QDJM and Director-General of Security

This matter concerned an appeal by QDJM (the applicant) against an adverse security assessment made by the Director-General of Security (the respondent). The dispute arose from a recommendation for the cancellation of the applicant's visa, based on findings that the applicant posed a risk to security due to acts of foreign interference. The case was heard by Deputy President Britten-Jones.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was to determine whether the applicant constituted a risk to security within the meaning of section 4 of the *Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979* (Cth). This involved assessing whether the facts, as found by the Tribunal, supported the adverse security assessment and the subsequent recommendation for visa cancellation. The Tribunal was required to consider evidence presented in both open and closed sessions, including ASIO interviews, media reports, and affidavits.

The Tribunal affirmed the adverse security assessment. It reasoned that the applicant's conduct, including his dealings with a foreign government's task force investigating a prominent businessman and his offer of assistance in exchange for the repatriation of assets, indicated a risk to Australia's security. The Tribunal found that the applicant was, directly or indirectly, a risk to security as defined by the ASIO Act, making the cancellation of his visa consistent with and necessary for security requirements. The Tribunal's decision was based on evidence presented in both open and closed hearings, with findings made in general terms to protect the applicant's identity.