffic on the public roads, who does not adhere to the regulations, and herewith endangers the public traffic in such a way as to endanger the life and body of people and property to a significant extent.
Mr Lumanovski believed this incident related to a drink-driving charge from when he was involved in a car accident, telling the Tribunal it was not a big car accident. He had been drinking and drove, he said he did not see the traffic light and hit a car from behind. He recalls going to court but not the date, receiving a good behaviour bond and a fine. He would have been 24 or 25 years of age at the time.
Thirdly:
Penal item K0048707 on 22 February 2008 incarceration for three years and three months pursuant to article 140(4): if the unlawful arrest is performed by an official person, by misusing the official position or authorisation, he shall be punished with imprisonment of six months to five years.
Mr Lumanovski believed that this was the incident in which he was involved on

28 August 2007. He described the incident in his statement:
On 28 August 2007, which was a public holiday in Macedonia, I spent the day drinking and eating at a restaurant all day with a friend. That friend bought one of his associates, whom I had not met until that day. The three of us were consuming alcohol for about 12 hours. At around midnight, we all decided to go home. My friend offered to drop me and his associate home along the way.
I am Albanian. My friend’s associate was Macedonian. He had served in the Macedonian army during the Civil War in 2001. On the way home he started telling me about things he had done during that time. He was boasting about committing various acts of sexual violence against Albanian women, including young girls. I found this to be confronting and offensive. I challenged him, but he said that he was not remorseful about the things he was boasting to have done, and that he was prepared to do them again. I found these comments to be intolerable, as he could easily have been referring to the women in my life. I was also drunk by this state, and I believe that my reaction to his comment was more severe than it would have been if I had been sober.
We started arguing in the car. The argument became heated, and we decided to continue the fight outside of the car. My friend who was driving, pulled over. I cannot remember exactly how things progress from there, but at some point, we were both outside of the car on the side of the road and a physical fight took place between me and my friend’s associate.
It was a two-way fight. By that I mean that this man hit me and I hit him. He caused injuries to me, and I caused injuries to him. However I caused more harm and more injuries to him than vice versa. He ran off and I ended up walking the rest home to my parents’ house, where I was living at the time.
I am not proud of my behaviour and I do not believe that is something I would have done if I had been sober.
From what he told me, I believe the man was somehow previously involved with either the Macedonian military and/or the police force.
The next morning police came to my house to arrest me for the incident.
I was charged in relation to that incident. I do not recall what the charges were. To the best of my recollection, the police suggested that I was armed at the time of the incident. I believe that the police claimed that they had recovered some bullets near the scene of the fight. I am certain that I did not use a firearm in the fight between me and the other man.
I went to court. There was a trial. I was originally sentenced to 3 years and 3 months imprisonment at the end of it.
…When the place attended my house to arrest me, they also found a passport. The passport had my photo, but someone else’s details in it.
I had the passport in my possession since late 2001. The reason I had it was because I was involved in assisting the Albanian side during the Civil War in 2001. As a result I never felt safe in FYROM following the end of the conflict. I had the passport in case I’m ever needed to leave suddenly I was going to be persecuted for my involvement in the conflict on the Albanian side. I had it because I feared for my life. I remain fearful for my life in 2007. This was common practice amongst Albanian men who had been involved in the Civil War. I never used that passport. I had it as a precautionary measure only.
…
I was charged separately for the possession of the passport. I was originally sentenced to imprisonment 6 months.
Mr Lumanovski advised the Tribunal that he had been taken to the police station the morning after the fight and held there until the trial. He spent 3 years and 10 months in custody in total. At court he was represented by a lawyer and pled guilty to the fight because he had done it and he believed he would get a minimal sentence of six months.
Mr Lumanovski stated that he did not plead guilty to the offence of false imprisonment as he had not kidnapped anybody. He recalled that at the trial he was accused of forcing the man into the car and holding him against his will but that is not how it happened. He claimed they had all freely got into the car, they both got out of the car to continue the fight and the other man had run away. He could not explain having been found guilty of unlawful arrest performed by an official person as he has never held an official position in FYROM. He did not plead guilty to any firearm charge as he did not have a weapon or ammunition during the fight. He recalls ammunition being displayed at the trial but he strenuously denied they belonged to him. He did plead guilty to having the false passport.
Mr Lumanovski firmly believed that being from the minority Albanian ethnicity in FYROM was a factor in his trial, particularly as the man he injured was Macedonian. He went on to explain the tension for ethnic Albanians living in FYROM and how he had not been involved in the Civil War directly as a soldier but he explained; everybody was involved in the Civil War as you had to survive, you had to look after your family and he had exposed himself to risk during the conflict by going to the city to buy food/groceries for his village. He stated that everyone knew that you were Albanian so you were never safe at that time. He said he still considered himself at risk in 2007.
Counsel for the Minister noted that Mr Lumanovski had not provided a frank explanation about his charge of unlawful arrest until he was cross-examined. However, counsel did accept that Mr Lumanovski contested this part of the charges. Counsel for the Minister formally objected to this evidence being considered by the Tribunal as it was not mentioned in the applicant’s material submitted to the hearing in accordance with s 500HJ of the Act.
With respect to penal item K0015309 on 7 April 2009 which resulted in Mr Lumanovski’s incarceration for 3 years and 11 months, pursuant to Article 140(1) of The Criminal Code of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (the Criminal Code): A person who unlawfully arrests, keeps detained, or in some other way takes away or limits the freedom of movement of another, shall be punished with a fine, or with imprisonment of up to one year.
Article 396(2) of the Criminal Code states if the subject of the crime from item 1 has a large quantity of firearms, ammunition or explosive materials, the offender shall be punished with imprisonment of three to ten years. Item 1 being: a person who without authorization keeps firearm, ammunition or explosive materials.
Article 378(1) of the Criminal Code states a person who prepares a false document, or alters a real document with the intention to use such a document as real, or who uses the false or altered document as if it was real, shall be punished with a fine, or with imprisonment of up to three years. Article 378(3) of the Criminal Code states if the crime from item 1 was committed in regard to a public document, will, bond, cheque, public or official book, or some other book that must be maintained based on the law, the offender shall be punished with imprisonment of three months to five years.
Mr Lumanovski advised the Tribunal that he was of the belief that this related to his appeal against the sentence he had received on 22 February 2008. He had appealed the sentence as he believed three years and three months for being involved in a fight was excessive. He did not appear at the appeal as he was being represented by his lawyer. His understanding is that all the charges arising from the fight; being the allegation that he had falsely detained the other person, had in his possession a firearm and ammunition and the discovery of the false passport at his home had all formed the basis of his final sentence being 3 years and 11 months which he duly served. He continued to deny that he had falsely detained the man involved in the altercation or had in his possession a gun or ammunition. He indicated that he pled guilty to the crimes he believed he had committed, which were being involved in the fight and possession of the false passport.
In relation to penal item K-295/14 on 2 February 2015 which noted incarceration for two years, the penal notice does not indicate what crime has been committed. Mr Lumanovski advised the Tribunal that he had no idea about this alleged offence and again was not in the country at the time of the court appearance. He had already arrived in Australia in 2012 on his spousal visa and has not left Australia since that time. As there was no corroborating evidence in respect of this charge, such as sentencing remarks, and

Mr Lumanovski was not in FYROM at the time of the conviction, the Tribunal places little weight upon this conviction.
Mr Lumanovski described his time in prison in FYROM. He said that for the first 13 months he was in a cell by himself with no windows, little water and the toilet was just a bowl. He described it as hell, only being allowed outside for about 15 minutes a day. Eventually, he was moved to an area with the other prisoners and after about four months they realised he was not dangerous and provided him with work in the kitchen and then the Cantina. Next, he was moved to a rural property with a small number of prisoners, living and working on a farm. Eventually, he was allowed to work in the community, where he was released during the day from 9:00am to 5:30pm, only returning to the prison to sleep at night.
Mr Lumanovski advised the Tribunal that he was very sorry for his actions and much of it have been fuelled by his excessive drinking. He said that when he drank he simply did not know when to stop. He advised the Tribunal that since the day of the fight on

28 August 2007 he had stopped drinking and has remained abstinent from alcohol since, as he realised he did not have a good relationship with alcohol.
Mr Lumanovski’s extensive Australian migration history

9 July 1997 - applied for a Visitor (subclass 676) visa; in this application he stated he was in a committed relationship in FYROM and was a genuine visitor to Australia;
10 July 1997 - granted a visitor visa;
16 July 1997 - arrived in Australia;
12 August 1997 - married an underage Australian citizen;
26 August 1997 - applied for a Partner visa (Subclass 820/801) sponsored by his Australian wife;
3 December 1997 - Partner visa application was refused on the grounds the relationship was not genuine and it was discovered that the Australian citizen had provided a false identity;
28 January 1998 - the Tribunal affirmed the refusal of a Partner visa;
15 May 1998 - applied for a Protection (Subclass 866) visa;
22 October 1998 - Department refused Protection visa;
24 November 1998 - lodged an application for review at the then Refugee Review Tribunal (RRT) for Protection visa refusal;
5 May 2000 - RRT affirmed visa refusal;
25 August 2000 - requested ministerial intervention under s 417 of the Act;
8 December 2000 - ministerial intervention not considered;
22 December 2000 - requested ministerial intervention under s 345 of the Act in relation to the Partner visa refusal;
17 February 2001 - departed Australia;
6 October 2011 - lodged a Sponsored Family Visitor (SFV) visa application;
19 October 2011 - refused SFV as found not to be a genuine visitor;
27 October 2011 - lodged a second SFV application;
3 November 2011 - second SFV application refused, found not to be genuine visitor;
28 November 2011 - applied for a Provisional Partner (Subclass 309) visa offshore with Zamire as his sponsor;
24 February 2012 - Provisional Partner visa refused;
22 May 2012 - applied for a second Provisional Partner visa offshore with Zamire as his sponsor;
17 December 2012 - second Provisional Partner visa application granted;
25 December 2012 - entered Australia.

Mr Lumanovski’s account of his migration history was vague in indicating that he wanted to stay in Australia from 1997 as the situation back in FYROM was very bad; the war had started and Albanians were being persecuted. He indicated that at the time of his arrival in 1997 he had no English language skills. He met a woman in Australia through his cousin and married her but it did not appear to be a genuine relationship. The Immigration Department at the time asked him to come in for an interview. At the interview there were two women present; the woman he had married and another. The immigration official asked him to point to his wife he pointed to the woman he married and it was only at that stage he claimed to have discovered she had been using her sister’s birth certificate. The Department had been made aware of the deception when the sister had had her Centrelink benefits cancelled as she was now purportedly married to Mr Lumanovski, a man she had never met.
Mr Lumanovski advised the Tribunal that he did not recall much about the visa process after this period but he had been allowed to stay in Australia and had reported to the Department weekly. He stated he was unaware of any ministerial interventions that had been submitted on his behalf and had subsequently left Australia, not as a result of any visa refusal, but to return home to his ill father.
Mr Lumanovski advised the Tribunal that when he was in jail he had been desperate to reconnect with his son because he had felt guilty about not being able to have contact with him. So he connected with him via social media. He did indicate that their relationship prior to this had not been strong because he had left FYROM before his son was born and on his return had only seen him infrequently. However, at this stage he was no longer drinking and wanted to be part of his son’s life.
Mr Lumanovski advised the Tribunal about his complex and unorthodox relationship with his son and wife. He said that he had been in a relationship with his wife when they were young. She had become pregnant but they had not lived together or been seen as a couple at that time. He then left for Australia and when he returned to FYROM he did not reconnect with her or his son. When he was in jail and reconnected with his son he also started to renew his relationship with his wife which, led to her travelling on several occasions to FYROM. They subsequently married and she sponsored him to come to Australia.
After Mr Lumanovski had reconnected with his son and now wife and he was applying for a Partner visa to return to Australia, he approached an agent about assisting him with the forms. He understood that he was required to advise of any convictions and explained that he had done jail and the agent said that this would be an issue. The agent said you can put in form with your conviction recorded but you will not get a visa. Later he sought assistance from a friend who told him it wouldn’t be a problem and not to worry about it. He gave evidence that his friend said he would be able to get him a certificate and it would be all okay. He then secured the document from his friend which he understood to be a false police check. He then submitted this false document for his visa applications.
Mr Lumanovski knew that this was wrong; stating 100 per cent I feel bad. He said that he had done the wrong thing because he wanted to desperately be with his family and he feared that his life was in danger. During his time in prison he said he had been advised by others that the man he had been in the fight with was still out to get him. People had accused him of things he hadn’t done, he had been threatened when released from jail and he genuinely feared for his life. He had been issued with visas to both Australia and America but wanted to be in Australia with his extended family, all of whom now reside here. He was particularly desperate to be with his son and wife.
Mr Lumanovski advised the Tribunal that since his arrival in Australia in 2012 he had committed no offences and that he has worked hard developing businesses and providing a good life for his wife and son. He described his life in Australia prior to being placed into immigration detention as the happiest time of his life, he had an excellent life and all had been going very well in his world.
Since arriving in Australia Mr Lumanovski has always worked; first in manufacturing at Carter Holt in Dandenong; then tiling and general handyman work for MNI packaging and Rex Holmes. He opened and ran two successful coffee shops; one with his brother and one with his son. His latest venture is in construction, where he had commenced his own business called LFF Services Pty Ltd (LFF Services). This business has already secured a major contract to provide the basement for a 15 apartment complex. He estimated the overall project value at approximately $5 million. Mr Lumanovski gave evidence that since arriving in Australia he has bought numerous properties; both residential and commercial for private use and investment. There are numerous loans over these properties and his wife and son are not financially in a position to meet or manage all the repayments.
Mr Lumanovski did concede that he had an intervention order against him since being in Australia, which had been taken out by his sister-in-law. He stressed that the time for the intervention order had passed and he had complied with all its requirements. He said it was in relation to an argument about the wives working in the cafe owned by him and his brother. He said that he and his brother had agreed that their wives would not work in the cafe as they were serving alcohol but his sister-in-law did not agree and she had caused a ruckus, which resulted in Mr Lumanovski deciding to leave the coffee shop to his brother and establishing another with his son.

Mr Lumanovski indicated that his entire extended family now reside in Australia, including his elderly mother and father. He said that he had a strong relationship with his nephew who is 17 years old, taking him regularly to soccer training on the weekend. He said that his aim was to be given a bridging visa so that if he was eventually deported he would be in a position to at least leave his son and wife in a better financial position, as there are extensive loans on the numerous properties they had bought. He also noted that he could complete the part of the construction program he had commenced so that the project could move forward. Importantly, it would give him time with his family before he may eventually have to leave. He said that he did not envisage his family, including his wife and son, would be in a position, financially, or physically in the case of his parents, to visit him in FYROM.
Mr Ferdi Lumanovski
Ferdi, the son of the Applicant, provided a written statement to the Tribunal and gave oral evidence. Ferdi presented as a forthright individual who has made much of the advantages of being in Australia, having completed Year 12 and is now in his final year of his university degree at Swinburne University of Technology. Ferdi explained to the Tribunal that he was the only student from his VCE year at Dandenong High School to progress to university.
Ferdi explained the situation of his somewhat complex and unorthodox relationship with his father. He described how he had grown up without a father figure, because his father had left FYROM when he was very little. He had not been able to see his father often on his return to Macedonia because his parents’ relationship was strained during the years 2001 to 2008, only seeing his father approximately five or six times a year. In 2008 he and his mother migrated to Australia to live with his mother’s extended family. When he first arrived he found things very difficult as he had no English language skills but he has come to appreciate the many advantages Australia has to offer, including a high standard of education and healthcare.
During these years in Australia Ferdi noticed the relationships his friends had with their fathers. The fathers were often there helping them out and at this time Ferdi became depressed as result of separation from his father. When he was about 12 or 13 years old and social media was becoming more popular he opened accounts on Facebook, Skype and MSN to try and connect with his father in FYROM. At the same time his father was imprisoned and had sought out his son on social media. The two connected and began to communicate regularly and established a genuine father-son relationship.
Ferdi indicated to the Tribunal that he asked his mother to reconcile with his father so that they could be a family together and he could have a father figure in his life. He wanted to be like the other children whose fathers drove them to soccer and participated in their lives, attending things like parent-teacher interviews. He explained to the Tribunal that his mother had agreed to try to establish a relationship with his father as she could see it was so important to him. They travelled to FYROM to see his father and he described it as the most wonderful time in his life, finally he felt that he had his own family and eventually after some time his father migrated to Australia. Since that time he has been overjoyed to have his father as part of his life. He stated that he and his mother have greatly benefited from his father’s presence as previously they have been living in small homes with their extended families.
Ferdi indicated that he is concentrating on his full-time studies but had been working with his father at Ginger Jones Café and in his father’s business, LFF Services. He said that he looked after the finances but that he could not take on any of the construction work as he had no experience or understanding of the industry. He is managing the family’s finances at present but is finding his father’s absence to be an immense strain, as his mother’s income and the sale of one property is just covering the outgoings at present.
Ferdi reiterated that his father’s detention was having a devastating impact on him emotionally and that he has absolutely cherished the last five years of getting to know his father and being a family. He stated that if his father is eventually returned to FYROM, he would be unable to accompany him and would only see him very rarely. He was generally concerned for his father’s well-being and for that of his extended family as they are all present in Australia. He was particularly concerned for his mother who has limited English, does not drive and works a physically demanding job. Since his father went into detention she has been sad and she’s not the person she used to be. He stressed to the Tribunal that he believed in second chances; he believes the Australian community would believe in giving his father a second chance; that he had done all this for his family; that he was not a dangerous person; that his father had been in Australia for six years and had done nothing wrong; and that he knew his father wouldn’t do anything wrong.
Ms Zamire Lumanovska
Zamire, the wife of the Applicant provided a written statement to the Tribunal and gave oral evidence. Zamire presented as a forthright individual who advised the Tribunal that she and her husband had attended school together. He was a year older than her and they had been boyfriend and girlfriend from some time. When she was about 19 years old she got pregnant with their son Ferdi and, although it caused considerable strain in her family, she kept the child, but did not marry Mr Lumanovski at the time because of his heavy drinking and jealousy.
Zamire advised the Tribunal that she did not see Mr Lumanovski for some time after he left for Australia in 1997. When he returned to FYROM in 2001 they would see each other occasionally at social events but not really communicate. She stated that her son had limited contact with his father during that time.
In 2008 Zamire was granted a visa to come to Australia having decided to move here for a better life and to be with her extended family. Sometime after their arrival in Australia her son reconnected with his father via social media and he indicated to her on numerous occasions that he wanted to get them together as a family. She told the Tribunal that she started speaking to Mr Lumanovski over the telephone as he was still in prison in FYROM. In 2011 she decided to return to FYROM so she and her son could spent time with his father. The relationship rekindled and they were married in Macedonia in that year. Her son returned to Australia for his schooling and she remained in Macedonia with her now husband awaiting the outcome of his visa application so they could all return to Australia together. She indicated that a stipulation of the relationship recommencing was that her husband was to give up drinking. She said that he did and he has kept his word until this time.
Zamire stressed that they have a good, solid relationship and until his removal to detention she relied on him heavily. She said that her and her son’s life in Australia has been greatly improved because of the presence of her husband. He had changed their life for the better, providing them with their own home and allowing her son to pursue his university education. On her wage she would never have been able to achieve this. She said that her son needed his father and her husband was a very good role model for their son. She told the Tribunal that their time together in Australia had been the happiest and now I feel like I have been shot by a bullet. I am under so much pressure, I can’t sleep.
Zamire advised the Tribunal that she worked up to 70 hours a week on a farm and that her salary could not cover all the outstanding loans. She said the family had discussed every decision about buying properties together but she would leave everything in her husband’s and son’s hands as she trusted them with the money. She gave her salary to them to deal with all the outgoings in the household. She was very grateful to have been able to sell one house as that had been used to cover some expenses but now she was working day and night, unable to take sick leave even if she couldn’t get out of bed, because she needs to work. She described her farm work as very physically demanding work. She said that since her husband has been placed in detention a piece of my heart and soul had been taken away and whilst they spoke each day on Face Time that was not the same and she had not been able to physically see him for several months now.
Mr Idris Lumanovski
Mr Idris Lumanovski (Idris), the father of the Applicant, provided a written statement to the Tribunal and gave oral evidence. Idris appeared to be a man of few words, stressing that he and his wife’s lives had been torn apart when their son had been placed into detention. He said that his son was a better man since he had reconnected with his wife, Zamire, and his son. He said that Mr Lumanovski had shown a great deal of care towards his family; working hard, providing them with a good life and creating jobs for many others. He indicated that he and his wife had migrated to Australia so they could be closer to their family as their younger son had been living here for some time. He stated that they would be torn apart if their eldest son was taken away from them.
Idris spoke of the incident in FYROM which led to Mr Lumanovski’s imprisonment, describing how he was present when the police arrived and took his son away. He had attended the court hearing and whilst his recollection seemed hazy, he believed his son had been convicted on three charges; for being in a fight, having a false passport and one related to a firearm. He was shocked his son received such a long sentence.
Mr Ilat Rasimi
Mr Ilat Rasimi, project manager for the construction company for which Mr Lumanovski has been contracted to build a basement, provided a written statement to the Tribunal and gave oral evidence. Mr Rasimi advised the hearing that Mr Lumanovski had come highly recommended from the community and that he had made enquiries into his referees and established that he could do a good job and at a good price. He said that Mr Lumanovski had undertaken the work as required, commencing on time and on budget; and that he had been unable to continue with the work since he had been placed into detention.
Mr Rasimi estimated that the total sale price of the 15 units was likely to be between $4.7 and $5.2 million and that he hoped they would make roughly 20% to 30% net profit on the development once all the units had been sold. Mr Rasimi subcontracted out numerous parts of the construction work, starting with the basement for which he had contracted to LFF Services the total of $430,000, of which a deposit of $141,000 had already been paid. He said he was happy with the quotation provided and the works undertaken to date. He had expected he would offer Mr Lumanovski additional work if he completed this work to a satisfactory level.
When Mr Rasimi had been told that Mr Lumanovski had been placed in immigration detention, he was advised it would be for approximately two months and as it was close to Christmas he decided he would wait until his release and get him to complete the project. Since then time has dragged on and it has now been eight months. He has not been able to recommence the project and this is costing him considerable time and money. He explained that to contract someone else to do the work would be very difficult as contractors do not like to take on jobs commenced by other people and he would have to pay full value for the work, in essence paying twice for the work already undertaken. He stated that he was being damaged as an Australian citizen by this process and wanted Mr Lumanovski to be released so he could complete his contracted work.
At the hearing Mr Rasimi was asked about his awareness of Mr Lumanovski’s criminal convictions stating:
I come from the same country, I know what it’s like there. I didn’t know at the time I hired him but I know now. I am only interested in what he is like in Australia. There was a lot of discrimination against Albanian’s at that time so wouldn’t be able to tell what is true and what’s not. I wouldn’t pay someone that much money without looking into what they were like and that’s what I did and I was satisfied with everything I was told and saw. I just need him to come now to finish the job.
Mr Vergim Memeti
Mr Vergim Memeti, Councillor of the City of Greater Dandenong since 2005, serving as mayor on three occasions, provided a written statement to the Tribunal. Mr Memeti’s statement indicates that he has known Mr Lumanovski since 2014 through regular attendances at his cafe in Dandenong which is close to the Council building. Additionally, he indicated that Mr Lumanovski’s wife, Zamire, and her family were well known to him through his regular contact with the Albanian community and attendance at numerous events. He had been advised of Mr Lumanovski’s numerous criminal convictions both in Australia and FYROM. He attested that Mr Lumanovski is a person of generally good character. Mr Memeti based this on the following observations of Mr Lumanovski:
·that he has demonstrated he is a respected member of the Albanian community where he is well liked;
·his strong work ethic which has provided and greatly improved his and his family’s life;
·his good relationship with his wife;
·his positive influence on his son’s life
Mr Memeti stated: I am of the belief that Fari would not pose a risk to the Australian community if granted a bridging Visa to enable him to be reunited with his family while his appeal is being considered. ..I believe that his circumstances are very positive compared to Macedonia a decade ago. With his family in mind, he has every reason to continue to be a law-abiding member of the community.
THE CHARACTER TEST
CONSIDERATION
As Mr Lumanovski has conceded that he does not pass the character test, the Tribunal must next consider s 501(6)(d) of the Act and must have regard to whether, in the event that Mr Lumanovski were allowed to remain in Australia, there is a risk that he would either:
(i)engage in criminal conduct in Australia; or
(ii)harass, molest, intimidate or stalk another person in Australia; or
…
(v) represent a danger to the Australian community or to a segment of that community, whether by way of being liable to become involved in activities that are disruptive to, or in violence threatening harm to, or in any other way, that community or segment, or in any other way
The Minister issued Direction 65 under s 499 of the Act, which sets out the considerations to be applied by the decision-maker when exercising powers under s 501CA of the Act. The General Principle of Direction 65 states that the Government is committed to protecting the Australian community from harm as a result of criminal activity or other serious conduct by non-citizens.
Decision makers must take into account the primary and other considerations relevant to the individual case. Generally, primary considerations should be given greater weight than other considerations and one or more primary considerations may outweigh other primary considerations.
THE DISCRETION
As the Tribunal has found that Mr Lumanovski does not pass the character test, the Tribunal must consider whether it should exercise its discretion to refuse the visa under

s 501(1) of the Act. In doing so, it must have regard to the relevant primary and other considerations within the Direction.
At the outset the Tribunal was mindful that its consideration was in respect of a refusal of Mr Lumanovski’s bridging visa, to allow him to remain in the community while the cancellation of his substantive permanent partner visa was being reviewed by another division of this Tribunal. The Tribunal was mindful that the delegate had cancelled

Mr Lumanovski’s substantive Visa under s 109 of the Act and not under s 501.

Mr Lumanovski advised that he was seeking a bridging visa to allow him to remain in the community to resolve his numerous financial, business and family issues, pending the outcome of the review of his substantive visa cancellation. Mr Lumanovski was fully cognisant that the outcome of his other application may well result in his return to FYROM.
PRIMARY CONSIDERATIONS
Protection of the Australian Community
Paragraph 11.1 of the Direction provides that:
(1)When considering protection of the Australian community, decision-makers should have regard to the principle that the Government is committed to protecting the Australian community from harm as a result of criminal activity or other serious conduct by non-citizens. There is a low tolerance for visa applicants who have previously engaged in criminal or other serious conduct. 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.
Nature and seriousness of the conduct
Paragraph 11.1.1 of the Direction relevantly states that:
(1)In considering the nature and seriousness of the non-citizen’s criminal offending or other serious conduct to date, decision-makers must have regard to:
a)The principle that, without limiting the range of offences that may be considered serious, violent and/or sexual crimes are viewed seriously;
b)The principle that crimes committed against vulnerable members of the community (such as minors, the elderly and the disabled)… are serious;
c)The sentence imposed by the courts for a crime or crimes;
d)The principle that any conduct that forms the basis for a finding that the non-citizen does not pass a subjective limb of the character test is or is not of good character under s 501(6)(c), is considered to be serious;
e)The sentence imposed by the courts for a crime or crimes;
f)The frequency of the non-citizen’s offending and whether there is any trend of increasing seriousness;
g)The cumulative effect of repeated offending;
h)Whether the non-citizen has provided false or misleading information to the department, including by not disclosing prior criminal offending;
………..
The Respondent argued in their Statement of Issues, Facts and Contentions that the Tribunal should have regard to the delegate’s determination of 19 November 2018 to refuse Mr Lumanovski visa request where they stated the following:
Violent crimes are specifically identified as serious in the direction. While there is limited information before me in regards to detail of this offending in FYROM beyond the recording of his convictions and subsequent sentencing, I find that Mr Lumanovski’s conviction of unlawful deprivation of liberty must be considered serious as it likely involved an element of violence. Further his conviction of possess/carry/use unregistered handgun must be also be considered serious, particularly given he was also in possession of ammunition.
The direction notes that other types of offences can also be considered serious. I consider Mr Lumanovski convictions of counterfeiting documents, counterfeiting money and criminal offences against the public safety to be serious as it poses a significant economic and legal impact on society.
According to the direction, the sentence imposed for crime further reflects the seriousness of the offender’s conduct against the community. Custodial sentence of the last resort in the sensing hierarchy. I note that Mr Lumanovski has been sentenced to an aggregate of some 11 years and nine months imprisonment and thus consider his offending to be serious.
I also note that Mr Lumanovski deliberately provided incorrect information in his Visa application incoming passenger card by failing to declare his criminal history in order to avoid Visa refusal and subsequently gain an immigration advantage which he may not otherwise have been entitled to.
I note that on 7 April 2017, Mr Lumanovski again provided false information to the Department in his citizenship application, when he provided a penal record certificate from FYROM dated 27 September 2017 which stated that no final judgements or sentence had ever been made against him. As part of the application for Australian citizenship, relevant checks were made with the FYROM authorities who confirm that this document is counterfeit, a fact which Mr Lumanovski has conceded. Mr Lumanovski has shown a continued willingness to deceive the department for providing a bogus document in order to conceal his true extensive criminal history in FYROM in order to avoid Visa refusal and obtain an immigration advantage which he may otherwise been entitles to.

Mr Lumanovski concedes that his actions in FYROM were not trivial and his counsel reiterated that they were not seeking to minimise his actions in any way; but they did dispute the Respondent’s findings based on the penal extract from FYROM.

Mr Lumanovski was insistent that he had never been sentenced to 11 years and nine months imprisonment, but 3 years and 11 months, which he has served. He also disputes that there was any finding of fact in respect of his conviction of unlawful deprivation of liberty, having a firearm during the incident in 2007 and clearly disputes two of the convictions recorded against him in the penal extract from FYROM. He indicated his remorse for his violent conduct in the incident in 2007, stating that he had been under the influence of alcohol, which he has abstained from ever since, and felt provoked by the comments of his victim.
Mr Lumanovski conceded that he had provided a false document to the Australian government to conceal his criminal convictions from the Australian authorities in his visa applications. He indicated that he had been wrong to provider a false document to the Australian government but was desperate to be reunited with his family and in fear of his safety.
The Tribunal finds some of Mr Lumanovski explanation for his offences in Australia and his recollection of his migration history to be implausible. However, the Tribunal finds his explanation of his criminal convictions in FYROM plausible. The Tribunal, without any other documentary evidence of the convictions in FYROM and the inconsistencies in several of the offences was in a difficult position to determine the extent and nature of

Mr Lumanovski’s criminal history. The Tribunal accepts, based on the evidence, that

Mr Lumanovski had spent some 3 years and 11 months in jail in FYROM. The Tribunal accepts that Mr Lumanovski’s alcohol intake had impaired his judgement and that he is now abstinent from alcohol. However, whilst these factors may help explain his actions, they do not excuse his conduct nor do they mitigate against the seriousness of the crime. In addition, Mr Lumanovski had violated the trust of the Australian community when he provided false documentation to authorities in order to receive a favourable migration outcome. The Tribunal found that Mr Lumanovski’s offending, whilst not as extensive as the delegate had determined, was nevertheless serious and resulted in a significant sentence accordingly.
Risk to the Australian community
Paragraph 11.1.2 of the Direction provides that:
(1)In considering whether the non-citizen represents an unacceptable risk of harm to individuals, groups or institutions in the Australian community, decision-makers should have regard to the principle that the Australian community’s tolerance for 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 likelihood that it may be repeated may be unacceptable.
(2)In addition, decision-makers should have regard to the principle that 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.
(3)In considering the risk 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 from independent and authoritative sources on the likelihood of the non-citizen reoffending; and
ii.evidence of any 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); and
iii.the duration of the intended stay in Australia.
(4)Decision-makers should consider the risk of harm in the context of the purpose of the intended stay, and the type of visa being applied for, including whether there are strong or compassionate reasons for granting a short-stay visa.
Counsel for Mr Lumanovski argued that the practical implication of deciding that Mr Lumanovski not be refused a bridging visa under s 501 of the Act would allow Mr Lumanovski to remain in the community for a short period of time, a community where he had been a law-abiding and productive member of the community for six years. Mr Lumanovski’s counsel submitted that he has not engaged in criminal offending since his arrival in Australia in 2012 and that he had shown remorse and acceptance of his prior convictions. It was further submitted that Mr Lumanovski’s insight into the effect of alcohol on his behaviour and abstinence for the last 10 years mitigated against any concern that he may reoffend. Additionally, the support of his wife and son provided the supportive factors around him which would ensure he was at no risk of reoffending in the community.
The delegate found that: on the basis of his criminal offending both in Australia and overseas, and his dishonesty with the department by failing to disclose convictions in his application or incoming passenger card, I find that there is an ongoing risk of Mr Lumanovski reoffending, albeit low.
Counsel for Mr Lumanovski argued that he poses no appreciable risk to the Australian community during the short term period for which his bridging visa would allow him to remain in the community while he awaits the outcome of his pending the result of the

s 109 review. She contended that it was likely that Mr Lumanovski would only be in the community for 8 to 12 months until that decision was made.
Counsel for the Minister argued that primary considerations should be generally given more weight than other considerations and in this case the other considerations did not outweigh the primary considerations. They argued that Mr Lumanovski’s convictions for offences involving violence were inherently serious. This was demonstrated by the lengthy custodial sentences he received in FYROM because in the hierarchy of sentencing, custodial sentences were imposed as a measure of last resort and the length imposed objectively demonstrates the seriousness of his conduct. Additionally, his repeated offending has also had a cumulative effect. Mr Lumanovski’s serious criminal history was also evident in his providing of false and misleading information to the Department in order to get a favourable migration outcome. This, combined with his continual reliance on the bogus document, indicate that he represented an unacceptable risk to the Australian community.
Counsel for the Minister argued that Mr Lumanovski had shown little insight or remorse for his convictions. That whilst he acknowledged they were wrong he had sought to explain them in terms of his drinking and fear, as opposed to accepting responsibility for his actions.
Counsel for the Minister also argued that whilst they accepted Mr Lumanovski had shown some signs of rehabilitation as he had not committed any criminal offences since 2007, there was no independent evidence provided to substantiate that he had undertaken any rehabilitation programs.
Counsel for the Minister contended before this Tribunal that this decision could not be binding on any determination of the Migration and Refugee Division of this Tribunal and an adverse finding would not weigh negatively against him in the other proceeding.
The Tribunal considers that Mr Lumanovski poses a minimal acceptable risk to the Australian community if granted his short-term bridging visa. The Tribunal finds that

Mr Lumanovski has been law-abiding for six years in the Australian community, had insight into his alcohol abuse, had the support of his extended family and had meaningful work to undertake if allowed to remain in the community. It would be palpably not in

Mr Lumanovski’s interest to commit any offence against the Australian community whilst his substantive visa cancellation was being considered and this would be a most significant deterrent against him reoffending in any way, shape, size or form.
The determination of this Tribunal is in respect of a short-term bridging visa, allowing Mr Lumanovski to reside in the community until his substantive visa is determined, and will have no bearing on the determination of his substantive visa cancellation review.
The Tribunal therefore accepts that as Mr Lumanovski poses a minimal acceptable risk to the Australian community he should be afforded the opportunity to wait in the community while his substantive visa cancellation is considered.
Best interests of minor children in Australia
Paragraph 11.2 of the Direction requires a determination on whether visa refusal is, or is not, in the best interests of any minor children. That consideration applies only if the child is, or would be, under the age of 18 years at the time the decision to refuse to grant the visa is made. In considering the best interests of the child, paragraph 11.2(4) provides:
In considering the best interests of the child, the following factors must be considered where relevant:
a) The nature and the 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 the 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 non-citizen has abused or neglected the child in any way, including physical, sexual and/or mental abuse or neglect; and
h)Evidence that the child has suffered or experienced any physical or emotional trauma arising from the non-citizen’s conduct.
Mr Lumanovski’s counsel argued that the Applicant has four nieces and nephews residing in Australia who are under the age of 18 and one in particular, Artim Mutafovski (Artim), to whom he is particular close. He pressed that it would be in Artim’s best interests for his uncle’s bridging visa to be granted.
The Respondent argued that limited weight should be placed on this consideration in favour of Mr Lumanovski.
Mr Lumanovski’s only child, his son, is 22 years old; so he cannot be considered by the Tribunal in respect of this consideration.
The Tribunal accepts it would be in the best interests of Mr Lumanovski’s nieces and nephews, particularly Artim, for him to reside in Australia so that they can develop a relationship with their uncle. However, as the relationship with these children is non-parental; the Tribunal places limited weight on it as a consideration to refuse Mr Lumanovski’s visa under s 501(1) of the Act.
Expectations of the Australian community
Paragraph 11.3 of the Direction states:
(1) The Australian community expects non-citizens to obey Australian laws while in Australia. Where a non-citizen has breached, or where there is an unacceptable risk that they will breach this trust or where the non-citizen has been convicted of offences in Australia or elsewhere, it may be appropriate to refuse the visa application of such a person. Visa refusal may be appropriate simply because of the nature of the character concerns or offences are such that the Australian community would expect that the person should not be granted a visa. Decision-makers should have due regard to the Government’s views in this respect.
The Respondent's representative strongly contended that the Australian community would expect Mr Lumanovski not to be given the right to remain in the Australian community whilst he awaits the outcome of his pending visa review. It was submitted that the Australian community would expect the Tribunal to refuse the granting of the visa on the basis of his history of offending and his blatant dishonesty to the Australian government.
Counsel for Mr Lumanovski observed that the concept of expectations of the Australian community in an earlier version of the Direction is difficult to interpret. Referring to the decision of Deputy President Block in regard to the term “expectations of the Australian community” (as it appeared in an earlier Ministerial Direction) in Re Jupp and Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2002] AATA 458 at [7]:
It assumes (incorrectly) that there is an Australian community which thinks as one. The supporters of One Nation would have one view as regards immigration, and there is of course a very large diametrically opposed body of opinion in Australia. I construe this reference as being correctly made to middle-of-the-road reasonable members of the Australian community who do not hold extreme views one way or another. And I think that there is a further limiting factor and that is that one must import into the Australian community, knowledge of the evidence before me. …
In a more recent decision of Re Rabino and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] AATA 999, Deputy President Forgie noted that determining the expectations of the Australian community is ultimately a matter for judgment, the facts of which that judgment is made must be made on the basis of facts established by the evidence (at [72]). In assessing the expectations of the Australian community, regard should also be had to the principles in paragraph 6.3 of the Direction as they reflect community values and standards (para 6.2(1)).
There can be no question that Mr Lumanovski has betrayed the trust of the Australian community through his history of criminal offending and blatant dishonesty in repeatedly providing a bogus document to receive a favourable visa outcome. Mr Lumanovski did not attempt to whitewash his offending but did try to mitigate its seriousness and stated his abuse of alcohol had been a large factor. Mr Lumanovski also indicated that he knew he should not have used a false document but reiterated he wanted to be with his family and was fearful for his life. The Tribunal accepts this to a degree but Mr Lumanovski continued to use a false document knowingly in his application for his Australian citizenship and attempted to explain this away by his belief his convictions would have been considered spent. The Tribunal was not persuaded or convinced by Mr Lumanovski’s explanation in this regard.
The Australian community is generally inclined to give individuals a second chance and would recognise that Mr Lumanovski has been punished for his crime. They would also appreciate that he has spent the last six years in the Australia community as a

law-abiding, hardworking, family man, paying taxes, creating jobs and living the Australian migrant dream. However, the Australian community also has a low tolerance for people involved in violent crimes and fraudulent activity to game the system to their advantage.
Counsel for Mr Lumanovski contended that the expectation of the Australian community ought to be informed by the particular circumstances of Mr Lumanovski’s visa application, particularly as he is seeking under this review to be granted a bridging visa while he awaits the outcome of a review of his substantive visa. They drew the Tribunal's attention to the fact Mr Lumanovski’s substantive visa had been cancelled under s 109 of the act and not s 501, which was also available to the Minister. Additionally, Mr Lumanovski had presented in the utmost good faith to the Department expecting that he would be granted a bridging visa but was instead taken into detention. They argued that the community would find Mr Lumanovski’s detention is punitive, disproportionate to the purposes of the Act and ultimately counter-productive to the aims of the Department; particularly, as he poses no threat or risk to the community as demonstrated by his six years in the community, his significant family ties in Australia and his seeking only a short-term visa.
Counsel took the Tribunal to the matter of Singh and Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2004] AATA 370 (8 April 2004) where the Member noted:
That brings me to the expectations of the Australian community. As a general rule, members of the Australian community are sympathetic to people who have had a difficult life in difficult circumstances. For those people, it can be forgiving of the transgressions made by people who are in those circumstances and who strive to better themselves and to make a new start. Members of the Australian community are also sympathetic to those who want to join their families and can also be forgiving of their transgressions. On the evidence that I have, I find that Mr Singh is a person to whom the Australian community is likely to have little sympathy. Certainly, he has family in Australia whom he wants to join but, equally, he has family in India. His father, who is one of those whom he wants to join in Australia, lives half of the year in India. Although he claims to be estranged from his wife Gurwinder Kaur, she is also in India as are his two small sons.
The Tribunal considers that whilst the general community would take a very dim view of Mr Lumanovski's offending, in particular his abuse of the Australian immigration systems, the Australian community may forgive Mr Lumanovski’s transgressions in his determination to provide a better life for himself and his family. The community would be sympathetic as his entire family now resides in Australia. The Tribunal is therefore of the view that the Australian community would be willing to afford him a second chance. Particularly in light of the fact that Mr Lumanovski does not pose an unacceptable risk to the community on the evidence before the Tribunal. He is only seeking to be in the community for a short time and he therefore knows he cannot breach the trust of the Australian community again.
Counsel for Mr Lumanovski argued that a properly informed member of the community would perceive the counter-productive nature of continuing to detain Mr Lumanovski whilst he awaits the outcome his substantive visa application review. She argued that the refusal of the bridging visa on character grounds would be considered inappropriate in all but exceptional circumstances and argued Mr Lumanovski could not be considered an exception and the community would expect him to be granted a bridging visa during the review of his visa cancellation. Counsel drew the Tribunal's attention to the matter of NDFN and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (Migration) [2017] AATA 892 (9 June 2017) where the Member found:
As the Direction implicitly acknowledges, the Australian community's expectations include the acceptance of some risk in relation to the conduct of non-citizens, depending on its seriousness. The Australian community also expects that people will be given a chance to redeem themselves and realign their behaviour with expected social norms. That is evident from provisions in our criminal justice system and the rehabilitative opportunities it provides. I therefore find that the risk posed by NDFN, given the specific circumstances of his case, is not unacceptable.
Mindful of the framework principles and after considering the nature and seriousness of NDFN's conduct, coupled with an assessment of the risk he poses to the Australian community, I find that the primary consideration of protecting the Australian community weighs marginally in favour of not refusing his visa application.

Additionally, the Tribunal was taken to the matter of Zefis and Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2002] AATA 700 (16 August 2002) which deals with the short-term nature of the bridging visa as relevant to assessing the community's expectations.
Having regard to the fact that Mr Zefis seeks only a bridging visa, and so a temporary visa, at this stage, I have decided that the discretion should be exercised in his favour at this stage. I am satisfied that doing so will not place the Australian community at risk in the short term. At the same time, it will meet the community's expectation that he be given an opportunity to explain himself. It may be that the question of Mr Zefis's character will need to be revisited after the conclusion of the criminal charges (whether to clear it entirely or otherwise) but, for the moment and having taken all of the matters into account, I consider that the balance in exercising the discretion under s. 501 lies in favour of finding that Mr Zefis's bridging visa should not be refused on the basis of his not passing the character test.
The Tribunal finds that it would be counter-productive to continue to detain Mr Lumanovski for the short-term whilst his substantive visa cancellation is being considered. The Tribunal finds that the community would expect an individual to be able to resolve their affairs as a productive taxpayer in the community and not as a drain on the public purse as he sits in detention. The Tribunal found this consideration weighed slightly in favour of not refusing Mr Lumanovski bridging visa under section 501 of the Act. However, this determination was in respect of the community's expectation for him to remain in the community for a short-term and therefore should have no bearing on the determination of his substantive visa review.
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
International non-refoulement obligations
Paragraph 12.1 of the Direction provides:
(1)A non-refoulement obligation is an obligation not to forcibly return, deport of expel a person where they will be at risk of a specific type of harm. Australia has non-refoulement obligations to non-citizens in Australia under the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees as amended by the 1967 Protocol (together called the Refugees Convention); the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (the CAT) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and its Second Optional Protocol (the ICCPR). The Act reflects Australia’s interpretation of those obligations and, where relevant, decision-makers should follow the tests enunciated in the Act
(2)The existence of a non-refoulement obligation does not preclude refusal of a non-citizen’s visa application in Australia. This is because Australia will not remove a non-citizen, as a consequence of the refusal of their visa application, to the country in respect of which the non-refoulement obligation exists.
(3)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 refusal of their visa under s501 of the Act, or can be clear from the facts of the case (such as where the non-citizen is an applicant for a protection visa).
(4)Where a non-citizen makes claims which may give rise to international non-refoulement obligations and that non-citizen is able to make a valid application for another visa, it is unnecessary to determine whether non-refoulement obligations are owed to the non-citizen for the purposes of determining whether their visa application should be refused.
(5)If, however, that these are application being considered for refusal is a protection Visa application, the person will be prevented from making application for another Visa, other than abridging our (class WR) Visa (section 501E of the act and regulation 2.12A of the regulations refers). The person will also be prevented by section 48A of the act from making 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 – sections 48A and 48B of the act refer).
(6)In these circumstances, decision-makers should seek an assessment of Australia’s international treaty obligations. Any non-refoulement obligation should be weighed carefully against the seriousness of the non-citizen’s criminal offending and other serious conduct in deciding whether or not the non-citizen should be granted a visa. Given that Australia will not return a person to their country of origin if to do so would be inconsistent with its international non-refoulement obligations, the operation of sections 189 and 196 of the Act means that, if the person’s Protection visa application were refused, they would face the prospect of indefinite immigration detention.
During the hearing Mr Lumanovski raised issues of discrimination he had faced and fears he held as a member of the Albanian ethnic minority in FYROM. However, he did not press these as a claim for consideration in respect of Australia’s international non-refoulement obligations.
The Tribunal asked Mr Lumanovski’s counsel if she was seeking to make any claims in respect of non-refoulement, Counsel confirmed they were not seeking to make any such claims.
Counsel for the Respondent maintained an objection under section 500 HJ of the Act that the evidence provided during the hearing in respect of an ethnic aspect having been a factor in his offending and subsequent conviction in FYROM should not be considered by the Tribunal as this evidence had not formed part of any of the documentation filed two days prior to the hearing in accordance with the Act.
The Tribunal found on the evidence that no consideration in respect of Australia’s international non-refoulement obligations had any bearing upon consideration of refusal of Mr Lumanovski’s visa under s 501(1) of the Act.
Impact on family members
Paragraph 12.2(1) of the Direction states:
Impact of visa refusal on 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
It was noted by the delegate in his determination that Mr Lumanovski had extensive immediate family and social ties to Australia and that his extended family are either citizens or permanent residents of Australia. Both parties concede there will be an impact on Mr Lumanovski’s immediate and extended family if his bridging visa was refused.
The Respondent conceded that Mr Lumanovski’s family may experience some emotional, physical and financial hardship if his bridging visa was refused but argued that the Tribunal should not give greater weight to this consideration than other aspects of the determination as they strenuously argued Mr Lumanovski was an unacceptable risk and the Australian community would expect his Visa to be refused.
Counsel for Mr Lumanovski submitted that he had resided in Australia for the last six years, making a substantial contribution to the community and most particularly to his family. The impact upon the family weighed heavily in favour of not refusing the visa as it would have a devastating impact emotionally, physically and financial he on his immediate family members most particularly his wife and son. Additionally, his extended family, particularly his elderly parents would be devastated if their son had to remain in detention on the other side of the country while he awaited the outcome of his substantive visa cancellation review.
Counsel for Mr Lumanovski strenuously argued that the benefit to the family outweighed the primary considerations, most particularly in light of the minimal risk Mr Lumanovski posed if he was allowed to remain in the community on a bridging visa in the short term. Counsel reiterated Mr Lumanovski’s financial situation in respect of his numerous loans and the stress this placed on his wife and son who faced the prospect of defaulting on these loans and foreclosure of the properties they had worked hard to purchase. She indiacted that Zamire and Ferdi did not have the means to cover the repayments as Ferdi was a full time student and Zamire was on a low wage as a farm worker.
Mr Lumanovski has significant and enduring ties with Australia and it is clearly in his immediate and extended families interest that he be granted a bridging visa. It is evident by the numerous statements from his family members that Mr Lumanovski makes a significant contributing to the family, emotionally and financially and his remaining in detention will cause considerable distress. Therefore, this consideration weighs heavily in favour of setting aside the decision to refuse his visa under s 501(1) of the Act.
Impact on victims
Paragraph 12.3 of the Direction states:
Impact of a decision not to revoke on members of the Australian community, including victims of the non-citizen’s criminal behavior, and the family members of the victim or victims where that information is available and the non-citizen being considered for revocation has been afforded procedural fairness.
There is no evidence, one way or the other, that identifies what effect, if any, the refusal of Mr Lumanovski’s visa would have on the victims of his offences. Therefore, the Tribunal finds there would be no impact in a practical sense on the victims and that this consideration has no bearing upon consideration of refusal of Mr Lumanovski’s visa under s 501(1) of the Act.
Impact on Australian business interests
Paragraph 12.4 of the Direction states:
Impact on Australian business interests if the non-citizen’s visa cancellation is not revoked, noting that an employment link would generally only be given weight where non-revocation would significantly compromise the delivery of a major project, or delivery of an important service in Australia.
Counsel for Mr Lumanovski argued that refusal of his bridging visa would compromise a multi-million-dollar property development which had been commenced but cannot proceed until Mr Lumanovski’s company, LFF Services, completes its contracted work of building the development basement. The development was expected to generate significant returns to investors with an overall value of $5.2 million. Additionally, the project expected to generate significant employment opportunities and provide significant revenue to downstream suppliers.
Counsel for Mr Lumanovski argued strenuously that granting his bridging visa would allow him into the community to complete these works which would benefit the developers but additionally his family because the earnings from this enterprise would greatly assist with their numerous loan repayments. It was submitted that only Mr Lumanovski was able to complete the works and without him the building would remain at a standstill and his family would suffer financially.
Counsel for Mr Lumanovski argued that the Tribunal should give considerable weight to this factor, arguing that a combination of other considerations can outweigh primary considerations. Mr Rasimi was being significantly disadvantaged by the continual detention of Mr Lumanovski and that he had expressed it aptly when he said: I just need him to finish the job. Mr Lumanovski was merely seeking the opportunity to finish the job.
Counsel for the Minister accepted that Mr Lumanovski had a valuable role in the property development project but it could not be said that the loss or compromise of a single property development would significantly compromise the delivery of residential properties in Australia and therefore could not be considered a major project of an important service in Australia.
Counsel for the Minister did not dispute the evidence of the nature of the project but argued that the developers of the project could find another contractor to replace Mr Lumanovski‘s company and as such this project would not be compromised. Counsel for the Minister argued that limited weight should be given to this consideration.
The Tribunal determines Mr Lumanovski has a significant role to play in the delivery of a major residential construction development and it would be in the interests of the developer for Mr Lumanovski bridging visa to be granted. The Tribunal concurs with Counsel for the Minister that refusal of Mr Lumanovski bridging visa would not significantly compromise the delivery of a major project, or delivery of an important service in Australia. However, the Tribunal finds that it seems superfluous to continue to detain Mr Lumanovski pending the determination of his substantive visa and holding up the completion of this project. Mr Lumanovski’s bridging visa would make a significant financial contribution, not only to his family but to the community and allowing him the opportunity to finalise this project is considered to be in the best interest of the wider Australian community. Therefore, this consideration weighs in favour of setting aside the decision to refuse his visa under s 501(1) of the Act.
CONCLUSION
Overall, the Tribunal finds that having regard to all of the primary and other relevant considerations required by the Direction to be taken into consideration, the correct and preferable decision is to set aside the decision and for Mr Lumanovski’s bridging visa not to be refused under s 501, which would allow him to remain in the community for a short time to resolve his numerous affairs.
At the heart of the policy underpinning s 501(1) of the Act is the protection of the Australian community. Many in the community would believe Mr Lumanovski’s bridging visa should not be granted. Others, apprised of his circumstances and the short term nature of his request, would afford him the opportunity to remain in the community; earning a living, providing for his family, spending time with his extended family and resolving his affairs. Mr Lumanovski’s criminal history is serious and his repeated provision of false documents is a blatant breach of the trust of the Australian community. However, the impact on his family, the impact on an Australian business, his minimal risk of reoffending and the short term nature of his visa outweigh the primary consideration of the risk that he poses to the Australian community, which the Tribunal and the delegate viewed as low.
This has led the Tribunal to the conclusion that Mr Lumanovski’s bridging visa should not be refused.
DECISION
For the reasons I have given, The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and in substitution decides that the Applicant not be refused a Bridging Visa E under s 501(1) of the Act.

I certify that the preceding 134 (one hundred and thirty-four) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Ms Anna Burke AO, Member.

[sgd]...................................................
Dated: 13 February 2019

Dates of hearing: 31 January & 1 February 2019

Counsel for the Applicant: Ms Tanya Skvortsova

Solicitors for the Applicant:
Lawson Bayly Lawyers and Migration Agents Pty Ltd

Advocate for the Respondent: Mr Adam Cunynghame

Solicitors for the Respondent: Sparke Helmore Lawyers

COURT	COURT DATE	OFFENCE	COURT RESULT
Dandenong Magistrates Court	20 Feb 2014	Poss/carry/use unregistered handgun Possess drug of depend. – prescript drug Theft Possess ammunition without license	One month imprisonment. concurrent sentence is wholly suspended under section 27 of the sentencing act 1991. Operational period is 12 months With conviction, fined an aggregate of $1500.00 With conviction fined an aggregate of $1500.00 With conviction fined an aggregate of $1500.00
Municipal Court Bitola	7 April 2009	Article 140 unlawful detained another Article 396 unlawful keeping of weapons Article 378 falsifying a document	Incarceration for a Term of 3 years and 11 months
Municipal Court Bitola	20 April 2000	Article 268 counterfeiting money	Incarceration for a Term of 3 months
Municipal Court Bitola	26 September 2003	Article 297 endangering traffic safety	Probation sentence of 3 months conditional sentence
Municipal Court Bitola	22 February 2008	Article 140 unlawful detained another	Incarceration for a Term of 3 years and 3 months
Municipal Court Bitola	3 February 2009	Article 378 falsifying a document	Incarceration for a Term of 6 months
Municipal Court Bitola	2 February 2015	Unknown	Incarceration for a Term of 2 years

Dates of hearing:	31 January & 1 February 2019
Counsel for the Applicant:	Ms Tanya Skvortsova
Solicitors for the Applicant:	Lawson Bayly Lawyers and Migration Agents Pty Ltd
Advocate for the Respondent:	Mr Adam Cunynghame
Solicitors for the Respondent:	Sparke Helmore Lawyers