Magaono (Migration)

[2021] AATA 1156

Magaono (Migration) [2021] AATA 1156 (28 January 2021)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Mr Michael Magaono

CASE NUMBER:  1930512

HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):          BCC2019/3345785

MEMBER:Kira Raif

DATE:28 January 2021

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision to cancel the applicant’s Subclass 444 (Special Category) visa.

Statement made on 28 January 2021 at 5:49pm

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – cancellation – Special Category (Temporary) (Class TY) – Subclass 444 visa – applicant’s presence in Australia is or may be a risk to the safety of the Australian community –criminal convictions – applicant has little regard for the law – long history of offensive and criminal behaviour – factors in favour of cancelling the applicant’s visa outweigh those factors to the contrary– decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, ss 116, 359AA

CASES
Gong v MIBP [2016] FCCA 561

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

Application for review

1. This is an application for review of a decision dated 16 October 2019 made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs to cancel the applicant’s Subclass 444 (Special Category) visa under s.116 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

2. The applicant is a national of New Zealand, born in October 1990. He was last granted the Special Category visa in August 2016. On 17 September 2019 the applicant was issued with the Notice of Intention to Consider Cancellation (NOICC, the Notice) because the delegate formed the view that there may be grounds for cancelling the visa under s. 116(1)(e) of the Act. It is stated that the applicant did not respond to the NOICC and his visa was cancelled on 16 October 2019. The applicant seeks review of the delegate’s decision.

3. The applicant provided a lengthy submission to the Tribunal on 14 December 2020, merely an hour before the hearing was scheduled to commence. It is unclear to the Tribunal why the applicant or his representative Ms Samuta of Samuta McComber Lawyers chose to provide a submission so late and contrary to the requirements of the Tribunal’s Practice Directions. The Tribunal considers late provision of written evidence and arguments less than helpful. At the request of the applicant, the hearing was postponed.

4. The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 20 January 2021 to give evidence and present arguments. The applicant was represented in relation to the review by his registered migration agent. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision to cancel the applicant’s visa should be affirmed.

   Relevant law

5. Under s.116 of the Act, the Minister may cancel a visa if he or she is satisfied that certain grounds specified in that provision are made out. Relevantly, to this case, these include the ground set out in s.116(1)(e). If satisfied that the ground for cancellation is made out, the decision maker must proceed to consider whether the visa should be cancelled, having regard to all the relevant circumstances, which may include matters of government policy.

6. A visa may be cancelled under s.116(1)(e) if the Minister is satisfied that the presence of the visa holder in Australia is or may be, or would or might be, a risk to: the health, safety or good order of the Australian community or a segment of the Australian community; or the health or safety of an individual or individuals. There does not have to be any direct, solid or certain foundation before the power can arise. It can arise on the possibility that some event occurred in the past: Gong v MIBP [2016] FCCA 561, at [41].

   Does the ground for cancellation exist?

7. The applicant provided to the Tribunal a copy of the primary decision record. It indicates that the Department received information from the Queensland Police Service (QPS) stating that the applicant had been charged with the following offences

   16/06/19Choking/suffocation/strangulation domestic relationship

   (domestic violence offence)

   16/06/19Common assault (domestic violence offence)

   09/06/19Common assault (domestic violence offence)

   11/02/19Common assault (domestic violence offence)

8. It is also stated by QPS that the applicant was a respondent in a Temporary Protection Order (TPO) made on 17 June 2019 and the victim is named as the applicant’s partner. The applicant’s child is also named as a protected person.

9. The primary decision record refers to an allegation that on 16 June 2019 the applicant had a verbal argument with his partner and pushed her while she had a child sitting on her lap, causing her to fall backward. It is alleged that the applicant then grabbed his partner by the throat and strangled her for approximately one minute. It is alleged that he also head-butted his partner, causing injury. The applicant’s partner stated that she feared for her life whilst being strangled.

10. The primary decision record refers to an allegation that on 6 June 2019 the applicant had a verbal argument with his partner and ran toward her and tried to head-butt her. She was forced to go to a spare room in an attempt to get away from the applicant. It is alleged that the applicant followed his partner into a spare room, pushed her on the bed and punched her in the head more than ten times, causing injury. It is alleged that the applicant’s partner fled the premises after the incident.

11. The primary decision record refers to an allegation that on 11 February 2019 the applicant had a verbal argument with his partner. It is alleged that he pushed his partner, who was approximately 30 weeks pregnant at the time, and attempted to head-butt her. It is alleged that his partner fell backwards and when she stood up, the applicant continued to push her until she fell on the floor. The applicant’s partner called an ambulance as she was worried about the unborn child.

12. In his written submission to the Tribunal of 14 December 2020 the applicant acknowledges that his past offending includes four counts of common assault (domestic violence) against Ms Marks in February and June 2019. At paragraph 23 of his written submission, the applicant “admits that his past conduct towards Ms Marks on the dates mentioned at paragraphs 22(a)-(c) was serious conduct which he in no way seeks to minimise or excuse.” However, the applicant’s oral evidence to the Tribunal was substantially different. In oral evidence, the applicant stated that his partner hit herself in the stomach while she was pregnant and he pushed her to stop her hurting the child. The applicant stated that his partner exaggerated what happened and he pleaded guilty because he was stupid and to get back to his partner and prevent her being jailed for lying to the police and not because the allegations were true. The applicant states that he wanted to go to jail to avoid his partner and he pleaded guilty to things he did not do. The applicant told the Tribunal that the events described above did not take place and he regrets pleading guilty. The Tribunal finds the applicant’s evidence unpersuasive. The applicant told the Tribunal he was represented in the criminal proceedings. The Tribunal is of the view that the process and the consequence of the guilty plea would have been explained to the applicant. The Tribunal is of the view that a conviction can be taken as evidence that the offences had been committed.

13. The applicant told the Tribunal that he pleaded guilty to the assault charges and served three months in prison and six months on parole. The applicant told the Tribunal that he had breached the parole by having contact with his ex-partner and children. He thought he settled the matter in court and that he was allowed to be near his child but the bail conditions overruled the agreement and he was found to be in breach of parole. Once his parole had finished, he was allowed to be with his children with the consent of his ex-partner.

14. The applicant also told the Tribunal that he has had other convictions when he was young. He states he had been convicted of Break and Enter (for which he was given community service and a fine) and driving without a license. The applicant states that these offences occurred more than ten years ago in Australia. The applicant told the Tribunal that he was ‘rough’ when he was growing up but once he became an adult, he had changed. The Tribunal is mindful that the latest offending occurred only recently in 2019. The applicant states that he was stressed due to family issues and he ‘exploded’. He recognised that he was wrong and had not asked for bail. The applicant states that he had never hit a woman before and he respects women and is not a danger to anyone.

15. The applicant states in his written submission that the risk to his partner Ms Marks needs to be quantified for the purpose of exercising discretion and in this case, the risk is minimal to non-existed due to his rehabilitation. The Tribunal does not accept that submission because the Tribunal does not consider that the possibility of risk only occurs in relation to Ms Marks and also because the Tribunal does not accept the applicant has been rehabilitated. The Tribunal’s concerns extend beyond the applicant’s interactions with Ms Marks. The Tribunal is concerned that the applicant’s conduct towards Ms Marks is reflective of his broader disregard for the welfare and well-being of others and for the Australian laws, particularly in light of his earlier convictions. The police report on the Departmental file (which was discussed with the applicant in accordance with s. 359AA of the Act) shows that the applicant has been convicted of the following offences in the past:

06/07/07	·     Assault occasioning bodily harm whilst armed / in company (3 charges) ·     Attempted wilful damage ·     Trespass – entering or remaining in dwelling or yard	Certificate of caution
17/08/07	·     Unlawful use of motor vehicle ·     Stealing	No conviction recorded. Community service 40 hours
23/11/07	Assaults occasioning bodily harm	No conviction recorded. Fined $450. i/d imp. 9 days
21/06/11	·     Commit public nuisance ·     Enter premises and commit indictable offence ·     Unlawful use of motor vehicle	Conviction recorded on all charges. Probation period 9 months. Community service 80 hours. Pay restitution
24/09/12	Contravene direction or requirement	Conviction recorded. Fined $220
12/10/15	Possess utensils or pipes etc that had been used	No conviction recorded. Fined $300
31/05/11	Possess utensils or pipes that had been used	Drug diversion successful

1. Thus, the Tribunal does not accept the applicant’s written submission that he does not have a long history of offending. The Tribunal is of the view that the information cited above indicates otherwise. The applicant had committed multiple offences over the past ten years.

2. In his submission of 28 January 2021 the applicant explains the circumstances of these earlier offences. The applicant states that his previous offending occurred because he associated with the wrong crowd and wanted to fit in and he claims he is better now at picking friends now and will not re-offend. The applicant claims that he has learned his lessons and no longer associates with hist past friends.  The Tribunal does not accept the applicant’s evidence because despite the multiple past offences, the applicant continued to re-offend and did so as recently as in 2019.

3. Most recently, the applicant had been convicted of perpetrating domestic violence when in a relationship with his former partner. Although the applicant denies having done anything wrong in his oral evidence (and seems to accept the offending conduct took place in his written submission), as noted above, the Tribunal takes the view that a conviction can be taken as evidence that the offence had been committed. The Tribunal is concerned that the applicant may engage in similar conduct in the future when he may be in a different relationship, despite his claimed respect for women. That is, the possibility of harm does not only arise with respect to one individual but may extend to other individuals with whom the applicant may interact in the future. In such circumstances, the Tribunal finds the applicant’s submission that his presence in Australia poses minimal risk to Ms Marks unpersuasive.

4. The applicant submits in his written evidence that he does not have a lengthy or significant criminal history and had time to reflect in remand and upon sentencing so that he has a greater understanding of, and insight into reason for his past offending. The applicant claims he is reformed and that he is committed to treatment, which reduces the risk of future harm he poses to Ms Marks. The Tribunal does not accept that evidence in its entirety. The information before the Tribunal indicates that offensive conduct occurred over a period of nearly ten years and the offensive conduct does not relate to a single incident. The Tribunal does not accept that prior to 2019 the applicant has not had the chance to contemplate his conduct or his offending or his associations or that he did not appreciate the significance of violence towards others and the general harm to the community posed by criminal behaviour. The Tribunal does not accept that he has only done so after the most recent incidents or while being on remand. The fact that the applicant committed multiple offences, over a period of time, suggests that any claimed contemplation and recognition of his conduct had not led to the changes in the applicant’s behaviour in the past and the Tribunal is not satisfied it will do so in the future.

5. Neither is the Tribunal satisfied that the applicant is committed to treatment or appreciative of his conduct. The applicant’s oral evidence to the Tribunal is that he did not commit any offences in 2019 and pleaded guilty for a variety of reasons that did not include his conduct. The applicant suggested to the Tribunal that it was his partner’s conduct, and not his own, that led to the convictions. When asked about rehabilitation, the applicant states that he completed a single course and when asked what he learned from it, the applicant referred to his experiences as a child and his past conduct but he does not appear to suggest that  anything he was taught in that course explains the most recent convictions or that he would ally anything he learned in the future. The Tribunal is not satisfied the applicant has learned much from that course, as his evidence is that he has done nothing wrong and had only pleaded guilty to make it easier for everyone. The applicant told the Tribunal that what was said in that course related to his partner’s conduct and not his own. The Tribunal is not satisfied, having regard to the applicant’s evidence, that completion of the anger management course is likely to affect his behaviour in the future, nor is the Tribunal satisfied that the applicant is committed to treatment to reduce the risk of future reoffending.

6. Overall, the Tribunal finds, having regard to the convictions, that the applicant committed domestic violence offences in relation to his partner in 2019. The Tribunal has formed the view that the applicant has very little insight into his conduct and the Tribunal is not satisfied that he has rehabilitated or committed to rehabilitation. The Tribunal also notes the past offending and places weight on the fact that the applicant engaged in criminal conduct for a lengthy period of approximately ten years. While some of the offences appears to be minor, the most recent ones committed in 2019 involved violence towards another person and that is serious. The Tribunal is unpersuaded by the applicant’s evidence that he has respect for women as the most recent convictions do not support that claim and the totality of the offences suggest that the applicant has little regard for the law.

7. Having regard to the applicant’s conduct, his apparent lack of insight into his actions, the Tribunal’s view that there is little persuasive evidence of rehabilitation, the Tribunal finds that the applicant’s presence in Australia is or may be a risk to safety of an Australian community and to the health and safety of an individual (his former partner and potentially any future partners). The applicant concedes in his written submission to the Tribunal that the ground for cancellation may exist. The Tribunal is satisfied that the ground for cancellation in s.116(1)(e) exists.

8. As that ground does not require mandatory cancellation under s.116(3), the Tribunal must proceed to consider whether the visa should be cancelled.

   Consideration of discretion

9. There are no matters specified in the Act or Regulations that must be considered in the exercise of this discretion. The Tribunal has had regard to the circumstances of this case, including matters raised by the applicant, and matters in the Department’s Procedures Advice Manual (PAM3) ‘General visa cancellation powers’.

   The purpose of the visa holder’s travel and stay in Australia, whether the visa holder has a compelling need to travel to or remain in Australia

10. In his submission to the Tribunal the applicant refers to the policy underlying the cancellation power, noting that a subclass 444 visa is akin to a permanent visa and the cancellation powers may apply to individual who have spent the majority of their lives in Australia.

11. The applicant states in his submission to the Tribunal that he migrated to Australia in 2003 at the age of 12 with his family and has been resident in Australia since that time. The applicant states he completed schooling to year 11 and outlines his employment. The applicant submits that he has made a positive contribution to the Australian community by maintaining consistent employment. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant has previously been employed and also accepts that the applicant has been living in Australia for a lengthy period of time and that he first came to Australia as a child.

12. The applicant told the Tribunal that his parents and all his siblings except one live in Australia. The applicant states that it would ‘break’ his mother physically and mentally if he is removed from the country. The applicant states that he lives with his parents and supports them physically and does a lot of things around the house, like washing and cleaning and cooking. The Tribunal accepts that evidence and accepts that significant hardship may be caused to the applicant’s family by the cancellation. The applicant states that he has no regular employment but has a job lined up if his visa is reinstated.

13. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant travelled to Australia as a minor to be with his family and that he is fulfilling that purpose. The Tribunal accepts that the presence of his family in Australia, including two minor children, may constitute a compelling reason for the applicant to remain in Australia.

    The extent of compliance with visa conditions

14. There is no evidence of any non-compliance with visa conditions.

    Degree of hardship that may be caused (financial, psychological, emotional or other hardship)

15. The applicant has been residing in Australia since the age of 12. His immediate family lives in Australia. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant considers Australia to be his home, that he has settled in Australia and has very little to go back to in New Zealand. As noted elsewhere, the Tribunal accepts that the applicant lives with his parents and provides physical support to them. The applicant states that if his visa is cancelled, there would be a lot of stress on his elder brother who already has family commitments and their sister who lives nearby cannot help much as she has a newborn child. The Tribunal accepts that significant hardship would be caused to the applicant and his family if the visa is cancelled.

16. The applicant also states that his ex-partner wants to move to New Zealand with the children but he does not want that to happen because he does not want to live with her. The applicant states that he believes his ex-partner would travel to New Zealand if his visa is cancelled and they would live together, which he does not want to happen. There is nothing preventing her from traveling to New Zealand. Thus, practically the Tribunal does not consider that the cancellation of the visa would result in the applicant being separated from his children.

    Circumstances in which ground of cancellation arose

1. The grounds for cancellation arise because the Tribunal has formed the view that the applicant’s presence in Australia is or may be a risk to the safety of an individual or individuals (such as the applicant’s former or future partners) and may be a risk to the safety of the Australian community.

2. In his written submission to the Tribunal the applicant states that the sole reason for cancelling his visa is the risk that his presence may pose to Ms Marks’ health and safety and that risk no longer exists, given his past engagement in rehabilitation activities. For the reasons explained above, the Tribunal does not accept that to be the case. The applicant engaged in criminal conduct in addition to the domestic violence offences that occurred in 2019. The applicant states that he has voluntarily taken steps to address the causes of his past offending and this factor weighs against the cancellation. The Tribunal acknowledges that the applicant had completed a course but as noted above, the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant has rehabilitated as a result of it, because he seems to have learned very little from the course he completed, and the Tribunal is not satisfied the applicant appreciates the nature of his conduct and the effect of violence, or the threat of violence, on others.

3. The applicant told the Tribunal that he had always had respect for women and treated women well and his ex-partner is the only person where there were issues. The applicant states that he has never been a threat to women. The applicant states that he has done the wrong thing by pleading guilty. The Tribunal acknowledges that the prior offences do not appear to involve violence against women, although the Tribunal notes that there appear to be two prior convictions for assault occasioning actual bodily harm. The Tribunal has formed the view that the applicant’s presence in Australia may be a risk to the community in general and not only to women or the applicant’s former partner.

   Past and present behaviour of the visa holder towards the department

4. Nothing adverse is known about the applicant’s behaviour towards the Department.

   Whether there would be consequential cancellations under s.140

5. There are no persons in Australia whose visas will be subject to cancellation under s.140.

   Whether there are mandatory legal consequences

6. If the applicant’s visa is cancelled, and unless he is granted another visa, the applicant will be an unlawful non-citizen and may be detained. There is no suggestion that he will be detained indefinitely. The Tribunal acknowledges that unless the applicant is granted another visa, he may be an unlawful non-citizen and subject to detention and possible removal from Australia. There may be restrictions on the applicant’s future travel and future visa applications as a consequence of the cancellation and there are likely to be limitations on the applicant being granted another Subclass 444 visa if he is removed from Australia. There are no provisions in the Act which prevent the applicant from making a valid visa application without the Minister’s intervention, although there are very limited options for the applicant to seek a visa in Australia. The Tribunal accepts that in relation to some visa categories, the applicant may be subject to an exclusion period if he was to make an application offshore. The applicant also claims that he will become a ‘behaviour concern non-citizen’ and will be permanently ineligible to be granted a subclass 444 visa in the future and the Tribunal acknowledges that there may be restrictions on future visa applications.

   Whether any international obligations, including non-refoulement and best interests of the children as a primary consideration, would be breached as a result of the cancellation

7. The applicant told the Tribunal that in New Zealand he would be surrounded by gangs which is the reason his parents took him away. The applicant states that he would be made ‘one of them’ or he would ‘go missing’. The Tribunal found the applicant’s claims to be vague and no evidence has been presented that the applicant would be of any interest to the gangs or that  he would be targeted. The Tribunal does not accept the applicant‘s claims on the limited evidence before it. The Tribunal does not consider that such matters give rise to Australia’s non-refoulement obligations. The applicant’s  immediate family live in Australia and the principles of family unity may require his presence in Australia.

8. In his written submission to the Tribunal the applicant refers to the presence of his two children in Australia and the various conventions including CROC and ICCPR. The applicant states that he may have limited visa options in the future and may not be able to re-enter Australia in the future on a permanent visa, so that he may not be able to play a permanent role in his daughters’ lives. The applicant refers to the evidence of Ms Marks who states that the applicant plays a crucial role in her daughters’ lives and the applicant states that it is Ms Marks’ preference for him to remain in Australia. The applicant told the Tribunal that he sees the children as much as he can, at least a couple of times a week and they stay at his home overnight. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant plays a role in the children’s upbringing and that the applicant and his former partner wish for such arrangements to continue.

9. The applicant’s evidence to the Tribunal is that if he goes to New Zealand, his ex-partner and children would come with him and live with him. In these circumstances, the Tribunal finds that the best interests of the children would not be adversely affected in any way because the applicant’s involvement with the children will continue in New Zealand. Indeed, his evidence indicates that if the family were to relocate to New Zealand, the applicant would spend more time with the children as he will live in the same household with the children.

10. The applicant’s evidence is that he does not want to raise his children in New Zealand because he wants to avoid bad influences. It is not readily apparent to the Tribunal why his children are more likely to be subjected to bad influence in New Zealand rather than in Australia and the Tribunal does not accept that  this is so. The applicant states that if he works long hours to provide for his family, he would be spending time away from his family. The Tribunal acknowledges that this may be the case but the Tribunal considers that the same considerations would apply no matter where the applicant lives. Whether the applicant lives in Australia or in New Zealand, it is likely that he would have to work longer hours to earn greater income.

    Any other relevant matters

11. The Tribunal accepts that  the applicant has strong family ties in Australia as his parents, siblings and two minor children live in Australia. The Tribunal accepts that if the applicant was to leave Australia, he would be separated from his parents and siblings and that separation from his family would cause hardship to the applicant and his family. The Tribunal also accepts that the applicant supports his parents.  

12. The applicant submits that his removal from Australia would cause significant distress to Ms Marks who is concerned about raising two children without the applicant’s assistance. That  contradicts the applicant’s oral evidence to the Tribunal when he states that Ms Marks would travel to New Zealand with him and the children and that he would continue to raise the children.

13. The applicant presented to the Tribunal multiple letters of support and the Tribunal accepts that evidence and acknowledges that the applicant has considerable family and community support in Australia.

14. The applicant submits that the nature of his relationship with Ms Marks is ‘not clear’ so it cannot be assumed she will sponsor him for a Partner visa in the future. The applicant also states that he may be eligible for a Remaining Relative visa but there is a very long waiting time for visa grant. The Tribunal accepts that evidence and accepts that there may be lengthy delay before the applicant can be granted a permanent Australian visa, should he make the application in the future.

15. The applicant states that he feels he would let down his family if he is removed, as his family had sacrificed a lot to bring the family to Australia. The Tribunal accepts that evidence.

16. The Tribunal has considered the totality of the applicant’s circumstances. The Tribunal has formed the view that the applicant’s presence in Australia is or may be a risk to others. The Tribunal considers that there are grounds for setting aside the cancellation. In particular, the Tribunal places great weight on the fact that  the applicant entered Australia as a child and has lived in this country for many years and the entirety of his family reside in Australia, while he has little connection to New Zealand. The Tribunal acknowledges that  the applicant’s two minor children reside in Australia and there appears to be support from his former partner for the applicant’s presence in the children’s lives. The Tribunal acknowledges that the applicant has been working in Australia and has made a contribution through his employment and notes the statements from third parties in support of the applicant. The Tribunal accepts that considerable hardship would be caused to the applicant and his family if his visa is cancelled and, in particular, that the applicant is likely to have limited options of returning to Australia in the near future, although on his own evidence, there may be a possibility of a Remaining Relative visa or even a Partner visa. All these matters weigh against the cancellation.

17. However, the Tribunal has decided to place greater weight on the circumstances in which the ground for cancellation arose. The information cited in the primary decision record indicates that the applicant engaged in conduct involving violence towards his partner, who was in advanced stages of pregnancy. The Tribunal has formed the view that in doing so, the applicant had shown complete disregard for the safety of his partner and unborn child. Although the applicant now denies that such conduct occurs (contrary to his written evidence), the Tribunal is of the view that a conviction is indicative that the offences had taken place.

18. The applicant has committed a number of other offences. It is significant in the Tribunal’s view, that the conduct occurred over a period of nearly ten years and was not a single incident. The applicant has a long history of offensive and criminal behaviour. The Tribunal does not accept the applicant’s evidence that he has now rehabilitated and changed his environment and his friends. The applicant has participated in a single course and appears to have formed the view that the conduct described in that course was not relevant to him. The applicant’s evidence suggests to the Tribunal that the applicant has little appreciation of the law and the welfare of others. The Tribunal has formed the view, having regard to the applicant’s oral evidence, that he completely lacks any insight into his conduct and the Tribunal is not satisfied he has rehabilitated. In the Tribunal’s view, there remains a real risk that the applicant will again engage in conduct that is harmful to others in the future. The applicant’s persistent disregard for the law and the welfare of others offer strong grounds in favour of cancellation.

19. The Tribunal has found that the cancellation of the visa will not result in the applicant being separated from his children as his evidence is that his partner and children would relocate to New Zealand. The Tribunal considers that the best interests of the children may require the presence of the applicant in their lives but the Tribunal is of the view that such presence can occur in New Zealand, as well as Australia. The Tribunal does not accept the applicant’s evidence as to why he or his children would be disadvantaged in New Zealand, as it is vague and unsupported.

20. The Tribunal finds that the circumstances in which the ground for considerations arose outweighs other considerations. Considering the circumstances as a whole, the Tribunal concludes that the visa should be cancelled

    DECISION

21. The Tribunal affirms the decision to cancel the applicant’s Subclass 444 (Special Category) visa.

    Kira Raif
    Senior Member