Shea and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship
[2010] AATA 378
•21 May 2010
Administrative Appeals Tribunal
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
) No: 2009/2739
General Administrative Division )
Re: Stephen Shea
Applicant
And: Minister for Immigration and Citizenship
Respondent
DIRECTION - CORRIGENDUM
TribunalMr RP Handley, Deputy President
Date24 May 2010
PlaceSydney
The Tribunal directs the Registrar, pursuant to subsection 43AA(1) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, to alter the text of the decision in this application as follows:
The decision as published on 21 May 2010 was:
The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and substitutes a decision that Ms Shea be granted a visa.
The Tribunal now amends that decision as follows:
The decision under review is set aside and the matter is remitted to the respondent for reconsideration with a direction that the discretion in s 501() of the Migration Act 1958 should not be exercised to refuse Ms Shea a visa.
.....................[sgd]...................
Mr RP Handley
Deputy President
Administrative Appeals Tribunal
DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION
[2010] AATA 378
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
) No: 2009/2739
GENERAL DIVISION )
ReStephen Shea
Applicant
And Minister for Immigration and Citizenship
Respondent
DECISION
TribunalMr RP Handley, Deputy President
Date21 May 2010
PlaceSydney
DecisionThe Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and substitutes a decision that Ms Shea be granted a visa.
....................[sgd].....................
Mr RP Handley
Deputy President
CATCHWORDS
IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP – visa refusal - partner visa – character test – Direction No 41 – primary considerations – protection of the Australian community – length of time ordinarily resident – other considerations - decision under review set aside
…
RELEVANT ACTS
Migration Act 1958: s 501
…
CITATIONS
Re Puafisi and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2009] AATA 689
…
OTHER AUTHORITIES
Direction - Visa Refusal and Cancellation under s 501 – No. 21
Direction [No.41] – Visa Refusal and Cancellation under s 501
…
REASONS FOR DECISION
| 21 May 2010 | Mr RP Handley, Deputy President |
Stephen Shea has applied for the review of a decision to refuse to grant his wife, Darunee Shea, a partner visa on the ground that she was not of good character because of her past and present criminal conduct and past and present general conduct.
Background
Ms Shea was born in Thailand in 1964 and was given the birth name Krasae Jaitha. She first arrived in Australia on 27 March 1993 using her own passport in the name of Saowanee Jaitha, having obtained a tourist visa. In the visa application, she declared she was married to Mr Lion Roger Bormer on 18 January 1993 and intended to visit his family in Perth. On 19 April 1993, Ms Shea was detained by immigration officers who located her working in a licensed brothel in Melbourne, and on 27 April 1993, she returned to Thailand. At an interview on 27 April 1995, Ms Shea admitted that she did not know a Mr Bormer.
The Department of Immigration also later sighted documentation indicating that Ms Shea’s first marriage was to a Thai national, Prasith Veeravattananun, from whom she was divorced on 3 June 1993.
On 16 March 1995, Ms Shea, using the name Onpreeya Chanprom, married Michael Conrad Ruff in Thailand. He sponsored her to apply for a spouse visa, which was refused on 10 May 1995, and they lost touch after he returned to Australia on 23 March 1995.
On 3 October 1995, Ms Shea married another Thai national, Nopadol Manola, but they were divorced on 8 November 1995.
In 1996, Ms Shea obtained a forged visa permitting entry to Japan but this was detected by immigration officials at the airport as she was preparing to leave Thailand and she was charged with and, on 14 March 1996, convicted of forging an official document and using an official document, for which she was sentenced to six months’ imprisonment and fined 1,000 baht. Ms Shea stated in evidence at the Tribunal hearing that her sister raised a considerable sum to obtain bail for her and she was released on condition that she report to the local police station every two months.
On 8 November 1996, Chuwarin Seanjiinda was granted a visitor visa (issued in Hong Kong) and, on 28 December 1996, Ms Shea, using a passport in this name with the visitor visa, arrived in Australia. At an interview on 13 October 2004, Ms Shea admitted that when she arrived in Australia she was required to pay back a debt of $45,000 and commenced working in a brothel for this purpose.
On 24 March 1997, Ms Shea lodged an application for a protection visa in the name Chuwarin Seanjiinda relying on false information in support of her claim. This application was refused on 9 April 2007 and Ms Shea, using the name Chuwarin Seanjiinda, applied to the Refugee Review Tribunal for a review of this decision. On 11 February 1998, the Tribunal affirmed the decision to refuse the grant of a protection visa. Ms Shea, still using the name Chuwarin Seanjiinda, applied for Ministerial intervention but this application was rejected on 24 February 1998 on the ground that it did not satisfy the requirements for such intervention. Her bridging visa in the name of Chuwarin Seanjiinda expired on 19 March 1998.
Mr Shea states that he first met Ms Shea in 1997 at a hotel in Hurstville. About a month later, they decided to move in together and between then and late 2003, they lived together at various addresses before Ms Shea returned to Thailand voluntarily on 3 December 2003 accompanied by Mr Shea. Ms Shea travelled under the name of Darunee Shea. On 12 January 2004, Mr and Ms Shea were married in Thailand.
On 10 September 2004, Ms Shea lodged a Partner (Provisional)(Class UF) visa application. In March 2006, Ms Shea was asked to complete a new visa application form which she lodged on 7 April 2006. On 8 January 2009, the Department of Immigration and Citizenship sent a notice of intention to consider refusal of a visa to Mr Shea who was authorised to receive correspondence on her behalf. On 3 March 2009, Mr Shea responded to this notice. On 21 May 2009, Ms Shea was notified of the Department’s decision to refuse her visa application on the ground that she did not pass the character test because of her past and present criminal conduct and past and present general conduct. On 18 June 2009, Mr Shea applied to the Tribunal for a review of this decision.
RELEVANT LAW AND POLICY
Section 501(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act) provides that the Minister may refuse to grant a visa to a person “if the person does not satisfy the Minister that the person passes the character test”. Section 501(6) provides relevantly that a person does not pass the character test if:
(c) having regard to either or both of the following:
(i) the person’s past and present criminal conduct;
(ii) the person’s past and present general conduct;
the person is not of good character; …
Section 499 empowers the Minister to give written directions to a person or body having functions under the Act about the performance of those functions or the exercise of powers under the Act, and the person or body must comply with such directions. At the time of the decision to refuse Ms Shea’s visa application, the relevant direction was Direction No 21, Visa Refusal and Cancellation under s 501 of the Migration Act 1958. A new direction, Direction [no.41] – Visa Refusal and Cancellation under s 501 (Direction No 41), has since replaced Direction No 21, commencing on 15 June 2009. The Tribunal must also comply with this Direction.
Direction No 41 states (paragraph 7(1)) that a visa may be refused if the person does not satisfy the Minister that the person passes the character test.
Paragraphs 7.3.1 and 7.3.2 further explain relevant factors to be considered in making such an assessment. These include the pattern of conduct and the period since the offences were committed, any blatant contempt for or disregard for the law – including a history of serious breaches of immigration law - whether the person has been removed from Australia and the circumstances that led to the removal, the circumstances surrounding the offending which may explain the conduct, and any recent good acts of the person that are indications that the person may have reformed. Both “good and bad conduct must be taken into consideration in obtaining a complete picture of the person’s character”.
If a person does not pass the character test, consideration should be given to whether to exercise the discretion to refuse or cancel a visa having regard to the particular circumstances of the case. Part B of Direction No 41 sets out a number of primary considerations that decision-makers must take into account in every case and also a number of other considerations that decision-makers should take into account where relevant, referred to below. Generally, in accordance with paragraph 11(2), other considerations should be given less weight than the primary considerations.
The primary considerations in Direction No 41 are set out in paragraph 10(1):
10.The primary considerations
(1)In deciding whether to refuse to grant a person a visa or cancel a person’s visa, the following (the primary considerations) are to be considered:
(a) the protection of the Australian community from serious criminal or other harmful conduct, particularly crimes involving violence;
(b) whether the person was a minor when they began living in Australia;
(c) the length of time that the person has been ordinarily resident in Australia prior to engaging in criminal activity or other relevant conduct; and
(d) relevant international obligations, including but not limited to:
(i)the best interests of the child, as described in the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CROC); and
(ii)the non-refoulement obligations contained in the Convention and the Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees (the Refugees Convention), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT).
These considerations are elaborated on by a range of factors to which regard must be had.
Mr and Ms Shea’s Evidence
Both Mr and Ms Shea gave oral evidence at the hearing, Ms Shea by conference phone from Thailand with the assistance of a Thai interpreter. Ms Shea, who is 45, lives in Phrae with her mother and her brother, his wife and their two children. Mr Shea described Phrae as a village five or six hours’ drive north of Bangkok and said Ms Shea’s family now have quite a nice house with modern conveniences although Spartan in terms of furnishings. His wife has other relatives who live next door. Ms Shea looks after the children while her brother and sister-in-law work. Her brother grows rice and they keep chickens and pigs. There is also a factory next door where they work and the family sells sticky rice by the side of the adjacent busy road. Ms Shea’s mother is in good health but her father is dead.
Mr Shea is aged 42 and lives in Sydney where he has worked as a secondary school teacher at the same school for the past 16 years. One of his sisters lives with their parents in Macksville, the other lives in Canberra. He said they are a close family.
Ms Shea said she only attended school for one or two years and left because she became sick. She is illiterate. Later, she worked to help her family who were poor. Ms Shea first came to Australia in 1993 with a friend because she wanted to visit the country. She travelled using her own passport but an acquaintance obtained a visitor visa for her. She denied any knowledge of Mr Bormer who was referred to in her visa application. She said she was unaware of what was written on the visa application although she acknowledged having submitted the application. Ms Shea had been in Australia for about two months when she was arrested while waiting for her friend who, she claimed, was delivering food from a takeaway shop. As a result of this first visit to Australia, Ms Shea decided she would like to return.
Ms Shea was married to a Thai national, Prasith Veeravattananun, but said this marriage did not last long. They were divorced on 3 June 1993. Ms Shea changed her name to Onpreeya Chanprom because she had a run of bad luck using her old name and a monk advised her that if she changed her name, this might change her luck. She denied that the object of changing her name was that immigration officials would be unable to keep track of her. She said that while she changed her name, her personal “ID” in Thailand remained the same.
On 16 March 1995, Ms Shea married Michael Ruff in Thailand. She said that at the time she intended to stay married to him, but after his taking her to apply for a visa, he returned to Australia and she never heard from him again. On 3 October 1995, Ms Shea married a Thai national, Nopadol Manola, but in an interview with an immigration officer on 13 October 2004, she said this marriage did not last because his family did not like her. They were divorced on 8 November 1995.
Ms Shea said she wanted to go to Japan to work in order to support her family. She approached an acquaintance to arrange a visa for her and gave him her passport for the insertion of the visa. She agreed to pay him a total of 150,000 baht, with 70,000 baht up front and the remainder to be paid when she was working in Japan. Because she is illiterate, she always has to rely on other people and she was not aware that the visa obtained for her was false. At the airport, as she was about to leave for Japan, she was arrested and charged in relation to the false visa. She was convicted by the court on 14 March 1996 but avoided going to prison because her sister “bailed her out” by raising a large sum for this purpose, and Ms Shea was released on condition that she reported to the police station every two months.
Ms Shea said she then asked an acquaintance to arrange for her to return to Australia. The acquaintance said he would find her work and she could pay off the debt from her earnings. (Initially, she thought the debt would be $20,000 but when she arrived in Australia she was told it was $45,000.) She gave the acquaintance her passport and he told her this would be returned to her with a visa at the airport. Ms Shea was given a passport with a visa at the airport, but it was not until she was on the plane that she realised that the passport and visa were not in her name but in the name of Chuwarin Seanjinda. She was very uncomfortable about this but felt she was in a situation where there was nothing she could do about it, in particular because she had a debt to pay back. Ms Shea said what happened was a consequence of her being illiterate and gullible.
Ms Shea said she had been told by her acquaintance that she would be found work doing domestic chores. She arrived in Australia on 28 December 1996 and, after she had been here for a week, she was told that they could not find her any work of this kind but they had found her another job (working in a brothel). Ms Shea said she had no option but to do this work in order to pay off her debt and enable her to send money home for the support her family who were in poverty and had no house to live in. She realised she only had a visitor visa but the people for whom she worked said they would obtain another visa for her and she gave them her passport for this purpose. Initially, she stayed with these people, but later she found her own place to live.
Ms Shea said that it took her six months to pay off the $45,000 debt and she also managed to send money home to her family regularly. At first, she gave cash to the man for whom she worked who sent the money to her brother’s bank account in Thailand. Later, Mr Shea did this for her. As a result of the money she sent to her family, they now have a house to live in and some land.
Ms Shea said it was around the time that she had paid off the debt, in the middle of 1997, that she met Mr Shea at a hotel in Hurstville. Mr Shea said that when they first met, they got on well and the relationship became serious quite quickly. They moved in together between three and six months later and thereafter lived together as couple until Ms Shea returned to Thailand in December 2003. Mr Shea said he was not aware of Ms Shea’s visa status at first although he had suspicions. He did not want to look too closely because it was easier not to do so. It was not until some years into the relationship that they talked about her situation, about what they wanted from life and what could be done to enable her to stay in Australia.
Ms Shea said she does not think Mr Shea knew very much about her visa status at that time. She did not tell him initially because she was scared he would reject her. She only told him the full story about a year before she went back to Thailand.
Mr Shea said when they first moved in together, he knew Ms Shea was working but he did not know the nature of her work. She had her own money. He became aware that Ms Shea had been working in a brothel and he is not sure when this stopped, but she was not doing this work at the time she returned to Thailand. During the day, they would go out to work like most couples. He knows nothing of her having folded towels (which she is said to have told an immigration officer at the interview on 13 October 2004).
Ms Shea said that after she moved in with Mr Shea she did not have to spend anything. She did not go back to work where she had previously worked (at the brothel). She had paid off her debt and still had some savings and so was able to continue sending money to her family in Phrae. Also, for about eight months, she looked after a relative’s small children (her “stepfather’s brother’s daughter’s children”) and they paid her about $200 per week. Her relative decided to leave her partner after about eight months in Australia and returned to Thailand.
Ms Shea was asked about her protection visa application. She said this was completed by someone else for her because she would not have been able to do this herself. She thinks the form was completed by the people she worked for as a means of seeking an extension of her visa. The form was not even read to her. She just signed her name. Ms Shea acknowledged that she had attended the Refugee Review Tribunal hearing, where she was asked a lot of questions. She was very scared, and she was sad when her application was not approved. She did not know what to do. She is aware that she stayed in Australia unlawfully thereafter and knows that this was wrong and apologises. When she was living with Mr Shea, she stayed in the house as much as possible because she was worried about being detained and sent back to Thailand, and he probably got a bit suspicious; but she wanted to buy time and be with him as long as possible. When she did tell him about her situation, he said she should do things correctly and so she went back to Thailand. She has now waited seven years to be with her husband. He has been very good to her and her family. She wants the opportunity to put things right and apologises for her past mistakes. These were largely due to her illiteracy and lack of knowledge.
Mr Shea said he is aware Ms Shea applied for refugee status but does not recall whether he knew of this at the time. He does not know whether she attended a Refugee Review Tribunal hearing. He and Ms Shea finally talked about her situation about 6 to 12 months before she returned to Thailand. Ms Shea feared she would be sent home and not allowed to come back again. So it was huge decision to decide she should return to Thailand and they knew it would be difficult for her to come back. Nevertheless, they decided to take their chances and she went back. He accompanied her and stayed for about two months during which time they were married.
Mr Shea said he has been to Thailand three times, the last time in 2006 when his parents also accompanied him. He has not been back recently because it is very painful. He and Ms Shea keep in touch by phone – once or twice a week. They speak in broken English because he does not speak Thai. He would consider going to Thailand to live if Ms Shea is refused a visa, but he would hate to give up his career in which he believes he makes an important contribution. While “it would have been easy to walk away from the relationship”, he feels responsible for his wife. He doubts he could earn the same money in Thailand and still be able to look after her and her family. It is “a horrible decision” to make, especially for a person who is no longer young. It is “a very hard thing to leave your country and your family and move to another country”. His family understand the difficult situation he is in and are accepting of what he does. They are moral people – his father used to be a Minister.
Does Ms Shea pass the ‘character test’?
The first issue for the Tribunal to determine is whether Ms Shea passes the ‘character test’. As stated above, the Tribunal must comply with Direction No 41 in making its decision and consider the factors in paragraphs 7.3.1 and 7.3.2 where relevant. I agree with the Minister’s contention that Ms Shea’s conduct is very serious, comprising multiple breaches of Australia’s immigration laws: working in contravention of visa conditions, making false statements, entering into an arranged marriage (with Mr Ruff) for the purpose of obtaining entry into Australia, applying for entry into Australia and entering Australia using a false passport and visa in a false name, applying for a protection visa relying on false information and giving false evidence to the Refugee Review Tribunal, overstaying her visa and knowingly remaining in Australia unlawfully for a period of five and a half years (after her bridging visa expired on 19 March 1998). Ms Shea has also been convicted in Thailand of using a false visa (for entry into Japan).
In listing Ms Shea’s immigration misconduct above, I have not included a finding that she changed her name to avoid detection by immigration authorities, as the Minister contended. Her evidence is that notwithstanding the name change, she retained the same personal ‘ID’, and I accept her explanation that she changed her name on the advice of a monk because of what she perceived to be a run of bad luck. It appears that there are different cultural notions associated with names in Thailand to those with which we are familiar in Australia.
The Tribunal is also required to consider the circumstances surrounding the offending which may explain the conduct, together with any evidence indicating that the person may have reformed. I am satisfied that Ms Shea is illiterate and had little knowledge of immigration laws. She was also gullible and it would have been easy for others to exploit her, as seems to have happened when she came to Australia in December 1996 and was pressured into working in a brothel to pay off a large debt. Ms Shea’s ultimate objective in coming to Australia was to provide financial support for her family and, as Mr Shea said, Thailand does not have such a relatively sophisticated system for providing support for those in poverty as that in Australia. I also note that Ms Shea returned to Thailand voluntarily in 2003 and has remained there for the past seven years separated from her husband. Further, I am satisfied that in these proceedings Ms Shea expressed appropriate remorse for her actions, apologising sincerely on a number of occasions in the course of giving evidence.
With regard to other relevant matters, I note that Ms Shea appears to have been removed from Australia when she was arrested by immigration officers in April 1993.
Weighing up the relevant evidence, I have concluded that Ms Shea fails the character test by reason of her serious past misconduct although, as I explain below, I am satisfied that she has since reformed which influenced me in exercising the discretion in s 501(1) of the Act.
Should the discretion be exercised in her favour?
The second issue for the Tribunal to determine is whether, notwithstanding that Ms Shea fails the character test, the discretion not to refuse the grant of a visa should be exercised in her favour. As stated above, in making this determination, I must take into account both the primary considerations and the other considerations referred to in Direction No 41.
Primary considerations
The relevant primary considerations in Ms Shea’s case are the protection of the Australian community and the length of time she has been ordinarily resident in Australia. The other two primary considerations are not relevant here: she was not a minor when she first resided in Australia and there are no relevant international obligations, noting in particular that Ms Shea does not have any children either in Thailand or Australia.
the protection of the australian community
Direction No 41 identifies two factors relevant to this consideration: the seriousness and nature of the relevant conduct, and the risk that the conduct may be repeated. As I have said above and for the reasons stated there, I agree with the Minister’s contention that Ms Shea’s immigration misconduct is very serious, and she has also been convicted in Thailand of using a false visa.
Ms Shea’s work history in Australia is a little unclear. After arriving in Australia on 28 December 2006, she worked in a brothel paying off a debt of $45,000 to those who had arranged the false documents under which she obtained entry to Australia. Ms Shea’s evidence is that she had paid off this debt after about six months and also managed to save money to send home to her family in Thailand.
Ms Shea was reluctant to speak about working in a brothel, avoiding naming the work she was doing and the period during which she worked there with any specificity. However, as I have said, in my view her motivation was clear. She was trying to earn money to send home to her family in Phrae. She described them as living in poverty, and said the money she sent home was used to buy them a house. Mr Shea said there is no safety net in Thailand and poverty is very real. His evidence confirms that Ms Shea succeeded in helping support her family in their purchase of a house (and he contended that Ms Shea made considerable sacrifices in doing so), a house in which she and her mother, and her brother and his family now live, that Mr Shea described as having modern conveniences but being sparsely furnished.
Because Ms Shea had little education or knowledge of immigration requirements and was illiterate and therefore reliant on others, she was obviously gullible and easily exploited in trying to achieve her objective. She acknowledges that what she did was wrong and apologises for her conduct. In my view, the relationship that she established with Mr Shea is a genuine one, and I accept that for a significant time she avoided revealing her true status to Mr Shea for fear that he would reject her. In his turn, he preferred not to delve too closely because it was easier not to do so. However, when finally they did discuss her status, they decided that she should return to Thailand and that she should apply for a visa in the proper way. She did this and has now been waiting for an outcome for seven years.
In my view, there is a minimal risk that Ms Shea will repeat such misconduct. In December 2003, she returned to Thailand voluntarily and has remained there since, separated from her husband, in the hope that she will be granted a visa permitting them to live together in Australia. There is no evidence of any misconduct on her part in the intervening seven years and I am satisfied that she now appreciates the importance of adhering to the law. I therefore conclude that an exercise of the discretion in her favour poses no risk of harm to the Australian community.
length of time ordinarily resident
Paragraph 10.3(1) of Direction No 41 states that “more favourable consideration is to be given the longer the person has been ordinarily resident in Australia prior to engaging in criminal activity or activity that bears negatively on their character”. In this instance, Ms Shea’s misconduct appears to have commenced not long after her having first arrived in Australia on a visitor visa in 1993. Thus, despite the fact that Ms Shea has spent a total of about seven years in Australia, this consideration should not be treated as a favourable consideration in her case. Rather it should be regarded as a neutral factor: Re Puafisi and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2009] AATA 689, at [39] to [41].
Other Considerations
As noted above, Direction No 41 states that other considerations, where relevant, must be taken into account but, generally, should be given less weight than primary considerations. Relevant other considerations in Ms Shea’s case specifically referred to in the Direction are her family ties and the nature and extent of her relationships with those in the Australian community, whether she has a genuine marital relationship with an Australian citizen, her age, her links with Thailand, and the hardship that may be experienced by both Ms Shea and her immediate family members in Australia, including whether immediate family members are able to travel overseas to visit the person.
I am satisfied from Mr and Ms Shea’s evidence that they have a genuine marital relationship. They lived together in Australia for a period of over six years and have maintained their pursuit of a visa for her since first lodging a visa application in 2004. Mr Shea’s evidence is that he has visited Thailand on three occasions, most recently in 2006, and that he and his wife maintain contact by phone once or twice a week. I accept his evidence that because of his wife’s unresolved visa application, he has found it too painful to visit Thailand since then. I observed that the six years it has taken to deal with this matter has taken its toll on him emotionally.
Mr Shea is an Australian citizen, aged 42, whose immediate family, apart from his wife, are all resident in Australia. I accept his evidence that his is a close family and I note the letter of support from his parents who accompanied Mr Shea to Thailand on his last visit. They speak of Ms Shea as “much loved and missed by our entire family”. Mr Shea has worked as a secondary school teacher at the same school in Sydney for the past 16 years. He said he would consider moving to Thailand if his wife is refused a visa but he does not speak Thai and I accept that it would probably be difficult for him to obtain appropriate employment. I am satisfied that if Ms Shea’s application for a visa is refused, this is likely to cause hardship to Mr Shea, although I note that he had suspicions about her immigration status early in their relationship and of her immigration misconduct at the time they were married. I am also satisfied that refusal of a visa would cause hardship to Ms Shea. She is aged 45 and living with her family in Thailand, having been separated from her husband for the past six years. Having heard their evidence, I accept that this long separation in pursuit of a visa for Ms Shea has been very difficult for both of them.
In my view, these other considerations support the exercise of the discretion in Ms Shea’s favour.
Conclusion
While Ms Shea fails the character test by reason of her past misconduct, I am satisfied that the exercise of the discretion in s 501(1) of the Act in her favour poses no risk to the Australian community and that, on balance, the primary and other considerations favour the exercise of the discretion in her favour. The Tribunal therefore sets aside the decision under review and substitutes a decision that Ms Shea be granted a visa.
I certify that the 51 preceding paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Mr RP Handley, Deputy President
Signed: ...........[sgd]..............................................................
Associate
Date of Hearing: 4 May 2010
Date of Decision: 21 May 2010
Applicant representative: Self-represented
Respondent representative: Ms A Tibell, Clayton Utz
1
1
0