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

RDVN and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Migration) [2020] AATA 5141 (21 December 2020)
AppID:  RDVN and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs
MatterType:    Migration
Division:GENERAL DIVISION
File Number:          2020/6060
Re:RDVN
APPLICANT

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

DECISION
Tribunal:Senior Member D. J. Morris
Date:21 December 2020
Place:Melbourne

The Tribunal decides to set aside the decision of the delegate of the Respondent dated 23 September 2020. In its place, under section 43(1) of the Administrative Appeals TribunalAct 1975, the Tribunal substitutes a decision that the Applicant not be refused a Bridging E (Class WE) visa under s 501(1) of the Migration Act 1958.
...[sgd]....................................................................
Senior Member D. J. Morris
Catchwords
MIGRATION – refusal of Bridging E (Class WE) visa – section 501 of Migration Act – does applicant pass character test – if not should discretion be exercised not to grant applicant visa – consideration of Ministerial Direction No. 79 – primary considerations – protection of Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct – the best interests of minor children in Australia – expectations of the Australian community – other considerations – international non-refoulement obligations – impact on family members – impact on victims – impact on Australian business interests – disposition of the applicant – decision set aside and new decision substituted
Legislation
Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, s 33A
Migration Act 1958, ss 116, 499, 501, 501K
Cases
Ahori and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, Re [2017] AATA 601
FYBR v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCAFC 185
Secondary Materials
Migration Act 1958 (Cth) – Direction under s 499 – Direction No. 79 – Visa refusal and cancellation under s 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under s 501CA (commenced 28 February 2019)
REASONS FOR DECISION
Senior Member D. J. Morris
21 December 2020
BACKGROUND

The Applicant in this matter applied for a Bridging E (Class WE) visa on 6 July 2020.

On 23 September 2020, a delegate of the Respondent decided to exercise the discretion in section 501(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act) to refuse RDVN’s application for the visa. On 5 October 2020, RDVN applied to the Tribunal seeking review of this decision.
A hearing was held on 7 and 8 December 2020 by videoconference, as provided for by section 33A of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975. The Applicant was represented by Mr Dushan Nikolic with Ms Leah Perkins of Carina Ford Immigration Lawyers. The Respondent was represented by Ms Rachael Law of Clayton Utz. The Act provides, at section 501K, that the identity of applicants for protection visas or protection-related bridging visas may not be published. The Applicant is in this category, so the Tribunal has assigned the anonym ‘RDVN’ to the Applicant. The identity of certain other persons will be anonymised in these reasons.
The Applicant gave evidence and was cross-examined. The following other witnesses gave evidence: Mr Warren Simmons, forensic psychologist (expert witness); Ms AP, ex-wife and current partner of the Applicant; Ms AM, mother of the Applicant; Ms AS, sister of the Applicant; and Mr AF, a friend of the Applicant. The Tribunal appreciates the assistance of an interpreter in the Punjabi language in relation to the evidence of Ms AM.
The Respondent tendered three volumes of documents, which will be described as GD (admitted as exhibit R1); SGD (exhibit R2) and FSGD (exhibit R3). The Applicant submitted two bundles of documents of numbered annexures. Annexures 1 to 11 were admitted as exhibit A1 and annexures 12 to 17 were admitted as exhibit A2. Both parties also submitted written Statements of Facts, Issues and Contentions. At the conclusion of the hearing the Tribunal reserved its decision.
Migration background of the Applicant
RDVN was born in 1990 and is a citizen of the Republic of India. In June 2006 he arrived in Australia on a Tourist (Subclass 676) visa (GD, p 186). He departed Australia at the end of July 2006 (GD, p 186).
In October 2007, RDVN arrived in Australia on a Student (subclass 570) visa (GD, pp 186, 231) and in November 2008 he was granted a Vocational Education and Training Sector Student (subclass 572) visa. In June 2010, RDVN applied for a Temporary Skilled Regional Sponsored (subclass 487) visa as a dependant applicant on his wife’s visa application, which was granted in July 2013, and then in July 2015 he applied for a Skilled Resident (subclass 887) visa (GD, p 231). In January 2017, RDVN was granted a bridging visa (SGD, p 548) which was cancelled on 13 March 2018 under section 116 of the Act. The Applicant withdrew his application for the Skilled Resident visa in September 2019 (GD, p 232).
On 20 October 2019, RDVN applied for a Protection visa (subclass 866) (GD, p 189). On 6 November 2019, he was granted a Bridging E visa associated with his protection visa application (GD, p 232). On 21 November 2019, RDVN’s application for a protection visa was refused by a delegate of the Respondent (GD, p 227). On 6 July 2020, RDVN applied for a Bridging E (Class WE) visa, to enable him to remain in the community while his protection visa application is heard by the Migration and Refugee Division of this Tribunal. The refusal of this bridging visa is the matter before this hearing.
LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK
Section 501(1) of the Act provides that the Minister may refuse to grant a visa to a person if the person does not satisfy the Minister that the person passes the character test.
Section 501(6) of the Act sets out the grounds for failing the character test. It states, in part:
(6)For the purposes of this section, a person does not pass the character test if:
(a)The person has a substantial criminal record (as defined by subsection (7)); or…
Section 501(7) of the Act states, relevantly in this matter, in setting out what a substantial criminal record is:
(7)For the purposes of the character test, a person has a substantial criminal record if:
…
(c)the person has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more; or …
The Applicant (ASFIC, p 1) conceded that he does not pass the character test prescribed in the Act because he had been convicted and sentenced to a sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months.
The Tribunal had before it a National Police Certificate (GD, pp 33–34) which records that in October 2019 RDVN was convicted of the offence of Attempt to pervert the course of justice and sentenced by the County Court of Victoria to 12 months’ imprisonment. Because of this sentence, he has a substantial criminal record by force of section 501(7)(c) of the Act.
Based on this evidence and the sentencing remarks of Judge Allan (FSGD, pp 761–771), the Tribunal finds the Applicant has a substantial criminal record and fails the character test by virtue of this substantial criminal record.
The sole remaining issue before the Tribunal, therefore, is whether the discretion should be exercised under section 501(1) of the Act to grant RDVN the visa sought.
Ministerial Direction No. 79
Section 499(1) of the Act provides that the Minister may give written directions about the exercise of functions or powers under the Act. On 20 December 2018, the then Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs (who is jointly authorised with the Minister for Home Affairs to administer the Act) made a direction under section 499, namely Direction No. 79. Direction No. 79 (hereafter referred to as ‘the Direction’) commenced on 28 February 2019. Section 499(2A) of the Act requires that the Tribunal must comply with the Direction in considering this matter.
Paragraph 6.1 of the Direction states, in part:
6.1 Objectives
(1)The objective of the Act is to regulate, in the national interest, the coming into, and presence in, Australia of non-citizens.
…
(3)Under subsection 501(3A) of the Act, the decision-maker must cancel a visa that has been granted to a person if the decision-maker is satisfied that the person does not pass the character test because of the operation of paragraph (6)(a) (on the basis of paragraph (7)(a), (b) or (c) or paragraph (6)(e)) and the non-citizen is serving a sentence of imprisonment on a full-time basis in a custodial institution, for an offence against a law of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory. A non-citizen who has had his or her visa cancelled under section 501(3A) may request revocation of that decision under section 501CA of the Act. 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.
The Direction has the following principles at paragraph 6.3:
(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)The Australian community expects that the Australian Government can and should refuse entry to non-citizens, or cancel their visas, if they commit serious crimes in Australia or elsewhere.
(3)A non-citizen who has committed a serious crime, including of a violent or sexual nature, and particularly against women or children or vulnerable members of the community such as the elderly or disabled, should generally expect to be denied the privilege of coming to, or to forfeit the privilege of staying in, Australia.
(4)In some circumstances, criminal offending or other conduct, 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 or refusing the visa.
(5)Australia has a low tolerance of any criminal or other serious conduct by people who have been participating in, and contributing to, the Australian community only for a short period of time. However, Australia may afford a higher level of tolerance of criminal or other serious conduct in relation to a non-citizen who has lived in the Australian community for most of their life, or from a very young age.
(6)Australia has a low tolerance of any criminal or other serious conduct by visa applicants or those holding a limited stay visa, reflecting that there should be no expectation that such people should be allowed to come to, or remain permanently in, Australia.
(7)The length of time a non-citizen has been making a positive contribution to the Australian community, and the consequences of a visa refusal or cancellation for minor children and other immediate family members in Australia, are considerations in the context of determining whether that non-citizen’s visa should be cancelled, or their visa application refused.
In deciding whether to refuse a non-citizen a visa, the Direction requires a decision-maker to take into account considerations set out in Part B. Part B is divided into Primary considerations and Other considerations. The Primary considerations in Part B are set out in paragraph 11(1) of the Direction. They are: Protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct; The best interests of minor children in Australia; and Expectations of the Australian community.
Paragraph 12(1) of the Direction sets out Other considerations in relation to refusal of a visa (the Direction actually refers to ‘deciding whether to cancel a visa’ but this appears to be a printing error in the instrument as the relevant paragraph is headed ‘Other considerations – visa applicants’). They are: International non-refoulement obligations; Impact on family members; Impact on victims; and Impact on Australian business interests. The Direction states that primary considerations should generally be given more weight than the other considerations and that one or more primary considerations may outweigh other primary considerations (see paragraphs 8(4) and (5) of the Direction).
APPLICANT’S OFFENDING HISTORY
As mentioned above, a National Police Certificate in relation to RDVN dated 13 March 2020 was before the Tribunal (GD, pp 33–34). It records that on 15 December 2017 the Applicant appeared before a Melbourne suburban Magistrates’ Court and was convicted of the offences of Possess methylamphetamine; Stalking (intent to cause physical harm); Make threat to kill; Persist contravene Family Violence Not To Contact/ Order; Contravene A Conduct Condition of Bail Granted; and Fail to answer bail. He was given an aggregate term of imprisonment of 33 days.
On 17 October 2019, RDVN appeared before the County Court of Victoria and was convicted of the following offences: Attempt to pervert the course of Justice, for which he was sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment; Traffic drug of dependence (9 months’ imprisonment, 6 months of which to be served concurrently); Possess a drug of dependence (4 months’ imprisonment, 3 months of which to be served concurrently); Commit indictable offence while on bail; and Deal in property suspected to be proceeds of crime (on each charge, 1 month to be served concurrently).
On 23 October 2019, at a Magistrates’ Court, RDVN was convicted of the following offences: Theft from shop (shopsteal) and Deal in property suspected to be proceeds of crime, and sentenced on each charge to an aggregate of 55 days’ imprisonment and to pay compensation of $572.70. He was also convicted of Contravene Family Violence Final Intervention Order; Theft from shop (shopsteal) (8 counts); Handle, receive, retention of stolen goods; Commit indictable offence on bail; State false name when requested; and Fail to answer bail charges. For these offences he was also sentenced to serve 55 days’ imprisonment. Both the prison sentences were ordered by the Magistrate to be served concurrent with the head sentence RDVN was already serving.
SUBMISSIONS
Applicant’s opening submissions
Mr Nikolic conceded that the Applicant fails the statutory character test. He submitted that the bridging visa which was refused in relation to RDVN is a limited purpose visa and was applied for in relation to RDVN’s application for a substantive protection visa. Mr Nikolic submitted that the risk to the community of RDVN re-offending would have to arise during the period of the bridging visa and that the bridging visa is only valid until a decision is made in relation to the protection visa RDVN seeks.
Counsel submitted that there are a number of strict conditions imposed on the bridging visa, including condition 8564, that the holder of the visa does not engage in criminal conduct. Mr Nikolic submitted that the conditions also permit a bridging visa to be cancelled if the visa-holder is simply charged, not convicted, of criminal offences and that this is a further factor that the Tribunal should take into account. Counsel submitted that RDVN is aware that this is his last chance to show that his conduct has reformed if he is granted the bridging visa.
Respondent’s opening submissions
Ms Law, for the Minister, submitted that notwithstanding the requirements that may be applied to a bridging visa, the issue before the Tribunal is whether the discretion should be exercised under section 501(1) of the Act to grant the visa, taking into account the considerations set out in the Direction.
EVIDENCE
Evidence of RDVN
RDVN told the Tribunal that he first came to Australia in June 2006 and stayed for over a month before returning to India. He then finished his schooling and returned to Australia in October 2007 on a student visa to study an English language course in Melbourne, which he completed.
RDVN agreed that the movement record compiled by the Department of Home Affairs (GD, p 186) was accurate and that he had spent around six months out of Australia since arriving here to study in October 2007.
In terms of family members in Australia, RDVN told the Tribunal that his partner, Ms AP and son AC live here, as does: his widowed mother Ms AM; his brother, his brother’s wife and their three children; his sister (Ms AS), her husband and their two children; and the brother of Ms AP. All these persons are Australian citizens or permanent residents, except for

Ms AP’s brother, who holds a student visa.
RDVN said that he met Ms AP when they were both studying. He worked at that time as a security guard but was limited to 20 hours a week by the conditions of his visa. He said that after about 18 months he obtained full working rights and then worked for his brother who had a courier company with a contract with Australia Post. RDVN said at first he delivered mail and then at the end of 2011 he was promoted to be a supervisor. He worked for this courier company from 2011 until 2015.
RDVN said he finished working for the company in August 2015 and then worked at a car wash from 2015 to 2017 as a manager.
RDVN said he commenced a romantic relationship with Ms AP and they subsequently started living together in early September 2008 and were married at the end of that month. They later travelled to India for a traditional marriage ceremony early in 2010. RDVN said they had a good relationship; both were employed, and household finances were good. Ms AP fell pregnant and in August 2015 their son AC was born.
RDVN said that his brother’s courier business ceased in August 2015, days after AC was born. Ms AP was still in hospital after the birth. He said he suddenly found himself without work and with a newborn child. RDVN said he felt depressed and under pressure. He told the Tribunal that, about two months later, a fellow worker at the car wash brought drugs to work and offered RDVN to try them. RDVN said he started using heroin but felt ashamed and did not tell his family.
RDVN said he had never used illicit drugs before 2015, apart from once or twice trying marijuana. He said he started using heroin twice a week, then three times, and after six months he was using heroin daily. He said whatever money he earned went on buying drugs. RDVN hid his drug use from his wife.
RDVN said his relationship with Ms AP remained good until 2016 when she found out he was using drugs and they argued. He said he also started gambling and they had an ‘incident’ when Ms AP called police and the police charged him and imposed a Family Violence Intervention Order. RDVN conceded that the police visited their residence on several occasions around this time (FSGD, p 891).
RDVN said he went before the Magistrates’ Court in December 2017 and was sent to prison for 33 days but was released on the day of his appearance at Court, his time on remand being taken into account as time served.
RDVN said he then stayed with his sister, Ms AS, and later started living at the home of a friend. The friend was a drug user and RDVN said he started using methylamphetamine (‘ice’) with this friend. RDVN said they then both started stealing baby formula from supermarkets which they then on-sold, using the proceeds to buy drugs.
RDVN said that he was ashamed of his drug-taking and asked a family friend to tell his mother and siblings, because he was too embarrassed. He said that his family decided to take him to a hospital in India for a rehabilitative course for drug users known to them, largely because it was much cheaper than treatment courses available in Australia. He went with his mother to India and Ms AP, with AC, followed on a few days later.

RDVN said that he knew that he had some blood transfusions, but he was heavily medicated and does not remember much of the experience he had while admitted to the hospital in India. The Tribunal notes a certificate from a hospital in the Punjab (GD, p 258) recording RDVN’s admission for the period 20 January to 6 February 2017.
In respect of his relationship with Ms AP, RDVN agreed that he had made a threat to her (GD, p 51) but that he did not mean it. He said he feels very embarrassed and that he and Ms AP had talked about it subsequently. This conduct led to the conviction for the offence of making a threat to kill.
In relation to the offence of trafficking in drugs, RDVN said he and a friend went to a country centre, having both taken ‘ice’ and heroin when police parked behind them. The police searched the vehicle they were travelling in and found various drug paraphernalia and a knife and knuckleduster; they were both arrested. RDVN said that they mostly bought drugs for personal use, but conceded they also sometimes sold drugs for money. This arrest led to the possession and trafficking charges and convictions.
RDVN said he accepted his conviction for attempting to pervert the course of justice, and that it was a serious offence; he said he pleaded guilty in Court. RDVN said he wrote two letters to his co-accused, the second urging the co-accused to take full responsibility for the offending, because he was scared of going to prison and his co-accused had already been remanded after pleading guilty. RDVN said he did not appreciate the seriousness of what he had done in sending the letters until it was explained to him by his lawyers.
RDVN said he had never taken drugs while in prison or immigration detention. (The Tribunal notes a urinalysis (GD, p 252) notes no positive returns.) He said he last used an illicit drug in August 2018. RDVN told the Tribunal about the various courses he had done (Exhibit A1, Annexure 4) and that he had been accepted to undertake a further counselling course relating to drugs and alcohol conducted by Caraniche, and was on a waiting list if released into the community; he needed to give them two weeks’ notice (GD, p 364).
RDVN said he spoke to his son AC, who is now aged 5, every day. He said they often spoke by telephone but sometimes by video-call. AC visited RDVN a few times with his mother when his father was in immigration detention but that ceased with the restrictions on visitors imposed by the Covid-19 pandemic and when RDVN was relocated to a detention facility in Western Australia.
When in prison, RDVN said that he was visited by Ms AP, his mother, sister and brother-in-law but that AC was not allowed at that stage to visit, because of the conditions of the Family Violence Intervention Order and because of his age.
RDVN said that if released he would live with his sister, Ms AS. He said he had been in prison or detention now for two years and four months and had missed a large part of AC’s life, which he deeply regretted and declared that there was ‘no chance’ he would commit any offences again.
Under cross-examination, RDVN said that it was the stress of job loss combined with financial pressure at the time of the birth of his son, coupled with his brother’s arrest on fraud charges, which caused him to take up drugs in 2015. He said he did not know how to handle the situation, which is why he resorted to using drugs.
RDVN said that Ms AP found out about his drug use in 2016 and asked him to stop. He told her he needed time to quit. He agreed that arguments between them had led to the police visiting their home on more than one occasion, and that his wife had got the police to come and talk to him. He said he was using drugs and gambling at the time.
RDVN said he was happy to go to India for treatment because he knew he needed to rid himself of the drug problem. He said that he was in hospital for around 25 days and then had to visit each week to collect medication during a convalescent period. He said when he returned to Australia in March 2017 he brought back with him enough medication for between three and six months.
RDVN agreed with Ms Law that he remained clean from using drugs for around three months and then started using ‘ice’.
RDVN conceded that he ‘slapped’ Ms AP and said that once a final Family Violence Order was granted in September 2017, Ms AP moved to live with a friend in another suburb. The Applicant said that even though his son and Ms AP were protected persons under the Order, he was permitted to have contact with AC and the Court told him he was permitted to see his son every weekend. He said mutual friends made arrangements with his sister-in-law for him to see AC. RDVN said that he never used ‘ice’ when he was going to see his son but conceded he was using it at other times at this juncture.
Ms Law asked RDVN why, if he is released and circumstances caused him stress, the Tribunal should accept that he would not relapse and take up drug-taking again. RDVN said he knew that he would end up back in detention if he did so, away from his family and AC.
In respect of the letters he wrote to his co-accused, RDVN said he was scared and thought he might be bailed and be able to see his family. He said he realises now how stupid it was to write such letters.
In answer to a direct question from the Tribunal, RDVN agreed that he offered his co-accused $5,000 to take responsibility but that he did not have these funds at the time. He agreed that he also offered to help his co-accused meet up with a woman, who RDVN said he knew as an acquaintance, and he offered the co-accused that he would help him ‘hook up’.
RDVN agreed that he saw a psychologist in Melbourne ‘two or three times’ when he was taking drugs about once a week but stopped the sessions when his drug-taking increased. He said he had been referred to the psychologist by his general practitioner. RDVN spoke about the courses he had done and how one of them had taught participants how to de-escalate tension between couples.
RDVN said that even though Ms AP had applied for a divorce and it had been granted in the middle of 2019, they had since reconciled, and he regarded her as his partner. He said they made a joint decision at the end of 2019 or early in 2020 to get back together for the sake of their son AC, and because they still had romantic feelings for each other.
RDVN told the Tribunal he was not in contact with his co-accused. In answer to questions from the Tribunal, the Applicant said that his brother had been sentenced to imprisonment for three years and nine months for fraud in March 2018 and was in prison serving this sentence.
Evidence of Mr Warren Simmons
Mr Simmons, forensic psychologist, told the Tribunal he was aware of the President’s Guidelines for expert witnesses and that he was not an advocate for any party. Mr Simmons said he had spoken to the Applicant by telephone for around 90 minutes on

7 September 2020 which had formed the basis for his report of the same date, which was before the Tribunal (SGD, p 538).
Mr Simmons said it was his conclusion that RDVN’s offending appears to have been generated by substance abuse and that he had seen urinalysis reports from RDVN’s time in prison and had no information before him that contradicted his claims of being drug-free since 2018. Mr Simmons said that more than two years of a person being drug free is a substantial period, and the longer period usually means that the trigger for a person to relapse would also be greater.
Mr Simmons said he was familiar with Caraniche and the counselling programmes that that organisation conducts and felt that would help reduce the risk of RDVN relapsing and therefore re-offending.
Mr Simmons agreed with the proposition that prisons are stressful environments because inmates have their rights to make decisions taken away from them. He agreed with Mr Nikolic that drugs are available in prisons which is why random searches are conducted and ‘drug dogs’ deployed.
Under cross-examination, Mr Simmons said when he saw RDVN, the Applicant told him he was depressed at the time he took up drugs, feeling emotionally distressed and influenced by others. Mr Simmons said RDVN reported he took drugs to help him forget the serious charges which had been brought against his brother.
In answer to a direct question from the Tribunal, Mr Simmons said that RDVN was vague about what treatment he underwent in India except to say it involved transfusions. Mr Simmons said it was his understanding that there was no aspect of counselling that formed part of this treatment at the hospital in India.
Evidence of Mr AF
Mr AF, a friend of the Applicant, gave evidence. He said that he had known RDVN for about eight years having met him at the Australian Sikh Games early in 2013. He found that RDVN lived close to him and they had struck up a friendship. Mr AF said that he had kept in regular contact with RDVN while he had been in prison and detention, speaking about every week, sometimes fortnightly.
Mr AF said he attended the wedding between RDVN and Ms AP, and he had been shocked when they separated. Mr AF said he was aware of the criminal offences against RDVN and said that life had been good when the Applicant’s brother was employing him and when the brother was arrested on fraud charges, the company folded and the money stopped (at that time the sole household income), which caused RDVN to ‘go into’ stress.
Mr AF said he was aware of the domestic violence incidents and that Ms AP was not comfortable at that time in having RDVN around her. Mr AF said that he felt that RDVN would stay off drugs and that he had told him “if I can stay off drugs in prison, I can live outside without them as well”.
In answer to a direct question from the Tribunal, Mr AF said that he had seen Ms AP at the local shops by chance and that she had told him she was looking forward to getting back together with RDVN if he is released from immigration detention.
Evidence of Ms AP
Ms AP gave evidence. She said she would describe herself as both the ex-wife of RDVN and his current partner. Ms AP said she first arrived in Australia in 2008 and now has permanent residency and has worked as a disability support worker since 2010, on a full-time basis for the last five years.
Ms AP said that she and RDVN had a good relationship from meeting, then courting and marrying, travelling and settling down to start their family. Both were working at the time and she said RDVN was a good father of their newborn son.
Ms AP said RDVN did not cope well after the birth because of the situation in his family affecting his brother and the fraud charges which came at the same time. She said RDVN reacted by taking up drugs and always going out. Ms AP said she knew he was gambling but did not know about the drug-taking until RDVN’s mother told her.
Ms AP said in the lead-up to the Family Violence Order, they had arguments about finances, and she found out he had spent money out of a joint account they had established for AC. She said RDVN became aggressive and wanted to use the family car, which Ms AP took to work every day.
Ms AP said she decided when they were in India and RDVN was undergoing rehabilitation that she was not going to live with him. She said she was also stressed at the time because of the illness and death of her own father. Ms AP told the Tribunal that she would like to ‘resume’ their marriage. She said that if RDVN was released from detention, he would stay with his sister, Ms AS, for about two or three months and she would “see how they go as boyfriend and girlfriend”.
Ms AP said she had visited RDVN both when he was in prison and subsequently in immigration detention and had taken AC to see him in detention before the pandemic restrictions were imposed. Ms AP said that RDVN speaks to AC each day and she observed that he has changed a lot and learnt from his mistakes.
Under cross-examination, Ms AP said that RDVN’s behaviour in 2015 and 2016 had not been threatening but had centred on financial matters. She said after he returned from treatment in India, for a period he was fine and then “went off with the bad boys”. Ms AP said she partly went through with the divorce so that “he would learn some lessons” and to show him that she could initiate such actions. She said that she would never have prevented RDVN from seeing their son, and had emphasised that to RDVN’s mother, Ms AM.
Ms AP was taken to a police report (at GD, p 52) where she told police RDVN slapped her in August 2017, causing a bloody nose and her to fall. She said he did slap her, and she did fall over, but there was no blood, and that he took her to hospital for treatment immediately afterwards.
Ms AP said her plan was to give RDVN time to show he can be a good husband and father again, and that they would re-marry if AC thinks that is a good idea. Ms AP said she was not scared or worried about living with RDVN again and that he would be financially supported by Ms AM if released. She confirmed that RDVN did continue to support her and AC financially when requested when they were separated, until he went into prison.
In answer to a direct question from the Tribunal, putting aside the interests of AC, Ms AP said she still had feelings for RDVN, and wanted to re-marry him, and they would look for accommodation together if he is released.
Evidence of Ms AM
Ms AM gave evidence that she first came to Australia in 2009 and is a permanent resident. She is widowed and has two sons and a daughter, all in Australia. She said after her husband’s death, RDVN was very supportive. Ms AM said all the family were stressed when her eldest son was charged with serious fraud offences, but when RDVN resorted to using drugs, it shocked her.
Ms AM said it was her view that RDVN was remorseful for his actions, and that they were out of character in the sense she knew him to be generous and considerate before he took up taking illicit drugs. Ms AM said “he knows he will be in trouble” if he resumes using drugs.
Ms AM said she would offer emotional and financial support if RDVN is released from immigration detention, and that he would be able to live with her daughter, Ms AS.
Under cross-examination, Ms AM said it was not only the effect of the wrong crowd but also the charges laid against his brother that led RDVN to take up drug use. She said they tried to get him to stop and eventually resorted to getting him to agree to travel to India for admission to hospital for treatment. She said she later found out, on his return, that RDVN had taken up drug use again by the way he was behaving.
Ms AM said the length of time RDVN has been in prison and detention has “got drugs out of his mind”. She said she has kept in regular contact with Ms AP and AC. Ms AM’s view was that part of the reason RDVN resumed taking drugs was that the medication he had been given in India had run out.
Evidence of Ms AS
Ms AS, the sister of RDVN, gave evidence. She confirmed she is an Australian citizen and spoke about how close she was to RDVN growing up, as they both were with their brother. She said this was what added to the stress when the Applicant’s brother was charged with fraud.
Ms AS was asked about her written statement that RDVN was a “completely changed person”. She said it was her view that he has learnt his lesson and is remorseful; he wants to spend time with his son and with her children, with whom he is very close. Ms AS said that she talks to RDVN, sometimes every day, and had visited him in detention before the visit ban came into force.
Ms AS said that RDVN has a close relationship with her two children and they had also visited him in detention. When he was living with her and her husband, RDVN would sometimes cook for the household and help drop the children off at school and pick them up, Ms AS said.
Under cross-examination, Ms AS said she noticed RDVN’s behaviour changed when the medication he had brought from India finished, and suspected he was doing something wrong. She said she believes RDVN would not re-offend because “he saw hell in his life and knows he will lose his partner and son if he resumes” drug-taking.
CONSIDERATION
Primary consideration – Protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct (paragraph 11.1)
The Direction requires the Tribunal to consider the nature and seriousness of the non-citizen’s conduct to date, and the risk to the Australian community should the non-citizen commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct.
The Direction states that violent crimes are viewed seriously. The Direction also states, at paragraph 11.1.1(1)(b), the principle that crimes of a violent nature against women or children are viewed very seriously, regardless of the sentence imposed. There is no evidence before the Tribunal that RDVN has been convicted of a crime against a child. However, there are several admitted offences in relation to his interaction with his then wife and current partner, Ms AP.
They include stalking, threatening to kill and breaching the conditions of Family Violence Orders. RDVN accepted that these were serious offences and did not particularly seek to minimise them, although the police reports of the interaction between him and Ms AP, which led to her falling, did not seem to square with either the evidence he gave nor, indeed, with the evidence Ms AP gave.
While it is accepted that AC was very young at this time, not more than 2 years of age, and not physically present when the altercations occurred, the conduct of RDVN was completely unsatisfactory, and it is entirely understandable that, having been called on previous occasions to their residence, the police decided that a Family Violence Intervention Order was warranted, and one that listed both Ms AP and AC as protected persons. Balancing that, the Tribunal notes that the interim and final orders both continued to permit contact between RDVN and AC and it was the consistent evidence of all the witnesses that AC was never at any risk of harm and that Ms AP was happy for RDVN to continue to have contact with their son.
This part of the Direction requires the Tribunal to consider the frequency of the Applicant’s offending and whether there is a trend of increased seriousness. In this case, there was no history of RDVN offending in Australia from when he first came to settle here in 2007 until 2015. There was also no evidence of criminal conduct in India before 2007 (Indian Police Certificate, Exhibit A1). RDVN completed an academic course, obtained employment and married, and by all accounts contributed to this country over that period.
Judge Allen said, when passing sentence (FSGD, p 769):
You worked very hard for several years to build a new life in this country. Nearly a year in education and then several years of hard work and responsible positions. You have a wife here. Although you are estranged, she is the mother of your son and you have an only child who was born in this country.
RDVN was significantly involved in amateur sport and held senior office in a prominent sporting organisation. His descent into offending was sharp and, as Mr Simmons’ professional opinion reflects, directly linked to his taking up illicit drugs and needing to fund that habit.
RDVN’s offending can be divided into four categories — the drug offences, including trafficking and possession; the theft and stolen goods dealing offices; the domestic violence offences; and the attempt to pervert the course of justice in late 2018. It is factual to record that the period of offending was relatively discrete, confined to a period of around a year, but the offending itself ranged from relatively minor to more major. Judge Allen stated (FSGD, p 770):
I accept… your counsel’s characterisation of the trafficking charge as being at the lower end of the spectrum in relation to that charge.
However, His Honour also made very clear references to the impact that trafficking has, including in smaller rural communities in Australia, and imposed a sentence of 9 months’ imprisonment. The heaviest penalty that RDVN received was 12 months’ gaol for his somewhat ham-fisted attempt to deflect blame for his part of their joint offending onto his co-accused.

The Tribunal notes the evidence that RDVN has been well behaved in prison and that no incidents have been recorded against him while in immigration detention, which is to his credit (examples of reports from the detention centre were at exhibit A2, Annexure 14).
While there has not been a sustained pattern of offending and there have been long periods of no offending at all since RDVN came to Australia, his reversion to drug-taking after returning from India and his lack of respect for the Australian judicial system illustrated by both offending while on bail and breaching a Family Violence Intervention Order is of serious concern. In addition, while the attempt to pervert the course of justice was likely always destined to fail, the fact that RDVN initiated this, by writing the letter to his co-accused seeking to shift blame, showed a stark lack of acceptance of his own responsibility for his criminal offending. The Tribunal also does not accept RDVN’s oral evidence that he was proposing to ‘hook up’ his co-accused with a woman they both already knew: the content of the letter he sent does not reflect that. RDVN was clearly trying to induce his co-accused to take all the responsibility for certain crimes for which both had shared culpability.
The risk to the Australian community should the non-citizen commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct
The Direction requires the Tribunal to consider (at paragraph 11.1.2) the risk to the Australian community should RDVN commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct. Although Ms AP said she was confident that RDVN would not re-offend against her, and despite the interaction which led to her falling and having to go to hospital not leading to any charges, the Tribunal is satisfied that this comes within the category of other serious conduct. Such behaviour is completely unacceptable in any context, but particularly so to a spouse with an infant child in the same household.
The likelihood of RDVN re-offending if released into the Australian community pending the result of his protection visa review process is affected by: information before the Tribunal on the number of positive behavioural courses undertaken by RDVN in custody; his involvement with Alcoholics Anonymous and Narcotics Anonymous; and his stated commitment to undertake drug and alcohol counselling with Caraniche if released.
The Tribunal gives due weight to the professional opinion of Mr Simmons, noting his own evidence that it was based on a telephone interview and no psychometric testing was undertaken in this context. Mr Simmons stated (FSGD, p 547):
[RDVN] does not present with any significant antisocial personality traits and has a solid commitment to his ex-wife and son and previously to employment. In [RDVN’s] initial period of substance abuse, he funded his use of drugs from his own finances and only turned to offending when those funds were gone. He appears to have been influenced in part by others in his offending behaviour, although he did not use this to justify his actions.
With regard to the question of whether [RDVN] is likely to re-offend, given the clear connection between [RDVN’s] offending behaviour and his substance abuse, he is only likely to return to further offending should [he] relapse into substance abuse. This appears to have been triggered under the influence of others, although in the context of some emotional disquiet due to his life circumstances. To some degree, there may have been an unconscious bias on [RDVN’s] part to return to substance use, however previous treatment appears to have been biologically based with very limited counselling being undertaken. With additional counselling focusing on increasing self efficacy, harm minimisation and relapse prevention strategies, then the risk of re-offending would be decreased further.
The Tribunal considers that the intention of RDVN to undertake further counselling is genuine, as is the intention of his mother, sister and partner, to support him in that. That much is clear from the written and oral evidence. The Tribunal also notes that the major driver, perhaps the most powerful one, to motivate RDVN in terms of accepting further counselling and staying away from illicit drugs is access to his son and his partner. This is a significant protective factor.
The Direction requires the Tribunal, at paragraph 11.1.2(4), to take into account the risk of harm to the community in the context of the intended stay, and the type of visa being applied for, including whether there are strong and compassionate reasons for granting a short-stay visa. In terms of the visa, which is the subject of these proceedings, that bridging visa’s duration is time-limited to when the consideration of RDVN’s substantive protection visa application is dealt with by the Tribunal.
The Tribunal does not accept the submissions of Counsel for the Applicant that the nature of the visa means the assessment of risk is confined to the likely period of the visa. That seems to me to be an artificial constraint, and not otherwise supported in the Direction. The protection of the Australian community is the principal matter being considered in this part of the Direction, and someone who has a history of serious and maybe violent offending could pose an unacceptable risk if released for any period. However, RDVN is not in that category, his offending has been temporally confined and objectively closely linked to illicit drug-taking. The Tribunal’s view is that if it is a non-substantive visa being sought, then protective factors assume more importance.
The Tribunal finds that this primary consideration weighs against exercising the discretion to grant the bridging visa. This is because RDVN has committed some serious crimes, which warranted prison sentences, after having been given a short prison sentence on an earlier occasion as the Court was, in effect, warning him to mend his ways. In particular, the conviction of attempting to pervert the course of justice, amateurish as it may have been, is a particularly serious attempt to undermine the due process of law enforcement, as was reflected in the sentence RDVN received.
However, the weight that this primary consideration carries is significantly tempered, the Tribunal finds, because of the short-stay nature of the bridging visa, and the protective factors outlined above which significantly militate against there being a high risk of RDVN re-offending during the period when his substantive visa application is awaiting consideration.
Primary consideration – Best interests of minor children in Australia affected by the decision (paragraph 11.2)
The Tribunal must make a determination about whether refusal of the visa is in the best interests of a minor child or, where there is more than one minor child, the best interests of each of them (giving individual consideration to each to the extent that their interests may differ). The minor children relevant in this consideration are AC, the son of RDVN, the two children of AS and the three children of the Applicant’s older brother.
Both parties submitted that it was in the best interests of the Applicant’s son, AC, that he be granted the visa. Ms Law, however, said that the weight of this consideration should be affected because of the domestic violence offences previously proven against RDVN.
There was ample evidence before the Tribunal in written statements and oral evidence about the closeness of RDVN to his nieces and nephews. Ms AS gave evidence that her sons had visited the Applicant in detention and that he had helped look after them and cooked for them during the period when he lived with her and her husband. Ms AM said that RDVN was close to all his nieces and nephews.
In respect of RDVN’s nieces and nephews, the Tribunal determines that it is in the best interests of each of these five children that he be granted the bridging visa. While there is some evidence of more interaction with Ms AS’s children because he lived in the same household as them, there was insufficient evidence to divide this group further in terms of making a determination as there was evidence before the Tribunal that he was also close to his brother’s children, noting that Ms AM lives with them and RDVN’s sister-in-law (the Applicant’s brother still completing his prison sentence).
However, the relationship that RDVN has with these five children is non-parental. They have others who fulfil a parental role, in the case of Ms AS’s children, Ms AS and her husband, and in the case of the Applicant’s brother, his sister-in-law and, albeit he is currently in prison, his brother on release.
In respect of AC, there was consistent evidence that RDVN is a loving father of his son, and that was emphasised by Ms AP. It is somewhat disturbing that, even though AC was at the time a very young infant, RDVN was prepared to perpetrate offences against his then wife and other serious misconduct while AC was in the same house. However, since 2015, the consistent pattern and the evidence at this hearing reflect a desire by Ms AP for RDVN to have regular contact with AC. There was evidence, including photographic evidence and telephone records, of very regular contact in person between AC and his father and, more recently since visit restrictions came into force, by telephone and video-call.
The Tribunal determines that the best interests of AC would be served by RDVN being granted the bridging visa, and the weight of this consideration is relatively strong.
Primary consideration – Expectations of the Australian community (paragraph 11.3)
This part of the Direction sets out that the Australian community expects non-citizens to obey Australian laws while in Australia. Where a visa applicant has breached, or where there is an unacceptable risk that he or she will breach, this trust or where the person has been convicted of offences in Australia or elsewhere, it may be appropriate to refuse to grant a visa to the person. Refusal of a visa may be appropriate simply because the nature of the character concerns or offences are such that the Australian community would expect that the person should not hold, or continue to hold, a visa. The Direction states that “[d]ecision-makers should have due regard to the Government’s views in this respect.”
In FYBR v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCAFC 185 (‘FYBR’), the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia considered how decision-makers should approach this primary consideration in the Direction. The Court was considering a superseded direction, but the wording in the current Direction is relevantly identical. Two of the three judges in FYBR, Charlesworth and Stewart JJ, held that this part of the Direction expresses a ‘norm’. It is not for a decision-maker to make his or her own personal assessment of what the ‘expectations’ of the Australian community may be. In this respect, the expectations are deemed — they are what the executive government has declared in the Direction are its views; they are not expectations that may be derived from another evaluative exercise.
Justice Stewart (who agreed with the conclusions of Charlesworth J but wrote his own reasons) stated, at [100]:
To summarise, as expressed in Direction 65, the Australian community has only three relevant expectations:
·non-citizens will obey Australian laws when in Australia;
·it may be appropriate to refuse a visa application where a non-citizen has breached, or where there is an unacceptable risk that they will breach, the expectation that they will obey the law or where they have been convicted of offences in Australia or elsewhere.
·in a particular case, the refusal of the visa may be appropriate simply because of the nature of the character concerns or offences is such that they should not be granted a visa.
Understood in this way, community expectations are simply, and informally, expressed as follows: “If you break the law that will be held against you, the more serious the breach the more it will be held against you, and it may even be decisive.”
Justice Stewart also stated (at [102]) that the ‘character assessment, even through the prism of community expectations, may not be decisively against the applicant’, which is why the decision-maker must assess what is ‘appropriate’ in the circumstances.
The Respondent submitted that the ‘starting point’ for the Tribunal’s consideration of this primary consideration should be that the Australian community would have an expectation that RDVN’s application for a visa should be refused because of the seriousness of his past conduct.
The Tribunal finds that this primary consideration weighs in favour of exercising the discretion to refuse the visa. The weight is relatively strong, but that strength is somewhat be diluted by the time RDVN contributed positively to the community and the time-limited nature of the visa.
Other consideration – International non-refoulement obligations (paragraph 12.1)
Both parties submitted that this consideration is not relevant to the grant of the bridging visa. This was reiterated in oral submissions before the Tribunal.
The Tribunal notes that, whatever the decision in this matter, the result would not see RDVN being removed from Australia while review of his substantive visa application is pending. The basis of Australia’s international treaty and related obligations in respect of non-refoulement is that a person who is assessed as facing harm if returned to a country of reference will not be removed from Australia to that country. This basis is not engaged in the decision as to whether RDVN is granted a bridging visa, the Tribunal finds that this consideration is not engaged.
This consideration, not being engaged, therefore weighs neutrally.
Other consideration – Impact on family members (paragraph 12.2)
The Direction requires the Tribunal to consider the impact of visa refusal on immediate family members in Australia, where those family members are Australian citizens, Australian permanent residents or people who have the right to remain in Australia indefinitely.
Relevant persons that the Tribunal identifies in this consideration are Ms AP, and AC, the Applicant’s partner and young son; Ms AM, the Applicant’s mother; Ms AS, the Applicant’s sister and her husband and their two children; RDVN’s brother and sister-in-law and their three children. Ms AP’s brother falls outside this category because he is on a student visa.
The Tribunal accepts the sentiments in the written statements from family members before it that RDVN remaining in detention until the outcome of his protection visa review creates emotional strain on Ms AP and deprives AC of the presence of, and interaction with, his father. The Tribunal particularly notes the genuineness of the evidence of Ms AM and

Ms AS about their desire to have RDVN back in their midst, even in the knowledge that, depending on other immigration processes, this may not be a permanent state of affairs.
The Tribunal finds that this consideration weighs relatively strongly in favour of granting the bridging visa.
Other consideration – Impact on victims (paragraph 12.3)
This part of the Direction requires the Tribunal to consider the impact of a decision to grant a visa on the Australian community and any victims of a person’s criminal behaviour where that information is available.
Counsel for RDVN did (wisely, in the Tribunal’s view) not go so far as to say that this consideration should weigh in the Applicant’s favour, although it was submitted to the Tribunal that Ms AP, who was the victim of certain offences in the domestic violence category of RDVN’s offending, had clearly expressed the view that she wanted RDVN to be released from detention and granted the bridging visa.
The Tribunal makes the point that it would be inimical to other parts of the Direction to determine that this consideration could weigh in favour of an Applicant who has been convicted of domestic violence offences, even where the domestic violence victim might have expressed views of forgiveness or support for a person to be granted a visa. This is because when Direction No. 79 was made by the Minister, it specifically emphasised, amending the Direction it replaced, that crimes against women and children are to be regarded seriously, regardless of the sentence imposed.
Although in ReAhori and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] AATA 601, Senior Member Sosso (as the learned Deputy President then was) was considering an application for Australian Citizenship, the comments he made in relation to a perpetrator of domestic violence (at [51] to [53]) are directly relevant to this matter:
The Respondent quite rightly contends that offences involving domestic violence should be characterised as serious. The Respondent drew to the Tribunal’s attention Al-Boushama and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2015] AATA 5. In that matter the applicant was convicted of common assault against his former wife but did not disclose his conviction in his citizenship application form.
Professor McCallum rejected submissions that a domestic violence offence was a minor matter, and determined it was a serious offence. The fact that the applicant was very stressed at the time was not accepted as an excuse. That combined with the applicant’s wilful withholding of information about his conviction was sufficient for a finding that he was not a person of good character.
Domestic violence is a very serious matter. In no way can violence in a domestic situation by one partner against another be trivialised or downplayed. The implications of such violence on the children, broader family and friends of the parties involved can be serious and long lasting.
(Citations omitted.)
While RDVN’s offending and other serious conduct may have revolved around arguments, there was at least one instance where he admitted to striking his then-wife. Such conduct directed against a person in a domestic setting is completely intolerable.
Despite Ms AP’s evidence, the Tribunal finds that this consideration weighs neutrally.
Other consideration – Impact on Australian business interests (paragraph 12.4)
The Tribunal is directed to consider the impact on Australian business interests if a non-citizen’s visa is refused, noting that an employment link would generally only be given weight where visa refusal would significantly compromise the delivery of a major project or important service in Australia. Both Mr Nikolic and Ms Law submitted that this consideration is not engaged. The Tribunal notes that the bridging visa being sought by RDVN has a ‘no work’ condition.
The Tribunal finds that this consideration weighs neutrally in this assessment.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
The Tribunal has found that one of the primary considerations, the Protection of the Australian Community, weighs against granting the bridging visa, but the weight is not as strong as it otherwise might be, given the time-limited nature of the visa and the conditions attached to it. There is some risk to the community if RDVN re-offends, but the bulk of his offending may be linked to his drug-taking; provided he undertakes the counselling that has been arranged and takes responsibility for his own conduct, the Tribunal concludes that the risk would be minimal.
The primary consideration relating to the Expectations of the Australian Community also weighs against granting the visa, but again that weight is tempered because of the nature of the visa being sought and its time. The Tribunal has also found that the best interests of affected minor children weighs in favour of granting the visa, and in the case of the RDVN’s son, strongly.
In respect of the Other considerations the Tribunal has found that the impact on family members in Australia weighs in favour of granting the visa, and relatively strongly so. The Other consideration relating to Impact on Business Interests is not engaged. In respect of the other consideration relating to impact on victims, a neutral weight is assigned for the reasons set out earlier.

The Tribunal is not constrained only to consider the stipulated considerations set out in the Minister’s Direction. It may also consider any other consideration relevant under the Act. In this case, a significant factor is the disposition of the Applicant. Essentially, apart from weighing the relevant considerations in Part B of the Direction, the factual situation is whether the Tribunal feels that the discretion should be granted to allow RDVN to be released from immigration detention with a bridging visa while he awaits the outcome of another immigration process. The submissions of Counsel for the Applicant based on timeframes in another Division of the Tribunal for hearing matters is that this period may be around a year, or perhaps a little longer. The Respondent’s representative did not make specific submissions on this factor.
The Tribunal concludes, noting the strict conditions that are attached to the bridging visa which is the subject of this merits review, that the preferable decision in this matter is that the discretion provided for in section 501(1) of the Act should be exercised in RDVN’s favour.
It must be emphasised, as strongly as the Tribunal is able, that any offending or other serious conduct, which includes other serious conduct which does not lead to convictions, will jeopardise RDVN’s immigration status and could be expected to lead to the cancellation of the bridging visa, and return to immigration detention. RDVN needs to be aware that his continuing good behaviour is a direct condition to which he must adhere to, to allow him to rekindle his relationship with his partner and his son and live with other family members.
DECISION
The Tribunal decides to set aside the decision of the delegate of the Respondent made on 23 September 2020. In its place, the Tribunal substitutes a decision that the Applicant not be refused a Bridging E (Class WE) visa under s 501(1) of the Act.

I certify that the preceding 139 (one hundred and thirty-nine) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Senior Member D. J. Morris

...[sgd]....................................................................
Associate
Dated: 21 December 2020

Date(s) of hearing: 7 and 8 December 2020

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr Dushan Nikolic

Solicitors for the Applicant: Ms Leah Perkins, Carina Ford Immigration Lawyers

Advocate for the Respondent: Ms Rachael Law

Solicitors for the Respondent: Clayton Utz

[2020] AATA 5141

21 December 2020

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Administrative Law

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Procedural Fairness

Jurisdiction

Statutory Construction

Natural Justice

Remedies

Date(s) of hearing:	7 and 8 December 2020
Counsel for the Applicant:	Mr Dushan Nikolic
Solicitors for the Applicant:	Ms Leah Perkins, Carina Ford Immigration Lawyers
Advocate for the Respondent:	Ms Rachael Law
Solicitors for the Respondent:	Clayton Utz