Okeke and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship
[2012] AATA 882
•14 December 2012
[2012] AATA 882
Division GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION File Number(s)
2012/0636
Re
Ronny Okeke
APPLICANT
And
Minister for Immigration and Citizenship
RESPONDENT
DECISION
Tribunal Mr Dean Letcher, QC, Senior Member
Date 14 December 2012 Place Sydney The decision under review is affirmed
..............[sgd]..........................................................
Mr Dean Letcher, QC, Senior Member
CITIZENSHIP - Cancellation of citizenship approval – applicant charged with multiple criminal offences - lengthy period of imprisonment - failure to make pledge of committment within 12 months – applicant determined not of good character - consideration of criminal record considerations in Australian Citizenship Instructions - discretion to cancel approval exercised - cancellation of child's approval resulting from cancellation of applicant's approval - decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Australian Citizenship Act 2007: ss 21(2); 25(1), (2)(b)(iii), (3)(a), (4); 26(3), (3)(b)
CASES
Re Drake v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No 2) (1979) 2 ALD 634
SECONDARY MATERIALS
Australian Citizenship Instructions
REASONS FOR DECISION
Mr Dean Letcher, QC, Senior Member
14 December 2012
THE APPLICATION
The applicant, Ronny Okeke, seeks a review by the Tribunal of a decision on 16 January 2012 of the Respondent Minister for Immigration and Citizenship to cancel initial approval of him becoming an Australian citizen under s 25 of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (‘the Act’). The Minister found that Mr Okeke was not of good character (s 25(2)(b)(iii) and in the exercise of his discretion under s 25(1) decided against Mr Okeke .
ISSUES
In respect of this application for review, the following issues are to be determined:
Whether Mr Okeke is not of good character in accordance with s 25(2)(b)(iii) of the Act;
If I am satisfied that Mr Okeke is not of good character, should the discretion in s 25(1) of the Act be exercised so as to cancel Mr Okeke’s citizenship approval.
I note that if I find Mr Okeke is not of good character and, therefore, exercise the discretion to cancel his approval, this will have the effect of cancelling the approval given to his daughter, J.
LEGISLATIVE BACKGROUND
The Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (‘the Act’) sets out the process of acquiring citizenship. It can be acquired by virtue of birth, descent, adoption or conferral. Under s 21(2) of the Act, a person is eligible to become an Australian citizen if the Minister is satisfied that the person is of good character at the time of the Minister’s decision.
In respect of citizenship by conferral, a person makes an application for initial approval. This initial approval does not, however, finalise the process. The applicant is put under inquiry and, if found suitable, must within 12 months make a pledge of commitment for conferral to be final. At any time in that 12 months, if the pledge has not been taken, then pursuant to s 25(3)(a) of the Act, the Minister may cancel the initial approval and determine that The applicant cannot make the pledge for a particular time of not more than 12 months (s 26(3)).
An application for approval was made for Mr Okeke’s daughter, J, at the same time. If Mr Okeke’s approval is cancelled then, under s 25(4) of the Act, J’s approval must also be cancelled.
BACKGROUND
Mr Okeke began life in Nigeria but at all relevant times was a citizen of New Zealand. He entered Australia on 3 February 2000 on a Sub-class 444 Special Category visa. On 21 August 2007 he applied for Australian citizenship by conferral. His daughter J, then 6 years old, was included in the application, which was approved by a delegate on 5 November 2007. J has a similar visa.
On 1 August 2008, Mr Okeke was charged with criminal offences, and on 4 August 2008, under s 26(3) of the Act, the Minister determined that Mr Okeke could not make a pledge of commitment until the end of a period of 12 months because he had been charged.
On 4 February 2010 Mr Okeke was sentenced on the five charges to which he had pleaded guilty:
(1)Attempt to possess marketable quantity of unlawfully imported border controlled drugs/plants – sentence 18 months imprisonment.
(2)Attempt to possess marketable quantity of unlawfully imported border controlled drugs/plants – sentenced to three years imprisonment.
(3)Possess marketable quantity of unlawfully imported border controlled drugs/plants – sentence three years imprisonment.
(4)Possess marketable quantity of border controlled drugs/plants suspected unlawfully imported – sentence six years six months imprisonment with a minimum of four years imprisonment.
(5)Dealing in proceeds of crime – 14 months imprisonment.
The total head sentence for all offences was 10 years and six months imprisonment, with a non-parole period of six years. It was noted that Mr Okeke first entered custody in August 2008 and would be eligible for parole on 31 July 2016.
On 16 January 2012, the Minister’s delegate set out his reasoning in a letter and decided to cancel approval of Mr Okeke’s application. Consequently under s 25(4) of the Act he also cancelled that of J. From that decision to cancel, Mr Okeke seeks review.
AUSTRALIAN CITIZENSHIP INSTRUCTIONS
The Australian Citizenship Instructions (the Instructions), published by the Minister’s department, provide guidance to decision-makers on the relevant criteria for making decisions on citizenship. Chapter 10 of the Instructions deals with “Character”. Decision makers should ordinarily apply policy considerations unless to do so would produce an unjust decision in the circumstances : Re Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No 2) (1979) 2 ALD 634.
At the time of the original decision the Instructions contained the following two sentences:
“The onus of proof is on the applicant”, and
“An Applicant may be assumed to be of good character unless there is evidence to the contrary.”
These sentences have now been deleted in the most recent Instructions in keeping with the absence of onus in administrative decision making.
CONSIDERATIONS
Criminal convictions are prima facie evidence that a person is not of good character.
The Instructions, in Attachment A – Character summary, refer to several specific considerations for decision-makers to take into account regarding persons convicted of crimes:
(1)Seriousness of offences – drug trafficking is given as an example of a serious crime.
(2)Length of prison sentence – a sentence of 12 months or more or multiple terms where the aggregate is more than two years – these are considered to be serious.
(3)Repeat convictions for the same offence – ‘indicate a serious repeat offender’.
(4)Repeat criminal behaviour over time – ‘when different offences occur’.
(5)Length of time between last offence and application for Australian Citizenship.
(6)Extenuating circumstances.
(7)Age at date of offence.
(8)Associations with other criminals.
(9)Is it a single offence ‘out of character’?
Other considerations set out in the Instructions, but not relevant to this case, are ‘crimes against humanity’ and ‘crimes in other countries’. Under “Other factors” the Instructions also list possible indications of character such as length of employment, family stability and reputation in community.
Direction No.55, concerning visa cancellations pursuant to s 501 of the Migration Act 1958, emphasises the protection of the Australian community from criminal acts. The emphasis in respect of citizenship applications, referring to the Act and the Instructions, is the ‘enduring moral qualities’ of the person, although the likelihood of future criminal offences is obviously relevant. The emphasis, in respect of these applications, is on character rather than risk of harm.
THE CRIMINAL OFFENCES
The judge who sentenced Mr Okeke described some of the facts of the offences, to all of which Mr Okeke had pleaded guilty:
OFFENCE 1: On 19 June 2007 Mr Okeke arranged a mailbox at a shop with a franchise to receive parcels addressed to KMP (Keep Me Posted) boxes in his shop. To do this Mr Okeke produced a false drivers licence with his own photograph but in a false name of Aslam Campella. About 6 months later Mr Okeke went to an empty house at Regents Park on two successive days. The next day police intercepted a parcel from overseas containing 99.7 grams of cocaine powder directed to the Regents Park address. Three days later Mr Okeke twice phoned Australia Post to locate the parcel and next day he phoned again.
This was the attempted importation of a substantial quantity of a dangerous drug of addiction pursued over a 6 month period using knowledge, skill and persistence.
OFFENCE 2: In early 2008 Mr Okeke used the false name Victor Jackson to obtain an overseas parcel from an Arncliffe mailbox licensee addressed to Victor Jackson. In late February 2008, Mr Okeke returned to the Arncliffe shop and said he expected a parcel from overseas which he then collected in early March. In late March this routine was repeated when he showed the false Victor Jackson licence and received another parcel. Also in late March, Customs found heroin secreted in a parcel addressed to Victor Jackson. In May 2008 Mr Okeke returned again to the Arncliffe shop saying he expected another parcel (which arrived but it contained nothing illicit) and he followed that up a few days later. Another parcel for Victor Jackson arrived at the Arncliffe shop later in May and was found to contain a powder including over half a kilo of pure cocaine.
OFFENCE 3: On 13 December 2007 Mr Okeke went to another mailbox licensee in Petersham. In March 2008 he returned, inquiring about a parcel addressed to his sister Campella Aslam. A parcel was intercepted by Customs. It contained a substantial hidden quantity of cocaine. In May 2008 another parcel addressed to Campella Aslam arrived at Petersham Post Office containing over 300 grams of pure cocaine. Mr Okeke telephoned the post office identifying himself as Campella Aslam using a telephone found in his possession later.
OFFENCE 4: On 24 July 2008 Mr Okeke and his wife flew to Coolangatta and returned to Sydney on Wednesday, 28 July. On Friday, 30 July they drove from Sydney to Brisbane overnight arriving at about 9am on 31 July and drove back to Sydney that day. The next day, on a road south of Sydney, Mr Okeke and his wife were stopped by Police. Their vehicle was found to contain over 1 kilo of “pellets” containing over 470 grams pure heroin. The undisputed evidence accepted was that the pellets had been ingested by a courier and imported into Australia shortly before.
OFFENCE 5: A search of Mr Okeke unit in Bankstown showed $60,150 cash concealed in the garage. There was no credible exculpatory explanation for the possession of this large amount of cash and the charge alleged dealing with the proceeds of crime.
APPLICATION OF THE INSTRUCTIONS
The factors outlined in the Instructions which provide guidance to decision-makers in respect of an applicant’s criminal record are stated above. They are relevant to Mr Okeke’s circumstances and the particular crimes proved in the following ways:
(1) SERIOUSNESS OF OFFENCES
The inferences drawn by the sentencing judge from the facts above (all uncontested) were that Mr Okeke was a principal in repeated, sophisticated drug trafficking offences, resulting in substantial cash resources. He found that over a period of at least a year Mr Okeke repeatedly organised the importation of large amounts of addictive drugs in several different operations. He was “not a courier or a mule but a person engaged in the importation scheme and money laundering”.
The judge found that Mr Okeke had a scheme to avoid having to reveal his true identity and to prevent detection. He obtained the tracking numbers and consignee details of the various parcels, used a number of telephones and SIM cards in false names and had the mobile phone numbers and contact details of people in Brazil from where a number of the packages had been sent.
(2) LENGTH OF PRISON SENTENCES
For each of the five offences the sentence of imprisonment was over twelve months, the least being 14 months and the greatest being six years and six months.
The sentences reflect the gravity with which each offence was viewed by the judge.
(3) REPEAT CONVICTIONS FOR THE SAME OFFENCE
Mr Okeke did not repeat the offences after conviction (which is what this point really concerns). He had not been convicted of any offence before his arrest on 1 August 2008. While it is true that he committed multiple offences of drug importation, that aspect is more relevant to the next point.
(4) REPEAT CRIMINAL BEHAVIOUR OVER TIME
Between at least June 2007 and August 2008 Mr Okeke engaged in a systematic series of carefully thought out large scale importations of two of the most dangerous addictive drugs using a variety of methods. He was stopped only by arrest. It can be inferred that Mr Okeke may have continued in such a manner, if not for his detection and arrest.
(5) LENGTH OF TIME BETWEEN LAST OFFENCE AND APPLICATION FOR CITIZENSHIP
The offences for which Mr Okeke was charged took place between June 2007 and August 2008. Most of the offences occurred after Mr Okeke made his application on 21 August 2007. This point is presumably to judge whether “the sinner has turned from his wickedness” determined to make a fresh start, but here there is no such Biblical change. Nor was there after the initial approval was given on 5 November 2007. Indeed the last drug seizure on 1 August 2008 was of over one kilogram of pellets containing over 470 grams of pure heroin.
(6) EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCES
Mr Okeke has said that he was addicted to the drugs that he was importing. This can be seen as an extenuating factor relevant to motivation. There is no evidence to support this assertion. After arrest he was not observed to be withdrawing, he did not seek drug detoxification treatment, or an addiction course.
In his evidence to the Tribunal, Mr Okeke maintained that taking cocaine had made him go to sleep. When it was put to him that this was directly opposite to the usually observed effect, he responded, “Different people react differently to drugs”. He also said that he suffered depression and found comfort in crack cocaine.
I did not find this submission at all convincing, particularly in the context of his detailed and persistent attempts to complete the various importations, his considerable travel and organisation without apparent difficulty in the days before his arrest. These activities appear contrary to what one might presume would be the activities of someone with a drug addiction and serious depression.
Mr Okeke alleged that his supplier had forced him to assist because he owed him $11,000.00 for drugs. The fact that he had $60,150.00 cash stored in his garage at the time of arrest told against this story, making this submission less credible.
Mr Okeke suffered from hypotrophic cardiomyopathy (enlargement of areas surrounding the heart), which lead to the insertion of a pacemaker after imprisonment. He alleged, at one stage, that he needed to make money from drugs to fund a very expensive heart transplant operation, and at another time he needed the money for some other heart surgery.
There is no evidence before the Tribunal that he was ever advised that a transplant was advisable or a possibility. When Mr Okeke was asked whether free medical care had been available in Australia through Medicare, because he had permanent resident status, he virtually conceded that this was so, but said that he had not realised it at the time.
It is clear from the pre-sentence assessment reports and gaol documents before the Tribunal that Mr Okeke has sought to use his undoubted medical condition to obtain sympathy. He told relatives that he tried to obtain a large amount of money because he required a heart transplant. The fact is that he has now received expert treatment, which he would most likely have received for free if he had not been imprisoned, and that treatment has stabilised his condition.
Mr Okeke is Nigerian by birth but fluent in English, well-educated and well-travelled. The sentencing judge found no extenuating circumstances relevant to sentencing for the offences.
Remorse and assistance with the investigation of the offence can be seen as mitigating circumstances. Mr Okeke declined to assist police by naming any accomplices or explaining the various schemes he was involved in. The probation officer who interviewed him reported that he lied on a number of matters of importance in ways he thought might assist him on sentence.
Before the Tribunal, it appeared that Mr Okeke had no real idea of what had become of his “father who had been murdered by rebels during the civil war”, and the parents who had been ‘subsistence farmers’ turned out to be a doctor and businesswoman. These matters, if true, might have attracted some sympathy.
If Mr Okeke is denied citizenship he is liable to have his present visa cancelled and he could be deported to New Zealand at the conclusion of his sentence. I do not regard the inability to have Australian medical care as an extenuating circumstance. He has New Zealand citizenship, as does his daughter. He would, therefore, be covered by a Medicare-type medical benefits scheme in New Zealand. One can presume that the medical system there is comparable to the Australian system.
I find that there are no relevant extenuating circumstances.
(7) AGE AT TIME OF OFFENCES
Born on 25 November 1963 Mr Okeke was aged 44 at the earliest offence and is now aged 48 years. Age is, therefore, not a factor in Mr Okeke’s favour.
(8) ASSOCIATIONS WITH OTHER CRIMINALS
There is no direct evidence of membership of any gang or group. There is, however, an inference from surveillance in Brisbane that by prior arrangement he met an international drug courier from whom he received the heroin pellets in July 2008. There is a further inference from material in Mr Okeke’s possession at the time of his arrest that he was in contact with criminals in Brazil who posted various parcels containing drugs at his direction. This is evidence that he had criminal contacts over a period of time.
(9) SINGLE OFFENCE OUT OF CHARACTER?
There were five offences committed over a period of more than a year. There was no evidence of contrition upon arrest, nor of unusual circumstances affecting his judgment or mental functioning. Although Mr Okeke claims that he was suffering from mental conditions at the time of his offences. The sentencing judge was “not convinced the offender’s mental problems are such as to lessen the importance of general deterrence in this sentencing exercise”
Mr Okeke had no prior offences and he came from a very respectable family, but it was not an isolated incident explicable by remarkable or unforeseeable events. Money appeared to be a motivating factor.
OTHER FACTORS
The short length of employment as a nursing assistant, very unstable family life and lack of community involvement do not assist Mr Okeke.
CONCLUSION WITH RESPECT TO THE INSTRUCTIONS
My conclusion is that the factors outlined in the Instructions which provide guidance to decision-makers when assessing whether an applicant is of good character relating to proven criminal offences do not assist Mr Okeke.
EVIDENCE OF WITNESSES
At the hearing of this matter, Mr Okeke gave oral evidence and called a chaplain and four family members who gave evidence by telephone.
Mr Okeke was not an impressive witness. He expressed deep remorse for his crimes but appeared to have little insight into why he committed them, apart from losing his job and needing money allegedly to fund heart surgery and pay his drug supplier. Mr Okeke insisted that the only reason for his crimes was that he lost his job and was told by his cardiologist that the only option for his heart condition was surgery that would cost $200,000.00. There was no evidence before the Tribunal which confirmed this and medical reports contradicted such a suggestion. When asked about the effects of his drug importations on others, he could be no more specific than to say that drugs affect so many people, everyone was affected, all human beings.
Ms Wikabe is Mr Okeke’s sister living in Canada. She has taken J to live with her family, which includes a girl of J’s age. She has regular telephone contact with Mr Okeke. She describes him as a very caring father who speaks to J most days. She said that J is very positive about wishing to return to Australia but that if she wishes to remain in Canada at the time of Mr Okeke’s release, then she is most welcome to do so. By that time J will be in high school in the same year as her cousin. Ms Wikabe had very little contact with the applicant in the years before his arrest. She found his law breaking quite foreign to his family and its values.
Mr Wikabe, her husband, was shocked by news of Mr Okeke’s crimes. He said it was a family duty and cultural responsibility to give a home to J. He said that Nigerian, and his family values, were that it was always a child’s best place to be with both natural parents. He believed that Mr Okeke was remorseful and retained his family’s enduring moral qualities, but he had not discussed details of Mr Okeke’s charges, although he was aware of the crimes.
Mr Winani, brother-in-law, is the brother of Mr Okeke’s second wife, who now lives with him in Queensland. He described Mr Okeke’s wife as being paranoid and depressed. She is studying nursing and is unable to care for J. He believed that Mr Okeke was remorseful and essentially a worthy person. He did not express a view about the likelihood of Mr Okeke’s relationship with his wife being resumed.
Major Brian Wilson of the Salvation Army was chaplain at the Windsor jail where he knew Mr Okeke between July and October 2011, but not outside that period. He approached Mr Okeke “from a Christian viewpoint” and believed that he felt remorse for his actions and for the bad effect this had on family relationships. He believed Mr Okeke “had a grasp on the Christian ethic” but characterized his behaviour as being “silly and he made a few mistakes”. He had a practice of not enquiring about the nature of the crimes of inmates and did not do so in this case. I felt that, very properly, Major Wilson extended Christian charity to Mr Okeke albeit on only partial knowledge of his history. A letter of Peter Turk, the chaplain at Cessnock was tendered to the effect that Mr Okeke attended church services.
Mr Enemkpali, a cousin resident in America for 30 years, last met Mr Okeke in Nigeria in 2006. He believed his offences arose by “helping someone” or being a “middleman” and was shocked that a member of a Christian family could be involved in serious drug offences.
These witnesses were very loyal to Mr Okeke as a family member, were concerned about J’s welfare but knew little about the detail of Mr Okeke’s recent life.
PRIMARY CONSIDERATION OF WELFARE OF THE CHILD
In addressing all aspects of the decision under review, the Tribunal has given primary consideration the to the welfare of J, the only child affected by the decision.
Australia is a signatory to the Convention on the Rights of the Child and our laws and policies require the welfare of children to be a primary consideration. Prima facie, the well-being of J is best-served by living with both her biological parents. That does not seem to be a real possibility as her mother has not had contact with her for about six years, and there is no reason to believe that contact will be resumed. If that is the case, then she may be best-served by living with one parent, her father. Does the cancellation of citizenship of her father really bear upon the welfare of J? If he is released from prison and retains his present visa, he and J are entitled to remain together in Australia. If he is released but his visa is cancelled, then he will be deported to New Zealand, the country of J’s birth, to which she is free to travel from Canada and the two could remain together in New Zealand.
I think the relevant question is whether J’s welfare is seriously affected by the possible loss of opportunity to live with her father in Australia (because if he loses citizenship then he may lose his visa and may not remain in Australia). J has her own visa entitling her to live in Australia. The question then becomes whether there is a significant detriment to J’s welfare by being able to live with her father in New Zealand but possibly not live with him in Australia. I can take notice that New Zealand is very similar to Australia in health, education, political, economic and cultural matters.
J was born in New Zealand in 2000. She lived with her mother in Auckland while Mr Okeke was working in Sydney until she was about two years old. She then came to Australia and lived with both until they separated shortly after. She lived with her mother and her mother’s de facto until early 2005 with Mr Okeke having irregular weekend access. In June 2005, then aged four, J commenced living with Mr Okeke and his new wife until 1 August 2008 when Mr Okeke was arrested and imprisoned. (During some of that time Mr Okeke’s mother lived at the unit and had a large measure of the care of J who was at daycare and later at school from age five). After the arrest, J saw Mr Okeke only in gaol and only on a few occasions until early 2009 when she went to North America. From then until now J has lived with Mr Okeke’s sister, first in the USA and now in Canada. Her aunt and uncle have a daughter about the same age as J and J is welcome to live in that family indefinitely.
In her 12 years of life, J has lived with her father for about three years. During that time he was either at work as a nursing assistant or pursuing drug importations or both. There was no period in which Mr Okeke had 12 or 24 hour a day child care on his own. While in prison Mr Okeke has spoken to J by telephone almost daily. There is no evidence of any existing relationship between J and his wife who went to live in Queensland when J left Sydney. I do not believe that J’s welfare and best interests are seriously affected by the question of whether Mr Okeke has Australian citizenship.
EXERCISE OF DISCRETION
Section 25(1) of the Act provides that the Minister may cancel the approval if Mr Okeke has not become a citizen and is not of good character(s 25(2)(iii)). This imports a discretion which the Tribunal may exercise as it stands in the place of the Minister. In addition to the Act and regulations made under the Act, the Australian Citizenship Instructions is a policy document to be used as guidance to decision-makers, but none of these instruments specify the considerations which should be taken into account in exercising that discretion.
Mr Okeke submits that his case indicates both “compelling and compassionate grounds” why the Tribunal should exercise the discretion in his favour.
Firstly, Mr Okeke says that the offences proved have prevented him from taking the pledge of commitment required by s 25(3)(a) of the Act. This is true but under s 26(3)(b) of the Act the Minister may determine that he cannot take the pledge if he has been charged with an offence – which was Mr Okeke’s situation.
Secondly, Mr Okeke submits that because citizenship might give permanent residence, certainty and security to J, the compassionate grounds raised relate to the care of J. I have dealt with this aspect above.
Thirdly, it is submitted that there are extenuating health issues. I find the evidence given with respect to this factor not compelling and, therefore, have attributed it little weight.
Fourthly, it is said that Mr Okeke and his wife have attempted to form strong ties with Australia. In fact, there is no substantial evidence that this was so except insofar as they obtained employment and the applicant bought a home unit. There is no substantial evidence that this relationship will continue and, therefore, I attribute this contention little weight.
CONCLUSIONS
I find that Mr Okeke is not of good character for the reasons stated above.
I have considered the criteria set out in the Instructions and in particular the criminal record considerations with respect to assessing the character of persons convicted of crimes. The offences committed by Mr Okeke are extremely serious. They were committed over a lengthy period, some after the application for citizenship was made, involving drugs of addiction and a scheme of some sophistication with a view to profiting from the harm caused to drug users.
The factors as outlined in the Instructions weigh against Mr Okeke. A primary consideration, that of the best interests of the child J, has been given due weight, but in her particular circumstances those best interests are not seriously affected by refusal of approval. I note the limited parenting role Mr Okeke played, the problematic role he might be able to play after release if he stayed in Australia and the excellent care J is now able to receive from her extended family.
Mr Okeke has not told the truth about the degree or nature of his involvement in a sophisticated scheme of smuggling drugs of addiction into Australia. He has attempted to avoid facing up to the social harm likely from his crimes and he has put forward a false picture of his health condition to gain sympathy and a lesser punishment. The criminal activity was highly profitable to the applicant, who continued it until the day of his arrest, and could well be tempted to repeat the scheme if free to do so. There are no reliable signs in his presentation or history that his character has undergone significant change for the better.
Assessing the weight to be given to the various primary considerations of the offence committed by Mr Okeke were serious, the length of the prison sentence is considerable, he repeatedly committed offences connected with importation of drugs, the crimes were committed both before and after his application for citizenship and there are no relevant substantial extenuating circumstances.
The only primary consideration which assists Mr Okeke’s case in any way is the welfare of J. He had an intermittent relationship in the past and might also do in the future. J has a settled suburban life in the care of her extended family. There is the possibility that J could live with her father in New Zealand. These matters mean the factor of J’s welfare does not weigh strongly in favour of Mr Okeke and is does not outweigh the other considerations which are to be taken into account.
DECISION
The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.
I certify that the preceding 70 (seventy) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Mr Dean Letcher, QC, Senior Member
.........[sgd]............................................
Associate
Dated 14 December 2012
Date of hearing 22 October 2012 Counsel for the Applicant Elizabeth Bishop Solicitors for the Applicant Salovs Legal Humanitarian Solicitors for the Respondent Cate Darcy. Department of Immigration and Citizenship
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Immigration & Refugee Law
Legal Concepts
-
Judicial Review
-
Character Assessment
-
Criminal Convictions
-
Natural Justice & Procedural Fairness
0
1
0