Mamaku and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Migration)
[2023] AATA 753
•12 April 2023
Mamaku and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Migration) [2023] AATA 753 (12 April 2023)
Division:GENERAL DIVISION
File Number(s): 2023/0456
Re:Walter Mamaku
APPLICANT
AndMinister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs
RESPONDENT
DECISION
Tribunal:The Hon. Dennis Cowdroy AO KC, Deputy President
Date:12 April 2023
Place:Sydney
The Tribunal finds that the correct and preferable decision is that the decision under review be affirmed.
.....................................[SGD]...................................
The Hon. Dennis Cowdroy AO KC, Deputy President
CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – mandatory visa cancellation – failure to pass the character test – whether there is another reason why the visa cancellation should be revoked – Ministerial Direction No. 99 – protection of the Australian community – nature and seriousness of offending conduct – risk of reoffending – best interests of minor children – strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia – expectations of the Australian community – impediments to removal – decision affirmed
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth)
CASES
Bartlett and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] AATA 1561
BHYK and Minister of Immigration and Citizenship [2010] AAT 662
Craig and Minister of Immigration, Citizenship Migration Services and Multicultural Affairs [2020] AATA 3006
Falzon v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] HCA 2
Folau v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCA 1149
FYBR v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCAFC 185
GNLS and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Migration) [2020] AATA 4418
Kristensen and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2022] AATA 3814
Minister for Immigration, Citizenship Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs v EBD20 [2021] FCAFC 179
NBMZ v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2014) 220 FCR 1
Poi-ilaoa and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Migration) [2021] AATA 587
WKCG v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2009] AATA 512
YNQY v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCA 1466
SECONDARY MATERIALS
Direction No. 99 – Visa refusal and cancellation under s 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under section 501CA
REASONS FOR DECISION
The Hon. Dennis Cowdroy AO KC, Deputy President
12 April 2023
BACKGROUND
The Applicant seeks review of a decision of a delegate of the Minister made on 17 January 2023 (“the decision under review”) not to exercise the discretion under subsection 501CA(4) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (“the Act”) to revoke the original decision made under subsection 501(3A) of the Act, on 28 February 2022, to cancel the Applicant’s Class TY Subclass 444 – Special Category (Temporary ) Visa (“the visa”).
A delegate of the Minister was satisfied that the Applicant did not pass the character test on the basis that he had a “substantial criminal record” as a result of being sentenced to a term of imprisonment for 12 months or more: subparagraph 501(3A)(a)(i) of the Act.
On 20 March 2022, the Applicant sought revocation of the mandatory cancellation of the visa under subsection 501CA(4) of the Act.
RELEVANT LAW AND POLICY: DIRECTION NO. 99
Section 501CA of the Act applies if the Minister decides under subsection 501(3A) to cancel a visa that has been granted to a person.
Subsection 501(3A) of the Act states that the Minister must cancel a visa that has been granted to a person if the Minister is satisfied that the person does not pass the character test due to the operation of subsections 501(6) and 501(7).
Paragraph 501(6)(a) of the Act provides that a person does not pass the “character test” if the person has a “substantial criminal record”. Paragraph 501(7)(c) provides that a person has a substantial criminal record if the person has been sentenced to a term of 12 months imprisonment or more.
The Minister may revoke the original cancellation decision pursuant to subsection 501CA(4) of the Act which provides that:
(4) The Minister may revoke the original decision if:
(a) the person makes representations in accordance with the invitation; and
(b) the Minister is satisfied:
(i) that the person passes the character test (as defined by section 501); or
(ii) that there is another reason why the original decision should be revoked.
Paragraph 500(1)(ba) of the Act provides the Tribunal with the power to review decisions of a delegate of the Minister under subsection 501CA(4) not to revoke a decision to cancel a visa.
The Minister has made a written direction pursuant to section 499 of the Act to guide decision-makers in the exercise of power under subsection 501CA(4). The relevant direction is Direction No. 99 – Visa refusal and cancellation under s 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under s 501CA (“the Direction” or “Direction 99”).
The Direction sets out a number of preliminary matters, general guidance, and principles for decision-makers. In particular, paragraph 5.2 of the Direction sets out a number of principles that the Tribunal has considered. It relevantly provides:
(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) Non-citizens who engage or have engaged in criminal or other serious conduct should expect to be denied the privilege of coming to, or to forfeit the privilege of staying in, Australia.
(3) The Australian community expects that the Australian Government can and should refuse entry to non-citizens, or cancel their visas, if they engaged in conduct, in Australia or elsewhere, that raises serious character concerns. This expectation of the Australian community applies regardless of whether the non-citizen poses a measurable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community.
(4) Australia has a low tolerance of any criminal or other serious conduct by visa applicants or those holding a limited stay visa, or by other non-citizens who have been participating in, and contributing to, the Australian community only for a short period of time.
(5) With respect to decisions to refuse, cancel, and revoke cancellation of a visa, Australia will generally afford a higher level of tolerance of criminal or other serious conduct by non-citizens who have lived in the Australian community for most of their life, or from a very young age. The level of tolerance will rise with the length of time a non-citizen has spent in the Australian community, particularly in their formative years.
(6) Decision-makers must take into account the primary and other considerations relevant to the individual case. In some circumstances, the nature of the non-citizen’s conduct, or the harm that would be caused if the conduct were to be repeated, may be so serious that even strong countervailing considerations may be insufficient to justify not cancelling or refusing the visa, or revoking a mandatory cancellation. In particular, the inherent nature of certain conduct such as family violence and the other type of conduct or suspected conduct mentioned in paragraph 8.4(2) (Expectations of the Australian Community) is so serious that even strong countervailing considerations may be insufficient in some circumstances, even if the non-citizen does not pose a measurable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community.
Parts 8 and 9 of the Direction set out the primary and other considerations that must be considered by the decision-maker, where relevant, when deciding whether to exercise the discretion to revoke the mandatory cancellation of a visa. Primary considerations should generally be given greater weight than the other considerations, and one or more considerations may outweigh other considerations. However, other considerations should not be viewed as “secondary” as, in certain cases, other considerations may outweigh primary considerations. In applying either type of consideration, information and evidence from independent and authoritative sources should be given appropriate weight.
The primary considerations (paragraph 8 of the Direction) are:
(1)protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct;
(2)whether the conduct engaged in constituted family violence;
(3)the strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia;
(4)best interests of minor children in Australia; and
(5)expectations of the Australian community.
The Tribunal must also consider various other considerations (paragraph 9 of the Direction), where relevant. The other considerations include but are not limited to:
(1)legal consequences of the decision;
(2)extent of impediments if removed;
(3)impact on victims; and
(4)impact on Australian business interests.
THE EVIDENCE
Submissions
The Tribunal has had regard to:
(1)the “G” documents filed on 8 February 2023;
(2)the Applicant’s tender bundle, filed on 20 March 2023, comprising:
(a)a statutory declaration of the Applicant dated 20 March 2023;
(b)a letter of support from the Applicant’s sister (“MM”) dated 17 March 2023;
(c)an email from the Applicant to Odyssey House dated 17 March 2023;
(d)an email from Odyssey house dated 17 March 2023 referring to the completion of a phone assessment on 8 of March 2023, approving the Applicant for Odyssey House community service programs and recording that the Applicant was registered for an online group commencing on 15 March 2023;
(e)a brochure entitled “Welcome to Community Programs” published by Odyssey House;
(f)the resumé of the Applicant;
(g)a reference from TF, work supervisor of the Applicant, providing details of the Applicant’s value as a member of a survey team; and
(h)certificates of course completion issued by IACET, an accredited provider, between October 2022 and March 2023: Weight Training 101; Positive Parenting Techniques; Drug and Alcohol Abuse 101; Anger Management 101; Resolving Workplace Conflict; Creating A Positive Work Environment; Depression Management; Resolving Workplace Conflict; Dealing With Difficult People; Basic Parenting 101;
(3)the Respondent’s tender bundle, filed on 8 March 2023, comprising documents relating to the Applicant’s criminal offending;
(4)the Respondent’s supplementary tender bundle, filed on 22 March 2023, relevantly comprising a statement from the Applicant, various letters to and from the Department to the Applicant, and New Zealand country information; and
(5)the Applicant’s schedule of convictions, filed by the Respondent on 22 March 2023.
Applicant’s statement
The Applicant states that he was born in New Zealand in March 1980. His mother is Australian and he arrived in Australia and moved to the Northern Territory at six months of age with his parents, two sisters and one brother. The Applicant is one of seven siblings and he is the fourth oldest. He has five siblings with the same parents and he shares the same father as his younger two siblings. The Applicant stated his parents separated when he was about two years of age following migration to Australia. The Applicant states he completed the majority of his schooling in the Northern Territory and when he was 14 or 15 years of age he moved to Melbourne to live with his father. Following completion of his schooling he lived with his elder sister, “MM”, in Adelaide, and worked in the construction industry which involved substantial travel.
He returned to Darwin when he was approximately 21 years of age and became interested in becoming a surveyor. He obtained a surveyor’s assistant qualification and worked for a company for approximately five years on local and interstate projects. His employer offered him the opportunity of studying at a university which had a campus in Darwin and the employer paid his expenses. He completed an Advanced Diploma of Engineering and Mine Surveying. Simultaneously he worked on large projects around Australia, mainly in Darwin. He remained with his employer from 2003 to 2009 then moved to another firm from 2009 to 2011 and another from 2000 to 2014. He then worked for a large corporation from 2014 to 2016. He changed employers to keep himself in work. The Applicant has not been employed since 2016 and has been reliant upon social services for support.
The Applicant states he met his first partner when he was 21 and his first child (“TM”) was born in 2003. They broke up in 2005 because the Applicant was absent due to his work, often for months at a time. The Applicant continued to work in Darwin for local companies, at which time he met his next partner, “RM1”. They had two daughters together who were born in 2009 and 2010, “RM2” and “PM”. They now reside in New Zealand.
The Applicant acknowledges that he has been convicted of 71 offences and states that he missed many court appearances, often due to the fact that he was working. The Applicant states his criminal offences were committed to obtain money for drugs and that he regrets his conduct.
The Applicant states that in 2015 his partner RM1 became drug addicted to ice (methamphetamine) and over the next year he was a primary carer for his two daughters. The relationship was sporadic with his partner thereafter. The Applicant states that he had been using ice and heroin and cannabis. He states that he has ceased using ice and has been a program since approximately 2020. The Applicant states that he has attempted to overcome his drug addiction and whilst at the Villawood detention Centre he has undertaken the courses referred to earlier in this decision. He has recently sought to be enrolled at Odyssey House for treatment for his drug addiction. The Applicant states that he is suffering from depression and also suffers from a neurological disorder which was assessed in detention but there has been no diagnosis.
The Applicant states that he needs to address his drug problem and if released he will undergo an in-house rehabilitation course. He requests a second chance and believes that he can overcome his drug problem.
The Applicant states that Australia has been the only country he has ever known and that all his family members reside in Australia. He states she has no ties in New Zealand. He states that his mother, aged 76, is suffering from bowel cancer. He would like to spend more time with her. The Applicant states that he never applied for Australian citizenship because he believed he was a dual citizen and didn’t find out until he was in jail that he was only a New Zealand citizen. He assumed that because his mother was Australian, he was “half Australian by descent”.
The Applicant’s submissions regarding his criminal convictions
The Tribunal notes that the Applicant has been untruthful as evidenced by the fact that he has falsely declared on arrival cards that he has no criminal convictions.
The first arrival card was dated 28 January 2005 by which date he had been convicted of driving a motor vehicle while unlicensed.
The second arrival card is dated 3 September 2010 by which time he had accumulated a second conviction, namely disorderly behaviour in a public place.
The next chronological arrival card is 5 June 2012 by which time the Applicant had further convictions, namely driving with medium range of blood alcohol content and not stopping at a stop sign. On his card, he failed to answer the question ‘Do you have any criminal conviction/s?’.
The last arrival card was dated 31 August 2013. The Applicant again did not answer the question regarding criminal convictions.
In a letter dated 4 March 2020 addressed to the Minister/Delegate for the Department of Home Affairs, the Applicant stated:
My offending began approximately 5 years ago and has been the result of a relationship breakdown with my last partner…
The criminal record of the Applicant shows that his first offence, driving whilst unlicensed, came before the court on 8 May 2002. The Applicant was then free of any further convictions until 2010. Further convictions occurred in 2010, 2011 (two offences), 2014; and 11 offences in 2015. Accordingly, the Applicant’s statement is untrue.
Oral evidence
The Tribunal heard oral evidence from the Applicant and MM (the Applicant’s older sister).
The Applicant
The Applicant was questioned about a personal circumstances form he completed in March 2020. In the form he declared that his two infant children resided in Port Hedland, Western Australia, when he knew this to be incorrect since his children and his former partner had ceased residing in Australia four years prior to the completion of the declaration.
In his request for revocation of a mandatory visa cancellation dated 20 March 2022, the Applicant stated that “prior to my offending which has only been in the last 5 years of my life I have lived a hard-working honest life as an Engineering Surveyor”. Under cross-examination, it was put to the Applicant that this claim concerning his offending is patently false. Similarly, he asserted in his application to the Tribunal that his crimes were “on the low end of the scale of seriousness”. It appears from oral evidence that the Applicant was relying upon the observations of one sentencing Magistrate as a foundation for such a remark. In oral evidence, the Applicant accepted that his more recent convictions in 2022 were serious.
In cross-examination, the Applicant was questioned about his arrival forms. The Applicant claims that he did not understand the meaning of ‘criminal conviction’ and believed it was directed to persons who had served time in gaol. In respect of his drink-driving offence in 2012 and subsequent arrival form, he states that he forgot that he was convicted for this offence. The Tribunal finds such explanation difficult to accept in view of the fact that by 2013 the Applicant had appeared in court and been sentenced on numerous occasions.
The Applicant states that he has the support of “a loving family”. The cross examination revealed that he last saw most of the members of his family at a wedding in 2018; that no members of the family have visited him whilst he was in detention; that he has no current partner and his last relationship ceased in 2020; the Applicant’s mother, who is not well, resides in Queensland, as does his elder sister and his father resides interstate. The Applicant has not seen his mother since 2019. He last saw his aunt who lives in Western Australia in 2018. There is no evidence of any continuing contact save for occasional phone calls which the Applicant claims to have with his father, mother, son, siblings, and his nieces and nephews. The Applicant saw his last siblings at the family wedding in 2018. He has not seen his son, TM, since 2018. In summary, there has been no physical contact with the majority of his family for more than four years.
The Applicant said in his personal circumstances form that he had a job to go to if he were released from detention. The Applicant was questioned about this at the hearing and there is no evidence of any such employment offer.
The Applicant’s sister, MM
MM states that until the Applicant became involved with drugs, he was a highly qualified and skilled engineering surveyor who worked with some of Australia’s biggest companies on major projects while providing for his partner and their children. The breakdown of his family life caused a major impact upon the Applicant. He became depressed and reverted to drug-taking. MM states that the Applicant has three children that he desperately wishes to reconnect with and build a relationship of love and trust with in the future. MM states that the Applicant has a large circle of friends and supporters.
Medical evidence
No medical evidence relating to the Applicant was provided to the Tribunal.
Applicant’s criminal history
Criminal record
Date
Event
Result
8 May 2022
Drive a motor vehicle while unlicensed.
Fine: $200
19 January 2010
Disorderly behaviour in public place
Released GBB: $500 or 12 months
11 August 2011
Drive medium range blood alcohol content
Licence disqualified: 6 months. Fine: $500
11 August 2011
Not stop at stop sign
Fine: $200
17 November 2014
Possessed drug paraphernalia in or on which there was a prohibited drug or plant
Fine: $250
5 January 2015
Possessed an article with intent to injure (disable)
Fine: $750
3 March 2015
No authority to drive
Fine: $400
18 May 2015
Possessed drug paraphernalia in or on which there was a prohibited drug or plant.
Fine: $500
18 May 2015
No authority to drive
Fine: $400
18 May 2015
Unlicensed vehicle (Owner/Driver)
Fine $200
18 May 2015
Possess a prohibited drug (Methylamphetamine)
Fine: $500
18 May 2015
Possessed an article with intent to injure (disable)
Fine: $100
18 May 2015
Possession of a prohibited drug with intent to sell or supply (Methamphetamine)
Fine: $800
18 May 2015
Possessed drug paraphernalia in or on which there was a prohibited drug or plant
Fine: $100
18 May 2015
Possession of stolen or unlawfully obtained property
Suspended imprisonment order: 6 months 1 days
18 May 2015
Possessed drug paraphernalia in or on which there was a prohibited drug or plant.
Fine: $100
22 September 2016
Commit indictable offence whilst on bail
Aggregate 32 days imprisonment. Community correction order for 12 months. Unpaid community work perform 150 hours.
22 September 2016
Commit indictable offence whilst on bail
22 September 2016
Use methylamphetamine
22 September 2016
Use methylamphetamine
22 September 2016
Fail to answer bail
22 September 2016
Fail to answer bail
22 September 2016
Theft
22 September 2016
Contravene a conduct condition of bail
22 September 2016
Attempt theft.
22 September 2016
Burglary
22 September 2016
Traffick methylamphetamine.
22 September 2016
Traffick GHB.
22 September 2016
Possess heroin.
22 September 2016
Possess amphetamine.
22 September 2016
Possess methylamphetamine
22 September 2016
Possess methylamphetamine
22 September 2016
Possess methylamphetamine
22 September 2016
Possess ecstasy (MDMA/MDA/MDEA/MDA’s).
22 September 2016
Possess drug of dependence.
22 September 2016
Possess cannabis.
22 September 2016
Handle/receive/retention stolen goods
22 September 2016
Handle/receive/retention stolen goods
22 September 2016
Handle/receive/retention stolen goods
22 September 2016
Att. Theft of a motor car
22 September 2016
Att. Theft of a motor car
22 September 2016
Fail to answer bail
17 June 2017
Failure to appear in accordance with undertaking (On 11/04/17).
Imprisonment: 14 days. To be suspended for 3 months.
17 June 2017
Failure to appear in accordance with undertaking (On 12/06/17)
28 September 2017
Breach of community service order imposed on 28/06/17 (RE: receiving tainted property, fraud - dishonestly obtain property from another, possessing dangerous drugs, fail to properly dispose of needle and syringe, breach of bail condition, drive disqualified, drive while relevant drug is present in blood or saliva).
Fined: $300. Resentenced for original offences. Probation period: 12 months.
22 June 2018
Possess GHB
Proven and dismissed under s 76 of the Sentencing Act
22 June 2018
Contravene community correction order
Proven
22 June 2018
Fail to answer bail
2 days imprisonment
22 June 2018
Obtain property by deception
Aggregate 49 days imprisonment (concurrent)
22 June 2018
Obtain property by deception
22 June 2018
Obtain property by deception
22 June 2018
Obtain property by deception
22 June 2018
To obtain property by deception
22 June 2018
To obtain property by deception
22 June 2018
Commit indictable offence whilst on bail.
22 June 2018
Handle/receive/retention stolen goods.
22 June 2018
Deal property suspected proceed of crime.
22 June 2018
Poss proh weapon w/o exemption/approval
5 June 2019
Enter building/land w/I commit indictable offence – T1
Imprisonment (aggregate): 22 months commencing 15/02/19 concluding 14/12/20. Non parole period with conditions: 11 months commencing 15/02/19 concluding 14/01/20.
5 June 2019
Goods in personal custody suspected being stolen (not m/v)
5 June 2019
Dishonestly obtain property by deception – T2
5 June 2019
Break and Enter house etc steal value <=$60,000 – T1
5 June 2019
Agg B & E dwelling etc in company steal <=$60000 – T1
5 June 2019
Drive motor vehicle during disqualification period – 2nd+off
Community correction order: 2 years commencing 05/06/10 concluding 04/06/21. Disqualification of driver’s licence for 12 months commencing 05/06/19.
5 June 2019
Drive motor vehicle during disqualification period – 2nd+off
5 June 2019
Drive motor vehicle during disqualification period – 2nd+off
5 June 2019
Disobey left turn only sign – motor vehicle
5 June 2019
Drive motor vehicle during disqualification period – 2nd+off
29 August 2019
Aggravated B&E dwelling etc in company steal <=$60000 – T1
Imprisonment: 16 months commencing 29/08/19 concluding 28/12/20. Non parole period: 8 months commencing 29/08/19.
17 June 2020
Drive motor vehicle during disqualification period – 2nd+off
S10A conviction with no other penalty. Disqualification of driver’s licence for 12 months commencing 17/06/20.
S10A Conviction with no other penalty.
17 February 22
Failed to appear in accordance with bail acknowledgement
17 February 22
Supply prohibited drug > small & <=indictable quantity-T1
Imprisonment: 2 years commencing 06/10/21 concluding 05/10/23. Non parole period: 6 months commencing 05/04/22.
17 February 22
Possess prohibited drug
17 February 22
Goods in personal custody suspected being stolen (not m/v)
17 February 22
Driver or rider state false name or home address
17 February 22
Drive motor vehicle during disqualification period – 2nd+off
17 February 22
Drive conveyance taken w/o consent of owner – T2
Local Court, Fairfield
On 17 February 2022 in the Local Court at Fairfield, the Applicant was convicted of supplying a prohibited drug and dealing with the proceeds of crime. Acting Magistrate Miszalski said in the sentencing of the Applicant to a period of two years with a non-parole period of six months:
Supply in the community is a really dreadful thing, I know that there has been an ongoing debate for a long time, forever about legalising drugs but the reality is everything that I have seen in relation to drugs it just causes so much havoc and misery in the community particularly to the families that are left behind. There are in fact instances where kids take too many drugs and they end up dead, or their brains are pickled.
At the same hearing, His Honour referred to the fact that the Applicant had driven a conveyance while disqualified and provided a false name to police.
Local Court, Parramatta
The Applicant appeared on 5 June 2019 and again on 29 August 2019 in respect of the charge of aggravated break and enter a dwelling and stealing and a second offence of driving a motor vehicle during a disqualification period. Terms of imprisonment of 22 and 16 months were imposed.
ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION
The Tribunal may revoke the original decision if the Tribunal is satisfied that:
(1)the Applicant passes the character test as defined by paragraphs 501(6)(a) and 501(7)(c) of the Act: subparagraph 501CA(4)(b)(i); or
(2)there is another reason why the original decision should be revoked: subparagraph 501CA(4)(b)(ii).
The Applicant does not pass the character test because he has a substantial criminal record as defined by the Act. Therefore, the sole issue for determination by the Tribunal is whether there is another reason why the original decision should be revoked.
The Tribunal now turns to assess the primary considerations as relevant.
Primary considerations
Primary Consideration 1: Protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct
The Tribunal must have regard to the protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct. Under paragraph 8.1(1) of the Direction, it is stated that:
When considering protection of the Australian community, decision-makers should keep in mind that the Government is committed to protecting the Australian community from harm as a result of criminal activity or other serious conduct by non-citizens. In this respect, decision-makers should have particular regard to the principle that entering or remaining in Australia is a privilege that Australia confers on non-citizens in the expectation that they are, and have been, law abiding, will respect important institutions, and will not cause or threaten harm to individuals or the Australian community.
Pursuant to paragraph 8.1(2), that consideration requires an assessment of the nature and seriousness of the Applicant’s conduct and the risk that the Applicant presents to the community.
Nature and seriousness of the conduct
The Tribunal notes significant matters relevant to the consideration of the protection of the Australian community:
(1)The offences for which the Applicant has been convicted involved the supply of drugs and the possession of prohibited drugs;
(2)The offences have involved repeated disobedience of motor traffic regulations involving dishonesty when apprehended;
(3)The offences have involved theft on repeated occasions; and
(4)The Applicant has offended whilst the subject of conditional release orders.
Risk to the Australian community should the Applicant reoffend or engage in other serious conduct
The Tribunal has had regard to paragraph 8.1.2 of the Direction, as considered below.
Finding on Primary Consideration 1
The conduct of the Applicant demonstrates that for many years the Applicant has been involved in criminal offences in New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland and Western Australia. Despite prison sentences, the Applicant has repeatedly reoffended. The Applicant has been convicted of 71 offences and charged with at least 100 offences including supply of drugs, break and enter, theft, dishonesty, forgery and uttering.
For example, on 17 April 2016 the police attended an address in Victoria which is known for its high amount of drug trafficking and drug-taking activity and found the Applicant outside the premises with 17 grams of methamphetamine and 60 millilitres of Gamma Hydroxy Butyric Acid (“GHB”) in his pocket. On 14 August 2016, the Applicant gained access to a victim’s apartment, took the victim’s car keys and stole the victim’s vehicle. On 17 August 2016, the Applicant was found to have in his possession a camera and lens worth in excess of $20,000 which have been stolen from a vehicle.
On 21 August 2018, the Applicant was facing two charges of theft of a motor vehicle, theft from a motor vehicle and burglary Those charges related to an incident on 3 July 2018 in which the Applicant broke into an apartment belonging to two victims who were on holiday. The Applicant stole the keys to the victim’s motor vehicle and then stole the victim’s car. On 6 February 2019, the Applicant was facing additional charges for an alleged break and enter on 20 April 2018 and the theft of clothing and small items. Such charges are pending because the Applicant left the jurisdiction and went to Queensland. Warrants have been issued for the Applicant’s arrest.
On 5 June 2019, the Applicant was convicted of 10 offences at the Parramatta Local Court as set out in the Applicant’s criminal history. Some of the offences included driving while disqualified, aggravated breaking and entering; and dealing with stolen goods.
On 28 April 2020 after being released from custody on parole, the Applicant was transferred to immigration detention. However, on 3 October 2020, whilst on parole and less than three weeks after receiving a warning from the Department that his mandatory visa cancellation had been revoked and that leniency would not be granted for further offending, the Applicant was found to have broken into letterboxes in a Sydney unit complex. The Applicant was found to have 34 points of ice in his possession. Charges followed, namely possession of a prohibited drug; supply of a prohibited drug; and dealing with the proceeds of crime, as set out in the Applicant’s criminal history. The Applicant failed to attend at Fairfield Local Court on 1 February 2021 and a warrant was issued for his arrest. On 23 April 2021, whilst disqualified from obtaining a New South Wales driving license, the Applicant was stopped by police and provided a false name. The Applicant was found to have swapped a stolen vehicle’s registration plates with another vehicle to avoid the vehicle being recorded as stolen. A second arrest warrant was issued for the Applicant on 13 July 2021. On 22 September 2021 the Applicant was located and arrested and during the search of his apartment, 8.6 grams of GHB and a driving license in the name of another person were located.
The Applicant has shown little insight into his offending.
Many of the Applicant’s offences relate to traffic matters, however these are nevertheless important. Whilst the traffic offences may appear to be trivial, the fact that they were committed repeatedly and in defiance of disqualifications displays the Applicant’s attitude towards Australian law: see Bartlett and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] AATA 1561 at [45].
It has been recognised that imprisonment following conviction is to be viewed as indicating the objective seriousness of the offences: see Poi-ilaoa and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Migration) [2021] AATA 587.
Taking into consideration the Applicant’s history of convictions, there is clearly a risk that he will offend again. In those circumstances, the community could suffer as a consequence of harm from the use of drugs, forced entry into the residences of other persons and the potential injury or worse of himself and others because of the Applicant’s driving record.
Given the factors discussed above, the Tribunal finds that this consideration weighs against revocation of the original decision.
Primary Consideration 2: Whether the conduct engaged in constituted family violence
Paragraph 8.2(1) of the Direction provides that the Government has serious concerns about conferring on non-citizens who engage in family violence the privilege of entering or remaining in Australia. The Government's concerns are proportionate to the seriousness of the family violence engaged in by the non-citizen.
Paragraph 4(1) of the Direction defines family violence to mean "violent, threatening or other behaviour by a person that coerces or controls a member of the person's family (the family member), or causes the family member to be fearful".
This primary consideration is relevant in circumstances where (paragraph 8.2(2)):
(a)a non-citizen has been convicted of an offence, found guilty of offence, or had charges proven howsoever described, that involve family violence (sub-paragraph 8. 2(2)(a)); and/or
(b)there is information or evidence from independent and authoritative sources indicating that the non-citizen is, or has been, involved in the perpetration of family violence, and the non-citizen being considered under section 501 or section 501CA has been afforded procedural fairness (sub-paragraph 8. 2(2)(b)).
Paragraph 8.2(3) of the Direction also provides that, in considering the seriousness of family violence engaged in by the non-citizen, the following factors must be considered, where relevant:
(a)the frequency of the non-citizen's conduct and/or whether there is any trend of increasing seriousness (sub-paragraph 8. 2(3)(a));
(b)the cumulative effect of repeated acts of family violence (sub-paragraph 8. 2(3)(b));
(c)rehabilitation achieved at time of decision since the person's last known act of family violence, including (sub-paragraph 8.2(3)(c)):
(i)the extent to which the person accepts responsibility for their family violence related conduct (sub-paragraph 8.2(3)(c)(i));
(ii)the extent to which the non-citizen understands the impact of their behaviour on the abused and witness of that abuse (particularly children) (sub-paragraph 8.2(3)(c)(ii));
(iii)efforts to address factors which contributed to their conduct (sub- paragraph 8.2(3)(c)(iii)); and
(d)Whether the non-citizen has re-offended since being formally warned, or since otherwise being made aware by a Court, law enforcement or other authority, about the consequences of further acts of family violence (including warnings about the non-citizen's migration status), noting that the absence of a warning should not be considered in the non-citizen's favour (sub-paragraph 8.2(3)(d)).
Finding on Primary Consideration 2
The Tribunal finds that this consideration is neutral as there is no evidence of any family violence.
Primary Consideration 3: The strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia
Under paragraph 8.3 of the Direction the Tribunal must consider the following:
(1)Decision-makers must consider any impact of the decision on the non-citizen’s immediate family members in Australia, where those family members are Australian citizens, Australian permanent residents, or people who have a right to remain in Australia indefinitely.
(2)In considering a non-citizen’s ties to Australia, decision-makers should give more weight to a non-citizen’s ties to his or her child and/or children who are Australian citizens, Australian permanent residents and/or people who have a right to remain in Australia indefinitely.
(3)The strength, duration and nature of any family or social links generally with Australian citizens, Australian permanent residents and/or people who have a right to remain in Australia indefinitely.
(4)Decision-makers must also consider the strength, nature and duration of any other ties that the non-citizen has to the Australian community. In doing so, decision-makers must have regard to:
a)the length of time the non-citizen has resided in the Australian community, noting that:
i.considerable weight should be given to the fact that a non-citizen has been ordinarily resident in Australia during and since their formative years, regardless of when their offending commenced and the level of that offending; and
ii.more weight should be given to the time the non-citizen has resided in Australia where the non-citizen has contributed positively to the Australian community during that time; and
iii.less weight should be given to the length of time spent in the Australian community where the non-citizen was not ordinarily resident in Australia during their formative years and the non-citizen began offending soon after arriving in Australia
The Applicant has resided in Australia for almost 43 years. As required by the Direction, the Tribunal notes that the Applicant has resided in Australia since he was approximately six months of age and has been educated in Australia. The Applicant has contributed positively to the Australian community in the sense that he has obtained qualifications in surveying during his time in Australia.
The Tribunal notes that the Applicant’s immediate families resided in Australia namely his father, mother, four sisters and two brothers. The Applicant also has two aunts residing in Australia. Although the Applicant claimed to have a loving relationship with his adult son, TM, he has not seen him for several years. The Applicant also has many relatives in New Zealand, although he says he does not know them and has never met them.
It is apparent that the removal of the Applicant from Australia will not have a major impact since he has not seen the majority of his relatives since 2018 and his adult son since 2019. The Applicant will be able to main contact with these persons should he so wish, by electronic means.
Significantly, the Applicant expressed a desire to reconnect with his two children who now reside in New Zealand. If the Applicant is removed to New Zealand, that relationship may be a benefit to him.
Finding on primary consideration 3
Taking these factors into consideration, the Tribunal considers the strength, nature and duration of the ties to Australia weigh in favour of the revocation of the original decision.
Primary Consideration 4: Best interests of minor children in Australia
Paragraph 8.4 of the Direction provides that decision-makers must make a determination about whether non-revocation is, or is not, in the best interests of a child affected by the decision (where that child is, or would be, under 18 years old at the time of the decision to not revoke the mandatory cancellation decision is expected to be made).
Paragraph 8.4(3) provides that the best interests of each child should be given individual consideration to the extent that their interests may differ.
Paragraph 8.4(4) provides a list of factors to be considered in determining the best interests of the child, which includes:
(a) the nature and duration of the relationship between the child and the non-citizen. Less weight should generally be given where the relationship is non-parental, and/or there is no existing relationship and/or there have been long periods of absence or limited meaningful contact (including whether an existing Court order restricts contact);
(b) the extent to which the non-citizen is likely to play a positive parental role in the future, taking into account the length of time until the child turns 18, and including any Court orders relating to parental access and care arrangements;
(c) the impact of the non citizen’s prior conduct, and any likely future conduct, and whether that conduct has, or will have a negative impact on the child;
(d) the likely effect that any separation from the non-citizen would have on the child, taking into account the child's or non-citizen's ability to maintain contact in other ways;
(e) whether there are other persons who already fulfil a parental role in relation to the child;
(f) any known views of the child (with those views being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child);
(g) evidence that the child has been, or is at risk of being, subject to, or exposed to, family violence perpetrated by the non-citizen, or has otherwise been abused or neglected by the non-citizen in any way, whether physically, sexually or mentally;
(h) evidence that the child has suffered or experienced any physical or emotional trauma arising from the non-citizen’s conduct.
The Applicant has two minor children namely RM2 born in 2009 and PM born in 2010. Both children were born in Australia, but they reside with their mother in New Zealand and the Applicant is not in loco parentis with either child. The Applicant does not claim that he would live with the children in the future. The Applicant claims to have love and affection for his children and told the Tribunal that that there was no difficulty in him having access to his children.
Since these children are not within the jurisdiction of Australia, they do not fall within the provisions of Direction 99. However, the Applicant states that:
(a)He has a son, TM, who was born on 10 October 2003 who lives in Townsville. However, the Tribunal notes that such child is not relevant for the purposes of Direction 99 in view of his age; further, the Applicant has not seen him since 2020.
(b)He has one nephew, “WM”, aged under 18, who is his oldest sister’s son. The Applicant first met him in 2018 at a family wedding when the child was two years of age and states that he last spoke to him by telephone in 2019. The Applicant agreed that he did not have a close relationship with such nephew.
Finding on primary consideration 4
This consideration is neutral.
Primary Consideration 5: Expectations of the Australian community
Paragraph 8.5(1) of the Direction provides that:
The Australian community expects non-citizens to obey Australian laws while in Australia. Where a non-citizen has engaged in serious conduct in breach of this expectation, or where there is an unacceptable risk that they may do so, the Australian community, as a norm, expects the Government not to allow such a non- citizen to enter or remain in Australia.
Paragraph 8.5 also provides that:
(2)…non-revocation of the mandatory cancellation of a visa, may be appropriate simply because the nature of the character concerns or offences is such that the Australian community would expect that the person should not be granted or continue to hold a visa. In particular, the Australian community expects that the Australian Government can and should refuse entry to non-citizens, or cancel their visas, if they raise serious character concerns through conduct, in Australia or elsewhere, of the following kind:
(a)acts of family violence; or
(b)causing a person to enter into, or being party to (other than being a victim of), a forced marriage;
(c)commission of serious crimes against women, children or other vulnerable members of the community such as the elderly or disabled; in the context, 'serious crimes' include crimes of a violent or sexual nature, as well as other serious crimes against the elderly or other vulnerable persons in the form of fraud, extortion, financial, abuse/material exploitation or neglect;
(d)commission of crimes against government representatives or officials due to the position they hold, or in the performance of their duties; or
(e)involvement or reasonably suspected involvement in human trafficking or people smuggling, or in crimes that are of serious international concern including, but not limited to, war crimes, crimes against humanity and slavery; or
(f)worker exploitation.
The above expectations of the Australian community apply regardless of whether the non-citizen poses a measurable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community (subparagraph 8.5(3)).
This consideration is about the expectations of the Australian community as a whole, and in this respect, decision-makers should proceed on the basis of the Government's views as articulated above, without independently assessing the community's expectations in the particular case (subparagraph 8.5(4)).
This consideration has been the subject of extensive judicial discussion and is ultimately determinative (see FYBR v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCAFC 185 at [75] per Charlesworth J). That is, it is not for the decision-maker to assess the expectations of the Australian community for the purpose of applying this consideration. The expectations of the Australian community that decision-makers are required to consider are those set out in Direction 99 at paragraph 8.5. Although these principles are discussed in relation to the former Direction No. 79, those principles are relevantly analogous in principle with respect to Direction 99.
It has further been held that the consideration is “in substance … adverse to any applicant”: see Mortimer J in YNQY v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCA 1466 at [76].
Further, the Tribunal notes other factors in assessing the material before the Tribunal:
(a)some of the offences committed by the Applicant were committed whilst the Applicant was the subject of conditional release orders; and
(b)the Applicant has continued to commit offences up to those considered by the Fairfield Local Court on 17 February 2022. The criminal offences showed an increase in seriousness involving possession of a prohibited drug; aggravated breaking and entering; supplying a prohibited drug; failing to appear in accordance with the bail acknowledgement, stating a false name or home address; driving a conveyance without the consent of the owner; and other charges as detailed above.
The most recent offence of the Applicant, namely supply of a prohibited drug, is one which is regarded seriously by the community. As was stated in Craig and Minister of Immigration, Citizenship Migration Services and Multicultural Affairs [2020] AATA 3006 at [96]:
Such offending presents a significant risk of harm not only to those who consume and are dependent upon illicit drugs but on the community as a whole which bears the cost of the health and criminal justice repercussions of drug use and sale in the community.
In GNLS and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Migration) [2020] AATA 4418 at [19], the Tribunal made similar observations. Further, in Kristensen and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2022] AATA 3814 at [37] the Tribunal said:
So far as the drug-trafficking is concerned, I regard this as very serious offending indeed. It is one thing to consume drugs for one’s own pleasure or in satisfaction of an addiction; it is a serious escalation to involve oneself in the sale of drugs to others in society. Of particular importance in this context is a finding by the Court that the trafficking was not engaged in merely to support a personal drug habit. It had begun that way, according to the Court, but the court found explicitly that the amounts trafficked exceeded the amount need to be trafficked to support a personal habit.
The Tribunal does not have evidence before it that the quantities being trafficked by the Applicant exceeded the amount he required to sustain his drug habit. However, the fact that he engaged in the conduct of supply is a very serious offence because of the potential danger to the members of the community.
The Applicant’s record demonstrates a long history of offending. While he was working for a large corporation between 2014 to 2016 his drug habit commenced and while his employer attempted to assist him, it was to no avail and his employment was terminated in 2016. He has not worked since.
The long history of offending of the Applicant weighs against revocation of the decision under review.
Drug habit
The drug habit of the Applicant has not been addressed. The Applicant was to have participated in a drug rehabilitation course whilst he was residing in Queensland, but the records show that he absented himself from the course without notice. The Applicant, despite recently attempting to enrol with Odyssey House, continues to consume drugs. The Applicant admitted in cross examination that he last consumed methamphetamine a month ago whilst in detention.
Whether Odyssey House will accept the Applicant, if released, is unknown. The Tribunal notes that the application to participate in such a program was not made until 17 March 2023, namely a matter of days before the hearing of the application before the Tribunal. A drug test recorded in the records of IHMS establishes that the Applicant had a positive drug test on 29 June 2020 whilst in gaol. The Applicant acknowledges that his drug charges are serious. The Applicant stated to the Tribunal that he had reached the point in his life when he realised that he needed to “pull my head in”. He also stated that he did not believe that he would reoffend. He reiterated that he became a drug addict as a result of his relationship in 2015 with his ex-partner, “T”. The Tribunal finds that the Applicant’s drug addiction remains unaddressed.
Prior warning
Paragraph 8.1.1(g) specifically requires decision-makers to consider whether a non-citizen has reoffended after being formally warned about the consequences of further offending for a non-citizen’s migration status.
The Applicant was notified that his visa was cancelled on 3 March 2020 under the provisions of section 501(3A) of the Act. The Applicant was invited to make representations in support of any claim that the original decision should be revoked. The Applicant did so, and in response the decision-maker decided to revoke the original decision to cancel the visa pursuant to section 501CA(5) of the act. The Department of Home affairs wrote to the Applicant by letter dated 16 September 2020 informing him of the decision and the Applicant, who have been taken into detention, was released. The letter stated:
A stern warning should be issued to him on this occasion, that he must refrain from further offending and continue to rehabilitate. He should not expect any further leniency. The protection and safety of the Australian community is of paramount importance and a salient consideration. The Government has a zero tolerance policy on serious offending and this kind of behaviour will not be tolerated again.
Finding on Primary Consideration 5
In this case, the Tribunal accepts that the Australian community’s expectations weigh against revocation of the decision.
Other considerations
The Tribunal now turns to assess the other considerations (paragraph 9 of the Direction) as relevant.
Legal consequences of the decision
International non-refoulement obligations are not relevant in this matter.
Extent of impediments if removed from Australia
Paragraph 9.2(1) of the Direction provides that:
(1)decision-makers must consider the extent of any impediments that the noncitizen may face if removed from Australia to their home country, in establishing themselves and maintaining basic living standards (in the context of what is generally available to other citizens of that country), taking into account:
a)the non-citizen's age and health;
b)whether there are substantial language or cultural barriers; and
c)any social, medical and/or economic support available to them in that country.
The Applicant is 43 years of age. There is vague evidence to suggest that the Applicant had a health issue. However, the records show that the Applicant repeatedly failed to attend medical appointments whilst incarcerated. In oral evidence the Applicant said that he did not receive notice of those appointments. It is not necessary to decide whether in fact the Applicant had notice, since there is no medical evidence nominating any specific condition affecting the health of the Applicant.
There are no language or cultural barriers which would prevent the Applicant’s relocation to New Zealand. The social, medical and/or economic support available to him in New Zealand as a citizen would be equivalent to that applicable in Australia.
The Tribunal finds that this consideration is neutral.
Impact on victims
Paragraph 9.3(1) of the Direction provides:
Decision-makers must consider the impact of the s 501 or 501CA decision on members of the Australian community, including victims of the non-citizen's criminal behaviour, and the family members of the victim or victims, where information in this regard is available and the non-citizen being considered for visa refusal or cancellation, or who has sought revocation of the mandatory cancellation of their visa, has been afforded procedural fairness.
This consideration takes into consideration the risk to the community by the Applicant repeatedly driving while disqualified; by his supply of drugs in the community and by his repeated charges for breaking and entering and theft. All such conduct is inimical to the interest of the Australian community. The risk of significant drug use, and drug supply, has the ability to cause potential psychological injury and psychological harm to members of the Australian community.
This consideration weighs against revocation of the decision.
Impact on Australian business interests
This consideration is not relevant in this matter.
CONCLUSION
In weighing the competing considerations and the weight to be given to all relevant considerations, primary considerations 1 and 5 weigh against revocation; primary considerations 2 and 4 are neutral; and primary consideration 3 weighs in favour of revocation. Of the other considerations, none operate in favour of revocation of the decision under review.
The Tribunal considers that the long history of offending demonstrates that the Applicant has little regard for Australian law. The Applicant acknowledged in cross-examination that that he had showed no regard for Australian law. Such an attitude is directly contrary to the principles reflected in paragraph 5.2 of Direction 99, especially paragraphs 5.2(2) and (3). The Tribunal has also taken note of the length of time that the Applicant has resided in Australia - paragraph 5.2(5).
Paragraph 8.3(4) requires decision-makers to give ‘considerable weight’ to the fact that the non-citizen has been ordinarily resident in Australia during and since their formative years, regardless of when their offending commenced and the level of that offending. The Tribunal has given special consideration to the circumstances that:
(a)the Applicant has been resident in Australia for most of his life;
(b)the Applicant acknowledged in his passenger arrival cards that he held a New Zealand passport, and therefore must have been aware that he was a New Zealand citizen;
(c)the Applicant’s visa was cancelled in 2020. The Applicant was placed in detention following the cancellation of his visa. Following representations, he was released with the letter including the “stern warning” that his visa could be cancelled if he committed offences again. However, the Applicant was found in the possession of drugs within one month after his release from detention;
(d)the Applicant has taken no heed of the requirement that he be a law-abiding citizen despite Magistrate Feather observing at a hearing on 5 June 2019 that the Applicant, upon release from custody, needed to make enquiries concerning rehabilitation otherwise that he would return to methamphetamine use and would spend “the best part of the rest of your life in custody on a fulltime basis”;
(e)the same Magistrate, at a further sentencing hearing on 29 August 2019, observed that the Applicant had made no attempt to obtain rehabilitation after his release from his previous custody; and
(f)whilst the Applicant states that he is going to address his past drug addictions, no indicative arrangements were made until a few days before the hearing before this Tribunal. Given the lengthy addiction, the Tribunal finds such expression to be of little weight.
The Tribunal considers that, but for the previous cancellation of a visa, the length of time in which the Applicant has resided in Australia would have resulted in the Applicant being able to remain in Australia. The Tribunal must assess whether there is a real or significant risk or possibility of harm to one or more members of the Australian community. The probability of harm is not required for a conclusion that the person is a danger to the Australian community: see WKCGv Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2009] AATA 512 as referred to in Minister for Immigration, Citizenship Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs v EBD20 [2021] FCAFC 179 at [32]. The Tribunal is of the belief that the Applicant’s criminal offending, and the possibility that he may re-offend, poses a real or significant risk of harm to members of the Australian community.
The Applicant, by virtue of his failure to heed the warning, does not deserve a second opportunity to remain in Australia and place the Australian community at risk, especially since the level of seriousness of the offending is increasing.
Paragraph 5.2(2) of Direction 99 states that non-citizens "who engage or have engaged in criminal or other serious conduct should expect to”, relevantly, “forfeit the privilege of staying in, Australia".
The Tribunal is required, in summary, to determine whether there is a real or significant risk or possibility of harm to members of the Australian community: see BHYK and Minister of Immigration and Citizenship [2010] AAT 662 at [53]. The Tribunal must weigh up all the factors both for and against the revocation of the cancellation, and the Tribunal has done so. The Tribunal must give due consideration to the length of time the Applicant has been in Australia regardless of his offending. The Tribunal has done so.
The Tribunal is mindful that visa cancellation is not a form of punishment for past events: Folau v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCA 1149 at [11], Pagone J. the Tribunal’s discretion looks forward, rather than backward: “It concerns the future, not the past”: Buchanan J in NBMZ v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2014) 220 FCR 1 at [192]. The task of the Tribunal involves an assessment of the Applicant’s level of risk: that is, is the Applicant a danger to the Australian community. The Tribunal is satisfied that the Applicant does represent a risk to the Australian community. In these circumstances, the principles referred to in Falzon v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] HCA 2 at [94] apply where Nettle J said:
… powers of the kind conferred on the Minister by s 501(3A) give effect to Parliament’s right to rid the nation of persons who, in the judgement of the Parliament, have shown by their offending that their continued presence here would be opposed to the safety and welfare of the nation.
The Tribunal must determine whether there is “another reason” which would justify the revocation of the decision. The Tribunal is satisfied on the basis of the primary and other considerations that there is no other reason why the original decision to cancel the Applicant’s visa should be revoked.
DECISION
The Tribunal finds that the correct and preferable decision is that the decision under review be affirmed.
I certify that the preceding one hundred and nine (109) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of The Hon. Dennis Cowdroy AO KC, Deputy President
....................................[SGD]....................................
Associate
Dated: 12 April 2023
Date(s) of hearing: 23 March 2023 Solicitors for the Applicant: Ms M Mamarot, South West Migration & Legal Services Solicitors for the Respondent: Ms A Meaney, Mills Oakley
0
12
0