Rogers and Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (Migration)
[2025] ARTA 28
•15 January 2025
Rogers and Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (Migration) [2025] ARTA 28 (15 January 2025)
Applicant/s: Quentin Lester Rogers
Respondent: Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs
Tribunal Number: 2024/8844
Tribunal:General Member A. Maryniak KC
Place:Melbourne
Date:15 January 2025
Decision:The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and in substitution decides that the decision cancelling the Applicant’s visa is revoked.
..............................[SGD] ..............................
General Member A. Maryniak KC
Catchwords
MIGRATION – Mandatory cancellation of visa – failure to pass character test – whether there is another reason to revoke the mandatory cancellation decision – Ministerial Direction No. 110 – primary and other considerations – membership of an organisation involved in criminal conduct – protection of the Australian community – serious offending – violent offending against women – low risk of reoffending – strength nature and duration of ties to Australia – best interests of minor children – expectations of the Australian community – New Zealand citizen – extent of impediments if returned to New Zealand – impact on Australian business interests – decision set aside and substituted.
Legislation
Liquor (Identified Organisation-Mongrel Mob) Amendment Regulation 2018 (Qld)
Migration Act 1958 (Cth)
Serious and Organised Crime Legislation Amendment Act 2016 (Qld)Cases
Arachchi v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Service and Multicultural Affairs [2022] FCA 1311
Plaintiff M1/2021 v Minister for Home Affairs (2022) 400 ALR 417; [2022] HCA 17
Singhv Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCA 905Secondary Materials
Ministerial Direction No. 110, Migration Act 1958 (Cth)
Statement of Reasons
INTRODUCTION
The 46-year-old Applicant, a citizen of New Zealand, seeks review of a decision made on 16 September 2024, cancelling his visa under section 501(2) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).
The Applicant held a Special Category (Temporary) (Class TY) (Subclass 444) visa prior to it being cancelled. He first arrived in Australia in March 2006, aged 22.
At issue is, pursuant to section 501(2) of the Act:
(a)Whether the Tribunal reasonably suspects that the Applicant does not pass the character test and the Applicant does not satisfy the Tribunal that he passes the character test; and
(b)Whether the Applicant’s visa should be cancelled.
CONSIDERATION
The Tribunal has considered the documentary material before it, comprising exhibits A1 to A4 and R1, together with the testimony of the Applicant, Ms Brown (the Applicant’s former partner), and Ms Gibson, Ms Sassine, Mr Reid and Mr Kurtz, all Australian citizen friends/associates of the Applicant. The Tribunal also heard expert testimony from Dr Kwok, clinical psychologist, engaged by the Applicant to give evidence, and considered her expert report dated 2 January 2025.[1] The Tribunal found all witnesses to be satisfactory.
[1] Exhibit A3.
Character Test
By section 501(6)(b) of the Act, the Applicant will not pass the character test if the Tribunal (standing in the shoes of the Minister) reasonably suspects that:
(a)The Applicant has been or is a member of a group or organisation or has had or has an association with a group, organisation or person; and
(b)That the group, organisation or person has been or is involved in criminal conduct.
Pursuant to section 499 of the Act, Ministerial Direction No. 110 is to be applied (the Direction).
Annexure A, section 3(3) of the Direction relevantly provides: ‘[a] member is a person who belongs to a group or organisation. The evidence required to establish reasonable suspicion of membership of a group or organisation will depend on the circumstances of the case. Decision-makers should note that failure of this limb of the character test does not require an assessment that the person was sympathetic with, supportive of, or involved in the criminal conduct of the group or organisation’.
As to paragraph 5(a) above, the Applicant admitted in testimony that he not only is, but always will be, a Life Member of the Mongrel Mob.[2] He also accepted in testimony that the Mongrel Mob is a gang.[3] The Tribunal finds that paragraph 5(a) is established. In light of this, the Applicant’s submissions to the contrary, including suggesting a need to establish whether or not the Applicant is sympathetic with, supportive of, or involved in the criminal conduct of the group, are not relevant.
[2] See also the Applicant’s Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions, paragraph 14.
[3] See also Exhibit R1, ‘G’ Documents, G20, page 208.
For completeness, further evidence supporting this finding includes, as submitted by the Respondent:
(a)Photographs of the Applicant wearing the Mongrel Mob colours with other Mongrel Mob members;[4]
(b)The Applicant wears his Mongrel Mob colours at private functions or in jurisdictions where such are not prohibited in public, although such photographs have appeared on social media;
(c)The Applicant has an “affiliation to the Mongrel Mob” and has “no visible gang tattoos”;[5]
(d)The Applicant is in possession of Mongrel Mob clothing.[6]
[4] Exhibit R1, ‘G’ Documents, G9, pages 48-58.
[5] Exhibit R1, ‘G’ Documents, G20, page 208.
[6] Exhibit R1, ‘G’ Documents, G20, pages 209, 235.
As to paragraph 5(b), the Applicant submits that the Tribunal should be cautious in relying upon media reports as the basis for any finding on this issue. However, as the Respondent submits, there are other incremental and more persuasive facts which support a finding that the Mongrel Mob has been or is involved in criminal conduct. The Tribunal notes that the Mongrel Mob is a recognised criminal gang that has been outlawed in accordance with the Serious and Organised Crime Legislation Amendment Act 2016 (Qld) and that the Mongrel Mob was the subject of the Liquor (Identified Organisation-Mongrel Mob) Amendment Regulation 2018 (Qld) (Mongrel Mob Regulations).
The Tribunal notes that, as submitted by the Respondent, the explanatory notes for the Mongrel Mob Regulations state that the amendment occurred to prescribe the Mongrel Mob as an identified organisation for the purpose of preventing items bearing the Mongrel Mob colours and other paraphernalia from being worn or carried in public places.[7]
[7] Exhibit R1, ‘G’ Documents, G11, page 62.
Further, whilst the explanatory notes state that the Mongrel Mob is not strictly an Organised Motor Cycle Group (OMCG), the Queensland Police Service “considers the gang has adopted the attributes of an OMCG, such as the wearing of “colours” and patches, and undergoing violent initiation processes. There are also some particular Mongrel Mob factions that are OMCGs”.[8] The statement also says that members of the Mongrel Mob “in Australia and New Zealand have been charged and, in many cases, convicted, of crimes including murder, wounding, kidnapping, armed robbery, extortion, drug offences and weapons offences”.[9]
[8] Exhibit R1, ‘G’ Documents, G11, pages 63-64.
[9] Exhibit R1, ‘G’ Documents, G11, page 64.
Whilst the majority of the press articles relied on by the Respondent refer only to charges being laid against Mongrel Mob members and hence are of limited weight, one of 15 May 2024 does report a National President of the Mongrel Mob, in Western Australia, pleading guilty to possessing a prohibited drug with intent to sell or supply and possessing stolen or unlawfully obtained cash. The sentencing Judge stated that the Mongrel Mob “…uses extortion and extreme violence to further its goals, [is] an organisation that is involved in drug trafficking…”.[10]
[10] Exhibit R1, ‘G’ Documents, G16, page 87.
On the material before it, aspects of which are discussed above, the Tribunal is satisfied that the Mongrel Mob has been and is involved in criminal conduct in Australia and finds accordingly.
In the circumstances, the Tribunal finds that the Applicant does not pass the character test.
Direction No. 110
In determining whether the Applicant’s visa should be cancelled, the Tribunal applies the relevant considerations set out in paragraphs 8 and 9 of The Direction. Paragraph 5.2 of The Direction provides the following framework principles:
(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 safety of the Australian Community is the highest priority of the Australian Government.
(3)Non-citizens who engage or have engaged in criminal or other serious conduct should expect to be denied the privilege of coming to, or to forfeit the privilege of staying in, Australia.
(4)The Australian community expects that the Australian Government can and should refuse entry to non-citizens, or cancel their visas, if they engaged in conduct, in Australia or elsewhere, that raises serious character concerns. This expectation of the Australian community applies regardless of whether the non-citizen poses a measurable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community.
(5)Australia has a low tolerance of any criminal or other serious conduct by visa applicants or those holding a limited stay visa, or by other non-citizens who have been participating in, and contributing to, the Australian community only for a short period of time.
(6)With respect to decisions to refuse, cancel, and revoke cancellation of a visa, Australia may afford a higher level of tolerance of criminal or other serious conduct by non-citizens who have lived in the Australian community for most of their life, or from a very young age.
(7)Decision-makers must take into account the primary and other considerations relevant to the individual case. In some circumstances, the nature of the non-citizen’s conduct, or the harm that would be caused if the conduct were to be repeated, may be so serious that even strong countervailing considerations may be insufficient to justify not cancelling or refusing the visa, or revoking a mandatory cancellation.
(8)The inherent nature of certain conduct such as family violence is so serious that even strong countervailing considerations may be insufficient to justify not cancelling or refusing the visa, or revoking a mandatory cancellation, even if the information available at the time of consideration suggests that the non-citizen does not pose a measurable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community.
The Tribunal, informed by these principles, then takes into account the primary and other considerations, with Primary Consideration 1 to be given greater weight, per paragraph 7(2) of the Direction, and the Primary Considerations to be given greater weight than the other considerations.
PRIMARY CONSIDERATIONS
Protection of the Australian Community
Paragraph 8.1(2) of The Direction requires consideration be given to:
(a)The nature and seriousness of the non-citizen’s conduct to date; and
(b)The risk to the Australian community, should the non-citizen commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct.
Nature and seriousness of the non-citizen’s conduct to date
In dealing with Primary Consideration 1, the protection of the Australian community is paramount and the Tribunal must have regard to conduct that is serious. Pursuant to 8.1.1(1)(b)(iii), the Australian Government and the Australian Community considers to be serious any conduct that forms the basis for a finding that a non-citizen does not pass an aspect of the character test that is dependent upon the Tribunal’s opinion. Such serious conduct includes that discussed above regarding the Applicant’s failure to pass the character test. Hence, whilst membership by the Applicant of the Mongrel Mob per se does not breach any law in Australia, as the Respondent confirmed during the hearing, his membership does represent conduct the nature of which is considered serious by the Australian Government and Australian community.
In addition to this, the evidence establishes that on 17 January 2024 the Applicant was found guilty (with no conviction recorded) of the criminal charge of Affray, issued with a fine and a 12-month banning Order which remains in force until 23 April 2025. During this offending, the Applicant violently attacked a number of individuals including two women, one quite severely. Such violent and anti-social conduct also caused fear to the staff and patrons where the incident occurred. The Tribunal finds this offending to be serious, as per paragraph 8.1.1(1)(a) i and ii.
However, there is insufficient evidence for the Tribunal to find that the Applicant’s conduct was associated with rival drug trafficking activity, as was submitted by the Respondent. The Tribunal accepts the evidence of the Applicant that he is essentially very ‘anti-drugs’, such evidence being consistent with the evidence of Ms Brown, which the Tribunal also accepts, to the same affect.
The Applicant also had a number of traffic offences between 2010 to 2017, a conviction for medium range drink driving on 28 March 2011, and an unlawful possession of prescription drugs finding on 17 January 2021. The Tribunal does not find that this other offending to be within the serious range.
The risk to the Australian Community should the Applicant commit further offences or engage in other serious misconduct
As to risk from further offending, at the outset the Tribunal does not find there is sufficient evidence to support the Respondent’s submission that such risk encompasses “tolerating and maintaining the code of silence around criminal activity engaged in by the Mongrel Mob”.
On the evidence, including the Applicant’s testimony, it is apparent that the Applicant is remorseful for the offending and that in the absence of other similar prior offending, since his arrival in Australia about 18 years ago, this offending is out of character. Consistently, Dr Kwok stated that there is a low risk of the Applicant re-offending. The unchallenged evidence is that just prior to the offending, the Applicant’s mother became very unwell and unfortunately passed away in February 2024. It is clear from the Applicant’s testimony that this pending loss, at around the time of the offending, had a profound effect upon the Applicant.
The risk must also be assessed in light of a further, more recent incident in November 2024 where the Applicant again resorted to violence, although less weight is given to this incident because of the limited information the Tribunal has about it and the fact that the detention authority took no action in relation to it, particularly against the Applicant.
The Tribunal tested Dr Kwok’s low risk assessment which was made absent the knowledge of the November 2024 incident. On the limited information available, Dr Kwok maintained that, in her professional opinion, the Applicant is at low risk of re-offending. The Tribunal agrees, particularly in light of the totality of the Applicant’s testimony. He has significant protective factors in place, including 4 daughters living in Australia, a very supportive ex-partner and a three-year-old, successfully developing business employing Australian citizens. Put simply, he has ‘a lot to lose’ should he re-offend, and the Tribunal is satisfied that he knows this and is genuinely remorseful for his offending. The Tribunal notes that he has only completed limited rehabilitation to date, however this does not detract from the low risk assessment, according to Dr Kowk, and the Tribunal so finds. The evidence also supports a finding that the Applicant does not have a problem with alcohol or illicit substances.
On the evidence before the Tribunal:
(a)since membership in itself by the Applicant of the Mongrel Mob is not presently an offence under Australian law (which is a matter for State and Federal Governments to consider);
(b)in the absence of gang related charges or findings against the Applicant; and
(c)noting the Applicant’s and Ms Brown’s evidence regarding his lack of involvement in drugs and other anti-social aspects of the Mongrel Mob,
it is difficult to identify any risk associated with any purported ‘re-offending’ directly related to gang membership. Hence this aspect is given little weight in the evaluative exercise.
On balance, assessing all the evidence, the Tribunal finds that this consideration weighs slightly in favour of visa cancellation.
Family violence committed by the Applicant
The second Primary Consideration is not relevant, hence it is given neutral weight.
The strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia
The Applicant has lived in Australia for 18 years; since 2006, when he was about 22 years old. He has significant ties with Australia, including a former partner with whom he has four daughters whose upbringing he is heavily involved with, including weekend sleep overs, mid-week sports commitments and ongoing private maintenance payments towards their education and living expenses. He also recently bought the eldest twin daughters a car. The evidence establishes that, although separated, he and Ms Brown work in tandem to ensure that their daughters have the best upbringing they can manage to provide for them. The Applicant’s absence whilst in detention has put a strain on Ms Brown and she is finding it difficult to cope without his assistance.
The Applicant has, as submitted by the Respondent, “worked in Australia consistently since 2006 and, since 2022, has been the owner of Mean Maori Kustomz”, a specialist sandblasting/painting business, employing one part-time and two full-time employees. It is an important business in his town and the business would close if he was removed from Australia.
The Applicant, until taken into detention, lived with and cared for his brother Lindsey, an Australian permanent resident, who has a heart condition and various medical needs. The Applicant has a niece and nephew, also permanent residents, in Australia and he is involved at an uncle level with their upbringing. He has similar involvement with the four children of his half-brother, Jason.
Compelling testimony was given by Australian citizens Ms Gibson, Ms Sassine, Mr Reid and Mr Kurtz regarding the positive contributions the Applicant made to Australia and their local community, particularly prior to detention. Consistent with this are the statements from Mr Fairley, Mr Ditman, Ms Hepner, Mr Yanko, Mr Plummer, and Mr Hutchinson, each Australian citizen friends of the Applicant.
The Tribunal is satisfied that the Applicant is a valued member of his town, contributing when he can by helping others, volunteering and running a successful business. He has made a positive contribution to Australia for a number of years.
The Tribunal finds that this Primary Consideration weighs heavily against visa cancellation.
Best interests of minor children in Australia affected by the decision
The Applicant’s daughters in Australia are a pair of 17-year-old twins, a 16-year-old, and a 12-year-old. As discussed above, he is significantly involved with their upbringing in Australia, including ongoing private child support. The testimony before the Tribunal, together with the statements from the Applicant’s daughters, clearly establishes that the Applicant genuinely cares for each of his daughters and is significantly involved in their upbringing.[11] His absence would have a profoundly negative impact on each of their continuing upbringing and development. The Applicant’s positive involvement would be difficult to replace if the Applicant was removed to New Zealand. Minimal weight is given to each of the other minor children referred to in paragraph 32 above.
[11] Exhibit R1, HB17-20, pages 1-4.
The Tribunal is satisfied that it is in the best interests of each of the Applicant’s four daughters that he remains in Australia so he can continue to play his role in their ongoing shared custody with Ms Brown.
This Primary Consideration weighs heavily against visa cancellation.
Expectations of the Australian community
The Australian community expects non-citizens to obey Australian laws while in Australia. This expectation is to be considered normatively by reference to the Direction itself. The expectations of the Australian community as a whole are to be considered.[12] It is not for the Tribunal itself to determine these expectations.
[12] Paragraph 8.5(4) of the Direction.
As stated above, the Commonwealth and Queensland governments have relevantly not, as yet, made membership of the Mongrel Mob a criminal offence. The Respondent’s assertions regarding codes of silence “fealty and loyalty owed to that gang as a condition of membership and through his [the Applicant’s] conduct, the applicant puts members of the Australian community at considerable risk”, and other gang related risks apropos of the Applicant, are not made out on the evidence before the Tribunal. However, this Tribunal has found that the Applicant has failed to pass the character test for the reasons set out above, including the Applicant’s offending on 17 January 2024 which involved, inter alia, serious violence against a woman.[13]
[13] Paragraph 8.5(2)(c) of the Direction.
The Tribunal finds that this Primary Consideration weighs slightly against revocation of the visa cancellation decision.
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
Legal consequences of the decision
The Applicant claims that he will face harm if he is returned to New Zealand due to inter-gang rivalries and violence, which he says are of a greater intensity because of the long history of the Mongrel Mob in New Zealand and its more significant presence there. The Tribunal notes there is some tension between the Applicant’s evidence of this fear and his evidence that he is not involved with any of these aspects of the Mongrel Mob in Australia and seemingly does not face any such threat here. He also submits that he is at risk of harm from vigilante groups. The Applicant further submits, as summarised by the Respondent,[14] that he would be exposed to harm due to imputed involvement in criminal activities which could expose him to danger from police operations which often result in violent confrontations, due to a risk of lengthy incarcerations because of anti-gang legislation, due to disputes with criminal enterprises, due to internal gang dynamics, and due to the social and economic marginalisation of Mongrel Mob members because of public disdain.
[14] Respondent’s Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions, paragraph 79.
Any such non-refoulement claim by the Applicant is made under domestic law. Whilst the Tribunal has identified, read, understood and evaluated the submissions of the Applicant in this regard, it defers assessment of whether the applicant is owed non-refoulment obligations.[15]
[15] Plaintiff M1/2021 v Minister for Home Affairs (2022) 400 ALR 417; [2022] HCA 17 at [24]-[25] and [30]; paragraph 9.1.2(2) of the Direction.
As the Respondent accepted, subject to the Applicant making a protection visa application, a direct and immediate consequence if the Tribunal affirmed the reviewable decision would be that the Applicant would be liable for removal from Australia as soon as reasonably practicable and precluded from returning to Australia.[16]
[16] Respondent’s Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions, paragraph 89.
In the circumstances, the Tribunal finds that this Other Consideration weighs slightly in favour of revoking the cancellation decision.
Extent of impediments if removed
In respect of Other Consideration 2, the 41-year-old Applicant is in good health and he is unlikely to face any significant linguistic or cultural barriers. His father, although facing health challenges, and two of his brothers live in New Zealand. He also has an adult daughter living there. He would be able to access similar medical and economic supports which other New Zealand citizens are entitled to.
However, he submits that employment opportunities are scarce in New Zealand and, having established a growing business in Australia and having been absent from New Zealand for many years, he would face challenges in finding employment in New Zealand. The Tribunal agrees and so finds.
Of significance is the consequential emotional hardship which the Applicant would endure if he was separated from his four minor daughters who would, most likely, continue their lives in Australia, even if the Applicant was removed to New Zealand. The Tribunal accepts this would have a negative impact upon the Applicant including upon his mental health and wellbeing, at least to a limited extent.
The Tribunal finds that this Other Consideration weighs in favour of the revocation of the visa cancellation decision.
Impact on Australian business interests
The evidence clearly establishes that the Applicant has commenced and is running a successful business in his hometown in Queensland. This Other Consideration is not restricted to a narrow reading of the “delivery of a major project, or delivery of an important service in Australia” as such would misconstrue the Direction.[17]
[17] Singh v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCA 905 at [10] (Middleton J).
This approach was adopted in Arachchi v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Service and Multicultural Affairs:[18]
[18] [2022] FCA 1311 (Rangiah J) at [62] to [68].
The Tribunal seems to have interpreted the Minister’s submission as being that para 9.4.2 of Direction 90 applies only to impacts upon a “major project” or “important service”. The Tribunal accepted that construction of para 9.4.2 to be correct.
The applicant relies upon Singh v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCA 905. That case concerned the Tribunal’s application of para 10.3 of Ministerial Direction 65 (since superseded by Direction 90), which similarly required decision-makers to consider the:
Impact on Australian business interests if the non-citizen’s visa is cancelled, noting that any employment link would generally only be given weight where visa cancellation would significantly compromise the delivery of a major project or delivery of an important service in Australia.
In that case, the applicant had worked as a security guard and his supervisor had given evidence that he was a dedicated and valuable employee. The Tribunal concluded at [160] that because the severing of employment links would not, “significantly compromise the delivery of a major project, or delivery of an important service in Australia”, para 10.3 had no application to the services of the applicant and could not weigh in his favour at all.
Justice Middleton held that the Tribunal had misconstrued the Direction:
10I can immediately say that the correct interpretation of the Direction is not to focus only on the delivery of a major project or delivery of an important service in Australia. The focus has to be on the impact on Australian business interests if the non-citizen’s visa is cancelled. In my view, it is clear that the Tribunal fell into error by misconstruing paragraph 10.3 of the Direction and this is apparent from [160] of the Tribunal’s reasons.
11In effect, the Tribunal accepted a submission put on behalf of the Minister that the Direction applied solely to an occasion where cancellation of the visa would significantly compromise the ‘delivery of a major project or delivery of an important service in Australia’. With that interpretation in mind, the Tribunal then looked at the evidence and found that there was no evidence that enabled the Tribunal to reach that conclusion.
The Minister submits that Singh is distinguishable as, in this case, the Tribunal did not find that para 9.4.2 could not extend to other business interests, but only that the claimed interests were, “not … the sort of impact on Australian business interests to which para 9.4.2 of Direction 90 is referring”. The Minister submits that the Tribunal’s observation was self-evidently correct having regard to the terms of para 9.4.2.
I do not accept the Minister’s submissions. The Tribunal’s finding that the claimed impact was, “not … the sort of impact on Australian business interests to which para 9.4.2 of Direction 90 is referring” must be understood as a finding that para 9.4.2 of Direction 90 applies only to impact upon a “major project” or “important service”. Like in Singh, the Tribunal found that it was not required to consider any impact upon business interests unless the impact was upon a “major project” or an “important service”.
Paragraph 9.4.2 of Direction 90 commences by stating that, “Decision-makers must consider any impact on Australian business interests if the non-citizen is not allowed to enter or remain in Australia …”. The requirement is to consider any impact on Australian business interests. The requirement is not confined to business interests of a particular scale or importance.
The evidence establishes that the Applicant’s business, Mean Maori Kustomz, has been growing successfully since 2022 and, apart from providing in-demand sand blasting services in his home town and surrounding areas, it employs one part-time and two full-time employees. The Tribunal accepts the Applicant’s evidence that if he was removed to New Zealand, it would not be possible for his to run his business remotely so it would therefore close, having a negative impact of business interests in Australia. The Tribunal therefore gives this consideration some limited weight pursuant to paragraph 9.3(1) of the Direction.
The Tribunal finds that this Other Consideration weighs slightly in favour of the revocation of the visa cancellation decision.
CONCLUSION
The Tribunal has carried out the evaluative exercise of weighing up the considerations to determine whether it is satisfied that there is another reason to revoke the visa cancellation decision.
On balance, having allocated the requisite weights to the primary and Other Considerations as discussed above and applying the respective weights as found by the Tribunal, the Tribunal is satisfied that the considerations in favour of revoking the visa cancellation decision outweigh the considerations against such a revocation.
Accordingly, the correct or preferable decision is to set aside the decision under review and in substitution, revoke the cancellation.
DECISION
The decision under review is set aside and substituted with a decision to revoke the cancellation.
Date(s) of hearing: 7 and 8 January 2025 Applicant: Self-represented Advocate for the Respondent: Ms Kerrie Pieri Solicitors for the Respondent: Minter Ellison EXHIBIT LIST
A1
Letter from Paul Grady, provisional psychologist, dated 2 January 2025, together with associated invoice
A2
Invoice from Paul Grady, provisional psychologist, dated 2 January 2025
A3
Report from Dr Emil Kwok, psychologist, dated 2 January 2025
A4
Two photographs provided by the Applicant
R1
Hearing Bundle
2
3
3