SGTX and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs (Migration) - [2022] AATA 2536

SGTX and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs (Migration) [2022] AATA 2536 (10 August 2022)
Division:GENERAL DIVISION
File Number: 2022/4236
Re:SGTX
APPLICANT

AndMinister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs
RESPONDENT

DECISION
Tribunal:Deputy President Britten-Jones
Date:10 August 2022
Place:Melbourne

The decision of the Tribunal is to affirm the decision made on 18 May 2022 to not revoke the mandatory cancellation decision of 20 January 2017.
.......................[SGD].................................................
Deputy President Britten-Jones
CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – mandatory cancellation of applicant’s visa – applicant has substantial criminal record – convictions for sexual offences against a minor and aggravated burglaries – whether there is ‘another reason’ to revoke mandatory cancellation decision – applicant has strong links to the Australian community and would face significant impediments and serious risk of harm if removed to South Sudan – the primary considerations of the protection and expectations of the Australian community outweigh the countervailing considerations - the decision under review is affirmed.
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth)
CASES
CKT20 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2022] FCAFC 124
Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v Le (2016) 244 FCR 56; [2016] FCAFC 120
Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs v Viane [2021] HCA 41
Plaintiff M1/2021 v Minister for Home Affairs [2022] HCA 17
SZRTN v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2014) 141 ALD 395, [2014] FCA 303
Tanielu v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2014) 225 FCR 424; [2014] FCA 673
WKMZ v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2021] FCAFC 55
SECONDARY MATERIALS
Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Cth), Direction No 90: Visa refusal and cancellation under section 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under section 501CA (15 April 2021).
REASONS FOR DECISION
Deputy President Britten-Jones
10 August 2022

This is an application for review of a decision to not revoke the mandatory cancellation of the applicant’s Refugee and Humanitarian (Class XB) (Subclass 200) visa (the visa) under s 501(3A) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth).[1]
[1] All references to legislation are to the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) unless otherwise stated.
THE DECISION TO CANCEL THE VISA AND SUBSEQUENT PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On 20 January 2017, the applicant’s visa was mandatorily cancelled (the cancellation decision) by a delegate of the Minister under s 501(3A) on character grounds due to his substantial criminal record and because he was serving a sentence of imprisonment.
On 8 February 2017, the applicant sought revocation of the cancellation decision and made representations in support of that request. Further substantive submissions were provided on behalf of the applicant by Refugee Legal on 17 November 2017 and 5 March 2018. On 27 June 2018, the Minister decided under s 501CA(4) not to revoke the cancellation decision. The applicant sought judicial review in the Federal Court and on 18 November 2019 the non-revocation decision was set aside.
On 18 May 2022, a delegate of the Minister decided not to revoke the cancellation decision (the second non-revocation decision). On 26 May 2022, the applicant applied to the Tribunal for review of the second non-revocation decision.
LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK
Under s 501(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 paragraph (6)(a) (substantial criminal record), on the basis of paragraph (7)(a), (b) or (c); 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.
The character test referred to in s 501(3A) is outlined in s 501(6). Relevantly, s 501(6) provides that a person does not pass the character test if the person has a substantial criminal record (as defined by subsection (7)). For the purposes of s 501(6)(a), and relevant to this matter, a person has a substantial criminal record if the person has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more.[2]
[2] Migration Act 1958 (Cth) s 501(7)(c).
Where a visa has been cancelled as set out above, the Minister has a power under s 501CA(4)(b) to revoke the cancellation decision if satisfied that the visa holder passes the character test, or that there is another reason why the original decision should be revoked:
501CA Cancellation of visa—revocation of decision under subsection 501(3A) (person serving sentence of imprisonment)
(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.
Where the cancellation decision is not revoked, the right to have that decision reviewed by the Tribunal is enlivened.
ISSUES BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL
The applicant does not pass the character test prescribed under s 501(6)(a) as he has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more, and therefore has “a substantial criminal record” as defined under s 501(7). Therefore, the applicant cannot rely on s 501CA(4)(b)(i) to have the mandatory visa cancellation revoked.
Section 501CA(4)(b)(ii) requires the Tribunal to examine the factors for and against revoking a mandatory cancellation decision to assess if there is another reason why the cancellation decision should be revoked. This assessment is made by reference to the representations made by the applicant which I am required to read, identify, understand and evaluate.[3] Deciding whether or not to be satisfied that “another reason” exists might be the product of necessary fact finding, or the product of making predictions about the future, or it might be about assessments or characterisation of an applicant’s past offending.[4]
[3] Plaintiff M1/2021 v Minister for Home Affairs [2022] HCA 17 at [22] and [36].
[4] Minister for immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs v Viane [2021] HCA 41 at [14].
The applicant concedes that he does not pass the character test and that the only issue for the Tribunal is whether there is another reason to revoke the cancellation decision having regard to the principles and considerations in Direction 90.[5]
[5] Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Cth), Direction No 90: Visa refusal and cancellation under section 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under section 501CA (15 April 2021).
Direction 90
The purpose of Direction 90 is to guide decision-makers in performing functions or exercising powers under s 501 and s 501CA. Under s 499(2A), the Tribunal must comply with a direction made under s 499.
The relevant principles that the Tribunal must apply to the task of deciding whether to revoke a mandatory cancellation are set out in paragraph 5.2 of Direction 90 as follows:
(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) Non-citizens who engage or have engaged in criminal or other serious conduct should expect to be denied the privilege of coming to, or to forfeit the privilege of staying in, Australia.
(3) The Australian community expects that the Australian Government can and should refuse entry to non-citizens, or cancel their visas, if they engaged in conduct, in Australia or elsewhere, that raises serious character concerns. This expectation of the Australian community applies regardless of whether the non-citizen poses a measurable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community.
(4) Australia has a low tolerance of any criminal or other serious conduct by visa applicants or those holding a limited stay visa, or by other noncitizens 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 by noncitizens who have lived in the Australian community for most of their life, or from a very young age.
(5) Decision-makers must take into account the primary and other considerations relevant to the individual case. In some circumstances, the nature of the non-citizen's conduct, or the harm that would be caused if the conduct were to be repeated, may be so serious that even strong countervailing considerations may be insufficient to justify not cancelling or refusing the visa, or revoking a mandatory cancellation. In particular, the inherent nature of certain conduct such as family violence and the other types of conduct or suspected conduct mentioned in paragraph 8.4(2) (Expectations of the Australian Community) is so serious that even strong countervailing considerations may be insufficient in some circumstances, even if the non-citizen does not pose a measureable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community.
In making a decision under s 501CA(4), the following are primary considerations:
(i)protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct;
(ii)whether the conduct engaged in constituted family violence;
(iii)the best interests of minor children in Australia; and
(iv)expectations of the Australian community.
In making a decision under s 501CA(4), other considerations must also be taken into account, including (but not limited to):
(i)international non-refoulement obligations;
(ii)extent of impediments if removed;
(iii)impact on victims; and
(iv)links to the Australian community, including:
a)strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia; and
b)impact on Australian business interests.
In applying the considerations (both primary and other), information and evidence from independent and authoritative sources should be given appropriate weight. Primary considerations should generally be given greater weight than the other considerations. One or more primary considerations may outweigh other primary considerations.[6]
[6] Direction 90 at 7.
SOME BACKGROUND FACTS
The applicant is a 25 year old man who was born in Ethiopia but is of South Sudanese descent. Both of his parents came from and lived in what is now South Sudan. They are of Nuer ethnicity. The applicant was born in 1997 in a refugee camp in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia where his family was living after fleeing the civil war in South Sudan.
The applicant grew up in refugee camps where conditions were very harsh. He saw and was subjected to traumatic events involving violence. He saw people die in front of him and there was a lot of fighting and armed conflict. He was stabbed in the eye and still has problems with it today. At one stage he was kidnapped and separated from his family for some time until his sister came and found him. He has very little memory of his father who died when he was about 6 years old. He lost his aunt and four cousins in an attack on the bus they were travelling in.
He came to Australia with his family in December 2006 when he was 9 years old. He was accompanied by about 10 family members, namely his mother, an older brother, three sisters, cousins and aunts and uncles on his mother’s side. The family settled in Melbourne. The applicant felt he was in a different world because they were given a house and had sufficient food and clothing.
The applicant attended an English school for 5 months and then primary school. His mother got a job cleaning and in day care. School was difficult at first but he enjoyed it in the end and made life long friends from his high school. He played sport and went camping. He liked art and computers and did well in his exams He completed the Victorian Certificate of Applied Learning taking a course in the automotive industry. He finished school in about November 2015 and all of a sudden he had a lot of free time. He lost focus and started going to parties and mixing with the wrong crowd. He did not take drugs and rarely drank alcohol but he did get into trouble and committed numerous crimes during a 6 month period from November 2015 to April 2016.
The applicant’s first significant criminal offence took place on 20 November 2015. He was coming home by train from a basketball game with friends when they met another group of younger teenagers. After disembarking the train, the applicant and his friends followed and then surrounded the other group. One of his friends punched a 13 year old boy. They demanded their phones and wallets. Two of the group began a series of sexual assaults upon one of the girls aged 13. The sentencing remarks following a trial in July 2017 describe what happened next:
12. Though the sequence of events was a little unclear from the different accounts that were given by the participants on the trial, I am satisfied that you interrupted the assaults by the other members of your party on [the victim] on the pretext of offering her some protection from them, and so you ushered her away from the group, holding her close to you. As you did so, you grabbed her bottom and squeezed it and continued to do this for some minutes. This is Charge 4, indecent act with a child under the age of 16. By its verdict, the jury rejected the defence you raised, which was of a belief, on reasonable grounds, that [the victim] was 16 years of age or over and of her consent to being touched.
13. Next, you persuaded [the victim] to sit down with you and whilst sitting, you produced your erect penis from your pants and grabbed her hand and put it on your penis and had her masturbate you, encouraging her to do so with the promise that the stolen phone would be returned to her. This is the subject of Charge 5, indecent act with a child under the age of 16.
The applicant was found guilty and sentenced to a term of 10 months detention in a Youth Justice Centre. As a convicted sex offender, the applicant had reporting obligations for a period of 8 years.
The second series of offences took place in December 2015. On 11 August 2016, in the Melbourne County Court he was sentenced on a guilty plea to 18 month’s detention in a Youth Justice Centre on charges of aggravated burglary, theft of two motor vehicles, dangerous driving and breach of bail. The circumstances of the offending committed by the applicant and his friends were agreed. A car was stolen on 18 December 2015 and was then used to commit a burglary on the night of 26 December 2015. The applicant stayed in the car whilst his co-offenders broke into the home of an elderly couple. One of the offenders was armed with a 45cm long knife. This man threatened the couple and punched the husband in the face demanding money and the car keys. The couple’s car and other items were stolen. The applicant drove the getaway car and successfully evaded the police who attempted to block his exit. He was arrested and granted bail.
The third series of offences were committed in the company of others on 23 April 2016. The applicant pleaded guilty on 9 November 2016 in the Melbourne County Court to breaching his bail, theft, recklessly causing injury and aggravated burglary. Once again, the applicant was driving the getaway car used in a violent home invasion. The occupants of the home were woken by the intruders at 3am. Blows were exchanged and the male occupant was hit with a stick. Their car was stolen together with various electronic equipment and phones. The applicant did not enter the house but the police found some of the stolen property at his home. He was sentenced to detention in a Youth Justice Centre for 2 years and 8 months.
There were additional less serious offences namely possessing a prohibited weapon and theft of a motor vehicle whilst on bail. These offences were dealt with in the Magistrates Court in December 2015 and June 2016.
CONSIDERATION
Protection of the Australian community – 8.1 of Direction 90
When considering the protection of the Australian community, I have regard to the principle that the Government is committed to protecting the Australian community from harm as a result of criminal activity. Entering 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. As required by paragraph 8.1(2) of Direction 90, I give consideration below 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.
The nature and seriousness of the non-citizen’s conduct – 8.1.1 of Direction 90
The applicant’s more serious offending took place over a relatively short period of time between November 2015 and April 2016. During that period the offending was frequent and serious.
The Judge who sentenced the applicant for the second aggravated burglary described the offences as ‘the most serious kind’ deserving of a stern sentence. The seriousness of the offending is reflected in the term of imprisonment of 2 years and 8 months imposed. The offending was committed whilst on bail and only a few months after the earlier burglary. Both burglaries involved a degree of planning and violence upon unsuspecting couples asleep in their home. The home occupants were terrified and suffered physical and/or psychological harm. The cumulative effect of this repeated offending is significant. The Australian Government and community view these violent crimes very seriously.
It is concerning that, despite being warned that he should behave, the applicant committed a further burglary so soon after the first burglary and at a time when he was still on bail.
I consider that the most serious offending by the applicant was the indecent assault on the innocent and vulnerable 13-year-old girl. The Australian Government and community view crimes of a sexual nature against children very seriously.[7] The sentencing Judge described the offending as appalling, predatory and sinister behaviour which inflicted terror on children. The indecent acts were ‘very grave offences committed upon a clearly immature 13-year-old, in terrifying circumstances, after you had isolated her on a pretext of protecting her from the other members of the group.’ The seriousness of the offending is reflected in the custodial sentence imposed of 10 month’s detention, although I note that crimes of a violent nature against women and children are viewed very seriously regardless of the sentence imposed.[8]
[7] Direction 90 at 8.1.1(1)(a)(i) and (ii).
[8] Direction 90 at 8.1.1(1)(a)(ii).

In summary, the applicant’s offending is very serious and is a very significant factor in terms of whether I am satisfied that there is another reason to set aside the second non-revocation decision.
The risk to the Australian community should the non-citizen commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct – 8.1.2 of Direction 90
In considering the need to protect the Australian community from harm, I have regard to the Government’s view 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 repeated, is so serious that any risk that it may be repeated may be unacceptable[9] As required by paragraph 8.1.2(2) of Direction 90, I also have regard to, cumulatively:
(a)the nature of the harm to individuals or the Australian community should the non-citizen engage in further criminal or other serious conduct; and
(b)the likelihood of the non-citizen engaging in further criminal or other serious conduct, taking into account:
i)information and evidence on the risk of the non citizen re-offending; and
ii)evidence of rehabilitation achieved by the time of the decision, giving weight to time spent in the community since their most recent offence (noting that decisions should not be delayed in order for rehabilitative courses to be undertaken).
[9] Direction 90 at 8.1.2(1).
In terms of measuring the risk to the Australian community, guidance can be found in the decision of Mortimer J in Tanielu v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection.[10] Her Honour states that, to determine an unacceptable risk, one has to evaluate what the consequences of reoffending are as well as the likelihood of the person engaging in that conduct in the future.
[10] (2014) 225 FCR 424; [2014] FCA 673.
Nature of harm if further criminal or other serious conduct – 8.1.2(2)(a) of Direction 90
If the applicant were to engage in further similar criminal offending, then the nature of the harm would be of the most serious kind because it involves sexual offending with a degree of violence against a 13-year-old girl and home invasions including violence and burglary.
The nature of the sexual offending was predatory and inflicted terror on an innocent youth. The applicant deceived the victim into coming with him and then grabbed her hand and made her masturbate his erect penis encouraging her to do so with the promise that her stolen phone would be returned to her. The act of grabbing the victim’s hand and forcing it onto his penis was described by Dr Zimmerman, a forensic psychiatrist, as ‘limited physical violence during the committal of sexual violence.’ The psychological harm on a 13 year old girl arising from such disgusting conduct would be longstanding and extremely significant. The Australian community has a very low tolerance of any risk of future harm of this nature. Any risk of repetition of such behaviour is unacceptable.
The repeated burglaries being home invasions involving violence caused significant physical, psychological and economic harm. Although the applicant did not personally engage in any of the violence during these home invasions, he appropriately accepted responsibility for the actions of his co-offenders. The Australian community has a low tolerance for any risk of the serious potential harm arising from such conduct.
Likelihood of further criminal or other serious conduct – 8.1.2(2)(b) of Direction 90
The applicant contends that there is a low risk of re-offending because he has rehabilitated himself and learnt from his mistakes and shown remorse. I accept that the applicant was an honest and impressive witness who expressed appropriate remorse.
He has generally behaved himself during his six years of incarceration first in youth detention and then in immigration detention. In particular, there are very positive comments from youth justice officers with respect to his positive and respectful behaviour in the Malmsbury Youth Justice Centre. In 2016, he enrolled in the Parkville College Malmsbury campus and displayed exemplary conduct and behaviour. His attitude towards his education and self-improvement was described as admirable.
These are positive factors in terms of whether there is evidence of rehabilitation, but the evidence of specific rehabilitation for his sexual offending is of concern. The applicant accepted that he was given the opportunity to attend a sexual rehabilitation program with The Male Adolescent Program For Positive Sexuality (MAPPS) commencing late 2017 but that his engagement was limited. A report dated 8 February 2018 from a senior psychologist of MAPPS confirmed that the applicant initially refused to see any MAPPS clinician and maintained his innocence, despite having been found guilty of sexual offending. Subsequently, the applicant agreed to participate and attended his first assessment session on 27 November 2017. The applicant accepted before the Tribunal that he initially denied the sexual offending. His denial is confirmed by a case note dated 6 August 2018 which records that he refused to accept responsibility for the sexual offences and that he had shown limited engagement with MAPPS due to this. The applicant said that he completed 8 sessions at MAPPS but was then brought into immigration detention and was unable to complete the course. He said that he learnt about consent, respecting women and to always ask the age of people.
Dr Zimmerman examined the applicant on 21 June 2018 at Malmsbury Youth Detention Centre. She prepared a report dated 2 July 2018 which recorded his history as follows:
[40] [the Applicant] told me proudly that he has participated in a number of educational classes and achieved some certificates but explained he is not allowed to do more than the most basic classes now because his visa has been cancelled. He told me that he completed a drug and alcohol course in adult prison prior to his transfer to youth detention in order to keep himself distracted, even though he did not have problems in these areas. Since coming to Malmsbury, he told me that he has achieved a music certificate, a white card in construction, a barista certificate, a food handling OH and S certificate and has completed a Managing Emotions course. He said that he would love to do more subjects if his visa status allowed it. Instead, he is currently involved in literacy (he is fully literate), numeracy where he said that his skills are in the average range, PE where he loves playing basketball and soccer, music, hospitality and writing. He said that his favourite things are rap music and writing essays. He said that he listens to music (“any music that gives me hope”), watches cartoons and writes about his life.
[41] He stated that he saw a counsellor from the Male Adolescent Program for Positive Sexuality on 8 occasions. He said that he would continue to attend the program if it was a condition of a community order. However, he did not wish to attend further sessions whilst he remains in custody, as he believed that he has attained a good understanding of respectful interactions with women.
[42] [the Applicant] told me that he has seen a psychologist for a period of time. He found this very helpful. “It kept my mind sane and helped me understand the difference between flight and fight mode.” He expressed great disappointment that the psychologist had moved away and there was no psychologist now that he could work with.
[43] He stated that he is not prescribed any medications and does not wish to have any.
[44] [the Applicant] stated that there is no way he would ever offend again. He said that he had never been put in custody before his current term and has had no way to prove that the experience of prison has meant that he would never again break the law. He said that the grief of being separated from his family for over 2 years and the horror of the possibility of being exiled from Australia mean that he would never again break the law. “I would never risk my family and going through this again.” He told me that being locked up for 2 years has made him smarter. “I look at life differently.” He said that he knows that he took a lot of things for granted, including freedom, the ability to walk where you want to, not having to ask to have a door opened and being able to eat the food you want to.
I accept the history above as an accurate record and note that much of it was repeated by the applicant in his evidence to the Tribunal.
Dr Zimmerman made a risk assessment for sexual re-offending and concluded that he had a low risk of sexual or violent re-offending. Dr Zimmerman gave oral evidence to the Tribunal and was asked to comment on the reports dated 8 February 2018 and 6 August 2018 which she had not seen when writing her report in July 2018. She expressed concern about the applicant’s limited engagement with MAPPS and said that if she had known this further information in 2018 her opinion would have been that he presented a low to moderate risk of sexual re-offending. Dr Zimmerman emphasized that she was not able to give a current assessment of risk of further re-offending because she has not re-examined the applicant since 2018.
Mr Simmons is a psychologist who interviewed the applicant by video on 4 July 2022. He prepared a report dated 12 July 2022 in which he expressed his opinion that it appears the applicant is of low risk of further offending. He referred to the report and assessment by Dr Zimmerman saying:
23. Note was made of Dr Zimmerman’s assessment of [the Applicant]’s risk of re-offending both in terms of the RSVP and the HCR 20. These tools are effective in providing an assessment of risk for further offending, with the RSVP indicating sexual offending and the HCR20 relevant to offending in other areas. It was noted that Dr Zimmerman assessed [the Applicant] at low risk of further offending on the basis of these tools and in reviewing her reasoning, it would appear that an evaluation of the various components is consistent with what was reported during the assessment and contained in the information provided to the interviewer.
Mr Simmons gave oral evidence to the Tribunal and was asked if he would revise his opinion of risk of re-offending. He said the additional information about the applicant’s limited engagement with MAPPS may increase the risk but he maintained his opinion of a low risk of sexual re-offending.
A factor relevant to the likelihood of re-offending is the ‘evidence of rehabilitation achieved by the time of the decision.’[11] The applicant has indicated, and I accept, that he will, if released, engage further with an appropriate provider of sexual rehabilitation services. That indication is a positive factor, but it remains the case that the applicant has not fully completed a sexual rehabilitation course. I am concerned that he pleaded not guilty to the sexual offences and that he maintained his innocence for a period after being found guilty. I note that the sentencing Judge placed great weight on the ‘rehabilitation of young offenders’. The applicant was subsequently given an opportunity to fully engage with the MAPPS course but he did not do so. He did attend some sessions but, as Mr Simmons accepted at [22] of his report, there is no information available to indicate how successful that was. In the absence of that objective evidence I am not prepared to accept that he is sufficiently rehabilitated with respect to his sexual offending.
[11] Direction 90 at 8.1.2(2)(b)(ii)
It was unfortunate that he went into immigration detention before completing the course and that he has not had a further opportunity to complete the course whilst in detention. That opportunity could be taken up by the applicant if he were released but I am required to consider, amongst other things, the evidence of rehabilitation achieved by the time of my decision. I consider that the evidence shows insufficient rehabilitation.
I accept, as contended for by the applicant, that there is other information and evidence relevant to the risk of re-offending. In terms of managing that risk, I accept the evidence from Dr Zimmerman that the applicant:
…shows an ability and willingness to engage with professional services and has plans for how he wishes to live in the community if he is returned there. He has a close and supportive family and would return to live with his mother. He has personal support from his extended family including an uncle and cousins. As noted, he has been compliant and responsive in Malmsbury and also indicates a preparedness to continue engaging with the MAPPS program if released to the community. He has shown a vulnerability to stress when in the custodial environment but I note that there had been no previous evidence of any depressive or anxiety symptoms prior to his incarceration that would suggest a future problem in this area.
I accept that the applicant’s traumatic upbringing in the refugee camps of Ethiopia and his initial difficulty integrating into Australian society played a significant part in his offending. He has addressed those issues by undertaking therapy and rehabilitative courses whilst in prison. The risk of re-offending is diminished because of the loving support that he will receive from his family and from his good friend who gave oral evidence that he can help him with food, accommodation and getting a job. I was impressed by the oral evidence given by the applicant’s sister and mother. The other family members provided positive statements of support. I also note the risk of reoffending would be diminished because of the need for the Applicant to report to comply with the reporting obligations as a registered sex offender which is an additional protective factor in his favour. The applicant has indicated his desire to work, participate in the community and to continue playing sport which he has always enjoyed. There are numerous letters of support from community organisations which is encouraging. In particular, there is a very positive letter from the Director of Services at Youth Support & Advocacy Service (YSAS) that they are well placed to provide ongoing assistance to the applicant upon his release.
I take all of the above into account when concluding that the risk of further sexual re-offending lies within the low to moderate range.
Conclusion as to protection of the Australian community – 8.1 of Direction 90
The Government is committed to protecting the Australian community from harm as a result of criminal activity by non-citizens.[12] The applicant has committed serious crimes of a sexual and violent nature which if repeated would cause serious harm. Whilst the applicant has expressed a genuine desire to continue to engage with available rehabilitative services if released into the community, he has not yet engaged sufficiently with the rehabilitative services for sexual offenders. Further, I consider that the harm that would arise from further similar offending is so serious that even a low or low to moderate risk of further offending is unacceptable. There is an unacceptable risk of significant harm to the Australian community if the applicant were released and therefore the protection of the Australian community is a factor that weighs heavily against revoking the cancellation decision.
[12] Direction 90 at 8.1(1).
Family Violence – 8.2 of Direction 90
The offending did not involve family violence. This consideration is neutral.
Best interests of minor children – 8.3 of Direction 90
I must determine whether non-revocation of the cancellation of the visa is, or is not, in the best interests of a child who is affected by the decision. The best interests of each child should be given individual consideration to the extent that their interests may differ. The following factors that we must consider and are relevant to this application include:
(a)The nature and duration of the relationship between the child and the applicant. 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;
(b)the extent to which the applicant is likely to play a positive parental role in the future;
(c)the impact of the applicant’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 applicant would have on a child, taking into account 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);
(g)evidence that the child has been, or is at risk of being, subject to, or exposed to, family violence perpetrated by the non-citizen, or has otherwise been abused or neglected by the non-citizen in any way, whether physically, sexually or mentally; and
(h)evidence that the child has suffered or experienced any physical or emotional trauma arising from the non-citizen’s conduct.
The applicant has no children of his own but he has a half-brother aged 14 and a niece and nephew aged 7 and 10 years old. The applicant comes from a tight-knit family which includes, aunts, uncles, cousins and nieces and nephews living in Australia.
The applicant considers his half-brother as a full brother and they are very close. Prior to his incarceration, the applicant would babysit him and they would play together. Whilst in detention, the applicant would speak to the half-brother weekly. The applicant wants to play a guiding and supportive role in his half-brother’s life if he is released. It would be in the best interests of the half-brother if the applicant were released into the community.
The applicant is also very close with his niece and nephew who are the children of his older sister. The applicant used to babysit the nephew. When the applicant speaks to his sister weekly, he also speaks to the children. He is like a father figure to them which is particularly important because the sister has separated from her husband. The children often ask when the applicant is coming home and they are looking forward to that day. The applicant wants to play an ongoing role with his niece and nephew. It would be in their best interests if the applicant were released into the community.
This is a factor that weighs in favour of revocation of the cancellation decision. I give less weight to this factor because the relationship with the minor children in non-parental and because he has been absent from the community for 6 years which represents a significant part of the children’s lives.
Expectations of the Australian community – 8.4 of Direction 90
The Australian community expects non-citizens to obey Australian laws while in Australia. Where a non-citizen has engaged in serious conduct in breach of this expectation, or where there is an unacceptable risk that they may do so, the Australian community, as a norm, expects the Government to not allow such a non-citizen to remain in Australia.[13]
[13] Direction 90 at 8.4(1).
In addition, non-revocation may be appropriate simply because the nature of the character concerns is such that the Australian community would expect that the person should not be allowed to stay in Australia. Of particular relevance in this case, the Australian community expects that the Australian government should cancel a visa if there are serious character concerns through the commission of serious crimes against women and children including of a violent or sexual nature.[14]
[14] Direction 90 at 8.4(2).
Paragraph 8.4(4) of Direction 90 provides that, as a decision-maker, I must consider the expectations of the Australian community as a whole and proceed on the basis of the Government’s views expressed therein, without independently assessing the community’s expectations in the particular case. I note the particular circumstances of the applicant including his traumatic childhood and the limited period of offending, but the indecent assault on the 13-year-old girl was very serious. In these circumstances, the expectation of the Australian community is to not allow the applicant to remain in Australia.[15]
[15] Direction 90 at 8.4(1).

The applicant has engaged in serious conduct of a violent and sexual nature in breach of the Australian community’s expectation that he would obey laws while in Australia. I consider the offending to be so serious that even a low to moderate risk of re-offending is unacceptable. The character concerns relating to the applicant and his past criminal behaviour mean that the expectations of the Australian community is a factor weighing in favour of non-revocation.
My conclusion as to the expectations of the Australian community is that it is a factor that weighs heavily against revoking the cancellation decision.
Other Considerations
In deciding whether there is “another reason” to revoke the cancellation of the applicant’s visa, I must also take into account the other considerations listed in Direction 90, but these are not exhaustive.[16] I must consider and understand the representations received from the applicant.[17] I must also consider the consequences that would flow from not revoking the cancellation decision.[18]
[16] SZRTN v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2014) 141 ALD 395, 409 at [86]; [2014] FCA 303.
[17] See above at [11].
[18] Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v Le (2016) 244 FCR 56, 70-71 at [61]; [2016] FCAFC 244.
International non-refoulement obligations – 9.1 of Direction 90
A non-refoulement obligation is an obligation not to forcibly return, deport or expel a person to a place where they will be at risk of a specific type of harm.[19]
[19] Direction 90 at 9.1(1).
The applicant has articulated the prospect of Australia breaching its non-refoulement obligations as a reason for revoking the cancellation decision. This is in addition to, and distinct from, his underlying claimed fear of harm if removed to South Sudan.
I will consider separately the risk of harm if removed to South Sudan, but I note that the risks of harm that the applicant will face if removed are also relevant to non-refoulement obligations and the extent of impediments if removed.
Further, the applicant submits that it would not be appropriate to defer consideration of Australia’s international non-refoulement obligations in particular because of the prospect of significant delay prior to any application being made and determined and because the Tribunal is capable of considering the non-refoulement claims at this stage.
The respondent submits that the Tribunal is entitled to and should defer consideration of non-refoulement obligations because it is open to the applicant to apply for a protection visa.
The recent decision of the High Court in Plaintiff M1/2021 v Minister for Home Affairs [2022] HCA 17 addressed this very issue:
[21] It is in that context that the specific issue in this case is to be addressed — whether a decision-maker considering revocation under s 501CA(4) is required to determine whether non-refoulement obligations are owed to the former visa holder where the person makes representations which raise a potential breach of those obligations but the person remains free to apply for a protection visa. As has been stated, the dispute between the parties was not if, but how, such representations should be considered by the decision-maker.
Decision-makers’ approach to representations
[22] Section 501CA(4) of the Migration Act confers a wide discretionary power on a decision-maker to revoke a decision to cancel a visa held by a non-citizen if satisfied that there is “another reason“ why that decision should be revoked. The statutory scheme for determining whether the decision-maker is satisfied that there is “another reason” for revoking a cancellation decision commences with a former visa holder making representations. In determining whether they are satisfied that there is “another reason” for revoking a cancellation decision, the decision-maker undertakes the assessment by reference to the case made by the former visa holder by their representations.
… [24] Consistently with well-established authority in different statutory contexts, there can be no doubt that a decision-maker must read, identify, understand and evaluate the representations. …
Decision-makers’ approach to non-refoulement
… [29] Where the representations do include, or the circumstances do suggest, a non-refoulement claim by reference to unenacted international non-refoulement obligations, that claim may be considered by the decision-maker under s 501CA(4). But those obligations cannot be, and are not, mandatory relevant considerations under s 501CA(4) attracting judicial review for jurisdictional error — they are not part of Australia’s domestic law.
[30] Where the representations do include, or the circumstances do suggest, a claim of non-refoulement under domestic law, again the claim may be considered by the decision-maker under s 501CA(4), but one available outcome for the decision-maker is to defer assessment of whether the former visa holder is owed those non-refoulement obligations on the basis that it is open to the former visa holder to apply for a protection visa.
(footnotes removed)
It follows that I am required to read, identify, understand and evaluate the representations made by the applicant. Those representations included a claim of non-refoulement under domestic law. The High Court said that such a claim may be considered by the decision-maker, but that one available outcome is to defer assessment of whether the applicant is owed those non-refoulement obligations.[20] I intend to defer assessment because it is open to the applicant to apply for a protection visa. That does not mean that I ignore the representations made by the applicant. Plaintiff M1/2021 makes it clear that a decision-maker must not do that,[21] but ‘one available outcome’ is the deferral of the substantive assessment of such a claim.[22]
[20] Plaintiff M1/2021 v Minister for Home Affairs [2022] HCA 17 at [30].
[21] Plaintiff M1/2021 v Minister for Home Affairs [2022] HCA 17 at [23].
[22] CKT20 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2022] FCAFC 124 at [105].
The comments in Plaintiff M1/2021 were made in the context of Direction 65 which has been revoked but they still apply to the decision I must make under s 501CA(4). The current direction is Direction 90 which provides at 9.1:
(4) Claims which may give rise to international non-refoulement obligations can be raised by the non-citizen in response to a notice of intention to consider cancellation or refusal of their visa under section 501 of the Act, in a request to revoke under section 501CA the mandatory cancellation of their visa, or can be clear from the facts of the case (such as where the non-citizen holds a protection visa).
(5) International non-refoulement obligations will generally not be relevant to a consideration of the refusal, cancellation, or revocation of a cancellation, of a visa that is not a protection visa, where the person concerned does not raise such obligations for consideration and the person is able to apply for a protection visa in the event of an adverse decision.
(6) It may not be possible at the section 501/section 501CA stage to consider non refoulement issues in the same level of detail as those types of issues are considered in a protection visa application. The process for determining protection visa applications is specifically designed for consideration of non refoulement obligations as given effect by the Act. A decision-maker, in making a decision under section 501/section 501CA, is not required in every case to make a positive finding whether claimed harm will occur, but in an appropriate case may assume in the non-citizen's favour that claimed harm will occur and make a decision on that basis.
(7) Where a non-citizen, in responding to a notice for the purposes of section 501 or 501CA, makes claims which may give rise to international non-refoulement obligations as given effect by the Act, and that non-citizen is able to make a valid application for a protection visa, those claims will, if and when the non citizen makes such an application, be conclusively assessed before consideration is given to any character or security concerns associated with the non-citizen. This process would ordinarily be followed even in the highly unlikely event that consideration of the protection visa application is undertaken by the Minister personally.
In this case the applicant has clearly raised claims which may give rise to international non-refoulement obligations. Paragraph 9.1(6) of Direction 90 provides that it may not be possible at the section 501CA stage to consider non-refoulement issues in the same level of detail as those types of issues are considered in a protection visa application. That sub-paragraph applies in this case and allows the decision-maker to defer substantial assessment of non-refoulement issues.
Applicant Representations including as to Risk of Harm
The applicant made representations concerning risk of harm in South Sudan.
The High Court has provided the following guidance for this situation:[23]
[37] … [The Tribunal is] not required to determine whether the plaintiff was owed non-refoulement obligations (by conducting an assessment of the merits of the plaintiff's claim) in the same manner, or to the same extent, as would be called for by a direct application of the international instruments to which Australia is a party or by reference to the domestic implementation of those obligations.
…
[39] Where the cancelled visa is not a protection visa and a decision-maker defers assessment of whether non-refoulement obligations are owed to permit a former visa holder to avail themselves of the protection visa procedures provided for in the Migration Act, it nevertheless may be necessary for the decision-maker to take account of the alleged facts underpinning that claim where those facts are relied upon by a former visa holder in support of there being “another reason“ why the Cancellation Decision should be revoked.
[23] Plaintiff M1/2021 v Minister for Home Affairs [2022] HCA 17 at [37] and [39].
CKT20 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (CKT20) makes it clear that I am required to consider facts underpinning the claim such as the risk of harm arising from violence and instability along ethnic lines. In CKT20 the Full Court of the Federal Court rejected the Minister’s submission that there was no obligation to consider a claim based on ethnicity in South Sudan.[24]
[24] CKT20 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2022] FCAFC 124 at [97] to [106].
The applicant’s statement of facts issues and contentions raise the following claims relating to non-refoulement obligations.
91. The Applicant claims to fear being seriously harmed for the reason of his ethnicity as Nuer as well as his association with his father, who was a Nuer political leader, returning to a Dinka led government. We note that significantly, the Applicant has the same name as his father who was targeted and died when the Applicant was aged 8.
92. The Applicant also fears harm on the basis that he has never resided in South Sudan nor has any social or familial support given all of his family are in Australia. He would be returned to a country that he has never even stepped foot in. Furthermore, he also fears harm as a returnee from Australia who may be perceived as foreign and/or wealthy, and as a young male who is at risk of being forcibly recruited by armed groups.
93. The Applicant’s mental health issues and his diminished cognitive ability further place him at risk of harm due to lack of mental health services and the stigma around mental health issues and discrimination faced by people with mental health in South Sudan.
94. Ethnic violence is still prevalent in South Sudan, and the Applicant is more at risk with no recognition of his family or other associations to being Nuer.
It is apparent from the DFAT Country Information Report for South Sudan dated 5 October 2016 and more recent reports from Amnesty International that the situation in South Sudan remains dire. There are violations of international humanitarian law, the denial of humanitarian assistance to those in need, restricted rights of freedom of association and a very poor health system with severely limited access to mental health services. As a Nuer, the applicant would be at risk of involvement in ethnic violence. He may be targeted for his perceived wealth as a western returnee. The risk of harm would be exacerbated by the applicant’s depression for which he would not receive adequate treatment and as a result of which he may be discriminated against.
In summary, I accept the applicant’s concerns as expressed in his representations that he will likely face serious harm if removed to South Sudan. However, I do note that whilst his father was a community leader in the refugee camps in Ethiopia, the evidence from the mother was that the father was not involved in politics in South Sudan. It is not in dispute that the applicant has never been to South Sudan and his family fled the country. The applicant would have no family support and other network if removed to South Sudan. This is a factor that weighs heavily in favour of revocation of the cancellation decision.
Consequences of cancellation and non-revocation
The consequence of the cancellation[25] of the applicant’s visa is that he is an “unlawful non‑citizen” as defined in s 14.
[25] CKT20 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2022] FCAFC 124 at [45] to [49].
If an officer knows or reasonably suspects that a person in the migration zone is an unlawful non-citizen the officer must detain the person: s 189(1). A person so detained must be kept in immigration detention until he or she is (relevantly) removed from Australia accordance with s 198, deported under s 200, or granted a visa: s 196.
Relevantly, s 198(2B) requires an officer to remove an unlawful non-citizen from Australia as soon as reasonably practicable if a delegate of the Minister has cancelled the non-citizen’s visa under s 501(3A) and, since that decision, the non-citizen has not made an application for a visa that can be granted while he or she is in the migration zone, and the Minister has decided not to revoke the original decision under s 501CA(4). Section 198(6) requires an officer to remove as soon as practicable an unlawful non-citizen who is a detainee who has made a valid application for a substantive visa that can be granted when he or she is in the migration zone and (relevantly) the visa has been refused and the application finally determined. Section 198(6) would otherwise operate to require the unlawful non-citizen’s removal from Australia if any application for a protection visa was refused.
If the cancellation decision is not revoked, s 198(2B) would require the applicant’s removal from Australia if he did not make an application for another visa. If he does make an application for another visa, he would be liable to be removed from Australia under s 198(6) if that application were to be refused.
If a cancellation decision is revoked, it is taken not to have been made: s 501CA(5). In that event, the applicant would not meet the description of an unlawful non‑citizen and would not be subject to removal from Australia as mandated by s 198(2B) or s 198(6) as the case may be.
The applicant has no official documentation linking him to South Sudan. The applicant contends that he is ‘de-facto stateless’ and that it would be extremely difficult for him to gain South Sudanese citizenship. This may represent a practical impediment to his removal under s 198(2B) which would result in further detention with an adverse consequence to the applicant. I note in any event that there are laws in South Sudan which operate to confer South Sudanese citizenship on persons with parents born in what is now South Sudan.
The applicant contends that if the cancellation decision is not revoked that he will either be removed to South Sudan or detained indefinitely. In either event, the consequence for the applicant would be devastating. If a protection visa application were lodged, then it is asserted that the applicant will be trapped in detention in the intervening period.
I note that if the visa cancellation is not revoked, the applicant may remain in detention whilst any protection visa application is considered or while the Minister considers the possibility of re-settlement or the exercise of a personal discretion in favour of the applicant. There is no evidence before me suggesting that re-settlement or the exercise of a personal discretion would be considered. Given the mental condition of the applicant which has deteriorated whilst in detention, this would have severe consequences adverse to the applicant. In WKMZ, Kenny and Mortimer JJ considered the impact of further detention which is apposite to the applicant:[26]
… The period of a person’s loss of liberty may be very lengthy, and have no chronologically fixed endpoint, being dependent on the completion of various administrative and executive steps and inquiries. The person concerned will have no accurate conception of when her or his detention might end.
[26] WKMZ v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2021] FCAFC 55 at [132].
The prospect of further detention is a factor that weighs in favour of revoking the cancellation decision.
Extent of Impediments if Removed – 9.2 of Direction 90
Direction 90 requires that I consider the extent of any impediments that the applicant may face if removed from Australia to South Sudan in establishing himself and maintaining basic living standards (in the context of what is generally available to other citizens of that country), taking into account:
(a)the applicant’s age and health;
(b)whether there are substantial language or cultural barriers; and
(c)any social, medical and/or economic support available to him in that country.
The applicant would face significant impediments if removed to South Sudan and he would have great difficulty establishing himself and maintaining basic living standards. This arises primarily because of the applicant’s mental health issues, his Nuer ethnicity and because the applicant has never been to South Sudan and has no network of family or friends to support him there. The matters referred to above in relation to risk of harm are also relevant to extent of impediments and I will not repeat them here. The impact of the humanitarian crisis and ongoing tribal instability in South Sudan would have a significant and particular impact on the applicant because of his poor mental health, his Nuer ethnicity, his lack of family or other support and because he has never lived there. The applicant has poor Nuer language skills and, having never lived in South Sudan, is not familiar with its culture. Consequently, there would be substantial cultural and language barriers which would create significant impediments on the applicant establishing himself and maintaining a basic living standard in South Sudan. He would not receive the medical support needed for his depression which would likely worsen if he were to be removed to South Sudan.
This is factor that weighs heavily in favour of revocation of the cancellation decision.
Impact on victims – 9.3 of Direction 90
There was no evidence of impact on victims within the meaning of the Direction. This factor is neutral.
Links to the Australian community – 9.4 of Direction 90
The applicant has significant links to the Australian community. He has been in Australia since he was 9 years old. He has been educated in Australia and has had various jobs. He gained his white card in construction and completed a barista course. He engaged with his church and wishes to continue to do so if released. He contributed to society by being involved in the leadership council at Malmsbury Youth Justice Centre. I give weight to the length of time the applicant has contributed positively to the Australian community. He arrived in Australia in 2006 and stayed out of trouble until late 2015 when he left school.

If the applicant is removed to South Sudan then it will impact negatively on his family all of whom now live in Australia. In particular, his mother, siblings and niece and nephew would be devastated. They would miss him and the important role he would play if released particularly given that his father has passed away. They would also fear for his safety if he is removed to South Sudan.
There would be no impact on any Australian businesses if the applicant is not allowed to stay in Australia.
In conclusion with respect to his links to the Australian community, I consider this to be a factor that weighs very heavily in favour of revocation of the cancellation decision.
Conclusion as to whether to revoke the cancellation of the visa
I have considered the specific circumstances relating to the applicant as part of my consideration. I am now required to carry out the evaluative exercise of weighing up the factors to determine whether I am satisfied that there is another reason to revoke the cancellation decision.
The primary considerations of the protection and expectations of the Australian community weigh heavily in favour of not revoking the cancellation decision. The countervailing factors are the best interests of children (a primary consideration) and the other considerations of international non-refoulement, extent of impediments if removed and links to the Australian community. In addition, there are the risks of harm if removed and the consequence of indefinite detention if the cancellation decision is not revoked. I have decided that the primary considerations of the protection and expectations of the Australian community outweigh the countervailing factors.
The principles at paragraph 5.2 of Direction 90 which provide the framework for my decision-making task focus on the expectation that non-citizens are law abiding and will not cause harm to individuals or the Australian community, but those principles also recognise that the Australian community may afford a higher level of tolerance of criminal conduct by non-citizens who have lived in Australia for most of their life or from a very young age. This is a case where the applicant came to Australia at the very young age of 9 years old and has lived in Australia for most of his life. The applicant has spent most of his life in Australia making a positive contribution. He has significant family in Australia and no current links to South Sudan where he would be at risk of real harm both physical and mental if removed from Australia. Whilst I accept that the applicant should be afforded a higher level of tolerance, it remains the case that he committed very serious crimes which had a devastating impact on innocent and unsuspecting victims. In particular, the applicant committed an indecent sexual act involving violence on a 13-year-old girl. Further, he terrorised persons in their own home by participating with others in two violent home invasions. In my view the tolerance of the Australian community does not extend to allowing a person who has committed such serious crimes to stay in the Australian community. Being able to remain in Australia is a privilege conferred on non-citizens in the expectation that they are law-abiding and that they will not cause harm to the community. The applicant is not sufficiently rehabilitated and there remains a real, albeit low to moderate, risk that he will engage in further sexual offending. That level of risk is unacceptable. The principle in paragraph 5.2(5) underpins my conclusion because I consider that the inherent nature of the sexual offending involving some violence against a 13-year-old girl is so serious that even the strong countervailing considerations mentioned above are insufficient to justify revoking the cancellation decision.
My decision will be devastating for the applicant’s family members who have decided to make Australia their home and that is a very unfortunate consequence. However, it is a consequence that arises from the conduct of the applicant and the decisions he made which also had a devastating impact on innocent persons including a young girl in the Australian community.
Decision
I am not satisfied that there is another reason to revoke the cancellation decision. The decision of the Tribunal is to affirm the decision under review.

I certify that the preceding 99 (ninety- nine) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Deputy President Britten-Jones

............................[SGD]............................................
Associate
Dated: 10 August 2022

Date(s) of hearing: 25 July 2022, 2 and 3 August 2022

Advocate for the Applicant: C. Ford

Solicitors for the Applicant: Carina Ford Immigration Lawyers

Advocate for the Respondent: D. Brown

Solicitors for the Respondent: Australian Government Solicitor

Date(s) of hearing:	25 July 2022, 2 and 3 August 2022
Advocate for the Applicant:	C. Ford
Solicitors for the Applicant:	Carina Ford Immigration Lawyers
Advocate for the Respondent:	D. Brown
Solicitors for the Respondent:	Australian Government Solicitor