McIntier and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Migration)

McIntier and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Migration) [2023] AATA 4150 (18 December 2023)
Division:GENERAL DIVISION
File Number(s): 2023/7153
Re:Sean Evan McIntier
APPLICANT

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

DECISION
Tribunal:Mr A. Maryniak KC, Member
Date:18 December 2023
Place:Melbourne

The Tribunal sets aside the reviewable decision, and in substitution finds that there is another reason to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant’s Visa.
...........................[sgd].............................................
Mr A. Maryniak KC, Member
CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Mandatory cancellation of visa – failure to pass character test – whether another reason the mandatory cancellation should be revoked – Ministerial Direction No. 99 applied – Class BB subclass 155 Five Year Resident Return visa – citizen of United States of America – protection of the Australian community – serious offence –offence of importation and trafficking controlled drugs – low risk of re-offending – strength nature and duration of ties to Australia – best interests of minor child – expectations of the Australian community – extent of impediments if removed – another reason to revoke mandatory cancellation found – decision set aside
LEGISLATION
Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth)
Migration Act 1958 (Cth)
CASES
AEK20 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2022] FCAFC 175
Beezley v Repatriation Commission (2015) 150 ALD 11
Bettencourt v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (2021) 287 FCR 294
Bushell v Repatriation Commission (1992) 175 CLR 408, 425
CGX20 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (2021) 284 FCR 416
Drake v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1979) 2 ALD 60
Dzik v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2021] FCAFC 78
Frugtniet v Australian Securities and Investments Commission (2019) 266 CLR 250
FYBR v Minister for Home Affairs (2019) 272 FCR 454
Jagroop v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCAFC 48
Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs v HSRN [2023] FCAFC 6
Nathanson v Minister for Home Affairs [2022] HCA 26; (2022) 96 ALJR 737
Plaintiff M1/2021 v Minister for Home Affairs (2022) 96 ALJR 497
Shi v Migration Agents Registration Authority (2008) 235 CLR 286
Suleiman v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2018) 74 AAR 545
Tohi v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (2021) 285 FCR 187
SECONDARY MATERIALS
Direction No. 99 – Visa refusal and cancellation under section 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under section 501CA
REASONS FOR DECISION
Mr A. Maryniak KC, Member

The Applicant seeks review of a decision of a delegate of the Respondent made on 26 September 2023 not to revoke the cancellation of his Class BB Subclass 155 Five Year Resident Return Visa (the ‘Visa’) under s 501CA(4) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (‘the Act’).
LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK
The source of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to review this matter comes from s 500(1)(ba) of the Act, together with s 25(1)(a) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth).
Section 501(3A) of the Act, together with ss 501(6) and (7), requires the Minister to cancel a person’s visa if the Minister is satisfied the person does not pass the character test and is serving a full-time sentence of imprisonment.
Section 501CA(4) of the Act confers a discretionary power on the Minister to revoke the cancellation 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.
In circumstances where the cancellation decision is not revoked, the right to have that decision reviewed by the Tribunal is enlivened.
The Tribunal must address the question of ‘another reason’ for revocation in compliance with a ministerial direction made under s 499(1) of the Act known as ‘Ministerial Direction 99’ (the Direction).[1] This commenced on 3 March 2023. The Tribunal ‘stands in the shoes of the original decision-maker’ and must make ‘the correct or preferable decision’[2] based on the material currently before it.[3]
[1] Section 499(2A) of the Act; CGX20 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (2021) 284 FCR 416, [4] (Rares, O’Callaghan and Jackson JJ); Nathanson v Minister for Home Affairs (2022) 96 ALJR 737, 2 [4].
[2] Drake v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1979) 2 ALD 60 at 68 (Bowen CJ and Deane J); Shi v Migration Agents Registration Authority (2008) 235 CLR 286 at [96]- [98] (Hayne and Heydon JJ); Nathanson v Minister for Home Affairs (2022) 96 ALJR 737, 2 [4].
[3] AEK20 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2022] FCAFC 175, [25] (Wigney, Abraham and Rofe JJ); Nathanson v Minister for Home Affairs (2022) 96 ALJR 737; Dzik v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2021] FCAFC 78, [10]-[11] (Logan, Perry, and Beach JJ); Frugtniet v Australian Securities and Investments Commission (2019) 266 CLR 250 at 271 [51]; Beezley v Repatriation Commission (2015) 150 ALD 11, [68]; Shi v Migration Agents Registration Authority (2008) 235 CLR 286 at 299 [40], 315 [100], 324-325 [134]; Bushell v Repatriation Commission (1992) 175 CLR 408, 425 (Brennan J).
The following principles at cl 5.2 of the Direction provide a framework within which decision-makers should approach their task, including whether to revoke a mandatory cancellation decision:
(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 cancellations 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 types of conduct or suspected conduct mentioned in paragraph 8.55(2) [sic] (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 measureable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community.
Clause 6 of the Direction provides that, informed by the principles in cl 5.2, a decision-maker must have regard to cls. 8 and 9, where relevant to the decision. Clause 8 of the Direction identifies the following primary considerations:
(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)the best interests of minor children in Australia;
(5)expectations of the Australian community.
Clause 9 of the Direction sets out a non-exhaustive list of other considerations:
a)legal consequences of the decision;
b)extent of impediments if removed;
c)impact on victims; and
d)impact on Australian business interests.
In applying the considerations (both primary and other), information and evidence from independent and authoritative sources should be given appropriate weight.[4] Primary considerations should generally be given greater weight than other considerations, and one or more primary considerations may outweigh other primary considerations.[5] The weighing process is a matter for the individual decision maker.[6]
[4] Direction 99, cl. 7(1).
[5] Direction 99, cl. 7(2) and (3).
[6] Jagroop v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCAFC 48, [57]; Suleiman v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2018) 74 AAR 545, [23]; [28] (Colvin J).
The Applicant concedes, hence it is not in issue, that he does not pass the character test and the Tribunal finds accordingly. He has a ‘substantial criminal record’.[7] Therefore, the Tribunal is to determine whether the discretion to revoke the cancellation decision is enlivened by the Tribunal being satisfied that there is ‘another reason’ to do so.[8]
[7] Sections 501(6)(a) and 501(7)(c) of the Act.
[8] Plaintiff M1/2021 v Minister for Home Affairs (2022) 96 ALJR 497, [22]-[27] (Kiefel CJ, Keane, Gordon and Steward JJ); Bettencourt v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (2021) 287 FCR 294, [27]; Tohi v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (2021) 285 FCR 187, [3]-[5] (Katzmann J); [24] (Derrington J) [103] (O’Bryan J).
SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE
The Tribunal has considered the documentary evidence lodged by the parties including the G Documents, documents comprising the Respondent’s Tender Bundle and the Applicant’s Supporting Documents Bundle, being Exhibits R1, R2, and A1, together with an article about Ketamine, Exhibit R3. The Tribunal has also considered the oral evidence of the Applicant, Dr Cantwell-Bartl (psychologist), Ms Liana Hynd, and friends of the Applicant, Mr Jack Hewitt, Mr Alistair McDonnell, Mr Robert Picouleau, Mr Shannon Ralph and Ms Daisy Aczel-Morris.
The 32-year-old Applicant, born in November 1991 is a citizen of the United States of America. His parents separated in 1992 and he lived with his mother in San Diego until about 2001. He is neurodivergent, having been diagnosed with Asperger’s Syndrome (now known as Autism Spectrum Disorder) in the 1990’s. He was sometimes bullied at school in the US and found it easier to bond with fellow students in Australia, who he found more accepting. The Applicant was later diagnosed with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD).[9]
[9] Exhibit A1, 4-5.
He first visited Australia for about 2 weeks in December 2002, to stay with his mother who had moved here for work.[10] He then re-visited Australia numerous times in 2003, 2004 and 2005.[11]
[10] Ibid, 5.
[11] Exhibit R1, 97-98.
The Applicant moved to Australia to live with his mother from October 2005 and attended Kew High School in 2006, travelling back to the United States for visits during that year and the first half of 2007, prior to moving back on 4 July 2007. During 2008, in Year 11, he obtained a High School Diploma, which he stated was only recognised in California and not equivalent to completing high school.[12] He did not return to Australia until January 2009, aged 17, and spent only a few weeks out of Australia in the US in 2009.[13]
[12] Exhibit A1, 5-6.
[13] Exhibit R1, 96-97.
Between 21 December 2010 and 5 June 2013, he spent one 6-month and two 10-month periods living in the US.[14] He then lived in Australia from June 2013 save for a trip to the US for about 6 weeks in late 2014 to early 2015, during which the Applicant said in his oral evidence that he last saw his father.
[14] Ibid, 96.
Between 2015 and 2019, the Applicant has had what can be described as a ‘patchy’ employment history with a variety of jobs in the few years prior to his incarceration, has travelled in Australia, has lived with his mother on occasions and lived in shared households.[15] He got more involved in the psy-trance music scene during this period and began using illicit substances such as MDMA and LSD on an increasingly regular basis. He also tried Ketamine. In late 2019 the Applicant’s use of these substances increased again after he moved into a shared house with fellow users who encouraged the Applicant to use such drugs more frequently with them. In 2020 he developed an addiction to Ketamine.[16]
[15] Exhibit A1, 7.
[16] Ibid, 9.
Also, from late 2019 he slowly developed a romantic relationship with Ms Hynd, who he had known since 2014.[17] He had known Ms Hynd’s daughter since she was born in April 2015.The Applicant stated that Ms Hynd ‘saw that I was becoming more drug-affected in 2019 and was concerned, as her previous partner was very drug-affected so it was a bit of a trigger for her. She did not want me to be irresponsible around [her daughter].[18] The Applicant kept much of the detail of his increased drug use and addiction hidden from Ms Hynd during late 2019 and 2020.
[17] Ibid, 7-8.
[18] Ibid, 9 at [45].
On 4 February 2016 the Applicant was found guilty of unlicenced driving, whilst driving on an expired US Licence. He was disqualified from driving and fined $1000. No conviction was recorded. On 15 December 2016 the Applicant was found guilty of placing fraudulent number plates, obtained from a friend, on an old car he was storing in his mother’s parking garage. He was fined $600 and no conviction was recorded.[19] The Tribunal does not consider these two earlier matters to be related to his criminal offending in 2020.
[19] Exhibit R1, 33.
On 23 October 2020 a parcel addressed to the Applicant had arrived at the international gateway mail facility in Sydney, from India, containing approximately 142 grams of Ketamine.[20] On 8 December 2020 police executed a search warrant at the Applicant’s home. Various items relating to drug dealing were found at the home, including $5690 in cash.[21]
[20] Ibid, 35.
[21] Exhibit R1, 35-36.
On 25 June 2022 the Applicant was convicted of numerous drug importation and trafficking offences and sentenced to four years and three months imprisonment (the ‘Criminal Offending’).
The Sentencing Judge’s remarks provide some insight into the Applicant’s Criminal Offending which the Tribunal accepts and adopts. Relevantly His Honour stated:
[6] The drugs seized at your residence were found to be 38.9 grams of ketamine, being approximately 18 grams pure. There was also 97.6 grams net of MDMA, being 31 grams pure. There was a total of 950 milligrams net of LSD, being less than 50 milligrams pure. Enquiries subsequently found that seven previously seized importations of border-controlled drugs, including ketamine, LSD, MDMA, and amphetamine had been addressed to you at various addresses that you were residing at, or associated with, over the period January 2014 to March 2016.
[7] Police seized the phone at the premises and extracted from it numerous messages using an encrypted app. You had provided the relevant password or access to the phone. There were numerous conversations between you and unknown persons about exchanging, procuring, selling and offering to sell drugs of various types.
[8] You participated in a record of interview on 8 December 2020. You confirmed that you had been residing at, or associated with, the various addresses to which parcels that were intercepted were sought to be sent. You declined to comment about previous parcels or letters that had been seized. You denied organising the parcel that arrived at the gateway on 23 October 2020. You confirmed that you were on government benefits and make limited money from making music. You said you had a couple of thousand dollars in the bank and a small amount of cryptocurrency.
Assessing the seriousness of the offending
[9] By your plea you have admitted responsibility for the package seized on 23 October 2020. Reasoning back from the drug paraphernalia seized at your address in December, and the earlier intercepted attempts at importation of small quantities of drugs, it is clear that you bear high moral culpability for this offending. You were engaged in selling drugs and the contents of the package were designed to be available to you for you to sell on the prohibited drug market.
[10] The amount seized represents approximately 30 times a marketable quantity of that drug, ketamine. It represents between 10.3 and 13.2 per cent of a commercial quantity. There was also an additional smaller amount of ketamine seized at your address which is the subject of the trafficking charge.
[11] While it was submitted that there was little evidence of betterment found at your address, it is clear from the contents of the mobile phone that you were engaged in a vigorous multidrug trafficking operation. The clear inference is that you were to make money from this attempted importation. There is no suggestion of other persons being involved in the importation so you must be regarded as the principal and the importation was for profit. These are both matters of aggravation.
[12] The importation offence is a serious example of a successful attempt to illegally import drugs, although you did not receive them. Although, as conceded by the learned prosecutor, larger amounts have also been the subject of similar charges involving drugs in the mail.
[13] Turning to the State trafficking offences, in relation to ketamine, Charge 2, the amount seized was well above the amount that could be said for personal use. The amount of LSD, Charge 3, is six times the trafficable quantity of a mixed amount. In relation to MDMA, Charge 4, on a gross basis is close to a commercial quantity.
[14] As submitted by the learned prosecutor, you are to be regarded as close to a middle level drug trafficker above a street level dealer. This is also confirmed by the $5,690 cash found at your premises and the subject of the proceeds of crime Charge 5.
…
[23] On the plea your counsel tendered an impressive number of certificates for courses that you have undertaken whilst in custody, as well as a letter from the Buddhist chaplain, and one each from your mother and your auntie, Ms Peffley. Your willingness to undertake courses whilst on remand, combined with the oral evidence from Ms Peffley as to your remorse and self-awareness, indicates that in my assessment your prospects of rehabilitation should be regarded as reasonable given your age, your family support and that this is your first lengthy term of imprisonment.
…
[26] I have had regard to your age. You are not a youthful offender but you are a relatively young man and this is relevant to your prospects of rehabilitation and the need to avoid a crushing sentence.
[27] In sentencing you I have also had regard to your period on remand since you were arrested on 8 December 2020. The entire period has been during the pandemic. Programs and movements have been limited, visits have been limited and you have had the uncertainty of these unresolved charges hanging over you for the last nearly 19 months. That is a significant matter.
…
Sentencing submissions
[33] The learned prosecutor in a comprehensive submission emphasised considerations of general deterrence and the need to identify the role of an offender in the drug enterprise. I have identified you as the principal here. I am also required to have regard to the matters set out in s16A of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), including that imprisonment is to be a sanction of last resort. The offending here is of such seriousness that there must be a term of imprisonment.
…
[35] In this case in sentencing it is also important to recognise that these types of offences are difficult to detect. Drug importation and dealing is an economic crime and upon apprehension persons engaged in such ventures must expect heavy sentences, both for the purposes of specific deterrence and to send a signal to others who might be minded to commit such crimes. Thus, considerations of general deterrence and denunciation are to the fore.
…
[37] Your offending was something of a course of conduct which is relevant to the way that I propose to structure the sentence. I have taken into account all of the subjective matters put on your behalf, including your plea of guilty, your remorse and what I regard as your reasonable prospects of rehabilitation. A sentence of imprisonment will weigh more heavily on you given your separation from family in the USA, particularly your auntie with whom you are close who is now facing a grave medical condition.
…
[41] I order that you be eligible for release on parole after serving two years and four months.
[42] I declare that you have served 563 days pre-sentence detention.[22]
[22] Exhibit R1, 36-38, 39, 40, 42, and 43.

The Applicant was sentenced to an effective prison term of four years and three months.[23]
[23] Ibid, 33.
Whilst incarcerated the Applicant has completed the following courses associated with rehabilitation and/or self-improvement:
(a)Kangan Institute, CPR and First Aid (February 2021)[24]
(b)GEO, ‘Changing Gears’ (25 August 2021)[25]
(c)Kangan Institute, Control Traffic and Implement Traffic Management Plans (May 2022)[26]
(d)Anglicare Victoria, ‘Tuning into Respectful Relationships’ (January 2023)[27]
(e)Caraniche, 24 hour (closed) Drug and Alcohol Treatment Program Level III (1 March 2023)[28]
(f)Bendigo TAFE, ‘Certificate II in Skills for Work and Vocational Pathways – Use Strategies to Plan Simple Workplace Tasks’ (27 April 2023)[29]
(g)Caraniche, ‘6 Hour Stress Management Program’ (11 May 2023)[30]
[24] Exhibit A1, 28.
[25] Ibid, 32.
[26] Ibid, 34.
[27] Exhibit A1, 36.
[28] Ibid, 30.
[29] Ibid, 38.
[30] Ibid, 40.
A significant number of Australian citizens have given evidence as to the Applicant’s good character, that his Criminal Offending was of a one-off nature and that he should be given the privilege of being able to remain in Australia.
Mr Hewitt has been a friend of the Applicant for 17 years, since 2006, when they both attended Kew High School. [31] He stated in his oral evidence that he has kept in contact with the Applicant over the years and they remain friends. He has only known of the detail of the Criminal Offending over the last few months and has a limited knowledge of the Applicant’s drug use prior to December 2020. He states that the Applicant regrets his actions comprising the Criminal Offending and that the Applicant said he will never do anything like that again.
[31] Ibid, 90-92.
Mr Hewitt, being aware that the Applicant has ASD, states that he knows that the Applicant has been ‘naïve’ in the past in sometimes befriending ‘the wrong kind of people’, which in this instance was the precursor to the Criminal Offending. Mr Hewitt stated that the Applicant is remorseful and the Criminal Offending was out of character and an ‘isolated’ matter. Mr Hewitt states he ‘would lose a valued friend’ if the Applicant was to be removed from Australia. His oral evidence was that he understands that the Applicant was motivated to engage in the Criminal Offending to secure a supply of Ketamine, to which the Applicant was then addicted to, to go along with and gain acceptance and fit in with his then drug-dealing housemates, and to make some money.
Mr Picouleau also became friends with the Applicant in 2006 at Kew High School, although he was a year below.[32] They connected through a shared passion for technology and music. They have remained close friends over the years. Mr Picouleau stated in his oral evidence that he had some previous exposure to illicit drugs, particularly through the psy-trance music scene they were both then involved in. Mr Picouleau said that the Applicant was using illicit drugs more frequently during the Melbourne lockdowns, that such lockdowns were a ‘slow, depressing time for everyone’ who had to endure them, and that the Applicant’s Criminal Offending was completely out of character and ‘isolated’. He stated neither he nor the Applicant is now involved with illicit drugs. Mr Picouleau indicated the Applicant’s removal from Australia would be ‘a tragedy’.
[32] Exhibit A1, 102-103.
Mr McDonnell considers the Applicant to be one of his closest friends and has known him for 14 years.[33] They share an interest in music and were in near-daily contact, save for when the Applicant was more difficult to contact in prison. He also gave evidence regarding a certain ‘naivety’ within the Applicant in that he could be ‘easily manipulated’ and exploited in his eagerness to fit in and help others. In the past, some ‘toxic malicious individuals have taken advantage of [the Applicant]’.[34]
[33] Ibid, 95-97.
[34] Ibid, 95-96.
Mr McDonnell strongly believes that the Applicant is truly remorseful and deeply regrets both his Criminal Offending and its harmful consequences, and that he has more insight into the dangers of illicit drug use. The Applicant has changed for the better and he is now more selective in who he associates with and befriends.
Ms Hynd has been a close friend of the Applicant since 2014 and they were involved in a limited romantic relationship between the later part of 2019 until early November this year, obviously with the added challenges of lockdowns and the Applicant being incarcerated since December 2020. During 2017-18 the Applicant lived for some months with Ms Hynd and her then partner and daughter, with whom the Applicant has had a significant connection since her birth in 2014.[35]
[35] Ibid, 8 and 85.
Ms Hynd and the Applicant have kept in near daily contact over the years and it is clear from her evidence that she cares a great deal for the Applicant. She believes the Applicant truly regrets his Criminal Offending and that he will not reoffend at all in the future. She emphasised the real challenges the Applicant faced during the uniquely severe Melbourne lockdowns, the first of which commenced in March 2020. She now understands that the Applicant went down a very ‘dark path’ in 2020, substantially influenced by his then housemates combined with his Ketamine addiction at the time. During 2020 Ms Hynd was not aware of the true nature of the Applicant’s difficulties as she was preoccupied with looking after her ill mother. She knows that since December 2020 he has been ‘clean’ and has developed a more mature, less naïve, insight into life. The Applicant now has a passion for life and realises the importance of real and quality friends.
Even though she and her daughter will soon relocate to Ballarat, she stated in her oral evidence that the Applicant will remain a part of their lives and that they will stay in touch with him and see him as much as they can, should the Applicant be permitted to remain in Australia. Ms Hynd convincingly emphasised that in her view there is ‘no chance’ that the Applicant will return to illicit drug use or Criminal Offending. Her evidence overall is consistent with the proposition that the Applicant has learnt his lesson. She accepted that the Applicant’s role in her daughter’s life could be put no more highly than similar to that of an ‘uncle’, yet nonetheless significant. They both would be negatively impacted should the Applicant be returned to the United States.
Mr Ralph has been a friend of the Applicant for 10 years and on average has had contact with him every couple of months.[36] He stated in his oral evidence that the Applicant appreciates that he made a ‘big mistake’ with his Criminal Offending and that his incarceration has taken the Applicant in the ‘right direction’ of rehabilitation. Mr Ralph and his partner Ms Aczel-Morris are prepared to offer the Applicant accommodation for a month or so, Mr Ralph frankly saying in his oral evidence that much longer than that may ‘drive [him] crazy’. Mr Ralph said that the Applicant would be ‘strongly discouraged’ from any illicit drug use in their home and the Applicant will not be exposed to the same. The Applicant told Mr Ralph that he wants to be a ‘changed person’.
[36] Exhibit A1, 106.
Ms Aczel-Morris gave consistent evidence that the Applicant knows his Criminal Offending was ‘a really dumb decision and that he regrets it’. In her oral evidence she stated that during the difficult time when the Applicant was addicted to Ketamine, the Applicant ‘didn’t realise the gravity of [his Criminal Offending]’. She stated that the Applicant now ‘wants to live a different life’ and she does not think he will re-offend.[37]
[37] Exhibit A1, 133.
Ms Aczel-Morris would be ‘very upset’ if the Applicant was returned to the United States and worries for his future if that was to occur because he has no community, friends or real support over there. She confirmed that her home had been approved as suitable for the Applicant’s parole, that it was a suitable environment for someone who is sober, and that the Applicant would not be exposed to illicit drugs there.
Further statutory declarations from Chanh Nguyen, Jacob McCrae, Kimberley Crabtree, Rachael Gedye, Claudia Jasim-Clement, Laurie Ann Pefley and Michael O’Shea are within the documentary evidence considered by the Tribunal and are consistent in their positive views of the Applicant’s good character and the unlikelihood that the Applicant will return to any illicit drug use, let alone return to any other Criminal Offending in the future.
Dr Cantwell-Bartl, psychologist, provided a report dated 13 November 2023,[38] which despite her testifying was true and correct, contained a series of critical typographical errors which she had to be specifically taken to, to ensure a corrected report. Further, it is not evident that she had read the G Documents prior to the preparation of her report, or at all. Such a less than disciplined approach by a remunerated independent expert is very unfortunate. However, in balancing that against the substance of her corrected report, her qualifications and experience, and her oral evidence, which was tested by the Tribunal and upon which she was cross-examined, the Tribunal is satisfied of the soundness of her psychological assessment of the Applicant. It should be given significant weight. Further, Dr Cantwell-Bartl was quite properly cross-examined, inter alia, upon the last sentence of her report. Whilst again, such is unfortunate as it at least cosmetically detracts from the requisite ‘independent’ non-advocacy role of such an expert, overall the Tribunal is satisfied that she did not give her evidence as an advocate for the Applicant and that she appreciated the absolute need for objectivity in the evidence she gave and the consequences if her evidence were to stray from such objectivity.
[38] Ibid, 50-57.
Her evidence was to the effect that the Applicant had grown up without any proper stable parenting, in that he had been handed back and forth between both parents, with the added challenge of ASD, and later ADHD. He had a disrupted and unstable personal history. She stated, ‘The pattern of marginalisation and social alienation with a longing to find links with others played out in Australia and took him down a path that was destructive.’ The Applicant has consistently said “No” to drugs in prison, since his incarceration some 3 years ago in December 2020 and has said he will not use drugs again as he knows how much he has to lose. She notes that in ‘jail he said he learned the importance of healthy friendships’. Further in ‘2021 he undertook a number of constructive programs such as coping skills, mindfulness, impulse-control and life skills’ and that ‘he is just starting now to lay down a foundation of solidity.’[39] Despite the ‘considerable stressors’ in jail and in detention the Applicant has not only survived but has stayed ‘focused upon what he needed to do going forward’.[40]
[39] Exhibit A1, 54.
[40] Ibid, 55.
She stated:
I think it is unlikely that Mr McIntier will engage with drugs and criminal behaviour again. I have counselled him that I consider that it is important for him once he is released to have ongoing counselling to address his self-esteem and to have him develop healthy relationships and stability for the future. He has been seeing a psychologist for seven sessions for CBT in detention. I have explained to him about the importance of him looking at his developmental trauma. Neither of his parents did ~~not~~ have the skills, nor the psychological understanding to provide him with a firm footing in his living…
… I think the risk to the Australian community is small. Mr McIntier says he never wants to use drugs again. He has learned in prison to say No to drugs. He says he would have too much to lose…[41]
[41] Ibid, 55-56.
She further stated:
…He said that he would be happy to go for counselling when he is release [sic]. There are a number of counselling supports in Australia. He will be eligible for a Mental Health Care Plan to access ten sessions of counselling a year. There is Turning Point, DirectLine alcohol and drug counselling, there is the National Alcohol and Drug Hotline, there is Windana, Firststop and Anglicare all provide for counselling and psycho-education…
…Although the drug charges were serious, my client deeply regrets the decision. He would like to go to University and would like to do a Computer Science degree. He acknowledges that drugs would be detrimental to that journey. He said that he focused in jail that the people he wants to be with are healthy people.[42]
[42] Ibid, 56-57.
The essence of her evidence is that whilst the Applicant was easily led and without much direction or self-discipline in the past, his conduct since December 2020 endorses her professional opinion that he now has insight and the ability to live a more disciplined life, with the risk of any future drug use or re-offending being unlikely.
PRIMARY CONSIDERATIONS
Protection of the Australian Community
Clause 8.1 of the Direction states:
(1)When considering protection of the Australian community, decision-makers should keep in mind that the Government is committed to protecting the Australian community from harm as a result of criminal activity or other serious conduct by non-citizens. In this respect, decision-makers should have particular regard to the principle that entering or remaining in Australia is a privilege that Australia confers on non-citizens in the expectation that they are, and have been, law abiding, will respect important institutions, and will not cause or threaten harm to individuals or the Australian community.
(2)Decision-makers should also give consideration to:
a) the nature and seriousness of the non-citizen’s conduct to date; and
b) the risk to the Australian community, should the non-citizen commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct.
The nature and seriousness of the non-citizen’s conduct to date
Under cl 8.1.1 of the Direction, the following factors are to be considered in determining the nature and seriousness of the non-citizen’s criminal and other conduct to date:
a)without limiting the range of conduct that may be considered very serious, the types of crimes or conduct described below are viewed very seriously by the Australian Government and the Australian community:
i.violent and/or sexual crimes;
ii.crimes of a violent nature against women or children, regardless of the sentence imposed;
iii.acts of family violence, regardless of whether there is a conviction for an offence or a sentence imposed;
b)without limiting the range of conduct that may be considered serious, the types of crimes or conduct described below are considered by the Australian Government and the Australian community to be serious:
i.causing a person to enter into or being party to a forced marriage (other than being a victim), regardless of whether there is a conviction for an offence or a sentence imposed;
ii.crimes committed against vulnerable members of the community (such as the elderly and the disabled), or government representatives or officials due to the position they hold, or in the performance of their duties;
iii.any conduct that forms the basis for a finding that a non-citizen does not pass an aspect of the character test that is dependent upon the decision-maker's opinion (for example, section 501(6)(c));
iv.where the non-citizen is in Australia, a crime committed while the non-citizen was in immigration detention, during an escape from immigration detention, or after the non-citizen escaped from immigration detention, but before the non-citizen was taken into immigration detention again, or an offence against section 197 A of the Act, which prohibits escape from immigration detention;
c)with the exception of the crimes or conduct mentioned in subparagraph (a)(ii), (a)(iii) or (b)(i) above, the sentence imposed by the courts for a crime or crimes;
d)the frequency of the non-citizen's offending and/or whether there is any trend of increasing seriousness;
e)the cumulative effect of repeated offending;
f)whether the non-citizen has provided false or misleading information to the Department, including by not disclosing prior criminal offending;
g)whether the non-citizen has reoffended since being formally warned, or since otherwise being made aware, in writing, about the consequences of further offending in terms of the non-citizen's migration status (noting that the absence of a warning should not be considered to be in the non-citizen's favour).
h)where the conduct or offence was committed in another country, whether that offence or conduct is classified as an offence in Australia.
Mr Orchard, on behalf of the Respondent, put a very respectable submission that the Applicant’s earlier attempts to import small amounts of illicit drugs for personal use are part of a pattern of unlawful or attempted unlawful behaviour by the Applicant, and that such frequency of offending and a trend of increasing seriousness of offending must be considered.
Whilst there is some force in that submission, the Tribunal finds that the nature of such early personal importations is distinctly different from the essentially once-off Criminal Offending the Applicant was found guilty of, sentenced for and has now done his time for. The Tribunal is not satisfied that a trend of increasing seriousness of offending is established.
The Tribunal also notes an incident involving the Applicant in 2006,[43] when he was a minor which technically could fall within cl 8.1.1 (a)(ii) which, appropriately, was only faintly pressed by the Respondent. Upon consideration, the Tribunal does not place any weight upon this incident.
[43] Exhibit R2, 57-58.
The Tribunal finds the Applicant’s Criminal Offending was serious, involving near middle range drug trafficking, as submitted by the Respondent and conceded by the Applicant. The impact of illicit drug trafficking has a harmful ripple effect upon members of the Australian community, which is serious.

The risk to the Australian community should the non-citizen commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct

Clause 8.1.2(1) of the Direction provides:
In considering the need to protect the Australian community (including individuals, groups or institutions) from harm, decision-makers should have regard to the Government’s view that the Australian community’s tolerance for any risk of future harm becomes lower as the seriousness of the potential harm increases. Some conduct and the harm that would be caused, if it were to be repeated, is so serious that any risk that it may be repeated may be unacceptable.
Clause 8.1.2(2) of the Direction states that in assessing the risk non-citizens pose to the Australian community, decision-makers must consider, cumulatively:
a)the nature of the harm to individuals or the Australian community should the non-citizen engage in further criminal or other serious conduct; and
b)the likelihood of the non-citizen engaging in further criminal or other serious conduct, taking into account:
i.information and evidence on the risk of the non-citizen reoffending; and
ii.evidence of rehabilitation achieved by the time of the decision, giving weight to time spent in the community since their most recent offence (noting that decisions should not be delayed in order for rehabilitative courses to be undertaken).
In assessing risk, the Tribunal is conscious of the need to consider the nature of any future harm to the Australian community. As discussed above, the nature of the Applicant’s offending is serious and the nature of the negative harm to Australians of any re-offending would be equally serious. This is to be assessed cumulatively with any likelihood of the Applicant engaging in any further or other serious conduct.

Mr Orchard succinctly submitted in closing regarding risk that the evidence of Dr Cantwell-Bartl should be given limited weight due, in part, to her lack of consideration of the G documents. Further, it is highly likely that Dr Cantwell-Bartl did not read the sentencing remarks and did not have the optimum level of detail of the Applicant’s offending. However, she did have a solid understanding of his rehabilitation since December 2020 and her conclusions based on this regarding low risk of re-offending were thoroughly tested during her oral evidence, as discussed in paragraphs 37-41 above. The Tribunal is satisfied as to their validity. The Tribunal therefore gives Dr Cantwell-Bartl’s evidence appropriate weight as an expert.
It was also put by Mr Orchard that the limited accommodation offer from Mr Ralph and Ms Aczel-Morris and nature of that home combined with the overall prospect of the Applicant getting on his feet and finding employment, in light of his patchy employment history. is inherently risky. Mr Orchard properly put that there was inconsistent evidence as to whether any illicit drug use would take place in that house; however, the Tribunal is satisfied that the Applicant will not be exposed to such use and that he will be supported in his determination to no longer use drugs.
The Tribunal notes that in the years prior to his Ketamine addiction, which developed during the Melbourne lockdowns and his living with heavy drug using and dealing housemates in 2020, the Applicant was working in various jobs and was supporting himself without resorting to criminal offending. That earlier consistent pattern of behaviour, combined with the unchallenged evidence that the Applicant has been drug-free and has rehabilitated himself since December 2020, satisfies the Tribunal that the risk of re-offending is low, consistent with the evidence of Dr Cantwell-Bartl.
Mr Orchard also submitted as to risk of re-offending that the Applicant and some of his friends have a continuing interest in the psy-trance scene and attending events associated with it. The Tribunal accepts that the psy-trance scene, in which substantial illicit drug use occurs, was a significant part of the Applicant’s life prior to December 2020; however, that was also before the rather naïve Criminal Offending by the Applicant. The Tribunal is satisfied that the deterrent effect of his sentencing and incarceration has had a real impact upon the Applicant, as foreshadowed by the Sentencing Judge.[44] It is apparent that the Applicant has gained maturity and insight and is determined to be a better person moving forward. The Tribunal is of the view that the Applicant will take a more informed approach to any future involvement he has with the psy-trance scene.
[44] Exhibit R1, 42.
It is true that the Applicant would face real challenges if released, as Mr Orchard submitted, but the preponderance of evidence before the Tribunal satisfies it that the Applicant, whilst serving his time for his offending, has rehabilitated himself. It is apparent to the Tribunal that since December 2020 the Applicant has used his time wisely to gain some self-discipline, and that he now has the skill set to follow a drug-free path in any future life in Australia. Various support and social security services will be available to the Applicant if needed, but the evidence suggests that the Applicant has learnt his lesson and is unlikely to re-offend in the future. The Applicant’s own evidence is supportive of this, as is the evidence of all the individuals who gave positive character evidence on behalf of the Applicant, and importantly that of Dr Cantwell-Bartl.
The Tribunal finds that the risk of the Applicant re-offending to be low.
Whilst the Tribunal finds the nature of the offending to be serious, in balancing that against its finding that there is a sufficiently low risk of the Applicant re-offending, the Tribunal concludes that this primary consideration weighs in favour of revocation.
Family violence committed by the non-citizen
The parties agreed that this consideration is not relevant to the facts pertaining to this review, and the Tribunal, consistent with its discussion at paragraph 46 above, so finds. It therefore weighs neutrally regarding revocation.
The strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia
Clause 8.3 of the Direction provides:
(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 noncitizen 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 noncitizen began offending soon after arriving in Australia.
Since 2006, the Applicant has spent some significant parts of his formative years and schooling in Australia and has permanently and continuously lived in Australia since January 2015. This combined with his evidence and that of a number of Australians, many of whom have known the Applicant for years, giving evidence as to his good character and of his ties with Australia, endorse a finding that he does have a significant network of solid, long-standing friends in Australia, who care about him and hope he will be permitted to stay in Australia.
His ties with Australia are established and such are essentially conceded by the Respondent. It is clear that the Applicant’s removal from Australia would have a negative impact upon his friends who gave evidence on his behalf. The Tribunal is satisfied that those friends will continue to be there for the Applicant and support him should he stay in Australia. Further, the Applicant’s interactions with those friends will not be impacted by the restrictions of the lockdowns which were in place during the period of the Applicant’s Criminal Offending, should he be permitted to stay.
In light of such ties and the considerable time overall in which the Applicant has lived in Australia, the Tribunal finds, on balance, that this primary consideration weighs in favour of revocation.
Best interests of minor children in Australia
Clause 8.4 of the Direction requires decision-makers to determine, where relevant, whether revocation is in the best interests of any minor children in Australia. This provision applies only if the child is, or would be, under 18 years old at the time when the application is decided. If there are two or more relevant children, the best interests of each child affected by the decision whether to revoke cancellation of a visa should be given individual consideration, to the extent that their interests may differ.
The evidence supports the finding of the Tribunal that the Applicant has a continuing substantial connection with Ms Hynd’s daughter, since her birth 8 years ago. Whilst this relationship is not at the paternal level, the Applicant’s involvement in her life is of significance. A continuation of this de-facto avuncular connection will be of positive benefit to both Ms Hynd’s daughter and the Applicant. The Tribunal has no doubt the Applicant will continue to have a positive role in Ms Hynd’s daughter’s future if he is permitted to remain in Australia. The removal of the Applicant from Australia would have a corresponding negative impact upon her.
Consistent with the Tribunal’s finding, the Respondent concedes that this primary consideration falls slightly in favour of revocation.
Expectations of the Australian community
Clause 8.5 of the Direction states:
(1)The Australian community expects non-citizens to obey Australian laws while in Australia. Where a non-citizen has engaged in serious conduct in breach of this expectation, or where there is an unacceptable risk that they may do so, the Australian community, as a norm, expects the Government to not allow such a non-citizen to enter or remain in Australia.
(2)In addition, visa cancellation or refusal, or non-revocation of the mandatory cancellation of a visa, may be appropriate simply because the nature of the character concerns or offences is such that the Australian community would expect that the person should not be granted or continue to hold a visa. In particular, the Australian community expects that the Australian Government can and should refuse entry to non-citizens, or cancel their visas, if they raise serious character concerns through conduct, in Australia or elsewhere, of the following kind:
a)…
b)…
c)commission of serious crimes against women, children or other vulnerable members of the community such as the elderly or disabled; in this context, ‘serious crimes’ include crimes of a violent or sexual nature, as well as other serious crimes against the elderly or other vulnerable persons in the form of fraud, extortion, financial abuse/material exploitation or neglect;…
(3)The above expectations of the Australian community apply regardless of whether the non-citizen poses a measureable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community.
(4)This consideration is about the expectations of the Australian community as a whole, and in this respect, decision-makers should proceed on the basis of the Government’s views as articulated above, without independently assessing the community’s expectations in the particular case.
Clause 8.5(3) provides that the above expectations apply regardless of whether the non-citizen poses a measurable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community. As per cl 8.5(4), this consideration is ‘about the expectations of the Australian community as a whole’, and decision makers are to proceed based on the Government’s views as articulated in the Direction, without independently assessing the community’s expectations in a particular case.”
The expectations of the Australian community as a whole are to be considered. Guidance is provided by the reasoning in FYBR v Minister for Home Affairs (2019) 272 FCR 454 (‘FYBR’) at [66] and [91]: This is essentially a deeming provision with normative principles resulting in the Australian community expectation aligning with that of the executive government.
FYBR has recently been considered by the Full Federal Court in Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs v HSRN [2023] FCAFC 68. The Full Court stated:
[33] Relevantly, in FYBR it was held (by Charlesworth and Stewart JJ in separate judgments, Flick J dissenting) that the relevant clause:
(1) expresses an expectation deemed by the Government to be held by the Australian community and that it is not the role of the decision-maker to undertake an assessment of what the community expectations are in each case (at [61], [66]-[67] and [75] per Charlesworth J and [86], [97], [101] and [103]-[104] per Stewart J); and
(2) gives expression to an expectation that must of its nature weigh against the grant of a visa in every case (at [75] per Charlesworth J and [86] and [101]-[102] per Stewart J).
[34] It was also held that it is up to the decision-maker, after having considered the primary and other considerations, to reach their own view as to whether the non-citizen should or should not be granted a visa or, in the case of a revocation decision, whether or not the cancellation of the non-citizen’s visa should be revoked (at [73] and [79] per Charlesworth J and [92] and [105] per Stewart J). That is to say, although Charlesworth J held that the deemed expectation of the Australian community is that if the non-citizen fails the character test they will have their visa refused or cancelled (at [72] and [75]) and Stewart J disagreed and held that the deemed expectation is that failing the character test will be held against the non-citizen but that the expectation does not speak to the outcome in any given case (at [97] and [103]), the majority were agreed the expectations of the Australian community, as expressed by the Government in the Direction, do not determine the outcome of the decision because all relevant factors have to be weighed up and considered.
[35] Direction No. 90 is consistent with the above, save that it is even clearer in certain respects. First, it makes it express in paras 8.4(1) and (2) that the expectation of the community is not that failure of the character test should result in the non-citizen being denied a visa or their visa being cancelled – that expectation is confined to the particularly egregious types of cases set out in para 8.4(2). The character test as expressed in ss 501(6) and (7) of the Act can be failed on lesser bases. Secondly, para 8.4(4) expressly provides that “decision-makers should proceed on the basis of the Government’s views” as articulated in the Direction, “without independently assessing the community’s expectations in the particular case”.
(emphasis in original)
The Applicant’s Criminal Offending was serious and the Respondent submits that the expectation of the Australian community weighs heavily against revocation. The Tribunal agrees and finds that this primary consideration weighs heavily against revocation.
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
Legal consequences of the decision
The other consideration of legal consequences of the decision is not enlivened by the facts upon which this review is based, hence it is of neutral weight.
Extent of impediments if removed
Clause 9.2 of the Direction states:
(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 32 years old and physically fit. No language or cultural barriers are apparent, except any limitations resulting from his absence from the United States since early 2015. However, his ASD and ADHD will inhibit and restrict his ability to easily find friends, establish meaningful connections with positive individuals and make useful work-related contacts. Further, the fact that he has been absent from the United States since early 2015 will be an impediment. Whilst it is correct, as submitted, that his mentally-challenged mother, disconnected father and ailing aunt may be able to provide the Applicant with some support and assistance, the evidence suggests that such may be very limited in the unlikely event it is forthcoming.
As submitted by the Applicant and consistent with the evidence, the Tribunal finds that the Applicant will face substantial and unique difficulties if he is removed from Australia and returned to the United States.
In that context, if removed, the Applicant’s basic living standards would be negatively impacted and not be comparable to those available to fellow citizens of the United States. As Dr Cantwell-Bartl concluded, ‘I believe that to sever the connections [the Applicant has] here [in Australia] would not serve his mental health well’ noting, relevantly, that with regard to anxiety and depression, the Applicant’s mental health is presently stable.[45]
[45] Exhibit A1, 55 and 57.
The Tribunal finds that this consideration weighs in favour of revocation.
Impact on victims
There is no evidence engaging this consideration and no submissions were made in respect of it. Thus, this consideration is not enlivened and carries neutral weight.
Impact on Australian business interests
Again, there is no evidence engaging this consideration and no submissions were made in respect of it. This consideration is not enlivened and carries neutral weight.
CONCLUSION
In summary, the Tribunal acknowledges the expectations of the Australian community weigh heavily against revocation of the cancellation decision. The Tribunal has considered the countervailing primary considerations and other relevant consideration weighing in favour of revocation, namely the protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct, the strength, nature and duration of the Applicant’s ties to Australia, the best interests of a minor child in Australia and the extent of impediments if the Applicant is removed from Australia.
On balance, by reason of the matters set out above, the Tribunal finds such countervailing considerations in favour of revocation outweigh the primary one against it. Hence, the Tribunal is satisfied that there is another reason pursuant to the Act to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant’s visa.

I certify that the preceding 80 (eighty) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Mr A. Maryniak KC, Member

..........................[sgd]..............................................
Associate
Dated: 18 December 2023

Dates of hearing: 4 and 5 December 2023

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr. Shahed Sharify

Solicitors for the Applicant: Carina Ford Immigration Lawyers

Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Christopher Orchard

Solicitors for the Respondent Sparke Helmore

[2023] AATA 4150

18 December 2023

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Administrative Law

Statutory Interpretation

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Procedural Fairness

Jurisdiction

Statutory Construction

Remedies

Standing

Dates of hearing:	4 and 5 December 2023
Counsel for the Applicant:	Mr. Shahed Sharify
Solicitors for the Applicant:	Carina Ford Immigration Lawyers
Advocate for the Respondent:	Mr. Christopher Orchard
Solicitors for the Respondent	Sparke Helmore