Sasulu and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (Migration)

Sasulu and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (Migration) [2017] AATA 1803 (19 October 2017)
Division:GENERAL DIVISION
File Number: 2017/4704
Re:Taupega Suafai Sasulu
APPLICANT

AndMinister for Immigration and Border Protection
RESPONDENT

DECISION
Tribunal:Miss E A Shanahan, Member
Date:19 October 2017
Place:Melbourne

The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.
..............................[sgd]..........................................
Miss E A Shanahan, Member
MIGRATION – mandatory cancellation of Class TY, subclass 444 Special Category (Temporary) visa – request for revocation of mandatory cancellation – substantial criminal record – convicted in County Court of two offences on 20 November 2015 – custodial sentence of 15 months – previous history of criminal damage in 2012 – bail default on two occasions – no conviction recorded in 2012 – acquisition of training and further education in prison – New Zealand citizen – protection of the Australian community – expectations of the Australian community – primary considerations outweigh secondary considerations – decision affirmed.
Legislation
Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ss 499, 500, 501, 501CA
Cases
Plaintiff M64/2015 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2015) 258 CLR 173
Re Rabino and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] AATA 999
Secondary Materials
Ministerial Declaration No 65 – visa refusal and cancellation under s 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under s 501CA (Scott Morrison MP, Minister for Immigration and Border Protection)
REASONS FOR DECISION
Miss E A Shanahan, Member
19 October 2017

On 14 February 2017 Mr Taupega Suafai Sasulu’s visa was mandatorily cancelled by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (the Minister) pursuant to s 501(3A) of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act). It was determined that Mr Sasulu did not pass the character test because he had a substantial criminal record as delineated in s 501(6)(a) of the Act.
In accordance with s 501CA(3)(b) of the Act, Mr Sasulu was invited by the Minister to make representations about the revocation of the mandatory cancellation. On 7 March 2017 Mr Sasulu sought revocation of the mandatory visa cancellation decision. He made representations as to why the mandatory cancellation should be revoked and provided various submissions and supporting documentation which were considered by a delegate of the Minister. On 27 July 2017 the delegate decided not to revoke the mandatory cancellation.
On 7 August 2017 Mr Sasulu applied to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for review of the non-revocation decision. As Mr Sasulu did not pass the character test, the only issue before the Tribunal is whether there was another reason why the mandatory visa cancellation should be revoked. Since completing his sentence of imprisonment, Mr Sasulu has been detained in the Immigration Detention Centre on Christmas Island.
At the hearing of the application on 12 October 2017 Mr Sasulu was represented by Mr R Sorensen of counsel instructed by Ms A Nguyen, solicitor of Visatec Legal. Mr D Clarke solicitor of Clayton Utz appeared for the Minister. Mr Sasulu, Ms Rachel Main, Mr Neli Sasulu, Mrs Faamati Sasulu and Ms Kalolaine Vea gave evidence before the Tribunal. The Minister provided a set of paginated G-Documents and summonsed documents from various authorities, including the Melbourne Magistrates Court and the Victorian Police. Four statements from Ms Main, Mr Neli Sasulu, Ms Faamati Sasulu and Ms Kalolaine Vea were also lodged by Mr Sasulu’s solicitors on 11 October 2017. Unfortunately, as these documents were not served on the Minister’s representatives at least two business days prior to the hearing, the Tribunal cannot take into account their written content nor accept corresponding oral evidence not already found in another document. However, the Tribunal notes that each of these witnesses did have a statement within the G-Documents that had previously been submitted to the Department of Immigration and Border Protection.
BACKGROUND TO THE APPLICATION
Mr Sasulu (also known as Junior) is a citizen of New Zealand and is of Samoan heritage. He arrived in Australia on 11 October 2005 at the age of 17. He returned to New Zealand in 2006 for a period of eight months while his parents were in Samoa. On 10 October 2012, Mr Sasulu was convicted of criminal damage with intent to damage or destroy. In addition to the criminal damage, which apparently amounted to graffiti on a JB Hi-Fi store in Dandenong committed on 16 March 2010, he failed to answer bail on two occasions (14 July 2011 and 16 December 2011). No conviction was entered for these offences, but he was fined $990.00, this being compensation for the damage caused to JB Hi-Fi.
On 7 December 2014, Mr Sasulu was arrested following a violent incident outside a Melbourne nightclub. He had punched and then kicked two brothers while they were lying on the ground. The first victim, Timothy Clayton, was rendered unconscious by what is referred to as a king hit. Mr Sasulu was intoxicated at the time and had been celebrating a friend’s birthday in the Yo Yo nightclub. It has been claimed that he was racially slurred by his first victim and responded by hitting this man on the left side of his face while he was looking to the right. The victim fell to the ground hitting the back of his head on the edge of the footpath and while lying unconscious was kicked to the left side of the head. Several kicks landed on the left side of his skull. The victim’s brother, Joshua Clayton, came to his assistance. He endeavoured to pull Mr Sasulu away and was himself punched in the face, sustaining several injuries. The most serious of these were fractures of the facial bones involving the floor of his right orbit and his maxilla extending down to his upper right teeth. His maxillary sinus was opacified, presumably by haemorrhage.
Mr Sasulu’s two friends attempted to separate the assailants and eventually security guards from the nightclub gained control. An off duty paramedic provided assistance to Timothy Clayton, clearing his airway. The police were called, the victims were sent by ambulance to the Royal Melbourne Hospital and Mr Sasulu was placed in a cell until he sobered up.
Mr Sasulu was interviewed by the police at approximately 8.50am on 7 December 2014, he having recovered sufficiently to assist the police. His memory of events was then and still remains poor. He has accepted the record of his interview as being correct as was the evidence of other persons present. In particular he has not challenged the CCTV footage of the assault. This has been viewed by the Tribunal.
The brothers Clayton have both experienced ongoing health issues. Joshua Clayton has, as a result of his orbital fractures, developed double vision, although it was anticipated that this would resolve with time. Appropriate dental splinting was performed on 7 December 2014 and there does not appear to have been any ongoing problems with his teeth. Both brothers have experienced major psychological trauma and continued to re-experience the events and suffer from anxiety at the time of the County Court hearing.
Mr Sasulu was charged while in remand. Nine charges were filed immediately and additional charges were laid at a later date. He was released on bail to attend the Magistrates’ Court on 10 March 2015. Mr Sasulu remained on bail until his hearing in the County Court of Victoria, where he pleaded guilty to one charge of intentionally causing injury and one charge of recklessly causing serious injury. The charges were heard by Judge Hicks and sentencing took place on 20 November 2015. In relation to recklessly causing serious injury, Mr Sasulu was sentenced to 12 months imprisonment. In relation to intentionally causing injury, Mr Sasulu received a sentence of 9 months, 6 months of which were concurrent, giving a total effective sentence of 15 months imprisonment. In addition he was sentenced to a community corrections order (CCO) for two years upon his release. His Honour’s sentencing comments will be considered in more detail under DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE.
Mr Sasulu served his term of imprisonment in the Middleton Prison which is part of the Loddon Prison precinct in Castlemaine. During this time he availed himself of numerous educational programs run by the prison and sub-contractors and achieved competency at a pass rate in various workplace safety arrangements, serving of coffee, hygiene and food safety, work safety in the construction industry, cleaning and sanitising of equipment, occupational health and safety processes. He also undertook a 24 hour course in the Responsible Service of Alcohol program and a six week course entitled Change on the Inside. The latter was conducted by a retired military officer.
Mr Sasulu was very keen to enrol in a six month course relating to violence but this was only provided at Barwon Prison. He made several applications but was unsuccessful in obtaining transfer in order to participate in the course. There is no record of him being seen by a psychologist or undergoing a risk assessment. However in his evidence before the Tribunal he indicated that he had some reports from the prison that he had not provided to his solicitors.
Mr Sasulu was notified of the mandatory cancellation of his visa on 14 February 2017 and on 27 July 2017 it was decided that the mandatory cancellation would not be revoked following consideration of his submissions. It would appear that he was transferred to Christmas Island detention shortly thereafter. He returned to Maribyrnong Immigration Detention Centre prior to his hearing to facilitate his attendance in person.
ORAL EVIDENCE
Mr Taupega Suafai Sasulu
Mr Sasulu agreed with his barrister Mr Sorensen that the interview recorded with the police on 7 December 2014 correctly reflected his recollection of the events and assault. He could not recall when he had spoken with the police or when he had told his mother of the events but was reasonably certain he had informed his partner on 7 December 2014. He attributed his behaviour to his then immaturity, that he didn’t know what he was thinking and his intoxication. All of these he said were out of character. He described his efforts to ensure this behaviour would not reoccur, as he had devoted himself to learning and trying to better himself. He outlined the training he had undertaken while in Middleton Prison and his regret that he could not attend the violence course. Throughout his incarceration he had played football, studied and had visitors every week. He believed his partner had most likely visited every week as had members of the various dance groups and family members. Mr Sasulu confirmed that while he was on bail for a period of nearly 12 months, he had continued working in his job as a machine operator, spent time with his partner and pursued his involvement in Krump dancing.
Mr Sasulu described his future plans should his visa cancellation be revoked as being to work in warehousing or logistics and to continue dancing. Should he be allowed to stay in Australia he would pursue his dancing and encourage young persons of both sexes to engage in this pursuit. He described the Krump dancing group as a community of people who loved dancing, helped wayward youth and supported each other.
He was asked where he would live if he was allowed to stay in Australia. He said his plans were to live in Sydney with his partner and pursue a course in logistics or work as a hairdresser, he having commenced barbering while in prison. In contrast, should he be deported to New Zealand he believed he would have no home, no support and no family members to turn to. While he could not recall when he had last been in New Zealand, he agreed that the register of his visits to New Zealand over a period of many years were correct. He said he had never worked while in New Zealand other than to assist his father in the school holidays.
In cross-examination Mr Clarke, with the Tribunal’s assent, showed some five minutes of the CCTV footage of the assault recorded on the cameras outside the Yo Yo nightclub. Following the viewing of the CCTV, Mr Clarke posed several questions, in particular, what had happened to provoke the incident. Mr Sasulu stated that he had no idea what provoked the incident. In his police interview, he stated that one of the brothers Clayton was screaming at him. Upon viewing the CCTV footage, he agreed that it did not look like one of the brothers Clayton were screaming at him and admitted that he had walked up to Timothy Clayton and king hit him. Mr Sasulu said this had been a spontaneous response and he had not stopped to think. He agreed that after he had hit Joshua Clayton, he ran away and took off his shirt.
In relation to the police interview, Mr Sasulu agreed that his memory had fluctuated with some events well recalled and others totally absent. He had no recall of having kicked either victim.
Mr Sasulu confirmed the education he had undertaken in prison and in particular the courses he had passed. While he had attributed his violent behaviour to the effects of alcohol, he gave evidence that he was normally a nice person except when angry. In response to a question from the Tribunal, he stated that he always felt good and behaved well when drunk. Mr Sasulu explained the variation in his answers to questions, particularly in the police interview, by him wanting only to go home as quickly as he possibly could and as a result had agreed to any suggestions made.
Mr Sasulu was asked by Mr Clarke if he had undergone any risk assessment while in prison and if so, whether he had a report of this assessment. Mr Sasulu said that he had undergone risk assessment and had documentation of this, but that he had not given it to his solicitor. Mr Sasulu was asked had made any efforts during the 12 months he was on bail to obtain professional help or undertake any courses. He said he had not and that he had just worked, continued to dance and to use his words done what kept him happy.
Mr Sasulu agreed that he had returned to New Zealand for a period of eight months in 2006 and that he had returned several times since.
In re-examination Mr Sorensen asked Mr Sasulu what he had done in the eight month period he spent in New Zealand. He said had lived with his bother Neli who had returned there to complete his physiotherapy course and for a time continued to attend church but eventually drifted away and spent his time, as he said, bumming around, drinking alcohol, smoking and playing games. He drank alcohol once a week during that period and this was still his practice when he came back to Australia.
The Tribunal asked if he was known to the police during the eight month period he spent in New Zealand. Mr Sasulu admitted that he was and that he had been cautioned on numerous occasions for graffiti offences which he had engaged in dozens of times. Mr Sasulu said he did not perform graffiti now.
Ms Rachel Main
Ms Main has known Mr Sasulu since 2008. She is a Krump dancer and met Mr Sasulu through his connection with Krump dancing. Ms Main is a high school teacher, a photographer and film maker. She has been studying Krump dancing and the Krump community, conducting interviews and making short films of the Krump community. She had been aware that Mr Sasulu had experienced what was described as a difficult upbringing. She had become aware of his 7 December 2014 offences a couple of weeks after the event, having been informed by other members of the Krump community.
Ms Main had spoken with Mr Sasulu during the bail period but had seen him less often as she understood he was preparing for his court case. Since his conviction and his incarceration she had visited him on one occasion at Middleton and had corresponded by email and letter. She provided statements in support of Mr Sasulu to the County Court, the Minister and to this Tribunal.
Ms Main informed the Tribunal that Mr Sasulu’s Krump name was Erupt. She believed that should he be allowed to stay in Australia, he would use Krump as an outreach methodology aimed at assisting youth offenders. She regarded Mr Sasulu as having a laid-back, loyal and easy-going temperament. To her knowledge, his partner Kalolaine Vea was now living in Sydney but intended to move back to Melbourne where she understood they would resume living with Ms Vea’s parents. Ms Main was aware of Mr Sasulu having friends in Sydney in addition to a relatively large Krump community in that city.
In cross-examination by Mr Clarke, Ms Main said she had tried to visit Mr Sasulu more recently while he has been at the Maribyrnong Immigration Detention Centre but was not allowed entry as she was found to have drugs on her clothes. In response to further questioning by Mr Sorensen, she advised that the drug test had been positive for cocaine. She suggested that she may have contacted this in her role as a high school teacher and said that she had never taken cocaine in her life.
Neli Sasulu
Neli Sasulu is the applicant’s older brother who also came to Australia in 2005 with his parents and several siblings. Neli is a physiotherapist who trained in New Zealand and Australia. He is married and is the father of two children.
In his evidence-in-chief he could not recall when he found out that his younger brother had committed the crimes referred to. He had seen his brother only at family gatherings and had visited him once while he was in jail. An attempted second visit failed as he had forgotten to take his identification data with him. More recently he had visited his bother in the Maribyrnong Immigration Detention Centre and had kept in contact by telephone.
While Neli Sasulu did not know the details of his brother’s crimes until well after the County Court hearing, his brother had eventually described the event to him and said that he had been called a nigger by the person he eventually attacked. In Neli’s opinion, his brother had made amends for his crimes by his time in jail, the courses he had undertaken and the new trades he had learned such as barbering. He believed his brother would like to establish a dance facility given his long involvement in Hip-Hop dancing in Melbourne. As Neli understood it, his brother would return to live with his partner in her parents’ home should he be released into the Australian community.
Neli said he would support his brother through church activities as in his early years his brother had flourished while regularly attending the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Neli Sasulu remains an active member of this church. Neli Sasulu felt that his brother’s behaviour on the night of 7 December 2014 was totally out of character and that he would not reoffend.
Faamati Sasulu
Faamati Sasulu is the mother of the applicant. While her command of English is poor, she communicated her desire that her son remain in Australia with her in view of her health condition. Mrs Sasulu had lodged a statement on 11 October 2017 relating to her health but this statement was inadmissible due to the effect of ss 500(6H) and 500(6J) of the Act.
Kalolaine Vea
Ms Vea is the partner of Mr Taupega Sasulu. They have been in a de facto relationship for approximately five years. They have known each other since about 2007, both being involved in the Krump dancing community. For the past seven years, Mr Sasulu has lived with Ms Vea’s parents to whom he provides a great deal of assistance.
Ms Vea believed that should Mr Sasulu be deported to New Zealand, this would impact in a major manner on their relationship as she would have to choose between him and her aged parents, both of whom were in poor health.
Ms Vea became aware of Junior’s offending on the morning of the event. However, she could not recall what he told her or when he had indicated that he’d plead guilty and she was not prepared to comment on whether he explained to her the reasons for his violent attack on the brothers Clayton.

Ms Vea verified Mr Sasulu’s evidence that they had attempted to obtain documents from the prison but only received a conduct letter. They had not requested any other documentation. While Junior was in prison she had visited nearly every weekend unless the visitor allowance was already booked out. She was of the opinion that the major contribution to his criminal offending was his upbringing in a violent family situation. In her experience he was a calm and quiet individual and the assaults were totally out of character.
Ms Vea did describe Mr Sasulu’s behaviour prior to their meeting and cohabiting as, like many other youths, spending a lot of time hanging around train stations. He had been encouraged to join the dancing group and this had provided a positive release from what she termed mental stress. She believed his prison experience was a positive, as were the courses he had undertaken. She envisaged their future as developing his career, getting married and having children. While she was currently living in Sydney, she anticipated being based mainly in Melbourne, although Ms Sasulu also had family and friends living in Sydney.
Ms Vea is establishing a business in cosmetic sales and this is apparently in its early stages. She anticipated that, should Mr Sasulu be allowed to stay in Australia, he would return to warehousing, continue to work with Krump dancing and start a youth program in this area. She herself had never lived in New Zealand but had visited there on one occasion.
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
The Tribunal has been provided with 18 statements from members of the Krump dance community, predominantly in Melbourne. These statements were made in support of the revocation of the mandatory cancellation of Mr Sasulu’s visa. The arguments put forward by all relate to his substantial contributions to the dance community and the extension of this to workshops across Australia in primary schools, high schools, youth projects and rural and indigenous communities. He was considered to be a very reliable person, who helped everyone with whom he made contact and all expressed the shock the community suffered on learning of his crime and imprisonment.
There were at least 10 statements received in support of Mr Sasulu from his family, close friends and the parents of his partner. These were also to the same effect. He was described as law abiding citizen who had transgressed on one occasion and should be given a second chance, particularly as he was supportive of his parents and his partner’s parents. The statement of Mrs Frances Vea, who is the mother of Junior’s partner Kalolaine, provided additional information which may be relevant in this determination.
In her statement of 10 March 2017, Mrs Vea referred to an accident that Junior had suffered at the age of 11. This had resulted in major injuries which she said led to him being hospitalised for over eight months followed by a considerable amount of time recovering in a care home. While Mrs Vea acknowledged Junior’s upbringing as being in a violent environment she considered the motor vehicle accident and prolonged recovery period as being a key reason why Junior had problems expressing his feelings properly therefore resulting in him lashing out that night.
Mrs Vea’s statement also discussed her reliance on him in providing transport both to work where she is employed as a personal carer and to and from her frequent medical appointments.
The Police Interview of Taupega Sasulu on 7 December 2014
The Tribunal has been provided with the transcript of this interview and has already relayed part of the evidence above. Overall, while detailed in its extent, it supports the evidence before the Tribunal that Mr Sasulu has very little recollection of what occurred. It also supports the statements that this was a violent crime perpetuated on two brothers in a situation where they had no forewarning of the attack and were both severely injured.
Statements of Timothy and Joshua Clayton
As part of the documents received under summons, the Tribunal has before it a victim impact statement of Joshua Clayton and witness statements from both the brothers Clayton. The Tribunal also notes the reports sent to the Victorian Police from the Royal Melbourne Hospital concerning the examination of each victim. Some of the evidence from these documents has been outlined above under BACKGROUND TO THE APPLICATION. The Tribunal notes the severity of the injuries inflicted upon the brothers Clayton, the ongoing but hopefully reversible effects in the case of Joshua Clayton and the as yet apparently unassessed psychiatric sequelae of the attacks.
The County Court findings of Judge Hicks
The sentencing comments of Hicks J are of great importance. He has detailed the events of the early hours of 7 December 2014 and while accepting that Timothy Clayton had said to Mr Sasulu at one stage what, nigger? he pointed out that Mr Sasulu’s counsel had not relied on provocation in the mitigation of the sentence.
Judge Hicks viewed the CCTV footage which he addressed in some detail in his sentencing comments. He also took into account the fact that Mr Sasulu had pleaded guilty at an early stage in the criminal justice process. His Honour was satisfied that Mr Sasulu had shown genuine remorse, that there was a lack of prior convictions and accepted that Mr Sasulu had been reared in a violent dysfunctional family where he was both a victim and witness to frequent acts of domestic violence. He commented that alcohol was frequently consumed in the family home and that Mr Sasulu had commenced drinking alcohol at the age of 14. Judge Hicks addressed the motor vehicle accident in 1999 wherein Mr Sasulu had suffered serious injuries, following which he found it difficult to reintegrate into school life and had difficulty in controlling his anger. The positive effects of Mr Sasulu being involved in music and dance were applauded.
Judge Hicks was cognisant of the effects of a prison sentence on Mr Sasulu’s visa status and the possibility that there would be a mandatory cancellation and could be deported to New Zealand. His Honour actually made further enquiries as to the likelihood of this occurring and concluded that the risk of deportation could be assessed with certainty. However, His Honour also stressed the fact that Mr Sasulu was a citizen of New Zealand and that New Zealand had a similar social and economic standard of living as Australia. Similarly, it had the same justice system and English was the primary language. While Mr Sasulu had lived in Australia from the age of 17, he had spent the first 17 years of his life in New Zealand and there was no suggestion that the qualifications he had obtained in Australia would not be recognised in New Zealand.
His Honour did consider the impact deportation might have on Mr Sasulu’s partner but concluded that there was no suggestion that she could not accompany him to New Zealand. As a result he considered the question of deportation as being a relevant matter but not to be of great weight.
Judge Hicks considered Mr Sasulu’s prospects of rehabilitation to be good. He accepted that Mr Sasulu’s behaviour on the night, despite being violent and aggressive, was out of character. He noted the support from various members of the Krump community and the acknowledgement that Mr Sasulu was one of the leaders of the dance company and in this respect was hardworking and generous and had helped many underprivileged persons.
His Honour referred to the report of Ms Lechner, consultant psychologist dated 6 November 2015. Ms Lechner had assessed Mr Sasulu as being of low-average to borderline intelligence and noted that he expressed regret and shame for his actions. His Honour regarded the correspondence from Kalolaine Vea as being a powerful letter in support, she having provided information regarding his violent upbringing and that he had suffered both physical and emotional abuse being beaten by his father and brothers on a regular basis. Despite these negative aspects, His Honour assessed Mr Sasulu’s prospects of rehabilitation as being good. Judge Hicks convicted Mr Sasulu and sentenced him to nine month’s imprisonment on Charge 1 (intentionally causing injury to Timothy Clayton) and 12 months imprisonment on Charge 2 (recklessly causing serious injury to Joshua Clayton). This amounted to an overall sentence of 15 months imprisonment. In addition a CCO for a period of two years on his release was imposed.
The CCO was to cover supervision, treatment and rehabilitation for alcohol abuse, and particular behaviour programs to manage Mr Sasulu’s anger and reduce the risk of him reoffending.
In his evidence before the Tribunal, Mr Sasulu referred to the CCO and said if allowed to stay in Australia he would engage in the recommended remedial courses.
RELEVANT LAW
With regard to the mandatory cancellation of visas, s 501 of the Act states that:
(3A)The Minister must cancel a visa that has been granted to a person if:
(a)the Minister is satisfied that the person does not pass the character test because of the operation of:
(i)paragraph (6)(a) (substantial criminal record), on the basis of paragraph (7)(a), (b) or (c); or
(ii)paragraph (6)(e) (sexually based offences involving a child); and
(b)the person 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.
…
(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))…
…
Section 501(7)(c) provides that a person has a substantial criminal record where:
(c)the person has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more; or ...
With regard to the revocation of mandatory cancellation, section 501CA relevantly provides:
(1)This section applies if the Minister makes a decision (the original decision) under subsection 501(3A) (person serving sentence of imprisonment) to cancel a visa that has been granted to a person.
(2)For the purposes of this section, relevant information is information (other than non-disclosable information) that the Minister considers:
(a)would be the reason, or a part of the reason, for making the original decision; and
(b)is specifically about the person or another person and is not just about a class of persons of which the person or other person is a member.
(3)As soon as practicable after making the original decision, the Minister must:
(a)give the person, in the way that the Minister considers appropriate in the circumstances:
(i)a written notice that sets out the original decision; and
(ii)particulars of the relevant information; and
(b)invite the person to make representations to the Minister, within the period and in the manner ascertained in accordance with the regulations, about revocation of the original decision.
(4)The Minister may revoke the original decision if:
(a)the person makes representations in accordance with the invitation; and
(b)the Minister is satisfied:
(i)that the person passes the character test (as defined by section 501); or
(ii)that there is another reason why the original decision should be revoked.
(5)If the Minister revokes the original decision, the original decision is taken not to have been made.
Direction No 65 of the Migration Act 1958
Under s 499(1) of the Migration Act, the Minister may make directions to a person or body having functions or powers under the Migration Act about the performance of their functions or the exercise of their powers. Under s 499(2A), decision makers, including the Tribunal, must comply with a direction made under s 499(1). Direction No 65 (the Direction) was made on 22 December 2014 and came into effect in June 2015. Paragraph 6.2(1) of the Direction states 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. The principles below are of critical importance in furthering that objective, and reflect community values and standards with respect to determining whether the risk of future harm from a non-citizen is unacceptable.
Paragraph 6.2(3) provides that the principles referred to above provide a framework within which decision makers should approach their task of, amongst other things, deciding whether to revoke a mandatory cancellation under s 501CA of the Migration Act. Those principles to achieve this protection are set out in paragraph 6.3(1) to 6.3(7) of the Direction:
6.3 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 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.
In determining whether or not to revoke a mandatory cancellation, a decision-maker must take into account the considerations listed in PART C of the Direction, which refers to primary considerations and other considerations. Paragraph 13(1) provides that the primary considerations are:
...
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.
Each of those primary considerations is elaborated upon in paragraphs 13.1-13.3 of the Direction, the relevant extracts of which are outlined below:
13.1Protection of the Australian Community
(1)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.
(2)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.
13.1.1The nature and seriousness of the conduct
(1)In considering the nature and seriousness of the non-citizen’s criminal offending or other conduct to date, decision-makers must have regard to factors including: [emphasis added]
a)The principle that, without limited the range of offences that may be considered serious, violent and/or sexual crimes are viewed very seriously;
b)The principle that crimes committed against vulnerable members of the community (such as minors, the elderly and the disabled), or government representatives or officials due to the position they hold, or in the performance of their duties, are serious;
c)The sentence imposed by the courts for a crime or crimes;
d)The frequency of the non-citizen’s offending and whether there is any trend of increasing seriousness;
e)The cumulative effect of repeated offending;
…
13.1.2The risk to the Australian community should the non-citizen commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct
(1)In considering whether the non-citizen represents an unacceptable risk of harm to individuals, groups or institutions in the Australian community, decision-makers should have regard to the principle that the Australian community’s tolerance for any risk of future harm becomes lower as the seriousness of the potential harm increases. Some conduct and the harm that would be caused if it were to be repeated, is so serious that any risk that it may be repeated may be unacceptable.
(2)In considering the risk to the Australian community, decision-makers must have regard to, cumulatively: [emphasis added]
a)The nature of the harm to individuals or the Australian community should the non-citizen engage in further criminal or other serious conduct;
b)The likelihood of the non-citizen engaging in further criminal or other serious conduct, taking into account available information and evidence on the risk of the non-citizen re-offending (noting that decisions should not be delayed in order for rehabilitative courses to be undertaken).
13.2Best interests of minor children in Australia affected by the decision
(1)Decision-makers must make a determination about whether revocation is, or is not, in the best interests of the child.
(2)This consideration applies only if the child is, or would be, under 18 years old at the time when the decision to revoke or not revoke the mandatory cancellation decision is expected to be made.
(3)If there are two or more relevant children, the best interests of each child should be given individual consideration to the extent that their interests may differ.
(4)In considering the best interests of the child, the following factors must be considered where relevant:
(a)The nature and duration of the relationship between the child and the non-citizen. Less weight should generally be given where the relationship is non-parental, and/or there is no existing relationship and/or there have been long periods of absence, or limited meaningful contact (including whether an existing Court order restricts contact);
(b)The extent to which the non-citizen is likely to play a positive parental role in the future, taking into account the length of time until the child turns 18, and including any Court orders relating to parental access and care arrangements;
(c)The impact of the non-citizen’s prior conduct, and any likely future conduct, and whether that conduct has, or will have a negative impact on the child;
(d)The likely effect that any separation from the non-citizen would have on the child, taking into account the child’s or non-citizen’s ability to maintain contact in other ways;
(e)Whether there are other persons who already fulfil a parental role in relation to the child;
(f)Any known views of the child (with those views being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child)
…
13.3Expectations of the Australian community
(1)The Australian community expects non-citizens to obey Australian laws while in Australia. Where a non-citizen has breached, or where there is an unacceptable risk that they will breach this trust or where the non-citizen has been convicted of offences in Australia or elsewhere, it may be appropriate not to revoke the mandatory visa cancellation of such a person. Non-revocation 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 a visa. Decision-makers should have due regard to the Government’s views in this respect.

Paragraph 14 of the Direction provides that the other considerations include (but are not limited to):
…
a)International non-refoulement obligations;
b)Strength, nature and duration of ties;
c)Impact on Australian business interests;
d)Impact on victims;
e)Extent of impediments if removed.
No specific evidence was put before the Tribunal of any impact on Australian business interests or the victims of Mr Sasulu’s offending if the visa cancellation is not revoked. International non-refoulement obligations were not raised by either party and do not arise on the evidence before the Tribunal. As such, none of those considerations are relevant to this matter. The remaining considerations, being strength, nature and duration of ties and extent of impediments if removed, are relevant and are elaborated upon in paragraphs 14.2 and 14.5 respectively. The relevant portions of those paragraphs are as follows:
14.2Strength, nature and duration of ties
(1)The strength, nature an duration of ties to Australia. Reflecting the principles at 6.3, decision-makers must 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.
(b)The strength, duration and nature of any family or social links with Australian citizens, Australian permanent residents and/or people who have an indefinite right to remain in Australia, including the effect of non-revocation on the non-citizen’s immediate family in Australia (where those family members are Australian citizens, permanent residents, or people who have a right to remain in Australia indefinitely).
14.5Extent of impediments if removed
(1)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.
Finally, it is important to note that paragraph 8(4) of the Direction provides that primary considerations should generally be given more weight than the other considerations. Furthermore, paragraph 8(5) provides that one or more primary considerations may outweigh other primary considerations.
SUBMISSIONS
The Applicant’s Submissions
In his submissions on behalf of Mr Sasulu, Mr Sorensen spoke to the Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions, the sentencing reasons of Hicks J and the evidence of Ms Vea, the applicant’s partner. He reiterated the statements of family and friends who were surprised by the nature of Mr Sasulu’s offences and outlined Mr Sasulu’s efforts to undertake further education and training while in jail and the reports that while in jail he had been involved in defusing conflict between prisoners.
The evidence of Ms Main and Neli Sasulu was stressed as supportive of Mr Sasulu’s return to the community. It was acknowledged that in relation to the best interests of any children, Mr Sasulu’s relationship was that of an uncle and he had not seen the children over a long period of time. All had their own parents responsible for their care.
In relation to the expectations of the Australian community, Mr Sorensen submitted that while the scale of violence was unacceptable, it had occurred on one occasion only and had been unpredictable. Mr Sasulu had recognised his wrong and had admitted to the crimes, which he conceived as being unpardonable. Prior to these events, his adult life in Australia had been impeccable, although his earlier years in New Zealand could not be described as such. Mr Sorensen contended that there was a degree of unpredictability as to whether or not he might reoffend or be a danger to the Australian community but this needed to be weighed against the strong support he has in Australia from his family and the Krump community.
In relation to Mr Sasulu’s ties to Australia, it was argued that his partner and her parents were both dependent upon him and he had no personal ties remaining in New Zealand.
The Respondent’s Submissions
Mr Clarke argued in favour of not-revoking the mandatory cancellation of Mr Sasulu’s visa and noted the requirement that the Tribunal could only revoke this cancellation in the event that it found there was another reason why it should be revoked in circumstances where he did not meet the character test. Mr Clarke submitted that the offences committed by Mr Sasulu were extremely serious; that he had been the main offender in the assault and had inflicted injuries on the brothers Clayton. Mr Sasulu had not denied the evidence shown on the CCTV recording. It was contended that the more serious the crime the greater the risk to the Australian community should the offender reoffend. It was further submitted that, in the case of very serious violence, any risk was unacceptable. Mr Clarke also addressed the victim statements in order to highlight the seriousness of the offending and the resulting emotional and psychological trauma.
It was further submitted that there was no evidence from an independent source, such as a psychologist or psychiatrist, in terms of an assessment of Mr Sasulu’s likelihood of reoffending. While he had been seen by a Caraniche clinician while in prison and had undertaken courses, none of the assessments that may have been made had been provided to the Tribunal. Ms Lechner’s report, mentioned in Judge Hicks’ sentencing remarks, may also have been useful but was not before the Tribunal in any of the summonsed documents.
While Mr Sasulu had nominated alcohol as the factor responsible for the crimes he committed, none of the courses undertaken by Mr Sasulu while in prison had been directed at preventing this risk factor or its recurrence. Similarly, Mr Sasulu’s remorse had not been addressed by an independent opinion nor had his ability to deal with such stressors, despite the evidence that his behaviour in December 2014 was out of character. The latter opinions had been expressed by his brother Neli and his partner, neither of whom was in a position to provide an independent opinion.
Mr Clarke acknowledged the support of the Krump community and the many supportive witness statements. It was contended that they had said what you would expect them to say but were bereft of factual support. Mr Clarke submitted that the broader Australian community would not accept revocation of the cancellation of Mr Sasulu’s visa because of the untested and unaddressed risk of reoffending.
The Minister addressed the question of best interests of minor children in Australia who might be affected by the decision contending that there was little evidence before the Tribunal relating to this requirement. It was accepted that Mr Sasulu had numerous nieces and nephews residing in Australia although he had not had any contact with them over a period of 15 months. There was no evidence put forward regarding his contact with these children prior to his incarceration and it was contended that little weight could be given to this consideration.
Based on the evidence before the Tribunal Mr Clarke submitted that, of the five other considerations in Part C of Direction No 65, the only ones that were relevant to the matter before the Tribunal were:
(a)strength nature and duration of ties; and
(b)extent of impediments if removed.
The evidence clearly records that Mr Sasulu spent the first 17 years of his life in New Zealand and that he now has no relatives residing in that country. There was nothing in the evidence before the Tribunal to suggest that he would re-engage in the minor criminal activities that he engaged in while in New Zealand prior to his migrating to Australia. It was submitted that the relationship with his partner Kalolaine Vea might be impacted upon should he be deported to New Zealand, as would his involvement in the Australian Krump community, which had been attested to in various supporting statements. Overall the Minister conceded that the applicant’s strength, nature and duration of ties weighed in favour of revoking the mandatory visa cancellation decision.
As to the question of the extent of impediments if removed, it was submitted the standard of living in Australia and New Zealand was very similar, that Mr Sasulu would be able to access medical and economic support similar to that which existed in Australia and there were no substantial language or cultural barriers between the two countries. Again, it was submitted that these hardships were not significant when weighed against the risk to the Australian community and the expectations of the Australian community, although when viewed separately they supported revocation of the decision.
Mr Clarke addressed the health issues of Mr Sasulu’s mother and his partner’s parents. While these were serious considerations, it was submitted they could be equally well served by the other children of both families, particularly as they had not had assistance from Mr Sasulu for a period of two years.
In conclusion, it was submitted that primary considerations 1 and 3 were dominant. Mr Clarke stated that the risk of reoffending had not been tested by any independent and authoritative source and should Mr Sasulu reoffend, the harm caused would be of a serious nature. Furthermore, it was stressed that it was the expectation of the Australian community that the mandatory cancellation not be revoked in circumstances where there was a risk of reoffending and the nature of harm that may be caused if Mr Sasulu reoffended was serious. It was submitted that these considerations greatly outweighed the secondary considerations and supported the affirmation of the decision to not revoke the mandatory cancellation.
THE TRIBUNAL’S DELIBERATIONS AND DECISION
It is not in contention that Mr Sasulu failed the character test under s 501(6)(a) of the Act. That is so because he was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more (s 501(7)(c) of the Act). Mr Sasulu therefore needs to meet the requirements of s 501CA(4)(b)(ii) relating to the existence of another reason as to why the delegate’s decision should be revoked. In assessing whether there is another reason why the mandatory cancellation should be revoked, the Tribunal must make its decision in accordance with the principles outlined in Direction No 65.
Protection of the Australian Community
Nature and Seriousness of the Conduct
Mr Sasulu has only one criminal conviction and several minor offences, both in New Zealand and Australia, which have not attracted conviction in New Zealand and in Australia only a fine. However the events of 7 December 2014 were particularly violent and in the case of Mr Timothy Clayton could have led to death from a head injury when he was knocked unconscious and hit his head on the kerb in Lonsdale Street, Melbourne. Not only was he punched without any warning and while looking in the opposite direction but, having been rendered unconscious, he was kicked in the left side of his head several times. While Timothy Clayton lay unattended on the roadside, Mr Sasulu punched his brother again without warning, fracturing his right eye socket, this fracture being depressed, fracturing the right maxilla with a lateral extension into the root of at least one of his upper dentition. Mr Joshua Clayton fell to the ground but did not lose consciousness and while on the ground was kicked several times by Mr Sasulu. The Tribunal also notes the imposition of a 15 month custodial sentence for Mr Sasulu’s 7 December 2014 offences is indicative of the seriousness of his offending.
Risk to the Australian community should Mr Sasulu reoffend
The risk to the Australian community should Mr Sasulu reoffend has been deemed to be unacceptable by the Minister and the Tribunal agrees with this conclusion. While in prison, Mr Sasulu has undertaken various educational and training activities resulting in certification in a wide range of areas. He has great support from the teachers of these courses as well as from his dance community peer group. However, there has been no formal assessment of his risk of reoffending by a psychologist or social worker, or at least the Tribunal has not been provided with the result of such an assessment.
Mr Sasulu has attributed his behaviour to the effects of alcohol and his inebriation. This was the explanation given both at the County Court and before this Tribunal. However the evidence was conflicting in that he told the Tribunal that he was a happy drunk and his problem one of anger and its control. There is no expert evidence before the Tribunal relating to whether these violent acts were precipitated by racial slurs, excessive alcohol intake, or a failure to control his anger. The Tribunal notes that he possibly suffered a head injury when involved in a motor vehicle accident at the age of 11, requiring eight months of hospitalisation and some rehabilitation thereafter. This may be of relevance in his assessment in relation to his anger management. The report of the psychologist prepared for the County Court was that his IQ was low-average to borderline which generally reflects an IQ of less than 80.
Mr Sasulu expressed his remorse for his attack on the brothers Clayton, in his evidence before the County Court and in his statement to this Tribunal but did not refer to it in his oral evidence.
Given the violence of the attack in December 2014 and the lack of any risk assessment provided to the Tribunal, the likelihood that further such offences might occur and be of a similar serious nature leads the Tribunal to find the risk of harm being caused to the Australian community by Mr Sasulu is unacceptable. It is acknowledged that Mr Sasulu has shown an avidity for further education while in prison and has defused potential violent acts between prisoners. However, no evidence has been provided as to the frequency or nature of such interventions. Crucially, the Tribunal lacks an independent and authoritative assessment of his risk of reoffending.
Conclusion
Given the seriousness of the offences committed on 7 December 2014 and the harm inflicted on his victims, combined with the risk of reoffending and the serious harm that could be caused if he was to reoffend, the Tribunal finds that the protection of the Australian community consideration weighs heavily in favour of not revoking the mandatory cancellation of Mr Sasulu’s visa.
Best Interests of Minor Children in Australia
Mr Sasulu has no children but he does have many nephews and nieces in Australia as most of his siblings live in Australia. However he does not fulfil a parental role and clearly has had very limited contact with his siblings’ children in the last 15 to 18 months. While his contact with these nieces and nephews would be in his favour in terms of weighting there is very limited evidence provided to the Tribunal as to the degree of contact. It would appear that his brother’s children have visited him once only whilst he has been in jail and detention. There is no evidence before the Tribunal that these children will suffer in terms of their care if Mr Sasulu returned to New Zealand. The Tribunal finds that this consideration weighs only slightly in favour of revoking the mandatory cancellation of Mr Sasulu’s visa.
Expectations of the Australian Community
Mr Sorensen submitted that as Mr Sasulu has undertaken a very large number of educational programs while incarcerated, has expressed his remorse and has been offered at least one job should his visa cancellation be revoked, the informed Australian citizen would afford him a second chance. Mr Clarke noted that whilst Mr Sasulu has considerable support from the Krump community, the expectations of the Australian community are a different proposition. His Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions drew attention to the High Court’s decision in Plaintiff M64/2015 vMinister for Immigration and Border Protection (2015) 258 CLR 173, where the High Court considered the concept of the Australian community and determined that such consideration be taken to be the broader Australian community, not a particular community within Australia (at 190 per French CJ, Bell Keane and Gordon JJ), such as in this case of members of the Krump community. The Tribunal also notes that the expectations of the Australian community should also be assessed in light of the principles expressed in paragraph 6.2 of the Direction (see paragraph 6.2(1) of the Direction). Finally the Tribunal also notes that the expectations of the Australian community is ultimately a matter for judgment, the facts on which that judgment must be made on the basis of facts established by the evidence (Re Rabino and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] AATA 999 at [60]-[72] per Forgie DP).
Clearly the Krump dance community very strongly support Mr Sasulu and he deserves credit for his devotion to this particular pursuit, his assistance to other members of the community and his leadership qualities in relation to dance which have been commented on by numerous members of the community. However the Tribunal considers that the broader community, in light of the nature of his offending and particularly the so called king hit which may result in death and has done so in many instances, would lead the broader Australian community to strongly reject the revocation of the mandatory cancellation of Mr Sasulu’s visa. That is particularly so in circumstances where there remains an unacceptable risk of him repeating that conduct with serious, possibly fatal, consequences. This consideration weighs heavily against revocation.
Other Considerations
It was agreed by the parties that only two of the other considerations attracted attention in this matter, being the strength, nature and duration of ties and the extent of impediments if removed.
Mr Sasulu has lived in Australia for 12 years and in the first seven of these years did not commit any crimes. His immediate family and several of his extended family have also settled in Australia and he has a partner in Australia with whom he has been in a de facto relationship since 2012. He has resided with Kalolaine Vea and her parents’ since 2010. It is said that his partner’s parents rely heavily on Mr Sasulu to assist with various aspects of their life.
It is accepted by both parties and the Tribunal that he has very strong ties to the Australian Krump community and has been influential in developing and supporting this community. While counsel for Mr Sasulu has contended that Mr Sasulu openly disclosed the serious nature of his offending to his family and friends, this is not supported by the evidence before the Tribunal. In particular, his brother did not learn of the offences until after the County Court sentencing.
The Tribunal agrees that Mr Sasulu’s relationship with Kalolaine Vea would be severely challenged by his visa cancellation and return to New Zealand, in that she would have to decide between going with him or staying to care for her parents. Mr Sasulu’s partner and her parents, his own parents and siblings and their children, have all coped without his presence for the past two years.
The Tribunal finds that the strength, nature and duration of Mr Sasulu’s ties to Australia weigh strongly in favour of revoking the mandatory visa cancellation. However, this is significantly outweighed by the two primary considerations weighing against revocation in this matter, namely primary considerations one and three.

With respect to the extent of the impediments should Mr Sasulu be removed from Australia and return to his country of citizenship, New Zealand, the Tribunal acknowledges that he may face some difficulties in re-establishing himself. However, his qualifications, knowledge of New Zealand where he lived for the first 17 years of his life, the absence of any language or cultural barriers and similar social, medical and economic support available to all citizens of New Zealand in comparison to citizens of Australia, are such that this or any hardship arising does not weigh heavily against the risk to the Australian community. There is no reason why Mr Sasulu’s partner could not accompany him to New Zealand or, if she chose to remain in Australia, visit him frequently.
Mr Sasulu is now 29 years of age, he is an adult and should be able to re-establish himself in New Zealand. The negative affect of his criminal record is deleterious in terms of whether or not he is released in the Australian community or returned to New Zealand.
This consideration weighs marginally in favour of revocation but again is substantially outweighed by the primary considerations one and three weighing in favour of non-revocation.
CONCLUSION
Mr Sasulu’s offending on 7 December 2014 was gravely serious, being violent in nature and causing considerable harm to the victims. Combined with the unacceptable risk of his reoffending and the serious, possibly fatal, harm that could be caused if he reoffended, it is clear that the protection of the Australian community consideration strongly weighs in favour of not revoking the mandatory cancellation of his visa. The Tribunal has also found that the Australian community, fully informed of the nature of Mr Sasulu’s offending, the unacceptable risk of him reoffending and the harm that may flow from any reoffending, would not expect that the mandatory cancellation of his visa should be revoked. This also weighs strongly in favour of not revoking the mandatory cancellation of Mr Sasulu’s visa. The Tribunal notes that the best interests of minor children in Australia, namely Mr Sasulu’s nieces and nephews, weigh slightly in favour of revoking the mandatory cancellation. Furthermore, the strength, nature and duration of Mr Sasulu’s ties to Australia weigh strongly in favour of revocation and the impediments Mr Sasulu may face if removed to New Zealand also weigh slightly in favour of revocation. However, these three considerations weighing in favour of revocation do not outweigh the importance of primary considerations one and three in this matter. Accordingly, the correct and preferable decision in this matter is to not revoke the mandatory cancellation of Mr Sasulu’s visa.
The Tribunal affirms the decision under review and determines that the mandatory cancellation of Mr Sasulu’s visa should not be revoked.

I certify that the preceding 96 (ninety‑six) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Miss E A Shanahan, Member

.................................[sgd].......................................
Associate
Dated: 19 October 2017

Date of hearing: 12 October 2017

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr Rolf Sorensen

Solicitor for the Applicant: Ms Anne Nguyen

Solicitors for the Applicant: Visatec Legal

Solicitor for the Respondent: Mr Damien Clarke

Solicitors for the Respondent: Clayton Utz

[2017] AATA 1803

19 October 2017

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Administrative Law

Statutory Interpretation

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Procedural Fairness

Natural Justice

Jurisdiction

Statutory Construction

Remedies

Date of hearing:	12 October 2017
Counsel for the Applicant:	Mr Rolf Sorensen
Solicitor for the Applicant:	Ms Anne Nguyen
Solicitors for the Applicant:	Visatec Legal
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Mr Damien Clarke
Solicitors for the Respondent:	Clayton Utz