Samson and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (Migration)

[2017] AATA 257

Samson and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (Migration) [2017] AATA 257 (1 March 2017)

Division:GENERAL DIVISION

File Number(s):      2016/4016

Re:Bronson Samson

APPLICANT

AndMinister for Immigration and Border Protection

RESPONDENT

DECISION

Tribunal:Deputy President Dr P McDermott RFD

Date:1 March 2017

Place:Brisbane

I affirm the decision under review.

...................................................................

Deputy President Dr P McDermott RFD

CATCHWORDS

MIGRATION – cancellation of visa on character grounds – applicant does not pass the character test – sentenced to a term imprisonment totalling more than 12 months – the protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct relevant – expectations of Australian community not met – no other reason why the original decision should be revoked - decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ss 499, 500, 501, 501CA

SECONDARY MATERIALS

Direction No 65 – Migration Act 1958 – Direction under section 499 – Visa refusal and cancellation under s 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under s 501CA

REASONS FOR DECISION

Deputy President Dr P McDermott RFD

1 March 2017

INTRODUCTION

1. This is an application for a review of a decision of a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (“the respondent”) dated 21 June 2016 not to revoke a decision to cancel the Class TY Subclass 444 Special Category (Temporary) visa of Mr Bronson Samson (“the applicant”) pursuant to section 501CA of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (“the Act”).

   BACKGROUND

2. The applicant was born in New Zealand in 1994.[1] On 9 June 2009, the applicant entered Australia and was granted a Class TY Subclass 444 Special Category (Temporary) visa which permitted him to remain in Australia while he is a citizen of New Zealand.[2]

   [1] Exhibit A, T-Documents, T2, p. 61.

   [2] Exhibit A, T-Documents, T2, p. 58.

3. The applicant has been convicted or found guilty of several offences between 2011 and 2015[3], including:

   [3] Exhibit A, T-Documents, T5, p. 158-161 and T6, p. 162-166

   ·Common assault;

   ·Robbery with actual violence armed/in company/wounded/used personal violence;

   ·Assaults occasioning bodily harm whilst armed/in company;

   ·Dangerous operation of a vehicle;

   ·Unlawful use of motor vehicles… used/intended for indictable offence, including stealing;

   ·Burglary and enter premises and commit indictable offence by break;

   ·Fraud – dishonestly gaining benefit or advantage; stealing;

   ·Possessing utensils or pipes for use;

   ·Contravening directions or requirements;

   ·Unauthorised dealing with shop goods; and

   ·Breach of bail granted condition and probation order.

4. On 22 October 2015, the respondent cancelled the applicant’s Class TY Subclass 444 Special Category visa (“visa”) under s 501(3A) of the Act.[4] The respondent was satisfied that the applicant did not pass the character test because he had a substantial criminal record.[5]

   [4] Exhibit A, T-Documents, T2, pp. 39-43.

   [5] Exhibit A, T-Documents, T2, pp. 39-43.

5. On 18 November 2015, the applicant made representations in accordance with s 501CA(4)(a) of the Act seeking revocation of the mandatory visa cancellation decision.[6] On 22 June 2016, the respondent notified the applicant of its decision not to revoke the visa cancellation decision under s 501CA(4) of the Act.[7]

   [6] Exhibit A, T-Documents, T2, p. 32.

   [7] Exhibit A, T-Documents, T1, pp. 15-22.

6. On 14 July 2016, the applicant lodged an application with this Tribunal to review the decision.[8]

   [8] Exhibit A, T-Documents, T1, p. 6-14.

   JURISDICTION  

7. The Tribunal has jurisdiction to review the decision of the delegate of the respondent dated 21 June 2016 under s 500(1)(ba) of the Act.

   CHARACTER TEST

   Substantial criminal record

8. Section 501(6)(a) of the Act provides that a person does not pass the character test if he or she has a substantial criminal record. Section 501(7)(c) of the Act provides that a person has a “substantial criminal record” if he or she has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment for a period of 12 months or more.

9. On 29 July 2013, in the District Court of Queensland, the applicant received the following sentences:[9]

   ·Sentence of 3 years imprisonment for robbery with actual violence armed/in company/wounded/used personal violence;

   ·Sentence of 2 years 6 months imprisonment for assault occasioning bodily harm whilst armed/in company; and

   ·Sentence of 2 years imprisonment for dangerous operation of a vehicle.

   [9] Exhibit A, T-Documents, T6, pp.163-164.

10. As the applicant was sentenced to a period of imprisonment of 12 months or more, he has a substantial criminal record as defined under s 501(7)(c) of the Act and I am satisfied does not pass the character test as required under s 501CA(4)(b)(i) of the Act.

    MINISTERIAL DIRECTION

11. Section 499 of the Act empowers the respondent to give written directions about the performance of functions and the exercise of powers under the Act. The effect of this section is that the Tribunal is required to comply with Ministerial Direction No 65 (Visa refusal and cancellation under s 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under s 501CA) (“the Direction”). The Direction commenced operation on 22 December 2014 and remains in force.

12. The Preamble provides that the objective of the Act is to regulate, in the national interest, the coming into, and presence in, Australia of non-citizens.[10] An objective of the Direction is to provide a framework within which decision-makers approach their decision of whether to revoke a mandatory cancellation under s 501CA of the Act.[11]

    [10] Direction No 65 – Migration Act 1958 – Direction under section 499 – Visa refusal and cancellation under s 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under s 501CA at [6.1(1)].

    [11] Ibid at [6.1(4)].

13. The Preamble specifies seven principles which provide a framework within which decision-makers should approach their specific task:[12]

    (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 vulnerable members of the community such as minors, 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.

    [12] Ibid at [6.3].

14. Paragraph 8 of the Direction provides:

    …

    (2) In applying the considerations (both primary and other), information and evidence from independent and authoritative sources should be given appropriate weight.

    (3) Both primary and other considerations may weigh in favour of, or against, refusal, cancellation of the visa, or whether or not to revoke a mandatory cancellation of a visa.

    (4) Primary considerations should generally be given greater weight than the other considerations.

    (5) One or more primary considerations may outweigh other primary considerations.

15. In deciding whether to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the applicant’s visa, paragraph 13(2) of the Direction provides the following are primary considerations:

    a) Protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct;

    b) The best interests of minor children in Australia;

    c) Expectations of the Australian community.

16. I will consider each of the primary considerations in turn.

    Primary consideration A – The protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct

17. Paragraph 13.1(1) of the Direction provides:

    When considering protection of the Australian community, decision-makers should have regard to the principle that the Government is committed to protecting the Australian community from harm as a result of criminal activity or other serious conduct by non-citizens. Remaining in Australia is a privilege that Australia confers on non-citizens in the expectation that they are, and have been, law abiding, will respect important institutions, and will not cause or threaten harm to individuals or the Australian community. Mandatory cancellation without notice of certain non-citizen prisoners is consistent with this principle by ensuring that serious offenders remain in either criminal or immigration detention while their immigration status is resolved.

18. Paragraph 13.1(2) of the Direction provides that decision-makers should also give consideration 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.

19. The applicant has a considerable criminal history. The applicant has committed a number of violent offences including common assault, assault occasioning bodily harm and dangerous operation of a vehicle as well as dishonesty offences.

20. The applicant has been found guilty of a number of offences against the general public. On 29 July 2013, the applicant was convicted and found guilty of 10 indictable offences, including ‘taking of cars, the unlawful use of cars, burglary and stealing… dangerous operation of a vehicle… a police chase, and a shop steal… armed robbery in company with personal violence and assault occasioning bodily harm, whilst armed and in company.’[13]

    [13] Exhibit A, T-Documents, T2, p. 47-53.

21. This attack, which occurred on 1 September 2012, was described by the judge as a ‘serious and brutal attack’ which involved the applicant and others in an unprovoked manner attacking two young men outside of their homes by hitting them to the ground and kicking at least one of them in the head and face – leaving footprint marks on the complainant’s face. Property was stolen and offences of burglary and theft of motor vehicles occurred.[14]

    [14] Exhibit A, T-Documents, T2, p.48.

22. When the applicant was sentenced on 29 July 2013, Judge Shanahan remarked:

    It seems to me that that’s a serious offence of violence, committed in suburban streets for no reason and it involved an attack by a group on two individuals, without provocation…

    It is a big step to send a young man back into jail but I am of the view that the robbery offence and the assault offence are so serious that there is no other alternative open to me.[15]

    [15] Ibid

23. I have serious concern with the applicant’s brutal attacks particularly in circumstances where there was no provocation.

    Recent assault

24. On 3 September 2015, the applicant was convicted of common assault.[16] The offending involved an attack on a hotel employee who had asked the applicant to leave the premises at the closing time. The applicant struck the hotel employee in the back of the head when the employee turned his back on him.[17] The victim stumbled and the applicant struck him again at the side of the head. Magistrate McLaughlin described the attack as:

    a cowardly offence… it was unprovoked; [the victim had] done nothing to deserve it; it’s done in a public place; and as the prosecutor said, this is done to a person who’s doing their job. It’s – which makes it, in my view, even worse... [18]

    [16] Exhibit A, T-Documents, T2, p.44

    [17] Exhibit b, Summons documents, p. 128.

    [18] Exhibit A, T-Documents, T8, pp.169-171.

25. This offence was committed just four months after the applicant was released on parole for previous violent offending of robbery with violence and assault occasioning bodily harm.[19]

    [19] Exhibit A, T-Documents, T8, pp.169-171.

    Dangerous operation of a vehicle

26. On 29 July 2013, the applicant was found guilty of the dangerous operation of a vehicle. The incident involved a police chase and a reported circumstance in which the applicant drove towards a police officer at speed.[20]

    [20] Exhibit B, Summons Documents, pp. 88.

27. On 3 September 2015, the applicant was convicted of failing to stop a motor vehicle when he attempted to speed away from police at a speed of 100km/hr in a 60km/hr zone.[21]

    [21] Exhibit B, Summons Documents, p. 132.

    Dishonest conduct - stealing

28. The applicant has been convicted of several offences of dishonesty. Prior to his first conviction, the applicant had been cautioned for several dishonesty offences in 2010.[22] The applicant’s offending increased in severity over time.

    [22] Exhibit A, T-Documents, T6, p.165.

29. On 14 April 2011, the applicant was found guilty without conviction of unauthorised dealing with shop goods.[23] On 22 October 2012, the applicant was convicted of stealing.[24]

    [23] Exhibit A, T-Documents, T2, p. 46

    [24] Exhibit A, T-Documents, T2, p. 45.

30. On 8 April 2013, the applicant was convicted of unlawful use of motor vehicles and fraud - dishonestly gain benefit/advantage.[25]

    [25] Ibid.

31. On 26 April 2013, the applicant was convicted of unauthorised dealing with shop goods. On 29 July 2013, the applicant was convicted of burglary and stealing.[26]

    [26] Ibid.

    Breaches

32. The applicant has contravened directions given by law enforcement bodies and offended while on bail and parole. In 2013, the applicant was convicted for breaching his bail conditions by failing to report, acting inconsistently with bail conditions and committing offences similar to those for which he was granted bail for originally.[27]

    [27] Exhibit B, Summons Documents, p. 271, 296

33. Magistrate McLaughlin noted that the applicant had twice gone on to offend while on parole since 2013, stating that:

    the offence you’ve pleaded guilty to today happened… only four months after you got out of jail with two years’ parole to go… the offence which you’ve pleaded guilty to was a cowardly offence… when the hotel employee had turned his back on you after giving you the direction, you struck him in the back of the head… It was unprovoked; he’d done nothing to deserve it. [28]

    [28] Exhibit A, T-Documents, T8, p.169-171.

34. It is fair to say that the applicant has not demonstrated that any significant or real rehabilitation has occurred, and there is a risk that he may reoffend. This does not weigh in favour of revoking the cancellation of his visa.

    Assessment

35. In my assessment the protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct weighs most heavily in favour of not revoking the cancellation of the applicant’s visa.

36. There is a risk that the applicant would continue to commit serious offences if he was permitted to reside in Australia. Imprisonment does not appear to deter the applicant from committing further offences. His conviction on 3 September 2015 for a cowardly assault on a hotel employee was for an offence that was committed after his release from prison and whilst he was on parole. The learned magistrate described the assaults as cowardly because the hotel employee was assaulted after he had turned his back on the applicant after giving the applicant the direction to leave the hotel. [29] The applicant had struck the hotel employee at the back of his head. After the hotel employee stumbled, he struck him again to the side of the head.

    [29] Ibid.

37. The assaults that occurred on 1 September 2012 required one of the victims to undergo medical procedures and a victim also discontinued his course of study.[30] The victim impact statement of the mother stated that the victim’s “anxiety caused by his Asperger’s has increased”, the “confidence he had developed… has significantly decreased” and “he has suffered from symptoms of depression, lost his independence and his concentration has been affected”.[31]

    [30] Exhibit B Summons documents, pp. 110, 154

    [31] Ibid

38. The fact that in 2013 the applicant drove towards a police officer at speed and in 2015 attempted to speed away from police indicates that he is a risk to the community.

39. While the applicant has to his credit attended alcohol and drug counselling on a number of occasions[32], there is no evidence from any medical professional which indicates there is a low risk that the applicant will reoffend.

    [32] Exhibit B, Summons Documents, p. 155

40. In Tanielu v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2014] FCA 673 at [155], Justice Mortimer explained that a risk of harm posed by an individual can only be ascertained by evaluating the seriousness of any future harm which might be caused and the likelihood of that harm occurring. I consider that the applicant is likely to continue to reoffend if he is released into the community. The fact that the applicant committed the cowardly assault on the hotel employee after being released from prison on parole does not indicate that imprisonment has been a sufficient deterrent. The magistrate recorded that the hotel employee did not give the applicant any provocation for the cowardly act. The fact that the applicant had been drinking on that occasion does not indicate that his completion of the anger management and substance abuse courses has prevented his violent conduct. There is no cogent evidence before me to base an assessment that the applicant has been deterred from committing further violent assaults. It is apparent that the applicant has a problem with alcohol which has not been sufficiently addressed by him.

41. There is also a risk to the community in that the applicant has on two occasions been convicted of the dangerous operation of a vehicle. I do not consider that his convictions will deter such dangerous conduct which could result in a serious injury in the future.

    Primary consideration B – The best interests of minor children in Australia

42. Paragraph 13.2 of the Direction requires me to consider whether the revocation of the cancellation decision is in the best interests of minor children in Australia affected by the decision.[33]

    [33] Direction No 65 – Migration Act 1958 – Direction under section 499 – Visa refusal and cancellation under s 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under s 501CA at [13.2(1)].

43. The applicant has no children in Australia or elsewhere. The applicant did provide evidence that he has several nieces and nephews in Australia[34]; however, there was no evidence before me as to the role that he plays in relation to any of these children. I find that the primary consideration of the best interests of the children weighs in favour of the revocation of the cancellation of the visa. The evidence before me does not, however, enable me to give this primary consideration any high weight.

    [34] Exhibit A, T-Documents, T2, p. 80.

    Primary consideration C - Expectations of the Australian community

1. The Australian community expects non-citizens to obey Australian laws.[35] Paragraph 6.3(3) of the Direction provides that a non-citizen who has committed a serious crime of a violent nature against vulnerable members of the community, such as minors, should generally expect to be denied the privilege of coming to or forfeit the privilege of staying in Australia.

   [35] Ibid at [13.3(1)].  

2. Paragraph 13.1.1(1)(b) of the Direction provides that crimes committed against vulnerable members of the community or government representatives or officials due to the position they hold, or in the performance of their duties are serious. The applicant committed two serious crimes of violence against members of the community in unprovoked circumstances. I consider the attack on the men in 2012 and the attack on a hotel employee in 2014 are crimes against vulnerable members of the community.

3. In considering the expectations of the Australian community I have taken into account observations of Magistrate McLaughlin on 8 April 2013 who noted “that you’re just not getting it” and “it’s quite obvious fines just don’t have any effect on you.”[36] I had regard to observations of Judge Shanahan on 29 July 2013 that the offending was “serious and brutal… offence of violence, committed on suburban streets for no reason… without provocation” and “I am of the view that the robbery… and assault offence are so serious” that the applicant must go back to jail.[37]

   [36] Exhibit A, T-Documents, T4, p. 156.

   [37] Exhibit A, T-Documents, T2, p. 48.

4. I have considered the victim impact statement written by the mother of one of the victims of the applicant’s offending.[38] It is my view that the Australian community would expect that the cancellation of a non-citizen’s visa in these circumstances is appropriate.

   [38] Exhibit B, Summons documents, p. 154

5. Paragraph 13.1.1(g) of the Direction requires me to have regard to whether a non-citizen has re-offended since he was formally warned about the consequences of further offending in terms of the non-citizen’s migration status. There was no evidence before me that the applicant was formally warned about the consequences of further offending specifically in terms of his migration status.

6. The applicant was cautioned by police officers in 2010 for nine offences.[39] The applicant was warned about the seriousness of his offending and consequences of further offending by Judge Shanahan on 29 July 2013.[40] The applicant was warned by Magistrate McLaughlin on 8 April 2013 that he “needs to smarten up…” but still continued to offend.[41]

   [39] Exhibit A, T-Documents, T6, p. 165

   [40] Exhibit A, T-Documents, T2, p. 47-53

   [41] Exhibit A, T-Documents, T4, p.154-157.

7. The primary consideration of the expectations of the Australian community weighs most heavily in favour of not revoking the cancellation of the applicant’s visa. The Australian community would in my assessment expect that the applicant should not hold a visa when having regard to his record of offending over a period of five years and the violent and repeated nature of that offending. The fact that the applicant committed a violent and cowardly assault in 2014 whilst on parole counts against the applicant as does his disregard of warnings from judicial officers. That assault was committed just four months after he was released from prison and flies in the face of community concern about coward punches and ‘one punch’ deaths.

   Other Considerations

8. Paragraph 14(1) of the Direction provides that I have to consider the other considerations where they are relevant.

   Non-refoulement obligations

9. There is no cogent evidence before me that the applicant is at risk of harm that would invoke Australia’s international non-refoulement obligations if he is relocated to New Zealand.

10. The applicant has not given any evidence which is relevant to the non-refoulement obligations of Australia.

    Strength, nature and duration of ties

11. The applicant has lived in Australia from the age of 15 years. At the date of the hearing he was 22 years of age. Both of the applicant’s parents and his siblings reside in Australia. He also has relatives in Australia who are grandparents, aunts and uncles, nieces and nephews and cousins.

12. The applicant called several witnesses who attested to the strength of his ties to Australia. I have taken into account the statements of support from the applicant’s family members and friends.[42] I find that the applicant has strong family ties to Australia with the majority of his family here and having lived here since 2009.[43] This weighs in favour of revoking the cancellation of the applicant’s visa.

    [42] Exhibit A, T-Documents, T2, p. 74-94

    [43] Ibid

13. The respondent relies upon paragraph 14.2(1)(a) of the Direction which states that decision-makers are to have regard to :

    (a) How long the non-citizen has resided in Australia, including whether the non-citizen arrived as a young child, noting that:

    i.    less weight should be given where the non-citizen began offending

    
    

    soon after arriving in Australia; and

    ii.  more weight should be given to time the non-citizen has spent

    
    

    contributing positively to the Australian community.

14. The respondent has pointed out that the applicant began offending just over two years after arriving in Australia, with his first cautions from police about one year after arriving.[44] However, I do not consider that it is fair to accept the submissions of the respondent that there is little or no evidence that the applicant has positively contributed to the Australian community. There was some indication that the applicant may obtain further employment through TSI Pharmaceuticals.[45]

    [44] Exhibit A, T-Documents, T6, p. 165

    [45] Exhibit A, T-Documents, T2, p. 72.

15. My consideration of the strength, nature and duration of the applicant’s ties to Australia weighs strongly in favour of the revocation of the cancellation of the visa.

    Impact on Australian business interests

16. Evidence was presented that Australian business interests would be impacted if the cancellation of the applicant’s visa is not revoked. The applicant presented evidence that he has been working and would continue to work as a full time process worker at TSI Pharmaceuticals; his employer has written a reference in his favour and states that the commercial interests of TSI Pharmaceuticals will be affected.[46]

    [46] Exhibit A, T-Documents, T2, p. 72, 92.

17. However, there was no cogent evidence that a decision not to revoke the cancellation of the applicant’s visa would ‘significantly compromise the delivery of a major project, or delivery of an important service in Australia.’[47]

    [47] Direction No 65 – Migration Act 1958 – Direction under section 499 – Visa refusal and cancellation under s 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under s 501CA at 14.3.

    Impact on victims

18. Paragraph 14.4 of the Direction requires that consideration be given to the impact of a decision to not to revoke on members of the Australian community including victims of a person’s criminal behaviour and on victims’ family members, where that information is available. The applicant would not have any contact with members of the Australian community who have been victims of his assaults. However, a decision to not revoke would in my assessment protect members of the community in view of the criminal history of the applicant in committing violent assaults on people he encounters.

19. The recent attack on a hotel employee weighs in favour of not revoking the cancellation of the applicant’s visa. 

    Extent of impediments if removed

20. The Direction states at paragraph 14.5(1) that:

    The extent of any impediments that the non-citizen may face if removed from Australia to their home country, in establishing themselves and maintaining basic living standards (in the context of what is generally available to other citizens of that country), taking into account:

    a)   The non-citizen’s age and health;

    b)   Whether there are substantial language or cultural barriers; and

    c) Any social, medical and/or economic support available to them in that   
               country.

21. The applicant is a young man and there is no evidence that his health would preclude him from being returned to New Zealand. There is no evidence of any language or cultural barriers. The applicant would certainly face difficulties in returning to New Zealand but he is young and would be able to obtain employment. There was no evidence placed before the Tribunal about what support would be provided to the applicant in New Zealand, except that the applicant asserts that he is not in contact with his extended family who reside there. This other consideration weighs somewhat in favour of the applicant and the revocation of the cancellation of the visa.

    Other

22. I am satisfied that there are no further other considerations which are relevant in deciding whether or not to revoke the cancellation of the applicant visa. Under paragraph 14 of the Direction there is a reference to the other considerations not being limited to those set out above, but in my assessment, there are no other considerations which are relevant here.

    CONCLUSION

23. I am satisfied that the applicant does not pass the character test in the Act.

24. There are factors which weigh in favour of revoking the cancellation of the visa. These are the best interests of children, the strength, nature and duration of the applicant’s ties to Australia as well as the extent of impediments he may face if removed. However, these considerations are outweighed by the primary considerations which weigh heavily in favour of not revoking the cancellation of the applicant’s visa.

25. I consider that there is an unacceptable risk that the applicant will again commit serious offences if his visa was restored. I also consider that the expectations of the Australian community are such that he would not be allowed to remain in Australia. These are factors which weigh most heavily in favour of not revoking the cancellation of the applicant’s visa.

26. I do not consider that there is any other reason why the decision to cancel the applicant’s visa should be revoked.

27. I consider that the decision that was made by the delegate of the respondent on 21 June 2016 is the correct and preferable decision. In accordance with s 43(1)(a) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 I affirm the decision.

    DECISION

28. I affirm the decision made under review.

I certify that the preceding 71 (seventy-one) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Deputy President Dr P McDermott RFD

...................................................................

Associate

Dated: 1 March 2017

Date(s) of hearing:	7 and 8 December 2016
Date final submissions received:	14 December 2016
Applicant:	By video-link
Solicitors for the Respondent:	Clayton Utz