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

[2020] AATA 3308

Mitchell and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Migration) [2020] AATA 3308 (4 August 2020)

Division:GENERAL DIVISION

File Number(s):      2020/3025

Re:Charvae Mitchell

APPLICANT

AndMinister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs

RESPONDENT

DECISION

Tribunal:Senior Member Dr N A Manetta

Date:4 August 2020

Date of written reasons:        31 August 2020

Place:Adelaide

For the reasons given orally at the conclusion of the hearing of this matter, the Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

..............[sgnd]........................................................

Senior Member N A Manetta

Catchwords

Mandatory cancellation of visa – criminal offending – the expectations of the Australian community - best interests of minor children – protection of Australian community - a primary consideration - Decision under review affirmed

Legislation

Migration Act 1958

Cases

FYBR v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCAFC 185

REASONS FOR DECISION

Senior Member Dr N A Manetta

31 August 2020

1. After delivery of my oral reasons, I received a request from the respondent for written reasons, which I now publish.

   APPLICATION BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL

2. This is an application by Mr Charvae Mitchell seeking a review of the decision of the respondent’s delegate dated 12 May 2020.[1] In this decision, the delegate declined to revoke the cancellation of Mr Mitchell’s visa. The visa had been cancelled mandatorily under section 501 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act). The mandatory cancellation of the visa had occurred because Mr Mitchell was serving in jail, on a full-time basis, part of a lengthy term of imprisonment he had received for certain offences. Section 501 obliged the respondent to cancel Mr Mitchell’s visa in these circumstances. The respondent’s delegate declined to revoke the cancellation in his or her discretion.

   [1] Ex R1, pp 20-29.

   TRIBUNAL’S TASK

3. Hearing the matter afresh on the evidence adduced before me, I must decide whether the cancellation of Mr Mitchell’s visa should be upheld or whether it should be revoked.  I must conduct a de novo hearing on the merits. The nature of such a hearing implies that I may set aside the decision under review and reinstate Mr Mitchell’s visa even though I can discern no error in the delegate’s decision; equally, if I decide that it is appropriate that Mr Mitchell’s visa be cancelled, I may do so notwithstanding any error in the delegate’s reasons. At the hearing before me, Mr Mitchell represented himself; Mr He appeared for the respondent.

   STATEMENT OF CONCLUSION

4. I have decided to affirm the decision under review.  This means the visa cancellation decision will stand.  In cases of this type, there is a very significant human dimension that must be addressed.  When a visa-cancellation decision is affirmed, there are often wider family impacts, as I believe there will be in this case. Nevertheless, I believe affirming the decision under review is appropriate in this case.

   REASONS

5. I now turn to explain my reasons.  Before doing so, I set out certain background facts.  Mr Mitchell was born in New Zealand in 1989.  He gave evidence that he has three brothers and three sisters. As I understand his evidence, there is an older sister; he is the second oldest; and then there are five younger siblings.

6. Mr Mitchell moved to Australia in 2005 when he was about 16 years of age. He moved here with his family.  He had completed a good part of his education in New Zealand, including all of his primary schooling and some of his secondary schooling. In 2005, the family came to Australia, as I have said, and settled on the Gold Coast.  Mr Mitchell said he attended high school up to Year 12, but he left school before his final exams and began his working life.

7. I am satisfied on the evidence before me that Mr Mitchell worked hard and effectively to build a life for himself in Australia after leaving school. He first began work on the Gold Coast in a bakery as a casual. After about a year, he found a better job working with the Amart Furniture company, packing and despatching furniture. He said he finished up with this company after one and a half to two years, in about 2008, and obtained what he referred to as his “scaffolding ticket” in the construction industry. He was a casual labourer at first with SAFA Scaffolding and stayed with that firm for a few years full-time.

8. He worked with other scaffolding companies (called Global Scaffolding and Star Scaffolding). He said he worked for six to seven years as a scaffolder. He said he finished up with scaffolding in 2015 or 2016.  He was earning good money as a scaffolder according to his ex-partner, Ms Stark, who gave evidence.

9. Mr Mitchell said that he met his ex-partner at a party in 2006. He started to see her from then on. They became a couple and eventually moved out to their own home in 2011. They have two daughters. The first was born in 2011; the second, in 2014. Shortly after the birth of the second daughter, their relationship foundered and eventually the couple separated in difficult circumstances.  Ms Stark gave evidence that these circumstances involved Mr Mitchell’s erratic episodes and his use of the drug methylamphetamine or “ice”.  I accept her evidence in this regard.

10. I accept the evidence of both Mr Mitchell and Ms Stark that they were particularly happy together in 2011.  I also accept that were very happy when their first child was born.

11. Mr Mitchell gave evidence that his relationship with Ms Stark is good now, although it was very difficult at the time of the break-up.   Ms Stark for her part maintained that their relationship had had difficulties but that Mr Mitchell was always a very good father. She also gave evidence that she could now appreciate what a good and loving relationship they had once had, although she is understandably somewhat apprehensive about Mr Mitchell given the past.  She would like to resume contact with him on a gradual basis to ensure his behaviour has improved.

12. I should mention at this stage that Mr Mitchell suffers from a bipolar disorder. This has been a source of difficulty for him in his life. As I understand matters, he was first diagnosed with this disorder in about 2014. It was recommended that he take a prescribed drug. Ms Stark confirmed that Mr Mitchell did not regularly adhere to the therapeutic regime prescribed for him with adverse consequences for his behaviour that were the subject of her evidence.   

    OFFENDING

13. I now set out some of Mr Mitchell’s offending. The offending has been extensive. I put much of the offending explicitly to Mr Mitchell for comment as did Mr He.

14. I found that for the most part Mr Mitchell denied or discounted his criminal record in his oral evidence to me. In his final submission to me Mr Mitchell reversed this position and said that he had found the questioning by me- and I think also by Mr He- to be “weird”. I have concluded that Mr Mitchell’s evidence and submissions, taken as whole, demonstrate a lack of insight into his behaviour, into the connection between his use of ice and his offending and into the connection between his use of ice and his failure to address his bipolar disorder.

15. I turn now to the offending[2].  On 6 March 2007, Mr Mitchell, who was then approximately 17 years of age, was found guilty of shoplifting on two occasions in the preceding month. No conviction was recorded, but he was fined $300.  Before me, Mr Mitchell denied that he was guilty of any offence and said that a friend had left him holding stolen goods.  He was wrongly prosecuted for the offence, he said. I note that that was the only offence recorded against Mr Mitchell’s name for quite some time.  It is minor and unimportant.

    [2] Ex R1 pp 31-33.

16. In 2015, approximately eight years later, matters became more serious. By this I do not mean that the offences necessarily were of themselves serious as no conviction was recorded in respect of a number of the offences, but they clearly displayed, in my opinion, a worrying tendency on his part to take illicit drugs (at least on occasion).  This was clearly a source of difficulty for him. I note he was found guilty in March 2015 of possessing utensils or pipes for use in connection with drugs. No conviction was recorded on this occasion. On 10 August 2015 he was found guilty of committing a public nuisance, but no conviction was recorded.  On 11 November 2016, he was found guilty of possessing dangerous drugs but, again, no conviction was recorded on this occasion. 

17. There are further offences of which Mr Mitchell was convicted involving trespass and failure to appear in accordance with an undertaking that were dealt with in 2017.  I note these but do not need to discuss them.

18. In 2018, Mr Mitchell was convicted of a number of serious offences that took place in the course of 2017. He was at this time about 27 years of age.  He was convicted of assaulting a female acquaintance and of taking her hire car and then using it to commit offences involving theft.

19. Mr Mitchell denied in his evidence before me that he had assaulted the acquaintance (other than by pushing her), and he denied that he had stolen the hire car. Rather, he said he had merely borrowed it and not returned it when expected. He said that he had only decided to plead guilty so that he could get the charges downgraded and thereby secure an early release on parole.  

20. So far as the theft offences are concerned, Mr Mitchell said that he had been invited to a party at private premises at Mermaid Beach on the Gold Coast where he was to meet friends.  He said he was wrongly and unexpectedly caught up in the company of people who had unlawfully removed property from the premises in question, and he insisted before me on his own innocence. The offending is dealt with in the Acting-Magistrate’s sentencing remarks[3].  I have acted on the basis that the remarks are accurate. It was of concern to me, as I have said, that Mr Mitchell chose to deny active involvement in this offending.

    [3] Ex R1 pp 38ff.

21. Mr Mitchell was also charged with, and found guilty of, breaking into letterboxes in an apartment block. He only belatedly admitted this offence under cross-examination, when it was put to him that he had been caught on CCTV.  There was really nothing he could say to deny the rightfulness of his conviction of this offence.

22. The offending of which Mr Mitchell was convicted in 2018 was serious.  It led to a sentence of 18 months in relation to the assault and a sentence of 15 months in relation to the charges of burglary and unlawful use of a car. Mr Mitchell, who had been in custody for some 210 days at the time of pleading guilty, was released on parole on the very day of sentencing.

23. Mr Mitchell’s visa was not liable to be cancelled mandatorily under s 501 of the Act because he was not serving a sentence of imprisonment at the time the sentence was imposed. Importantly, however, as a result of his offences, Mr Mitchell received a letter from the respondent’s department advising him of its intention to consider the discretionary cancellation of his visa. This letter is dated 2 July 2008[4]. Although it postdates the sentencing that had occurred some weeks earlier, the letter refers to the offences of which Mr Mitchell was convicted as pending charges only. I say this letter is important because it clearly informed Mr Mitchell that his right to reside in Australia was under review. There is no doubt in my opinion that once he received this letter while on parole (sometime in July), Mr Mitchell was clearly on notice that further breaches of the law could lead to a cancellation of his visa (even if he were lucky enough to be spared visa cancellation on this occasion). 

    [4] Ex R1, p 97.

24. In fact, Mr Mitchell engaged a migration agent to make representations on his behalf. These were made in late July. In the event, the representations were successful and Mr Mitchell was notified by letter shortly before Christmas that his visa would not be cancelled.

25. Mr Mitchell committed further breaches of the law while he was on parole, however. These resulted in further convictions[5].  Mr Mitchell was convicted in April 2019 of stealing, of receiving tainted property, and of the unlawful use of a car as well as of the unlawful possession of suspected stolen property. On 22 May 2019, he was also convicted of possessing counterfeit money. The offences of unlawful use of a car and receiving tainted property took place in November 2018 (while the cancellation of Mr Mitchell’s visa was still under consideration).

    [5] Ex R1, pp 31-32.

26. The stealing offence is alleged to have occurred on 2 February 2019. The unlawful possession of suspected stolen property was alleged also to have occurred on 2 February 2019, and the possession of counterfeit money was alleged to have occurred on 6 January 2019 and on 2 February 2019. All these offences occurred after Mr Mitchell had been fortunate enough to have had the representations made on his behalf accepted by the respondent.  I need not set out sentences in relation to these matters, but I note they were not trivial offences.

27. I also note that during his time on parole Mr Mitchell failed to report on several occasions to his parole officer. This led to the suspension of his parole by order of the parole board. Mr Mitchell was returned to custody in February 2019 and thereafter began to serve his earlier term of imprisonment of 18 months in jail.  I also note that Mr Mitchell had failed drug tests whilst on parole: the presence of methylamphetamine ice was found in his urine.[6]

    [6] See, for example, Exhibit R2, pp 196 and 206.

28. In my opinion, it is clear that when he was returned to custody in February 2019, Mr Mitchell began to serve a term of imprisonment of at least 12 months’ duration on a full-time basis in a custodial institution, and that this limb of the test for mandatory cancellation under section 501 of the Act was accordingly satisfied. I now turn to consider whether “another reason” exists for revoking the automatic cancellation of his visa. I am required in this regard to apply Direction 79 issued under section 499 of the Act.

    “Another reason” for revoking the cancellation decision

29. The Direction consists of a preamble and Parts A, B, and C. Of these three parts, Part C is relevant and it identifies  considerations that I need to take into account in determining whether to exercise the discretion to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the visa. The Preamble makes it clear that where the discretion to consider revocation is enlivened, the decision-maker must consider whether to revoke the cancellation given the specific circumstances of the case.

30. The Preamble refers to the Government’s commitment to protecting the Australian community from harm as a result of criminal activity or other serious conduct by “non-citizens”. The principles listed in paragraph 6.3 are of critical importance in furthering the objective of protecting the community. They reflect community values and standards with respect to determining whether the risk non-citizens pose is unacceptable.

31. The principles in question record that Australia has a sovereign right to determine whether non-citizens who are of character concern should remain in Australia. Remaining in Australia is a privilege Australia confers on non-citizens in the expectation that they will remain law-abiding and will respect important institutions such as Australia’s law enforcement framework and will not cause or threaten harm to individuals or the Australian community. It is recorded that the Australian community expects that visas will be cancelled by the government if non-citizens commit serious crimes in Australia. It is also recorded that non-citizens who have committed a serious crime should generally expect to forfeit the privilege of remaining in Australia. In some circumstances, criminal offending and the harm that would be caused if it were to be repeated may be so serious that any risk of similar conduct in the future is unacceptable. In these circumstances even other strong countervailing considerations may be insufficient to justify not cancelling the visa. In addition, Australia has a low tolerance of any criminal conduct by people who have been participating in the Australian community for only a short period of time.

32. In exercising the discretion, I must follow the guidelines set out in Direction 79. Information and evidence from independent and authoritative sources should be given appropriate weight. Primary considerations should generally be given greater weight than other considerations.

33. I turn now to Part C which is the relevant part. There are three primary considerations mentioned in Part C which I must consider; namely, protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct; secondly, the best interests of minor children in Australia; and, thirdly, the expectations of the Australian community.

34. Paragraph 13.1 repeats largely what I have recited in respect of the importance the direction places upon protection of the Australian community. I must have regard to the principle that the Government is actively committed to protecting the Australian community from harm.   I am required by Direction 79 to have regard to the nature and seriousness of the non-citizen’s conduct to date. I must also have regard to the risks to the Australian community should the non-citizen commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct.

35. Paragraph 13.1.1 sets out a number of factors to which I must have regard in determining the nature and seriousness of Mr Mitchell’s criminal offending.

36. It is true that Mr Mitchell has been involved in violence against a woman in that he assaulted the female acquaintance from whom he stole a hire car. Nevertheless, I think it is important to bear in mind that this is an isolated incident and that Mr Mitchell’s misconduct is centred upon crimes of dishonesty.

37. He has also been involved in illicit drug use in this time.  I must have regard to the frequency of Mr Mitchell’s offending, and in this regard I believe there has been a continuing trend of persistent offending by Mr Mitchell.

38. Paragraph 13.1.1 also requires me to have regard to whether Mr Mitchell has reoffended since being warned or made aware in writing about the consequences of offending for his migration status.  The letter dated 2 July 2018 informed Mr Mitchell that his right to remain in Australia was being considered afresh. He knew that his behaviour to that point had put his right to reside in Australia at risk.  He must also have known that further offending could only further endanger that right.

39. Overall, there is no doubt that Mr Mitchell’s offending, considered in its totality, is very serious, although no particular instance of offending is of itself of such a serious nature as to warrant deportation in my opinion. 

40. I am also required to weigh up the risk to the Australian community should Mr Mitchell commit further offences.  In this regard, it has not been established to my satisfaction that Mr Mitchell will engage in violent offending.

41. There is a significant risk, however, that Mr Mitchell will engage in offences of dishonesty and will turn once again to the use of illicit drugs if he is released into the community. I am particularly concerned by Mr Mitchell’s behaviour on parole when he resumed the taking of methylamphetamine or “ice” and committed offences.  This occurred even though Mr Mitchell was on notice that his migration status was being reviewed and even though he knew that the commission of offences whilst on parole would lead to his being rejailed.

42. In my opinion, there is a clear risk Mr Mitchell will commit further offences and take ice if he is released into the community.  Mr Mitchell submitted that he had participated in certain courses while in immigration detention, but he was not able to answer effectively questions which sought to elicit what he had learned.

1. As already indicated, he initially denied or discounted his criminal record in his sworn evidence to me.  I accept that applicants to this Tribunal who discount their criminal record often make that very poor choice because they are motivated by a fear of deportation. That fear is understandable. Nevertheless, I have very little evidence to persuade me that Mr Mitchell has accepted his wrongdoing and is genuinely remorseful.  I accept that he has written letters that express remorse, but I must say that I do not believe he is genuinely remorseful.

2. In addition, Mr Mitchell did not persuade me that he has an appropriately responsible attitude to his bipolar condition. It would appear that Mr Mitchell’s drug-taking has been influenced by this condition. I should explain what I mean by that. Mr Mitchell’s enhanced drug-taking occurred at about the same time he stopped regularly taking his medication, which he found had bad side-effects.

3. Mr Mitchell stressed to me that he now feels much better in the detention centre as he no longer takes ice and his diet and exercise regime are much improved. But that seems to me to be a very limited view of his problems. It seems clear that Mr Mitchell requires more than simply a healthy diet and exercise to deal with his bipolar disorder.   

4. When asked about his resumption of ice-taking while on parole, Mr Mitchell offered rather too readily as an excuse the relationship break-down he was experiencing with his ex-partner at the time and he referred also to other stressors in his life. That seemed to me to indicate a real lack of appreciation of the difficulties he has with ice-use and with his bipolar disorder.  Mr Mitchell will face many stressors in his life, and he must accept in my opinion that the resumption of a very dangerous drug habit is not excused by the stressors. He must also accept that medication for his bipolar disorder is a necessity in his case.  Without it, he will be at a heightened risk of turning to ice again as a dangerous alternative.

5. All in all, Mr Mitchell did not give me the impression that he understands that he needs to address his bipolar condition urgently and that he must stay away from illicit drugs at all costs because they lead him to anti-social behaviour.

6. It is convenient at this juncture to refer to the expectations of the Australian community, which is a factor I must also take into account. These are not to be assessed by the Tribunal. They are embedded within the direction itself as the full Federal Court decision in FYBR v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCAFC 185 makes clear. The expectations of the Australian community are a factor that weighs against Mr Mitchell.

7. I must also have regard to the best interests of all children in Australia who are affected by my decision. There are only two children of which I am aware, Mr Mitchell’s two daughters. I accept that the interests of these children would be better served by Mr Mitchell’s continued presence in Australia. I accept Ms Stark’s evidence in this regard. She made it clear that notwithstanding the early difficulties she has had with Mr Mitchell (which led, for example, to an apprehended violence order being taken out), the interests of their two children are best served by Mr Mitchell having a future role in their lives.

8. She gave candid evidence that she was, in fact, surprised by the continuing attachment her children have to him. She said that the older child, now nine, has experienced a great deal of stress and anxiety in relation to the prospect of Mr Mitchell’s deportation to New Zealand. The daughter has received psychological counselling, her anxiety has been so serious. I accept that the older child does have a particular bond with Mr Mitchell.  The younger child also has a bond according to Ms Stark although she is only six. It is likely to be a lesser one in the circumstances. I also take into account Ms Stark’s evidence that the children prefer to address her present husband by his first name and do not call him “dad”.

9. As against this, I take into account the fact that Ms Stark does have a loving and supportive partner.  He is now her husband and fulfils a substitute parental role in the children’s lives. I also take into account the fact that Mr Mitchell’s parents, who are the grandparents of the two children, often have the children around to stay and enjoy a good relationship with Ms Stark. The children do have a positive extended family life, in my opinion.

10. I accept Ms Stark’s evidence that she will find it very difficult indeed to explain Mr Mitchell’s deportation to her children. I accept her evidence that she would prefer to re-integrate Mr Mitchell into the children’s lives, albeit gradually. I also bear in mind, however, that Mr Mitchell’s departure to New Zealand will not prevent Ms Stark taking the children to visit him there from time to time if that is seen to be desirable although I do not believe that there will necessarily be very frequent visits given the expenses associated with air travel and bearing in mind also the travel limitations that may persist in the foreseeable future on account of the coronavirus pandemic.

11. All in all, I do accept Ms Stark’s view of the desirability of Mr Mitchell staying in Australia to support the growth and development of their children, and I have accorded their interests significant weight. It is a factor that counts clearly in Mr Mitchell’s favour.

12. I now turn to the other considerations which I must consider under paragraph 14. There is a non-exhaustive list of five. The only two of the five that need to be considered, in my opinion, are the strength nature and duration of ties that Mr Mitchell has with Australia and the extent of impediments he would face if he is removed.

13. I accept that Mr Mitchell considers Australia home. I accept that his family, whom he loves, are located in Australia for the most part. I proceed on the basis that he does not have any extended family in New Zealand who would be likely to receive him warmly.  I accept, therefore, that Mr Mitchell will have to find his own way by and large in New Zealand and that he has not lived there for many years.

14. I accept that Mr Mitchell has a strong bond with his children and his mother, father and other family members.  I accept that he has contributed positively to Australia in the early part of his life by holding down jobs and beginning a family against the background of a happy domestic life. I discount entirely the shoplifting offence which was followed by a great number of years of law-abiding behaviour.

15. I accept also that Mr Mitchell’s immediate family in Australia will miss him.  I accept the evidence that Mr Mitchell’s mother gave and the letters that were received into evidence that he is a valued member of the family. I accept that he will not continue to participate in family life in the same way as he might were he to remain in Queensland. There is the possibility, of course, that in due course after the lifting of travel restrictions, family members may travel to visit him in New Zealand; but I accept that one-on-one family contact will cease at the present time.

16. I think that the strength, nature, and duration of ties is a factor that counts in Mr Mitchell’s favour.

17. I also believe that Mr Mitchell will face some impediments in New Zealand. I accept that he should be able to find work in New Zealand in due course, but he will find it difficult to find work for the foreseeable future given the economic downturn in New Zealand that has been caused by the pandemic.  He is likely to have to depend on welfare benefits for some time.   As against that, I accept that Mr Mitchell does have job offers in Australia that he could immediately take up.

18. Of particular concern to me is the fact that without a strong and stable network of support, I believe Mr Mitchell will lapse into very poor habits so far as the taking of prescribed medication is concerned and so far as the resumption of his ice-habit is concerned.

19. I think he would be less likely to relapse in Australia than in New Zealand and so Mr Mitchell’s interests are better served by his remaining in Australia.

20. Nevertheless, I bear in mind that Mr Mitchell, when he was on parole, did not live harmoniously with his family who might have exercised a degree of positive influence over his behaviour.[7] I also bear in mind that he is now past 30 years of age and his parents are employed full-time. Mr Mitchell is well and truly an adult and would be free to occupy himself as he wishes were he to remain in Australia.  For the reasons I have given, I believe that there is a real risk of Mr Mitchell reoffending and resuming an illicit drug habit if he were released into the Australian community.

    [7] See Exhibit R2, p 243 (entry alongside date of 12 Oct 18).

    WEIGHING UP OF FACTORS

21. The weighing up of the factors in this case has not been easy. I have had particular regard to the interests of Mr Mitchell’s children, which is a primary consideration. I have also had regard to the other positive matters in Mr Mitchell’s favour to which I have referred.

22. In my decision to affirm the decision under review, I have found that the critical consideration has been my lack of confidence in Mr Mitchell’s prospects of leading a law-abiding life in Australia.  I do not believe that Mr Mitchell has a proper appreciation of the undesirability and impact of his past criminal behaviour; of the need he has to address his bipolar condition with conventional medication; and of the need he has to stay away from any use of ice whatsoever if he is to avoid a relapse into crime.  When Mr Mitchell was given an opportunity to reform himself (namely, when he was released on parole in June 2018), he lapsed into inappropriate behaviour including the taking of illicit drugs and the commission of criminal offences.  He was not dissuaded from this course of action in 2018 by the 210 days he had already spent in custody nor by the letter he received from the respondent in July 2018, which clearly indicated to him the prospect of a visa cancellation. 

23. I do not believe Mr Mitchell’s bipolar condition has ever really been under proper control for an extended period, and I doubt on the evidence before me that Mr Mitchell accepts the need for adherence to a regime of medication.

24. I accept that as  a result of my affirming the decision under review, Mr Mitchell will lose contact with his daughters, which is an important aspect of his life, perhaps the most important one for him at the present time, and it is important to them as well as I have said. I accept that he will also lose one-on-one contact with his family, which is important to him and to his family.  

25. I must balance, however, all the matters that are in favour of revoking the cancellation of the visa against what I believe is a real risk to the Australian community.  In all the circumstances of this case, I believe the interests of the Australian community should prevail in the circumstances of this case and that Mr Mitchell should return to New Zealand.

    FORMAL DECISION

26. The formal decision of the Tribunal will be to affirm the decision under review.

I certify that the preceding 68 (sixty-eight) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Senior Member Manetta. 

...........[sgnd]..............................

Administrative Assistant Legal

Dated: 31 August 2020

Date of hearing: 20.07.2020, 21.07.2020, 31.07.2020

Applicant: Self-represented

Respondent’s representative: Mr Zeng He, Clayton Utz