Sheik and Minister for Home Affairs (Migration)

Sheik and Minister for Home Affairs (Migration) [2019] AATA 961 (22 May 2019)
Division:GENERAL DIVISION
File Number: 2019/1107
Re:Rafiuddin Sheik
APPLICANT

AndMinister for Home Affairs
RESPONDENT

DECISION
Tribunal:Senior Member D. J. Morris

Date:22 May 2019
Place:Melbourne

The Tribunal affirms the decision made on 27 February 2019 to refuse to revoke the cancellation of the Class BS Subclass 801 Partner visa formerly held by the Applicant.
..............[sgd]..........................................................
Senior Member D. J. Morris
Catchwords
MIGRATION – mandatory cancellation of visa – applicant sentenced to prison sentence exceeding twelve months – sexual offences – ministerial direction No. 79 – primary considerations – other considerations – any other reason – decision under review affirmed
Legislation
Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth), s 33A
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 499, 500, 501, 501CA
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), reg 2.52
Cases
AYY17 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCAFC 89
DPP v Sheik [2015] VCC 1928
Gaspar v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2016) 153 ALD 337
Hong v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2019] FCAFC 55
Jagroop v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2016) 241 FCR 461
LQZW and Minister for Home Affairs, Re [2019] AATA 93
Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Indigenous Affairs v Batey, Re (1993) 112 ALR 198
YNQY v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCA 1466
Secondary Materials
Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, opened for signature 28 July 1951, 189 UNTS 137 (entered into force 22 April 1954).
Migration Act 1958 – Direction No. 79 – direction made under section 499 – Visa refusal and cancellation under s 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under s 501CA (Direction made 20 December 2018; commenced 28 February 2019)
REASONS FOR DECISION
Senior Member D. J. Morris
22 May 2019
Background

Mr Rafiuddin Sheik has brought to the Tribunal an application to review a decision made in relation to his visa by the delegate of the Respondent, the Minister for Home Affairs (the Minister). Mr Sheik was born in May 1985 and is now aged 34. He is a citizen of the Republic of India. Mr Sheik first arrived in Australia on 20 September 2006, having previously applied for, and been granted, a student visa, in order that he could undertake an academic course in Australia in hospitality management. He subsequently met his now wife, called in these reasons ‘MN’, and they married in March 2010. MN is an Australian citizen.
On 21 January 2013 Mr Sheik was granted a Class BS Subclass 801 Partner visa. This visa was cancelled on 19 June 2017 under section 501(3A) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act) as a result of Mr Sheik possessing a substantial criminal record and being sentenced to serve a term of imprisonment of more than 12 months.
On 24 June 2017 Mr Sheik made initial representations seeking that decision to mandatorily cancel his visa be revoked. A delegate of the Minister decided on
27 February 2019 under section 501CA(4) of the Act not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the visa.
Mr Sheik applied under section 500(1)(ba) of the Act for the Tribunal to review the delegate’s decision. The hearing was held on 13 and 14 May 2019. The Applicant represented himself, made submissions and was cross-examined by Mr Christopher Orchard of Sparke Helmore, representing the Minister. MN was given leave under
section 33A(1) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) to give her evidence by telephone, as she was overseas. Two other witnesses, friends of the Applicant,
Mr Sarwath Hussain Mohammed and Mr Salman Shaikh also gave oral evidence at the hearing.
The Minister tendered two volumes of papers, Exhibits R1 and R2 (and described as G Documents (GD) and Supplementary G Documents (SGD) in these reasons). The Minister also submitted a Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions. Other documents lodged by the Applicant were also taken into evidence and are listed in the Appendix at the end of these reasons.
Legislative framework
Section 501CA(4) of the Act provides that the decision-maker may revoke the mandatory cancellation of Mr Sheik’s visa if he made representations within the relevant time period, provided for in the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (28 days in accordance with reg. 2.52) and the decision-maker determines that the Applicant passes the ‘character test’, or, as provided for under section 501CA(4)(b), there is another reason why the mandatory cancellation decision should be revoked. The Minister accepted that Mr Sheik had made representations within the prescribed period.
Section 501(3A) of the Act is a mandatory cancellation power. It relevantly provides that the Minister (or his delegate) must cancel a visa that has been granted to a person if, under section 501(6)(a) of the Act, the person has a substantial criminal record as defined by section 501(7). Relevantly, section 501(7) states:
(7) For the purposes of the character test, a person has a substantial criminal record if:
…
(c) the person has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more; …
Before the Tribunal was a National Police Certificate dated 24 January 2017 (GD2, p 29) (the certificate). The certificate states that on 24 September 2012 at the Sunshine Magistrates’ Court, the offence of ‘Wilful and obscene exposure in public’ was found proven against Mr Sheik. He was fined $1,500.00 without conviction. The certificate also records that on 18 December 2015 at the Country Court of Victoria in Melbourne,
Mr Sheik was convicted of the offence of ‘Rape,’ for which he was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of four years and nine months, with a non-parole period of two years and eight months. The Applicant was also convicted that day of the offence of ‘Indecent assault,’ for which he was sentenced to six months’ imprisonment, with three months of that sentence to be concurrent.
The total effective sentence conferred on Mr Sheik was therefore five years. He entered custody in June 2015 at the conclusion of his trial for pre-sentence reports prior to a plea hearing. He told the Tribunal he is due for release from prison in June 2020. On the facts of the convictions made against him and the sentences imposed on 18 December 2015, the Tribunal finds that the Applicant fails the character test under section 501(3A)(a)(i) of the Act.
Section 501CA relevantly provides that:
(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.
…
(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.
Having found that Mr Sheik fails the character test, the sole issue before the Tribunal is whether there is another reason why the original decision should be revoked. In Gaspar v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2016) 153 ALD 337, North ACJ stated, at [38]:
The preferable conclusion is that s 501CA(4)(b)(ii) requires the Minister to examine the factors for and against revoking the cancellation. If satisfied, following an assessment and an evaluation of those factors, that the cancellation should be revoked, the Minister is obliged to act on that view. There is a single, not a two stage, process and the Minister does not have a residual discretion to refuse to revoke the cancellation if satisfied that it should be revoked…
The Ministerial Direction
Section 499(1) of the Act provides that the Minister may give written directions about the exercise of functions or powers under the Act. The delegate who refused to revoke the cancellation of Mr Sheik’s visa on 27 February 2019 consulted Direction No. 65, made under section 499. On 20 December 2018 the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs (who is jointly authorised with the Minister for Home Affairs to administer the Act) made a fresh direction under section 499, namely Direction No. 79.
Direction No. 79 (the Direction) commenced on 28 February 2019 and (at section 3) revokes Direction No. 65 from that date. The correct Direction for the Tribunal to consider is Direction No. 79 (see Jagroop v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2016) 241 FCR 461).
The Tribunal must, under section 499(2A) of the Act, comply with the Direction in considering this matter. Paragraph 6.1 of the Direction states, in part:
6.1Objectives
(1)The objective of the Act is to regulate, in the national interest, the coming into, and presence in, Australia of non-citizens.
…
(3)Under subsection 501(3A) of the Act, the decision-maker must cancel a visa that has been granted to a person if the decision-maker is satisfied that the person does not pass the character test because of the operation of paragraph (6)(a) (on the basis of paragraph (7)(a), (b) or (c) or paragraph (6)(e)) and the non-citizen 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. A non-citizen who has had his or her visa cancelled under section 501(3A) may request revocation of that decision under section 501CA of the Act. Where the discretion to consider revocation is enlivened, the decision-maker must consider whether to revoke the cancellation given the specific circumstances of the case.
Relevantly, the Direction includes the following principles at paragraph 6.3:
(1)Australia has a sovereign right to determine whether non-citizens who are of character concern are allowed to enter and/or remain in Australia. Being able to come to or remain in Australia is a privilege Australia confers on non-citizens in the expectation that they are, and have been, law-abiding, will respect important institutions, such as Australia’s law enforcement framework, and will not cause or threaten harm to individuals or the Australian community.
(2)The Australian community expects that the Australian Government can and should refuse entry to non-citizens, or cancel their visas, if they commit serious crimes in Australia or elsewhere.
(3)A non-citizen who has committed a serious crime, including of a violent or sexual nature, and particularly against women or children or vulnerable members of the community such as the elderly or disabled, should generally expect to be denied the privilege of coming to, or to forfeit the privilege of staying in Australia.
(4)In some circumstances, criminal offending or other conduct, and the harm that would be caused if it were to be repeated, may be so serious, that any risk of similar conduct in the future is unacceptable. In these circumstances, even other strong countervailing considerations may be insufficient to justify not cancelling or refusing the visa.
(5)Australia has a low tolerance of any criminal or other serious conduct by people who have been participating in, and contributing to, the Australian community only for a short period of time. However, Australia may afford a higher level of tolerance of criminal or other serious conduct in relation to a non-citizen who has lived in the Australian community for most of their life, or from a very young age.
(6)Australia has a low tolerance of any criminal or other serious conduct by visa applicants or those holding a limited stay visa, reflecting that there should be no expectation that such people should be allowed to come to, or remain permanently in, Australia.
(7)The length of time a non-citizen has been making a positive contribution to the Australian community, and the consequences of a visa refusal or cancellation for minor children and other immediate family members in Australia, are considerations in the context of determining whether that non-citizen’s visa should be cancelled, or their visa application refused.
In deciding whether to refuse to revoke the mandatory cancellation of a non-citizen’s visa, the Direction requires a decision-maker to take into account considerations set out in
Part C; which is divided into ‘primary considerations’ and ‘other considerations.’ The primary considerations in Part C are set out in paragraph 13(2) of the Direction. They are: ‘Protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct;’ ‘The best interests of minor children in Australia;’ and ‘Expectations of the Australian community.’
Other considerations set out in paragraph 14(1) of the Direction are: ‘International non-refoulement obligations;’ ‘Strength, nature and duration of ties;’ ‘Impact on Australian business interests;’ ‘Impact on victims;’ and ‘Extent of impediments if removed.’ The Direction states that primary considerations should generally be given more weight than the other considerations and that one or more primary considerations may outweigh other primary considerations (see paragraphs 8(4) and 8(5) of the Direction). The Tribunal considered each of the primary considerations and, as relevant, the other considerations.
Written evidence of the Applicant
Mr Sheik provided a written statement dated 23 April 2019 (Exhibit A1). In it he related that he has been living in Australia since 2006, when aged 21. Since coming to Australia he has continuously worked and studied. He explained how he met and married MN and that he now had a large support network in Australia.
In terms of his criminal offending, Mr Sheik stated:
My sexual offending bringing me to prison, I agree with the delegate, is of a very serious nature, however whilst being imprisoned I have had the time, ability and structured programs to help address my offending behaviour through the Better Lives Program (SOATS, Specialist Offender Assessment and Treatment Services), SOATS statement of completion included.
I have been incredibly pro-active with my rehabilitation in the correctional system, not only through the Better Lives Program but also through other forms of education and programs participation at various locations across the prison system. I have been in the position of holding trusted positions of work within the prison e.g. prison visit canteen (dealing with the general public).
Since the completion of my specific offender behaviour programs I have underdone two psychology assessments, both have made the opinion my risk of committing a further sexual offence is low, the Psychologists were very experienced forensic assessors who are regularly used in Victoria as well as elsewhere in Australia.
I am extremely regretful and sorry for the events that occurred, I have deep remorse for the victims and families. Women should not get treated like that. Throughout my prison sentence I have reflected on many things, I am confident and certain that there will be no further incidents. I have had a lot of time to reflect, work on myself, learn and grow. I have clear life goals and no what I want to achieve and I would never ever put neither anybody else nor myself through this experience again.
Mr Sheik appended to his statement a letter dated 26 July 2018 (Exhibit A2) from the Deputy Manager of Specialised Offender Assessment and Treatment Service of Corrections Victoria, which recorded that he participated in the Better Lives Program between 7 December 2017 and 5 June 2018, and explained that the program is a group-based intervention designed to target sexual offending behaviour and that it was individualised to target his specific treatment needs.
Oral evidence of the Applicant
Mr Sheik gave evidence that he was born in Southern India. He agreed that he had been convicted of three sexual offences in Australia.
In terms of the wilful and obscene exposure offending that occurred in March 2011,

Mr Sheik agreed that the incident occurred at a public gym he was attending. He said the complainant was not known to him. He said he struck up a conversation with the complainant in the gym’s sauna. They were the only two people present. She mentioned to him she had an injured shoulder. She claimed in a statement to the police that Mr Sheik told her he was a ‘masseuse’ [masseur] (SG1, p 235). Mr Sheik offered to massage her shoulder. She sat in front of him, while he did so.
The police report relates that, after a minute, Mr Sheik started making irregular movements with his right hand on the complainant’s shoulder, she then felt a spray of liquid on her middle back, jumped up and turned around. She said in her statement that she observed that Mr Sheik had his genitals exposed, with his penis erect, and in his left hand. The complainant departed the sauna, spoke to the gym management and obtained the name of the Applicant. She then attended the local police station to make a report. The gym staff member wrote in a statement that the complainant appeared to have been crying and was in distress.
Mr Sheik was requested to report to the police station for interview, which he did. He was subsequently arrested and charged with indecent assault and unlawful assault. He agreed with the complainant that he had offered the massage and said that during it he felt the need to adjust his underwear and, when the complainant looked back, she ‘misunderstood what was going on.’
At this hearing, Mr Sheik maintained he did not tell the complainant that he was a ‘masseuse.’ He said that when the matter came to Court the original charge of indecent assault was not proceeded with because ‘there was no DNA evidence’. He told the Tribunal that the lawyer he had engaged did not attend Court and he pleaded guilty to the offence of wilful and obscene exposure in public. Mr Sheik agreed that the complainant saw his genitals in the sauna, but denied that he was masturbating. Mr Orchard asked

Mr Sheik whether he remembered telling the police in the initial interview that nothing untoward had occurred, but he said he could not recall saying that. He was asked about evidence he gave to the police that he had a rash which was why he had adjusted his shorts and it was put to him that this was an improbable account, but he denied it was improbable.
Mr Sheik said that he told his wife, MN, what had taken place immediately after he was charged. In answer to a direct question about what he told his wife, Mr Sheik said he told MN that he ‘offered a lady a massage and a couple of minutes later she assumed I was masturbating on her, she reacted a bit strangely; I was wearing the wrong shorts and my genitals were hanging out.’
In terms of the offences which occurred in September 2013, Mr Sheik agreed that the sentencing Judge referred to the earlier incident in the sauna as relevant to His Honour’s consideration of the Applicant’s conduct on the later occasion. Mr Sheik said he went out on the evening in question in 2013 to have a few drinks. Mr Orchard referred him to a report dated 21 September 2018 (GD12, p 132) by Mr Jeffrey Cummins, clinical and forensic psychologist, who examined Mr Sheik by video link on 4 September 2018.

Mr Cummins relevantly wrote:
I asked him why it was that on the evening of the offending he was out socialising and drinking alcohol when he was not in the company of his wife and he said – “Yes, I was out alone. I have a very beautiful wife. Maybe at the time I was working too much and I wasn’t spending enough time with [MN] and maybe she was spending too much time on her studies and maybe I was feeling a bit ignored and a bit rejected and a bit sexually frustrated.”
Mr Sheik said he did not recall saying this to Mr Cummins but in answer to a direct question from the Tribunal accepted this was a fair summary of what Mr Cummins understood him to say during the examination.

When out drinking, Mr Sheik met up with a group of three young women, who were also out drinking but who were hitherto unknown to him. The three women were at the time aged 19; the Applicant was at the time aged 28. Mr Orchard asked Mr Sheik why he lied to the women that evening about his identity. Mr Sheik said he did not. Mr Sheik was referred to the Summary of the Prosecution Opening (SG1, p 211) which states:
He [the Applicant] told [redacted] that he was a fashion photographer from Sydney and that he was staying for the rest of the week and was in Melbourne for a fashion show.
At SGD, p 353, is a statement from one of the women he met (Victim 1) who also recorded that Mr Sheik told her he was a fashion photographer and, at SGD, p 378, another of the women (Victim 2) made a similar statement. Mr Sheik maintained at the hearing that he did not make these claims and that ‘maybe they understood wrongly’ because he told the women that he had been at a fashion show. He told the Tribunal that they later in the evening had seen his driver licence that showed he lived in Victoria.
Mr Sheik agreed that he became ‘infatuated’ with one of the women (Victim 1). He agreed that he told the police that they put something in his drink and that one of the women later told him it was cigarette ash, but he didn’t know that at the time.
Mr Sheik was asked whether he accepted that he only took a ‘tiny sip’ of the drink, but said he couldn’t recall. He said that maybe his drink was spiked, and in answer to a direct question from the Tribunal about whether he is suggesting that the drink affected him, he responded ‘Yes’.
When asked by Mr Orchard whether he made up the story of his drink being spiked in order to shift blame, Mr Sheik replied ‘That’s a possibility.’ Mr Orchard then put to him: ‘To mislead the police about your state of mind?’ To which the Applicant responded: ‘That’s a possibility, yes.’
Mr Sheik agreed that he had undertaken to obey Australia’s laws when he had been granted his permanent visa in January 2013 and that he had gone on to commit two serious criminal offences in September of that year.
Mr Sheik agreed that he initially told the police that he did not have sexual relations with Victim 1 and that this was a lie. He said that, at the time, he was ‘heavily intoxicated’ and that going to the women’s house was a wrong decision, ‘the biggest mistake I’ve made in my life’.
Evidence of Mr Sarwath Hussain Mohammed
The Tribunal heard evidence from Mr Sarwath Mohammed. Mr Mohammed provided a written statement to the presiding judge in relation to Mr Sheik’s Court appearance in 2015 (SG1, p 5), and a further written statement (GD8, p 89) in relation to Mr Sheik’s migration proceedings.
Mr Mohammed wrote that he is the Senior Manager of a company which operates a number of restaurants and cafes in the west of Melbourne. He employed Mr Sheik as the Bar Manager in one of these restaurants and found him an employee of high calibre.

Mr Mohammed said that Mr Sheik had told him about his offending one evening after work about six or seven months before he was due to appear in Court. Mr Mohammed said that he was aware, at the time, that Mr Sheik had not told his wife about the impending trial, and that he had also not told his own family in India.
Mr Mohammed said he has known Mr Sheik for around 20 years, since the Applicant was a teenager. In answer to a direct question from the Tribunal, Mr Mohammed said in his view the offending was definitely out of character and he felt it may have been driven by loneliness and the fact that, at the time of the offending, MN was away.
Evidence of Mr Salman Shaikh
The Tribunal also heard evidence from Mr Salman Shaikh. He provided a written statement (Exhibit A5) which was not dated but which Mr Shaikh estimated was written in October 2018. Mr Salman Shaikh is a friend and former business partner of the Applicant.
Mr Salman Shaikh said the Applicant told him about his offending almost immediately when he was first contacted by the police. He said he had been in a business venture with Mr Sheik, vending flavoured ices at markets. There was photographic evidence before the Tribunal of this enterprise, showing the Applicant at his stall at various locations.
Mr Salman Shaikh said that he did not know why Mr Sheik ‘did what he did’. He said that MN was studying long hours at the time and would encourage her husband to go out with his friends. Mr Salman Shaikh said he had thought that MN would not stand by her husband once the nature of the offences was revealed, but that she has. He said that the offending has greatly affected MN and he felt they would struggle as a couple if required to move to India. Mr Shaikh said in his view the offending was out of character.
Evidence of MN
The Applicant’s wife, MN, gave evidence by telephone from the United Kingdom. She had provided a written statement (GD8, p 80). MN said that she had left Australia in August 2018 and travelled overseas before arriving in the UK in March 2019. She said she has a UK working visa, valid for two years, and was currently working as a nanny in London. Before leaving for abroad, MN had regularly visited Mr Sheik in prison and she has maintained telephone contact with him every second day. The telephone call records lodged by the Applicant (part of Exhibit A4) corroborate this regular contact.
MN said she was aware of her husband’s criminal offending. She said, in relation to the exposure offence, that she did not accept all the details of the account given by the complainant.
MN said that Mr Sheik had been very close to her family and agreed with Mr Orchard that they had not provided statements of support for him in these proceedings. In relation to the rape and indecent assault conviction MN told the Tribunal how Mr Sheik had not disclosed to her the allegations, the police interview, the charges and the trial at the time when they occurred. Mr Sheik had been on bail, and she only learned any of the details after the trial had concluded but before Mr Sheik returned to Court for remand. MN told the Tribunal that she was shocked and in disbelief at the news, and upset that she hadn’t been told earlier so that she could have offered help.
In answer to direct questions from the Tribunal, MN said, should Mr Sheik’s visa not be restored, she would intend to move to India if he is repatriated after the completion of his sentence. She said that it would be very hard for her to make such a move and noted that she may not be able to obtain work in her own field, occupational therapy, in India.
Respondent’s submissions
The Respondent submitted that there was no dispute between the parties that the offending was serious; all three offences were sexual in nature. Mr Orchard submitted that Mr Sheik’s evidence at the hearing does not bear out his statements of remorse and urged the Tribunal to take account of the victim impact statements provided in the papers, in terms of assessing the gravity of the offending and an analysis of the risk of re-offending.
Mr Orchard said that there was scant evidence, apart from that of MN, that her family is in any way supportive of Mr Sheik. Separately, the Respondent submitted that Mr Sheik’s maintenance of theories about the possibility that his drink had been spiked on the evening of the 2013 offending bear directly on his credibility as a witness. Mr Orchard submitted that Mr Cummins’ assessment that Mr Sheik was a ‘low risk’ of reoffending should be looked at through the lens of the Applicant’s evidence at this hearing, especially his inconsistent evidence about his level of intoxication on the evening the two more serious offences occurred.
The Respondent submitted that, in terms of the expectations of the Australian community, a fair-minded person would be less inclined to revoke the mandatory cancellation of Mr Sheik’s visa in the light of the evidence and in the context of the earlier offending of a sexual nature.
Consideration of the Direction
Protection of the Australian community (paragraph 13.1)
The Direction requires decision-makers, including this Tribunal, to give consideration to the nature and seriousness of the non-citizen’s conduct to date and the risk to the Australian community should the non-citizen commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct.
The Direction also exhorts decision-makers to take heed of the principle that crimes of a violent nature against women or children are viewed very seriously, regardless of the sentence imposed.
The circumstances of the offending in September 2013 were that Mr Sheik went with three women back to their residence, where the three were housemates, after they had been out drinking at various bars. One of the women retired to her room. After some conversation, the second woman, Victim 1, then retired to her room and went to bed. Mr Sheik and the third woman, Victim 2, went to her room and engaged in consensual sexual activity short of intercourse (Judge’s remarks, GD, p 33).
After this activity, Mr Sheik told Victim 2 he would sleep on the couch, and left her room. However, he did not go to the couch. Instead he entered the bedroom of Victim 1. She was asleep. She awoke to find the Applicant performing oral intercourse on her, and then him digitally penetrating her. She told him to get out of her room. The Judge stated:
[Victim 1] did not consent to what you did and did nothing that could feasibly lead you to believe that she did. It is a sad irony that she behaved throughout the night in a courteous and respectful way towards you. She did nothing at all to bring upon her what you did.
This conduct led to the conviction, on the verdict of a jury, for the crime of rape.
The Tribunal had before it a forensic medical report (SG3, p 396) by Dr Jiun Pui, a Forensic Registrar. Dr Pui examined Victim 1 on the morning of 4 September 2013, a few hours after the sexual assault occurred. Dr Pui found a superficial linear laceration of Victim 1’s fossa navicularis which confirmed that the penetrative acts had occurred.
After leaving Victim 1’s room, Mr Sheik returned to the bedroom of Victim 2. The Judge quoted the relevant Crown summary:
The next thing [Victim 2] remembers is that she felt someone get on the bed. She did not see his face. The person was the accused. He grabbed her hand and guided it to stroke his penis over his underwear. This went for a short period of time. [Victim 2] was half asleep and felt hazy.
This conduct led to the conviction for the crime of indecent assault, for which Mr Sheik pleaded guilty.
The Judge went on to say that he carefully considered the victim impact statements, and relevantly said, in relation to the victim impact statement of Victim 1, the victim of the rape:
Your offence has had major impact upon very many facets of [Victim 1’s] life.
This includes her social, study, working, family and intimate life. Health has been affected. She suffers flashbacks, terrifying nightmares, feelings of depression and of irrational anger and guilt. She has lost her sense of safety and control. She suffers fear. The legal proceeding has been stressful and humiliating. She is unfairly judged by some. She has seriously self-harmed and has had strong thoughts of suicide. Her statement describes particular events and experiences, such as self-harm, which quite dramatically state the level of impact your offence and its aftermath have had upon her.
His Honour then referred to the victim impact statement of Victim 2, the victim of the indecent assault:
The statement of [Victim 2] describes a very substantial victim impact indeed. She also presents as an intelligent, resilient young woman who has mature insight into her situation and, one hopes, recovery. The victim impact statement of [Victim 2] describes the psychological and emotional effects upon her. There have been episodes of depression and increased anxiety. She has received counselling. She states that her quality of life has been compromised by your offence against her.
There is no doubt in the Tribunal’s mind that Mr Sheik’s offending is very serious. He himself acknowledged that in his statements and oral submissions. In terms of the 2013 offending, he was invited into the house of three women he had met only a few hours before. On the evidence, Victims 1 and 2 were heavily intoxicated, but I do not accept

Mr Sheik’s evidence to the Tribunal that he was also heavily intoxicated, as the Judge did not accept that submission. In terms of the subsequent conduct of the Applicant, any level of intoxication is no excuse or mitigation for what he did. He committed a serious sexual assault on a young woman, who thought she was safe in her bed in her own house.
The Tribunal does not accept the submissions from the Respondent that it should have regard to the content of the victim impact statements in terms of considering the risk of

re-offending as required by the Direction. As set out above, the sentencing Judge took careful account of the victim impact statements in deciding on an appropriate quantum of sentence. The impact on the victims is clear and profound, but I do not think the effect on them usefully informs an objective analysis of the risk of re-offending in terms of the requirements of a decision-maker considering the Direction.
The Tribunal views what occurred as particularly serious because, as the Judge said, there can be no doubt in either case that consent had not been given. Both actions, particularly the rape offence, were acts of personal violation on young women in their beds by a person who was essentially a stranger. Although Mr Sheik submitted that he was on bail leading up to, and during, his trial, the fact that the Court decided on a substantial custodial sentence for the rape offence and a custodial sentence for the indecent assault offence reflects the fact that the offending received the highest sanction available to a sentencing judge.
In terms of the 2011 offending in the sauna, a common factor with the more serious offending is that the complainant was also a stranger. She was someone Mr Sheik had met only a few minutes before, and yet he exposed himself to her, as the charge was proved, in a wilful and obscene manner. It disturbed the Tribunal that, in spite of admitting the charge, Mr Sheik still maintained at this hearing that the exposure was caused by the ‘loose fitting shorts’ he was wearing at the time. The Tribunal finds this is not plausible, inconsistent with his plea at the Sunshine Magistrates’ Court, and indicates a lack of acceptance of his culpability for this offence, some eight years on.
The Direction includes (paragraph 13.1.1(1)(b)) the principle that crimes of a violent nature against women or children are viewed very seriously, regardless of the sentence imposed. The Direction also requires a decision-maker to have regard to the frequency of offending and whether there is any trend of increasing seriousness (paragraph 13.1.1(1)(e)) and the cumulative effect of repeat offending (paragraph 13.1.1(1)(f)).
In this respect, Mr Sheik’s first offending occurred in March 2011 and his second offending in September 2013. Each offence was a sex offence. Each involved persons not previously known to the Applicant. There was a sharp increase in seriousness from the first offence to the second and third offending occasions.
The Direction requires (at paragraph 13.1(2)(b)) the Tribunal to give consideration to the risk to the Australian community should the non-citizen commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct. The Respondent urged the Tribunal to take into account the victim impact statements provided in the papers in terms of assessing risk.
Ms Carla Lechner, clinical psychologist, examined Mr Sheik on 1 September 2015 in connexion with his guilty plea for the indecent assault charge, and having been found guilty of the rape charge. Ms Lechner stated (SG1, p 36):
Mr Sheik’s reported sexual history is unremarkable however his difficulty in understanding the issue of consent in these matters, difficulty in inhibiting his sexual impulses and his past history of sexually inappropriate behaviour in terms of boundaries suggests that he needs more thorough assessment by the Sexual Offenders Program and involvement in a treatment program.
Ms Lechner administered a psychometric test, the Sexual Violence Risk – 20 (SVR) on Mr Sheik and concluded, on the basis of her analysis, he is:
best described as a “low” risk of re-offending. He does not evidence any maladjustment in terms of underlying psychological or psychiatric disorders, substance abuse issues, lack of support networks, unemployment or being the victim of childhood sexual abuse. His sexual offences do not involve physical harm. The issues that do raise some concerns are the following: i) offending against two victims on the same night despite the protests of the first victim; and ii) his initial desire to rationalize his actions. This involves further work with the Sexual Offenders Program.
Mr Cummins, as mentioned above, also examined Mr Sheik in September 2018. He records that he was furnished with Ms Lechner’s earlier report. In terms of risk,

Mr Cummins wrote:
In the context of assessing Mr Sheik on 4/9/2018 I conducted a risk assessment on him using the current best practice assessment methodology which involves an interview based assessment coupled with the use of an actuarial assessment tool, namely the Static-99R, and the use of a set of structured professional guidelines, namely the RSVP (Risk for Sexual Violence Protocol). It should be emphasised that the RSVP is not an actuarial assessment tool but, rather, a qualitative tool designed to identify risk factors.
On the basis of the Static-99R he obtained a score of 3, which placed him in the Low-Moderate risk category (where the risk category options are Low, Low-Moderate, Moderate-High and High).
…
In terms of the domain of Sexual Violence History there was no chronicity of sexual offending, as his offending was committed on the one evening, however there is some chronicity when one takes into consideration his prior court appearance for wilful and obscene exposure in 2011 and his offending of 3/12/2013. In each instance of offending there was evidence of a breach of trust and an abuse of power.
…
On the basis of all the information currently available to me concerning Mr Sheik, it is my opinion that the risk of him committing a further sexual offence is Low. I assessed his offending as being situationally motivated and opportunistic.
While these two psychological assessments assess Mr Sheik’s risk of reoffending as ‘low’, the Tribunal must also take into account other evidence. At the hearing, Mr Sheik persisted, in terms of the 2011 offending, in the view that, while he accepted he had exposed himself to the complainant in the gym sauna, that exposure was purely because of the loose nature of his shorts. However, in September 2018, Mr Cummins reported, in relation to this incident (GD12, p 136) that Mr Sheik:
acknowledged that in hindsight he was probably feeling sexually frustrated at the time of offending in 2011 and thus committed an offence which was opportunistic and most probably situationally motivated.
The Tribunal concludes that Mr Sheik’s statement to Mr Cummins in this examination was the more accurate, and his different evidence to the Tribunal on this point was an attempt to minimise the level of his culpability, and thereby downplay the nature of the 2011 offending.
Mr Sheik’s evidence at this hearing in regard to the 2013 offences suggesting his drink may have been spiked may also be viewed as a red herring, designed, again, to distort how his conduct may be viewed by the Tribunal. He acknowledged that he had no evidence of his drink being adulterated, except (he was told) with some cigarette ash, and even if there was any such evidence, he agreed that he only had a ‘tiny sip’. In any event, while the Judge accepted Mr Sheik was affected by alcohol, he was not persuaded that the offender was heavily intoxicated (GD3, p 36).

Mr Sheik made written submissions and gave evidence about the significant effect his offending has had on his wife, and there is evidence from friends of them both that his offending has had an impact on her psychological health. Mr Shaikh and Mr Mohammed both opined that the offending shocked them because it was out of character. It is relevant to note that, at the time of both the 2011 and 2013 offending, Mr Sheik was in (and is still in) what is by all accounts a happy marriage. He was also in stable employment.
Deputy President Boyle relevantly considered this question in the recent Tribunal decision of Re LQZW and Minister for Home Affairs [2019] AATA 93, where he said, at [93]:
Again, while accepting the sincerity of those who gave evidence in support of the Applicant, their statements of support and the provision of a “support network”…being provided to the Applicant in the event of him being allowed to stay in Australia, have to be viewed in light of the fact that those same support elements were those that existed previously, when the Applicant was committing serious and minor offences over an extended period. This support network did not prevent the Applicant committing crimes in the past. There is no evidence to suggest that those same supports would be any more effective in the future.
In terms of the Respondent’s submissions that Mr Sheik had not shown significant remorse, the Applicant drew the Tribunal’s attention to the Judge’s remarks (GD3, p 37). However, His Honour referred to ‘some remorse’ expressed to Ms Lechner in relation to one of the victims, and the other passage Mr Sheik directed me to referred to remorse that the Applicant was showing for the situation in which he had placed his wife.
Mr Sheik gave evidence that he was sorry that the women had to relive the incidents in the evidence they gave at the trial. Mr Orchard submitted that this could have been avoided had Mr Sheik entered a guilty plea. The Tribunal takes the view that Mr Sheik was entitled to the ordinary process of the criminal justice system and, in relation to the rape offence, the onus was on the Crown to prove the elements of the crime to the satisfaction of a jury. The Tribunal does not, in this review, take an adverse view about

Mr Sheik availing himself of his right to a trial. However, it is relevant that Mr Sheik confined his remarks to the Tribunal to the effect on Victims 1 and 2 of giving evidence which they clearly found traumatic. Pointedly, he did not make any oral submission to me acknowledging the distress that his physical actions that night visited upon them.
The Tribunal does not accept the Respondent’s submission in respect of proof that

Mr Sheik has not completed the Better Living Program; I am satisfied on the evidence of the government psychologist (Exhibit A2) that he has. Therefore, taking into account that Mr Sheik has completed what is described as a targeted rehabilitative course in prison, the Tribunal concludes that, even with the information gleaned from this course, his contained expressions of remorse and his inchoate submissions about the possibility of drink ‘spiking’ are factors which the Tribunal finds cast doubt on Mr Sheik being at ‘low’ risk of reoffending, because they illustrate an incomplete acceptance by him of his culpability for those actions. This conclusion is also underscored by Mr Sheik’s cavilling about the details of the 2011 offending in the sauna, as set out above.
On balance, given the evidence heard and taking into account the two reports by experienced clinical psychologists, the Tribunal concludes that the risk of the Applicant reoffending may be classified as ‘low’. However, given the oral evidence of Mr Sheik which disputed circumstances in regard to both the incidents of offending and which disputed the retailing of facts to Mr Cummins, the Tribunal concludes that the risk of his re-offending is a real risk and is at such a level which, because of this contemporary reshaping of certain circumstances in relation to both offending instances, remains a risk to the community that is unacceptable. This conclusion is reinforced by the fact that Mr Sheik committed a sexual offence in 2011 which brought him before the Courts, but then, some two years later, committed two further sexual offences against women, serious offences in terms of the Direction. One of those offences was particularly profound. The Tribunal is still not confident, because of his evidence at this hearing, that the Applicant completely appreciates the gravity of what he did and how harmful it was. In this analysis, the Tribunal has had regard for the consideration of what is a ‘real risk’ as being an assessment of a risk that is not ‘unrealistic, far-fetched or fanciful’ (see the decision of the Federal Court (Spender, Foster and Cooper JJ), in Re Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Indigenous Affairs v Batey (1993) 112 ALR 198, at [28]).
The Tribunal finds that this primary consideration weighs strongly against revoking the mandatory cancellation of the visa.
Best interest of minor children in Australia affected by the decision (paragraph 13.2)
Mr Sheik and MN do not have any children. Mr Sheik confirmed that his Australian citizen brother-in-law is unmarried and does not have children and that, while he was aware that MN had two young cousins, they had been born since he was incarcerated and he had not met these children. The Tribunal therefore finds that this primary consideration is not relevant in Mr Sheik’s case.
Expectations of the Australian community (paragraph 13.3)
The Direction reminds decision-makers that the Australian community expects non-citizens to obey Australian laws while in Australia. The community expects the same of citizens. In YNQY v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCA 1466, the Court at [76] stated that this consideration is ‘inextricably linked’ to the protection of the Australian community.
This primary consideration necessarily requires a decision-maker to construct, in his or her mind, a hypothetical community member and then try and assess what such a person would think, provided that this fictional person is apprised of all the factual circumstances relating to the offending, including any relevant mitigating or aggravating factors. The Tribunal does not accept that this primary consideration always weighs against an Applicant; the weight will ebb and flow according to the circumstances of the offending and other factual circumstances surrounding the Applicant.
The Tribunal considers that the Australian community may give Mr Sheik the benefit of the doubt if he had not committed a further offence after the sauna incident in 2011. The Magistrates’ Court dealt with him relatively leniently, while finding the offence proven it did not record a conviction and limited the sanction to a fine. More serious charges were dropped.
However, regrettably Mr Sheik, some two years later, committed a sexual offence almost at the highest level of seriousness of such crimes, and then a further sexual assault. In these circumstances, I find that the expectations of the Australian community, confronted with these facts and the nature of the rape offending – on a sleeping woman in her own home – would weigh heavily against the restoration of the visa.
The Tribunal finds that this primary consideration weighs against revoking the mandatory cancellation of Mr Sheik’s visa.
Other considerations
International non-refoulement obligations (paragraph 14.1)
The Tribunal must consider whether a non-refoulement obligation may arise in respect of a non-citizen whose visa has been cancelled. Australia has a range of international treaty obligations (principal among them the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees) which engage an obligation on this country not to return or deport a person to a place where that person will be at risk of a specific type of harm. In addition, a decision-maker may, where relevant, need to consider whether complementary protection obligations may be owed.
Mr Sheik did not raise any particularised claims in relation to his personal circumstances, should he be repatriated. He made certain submissions about the impact such a decision would have on his wife, and I will consider those later in these reasons.
In terms of returning to India, Mr Sheik said he would return to live with his father and family in their home city (he advised in Exhibit A1 that his mother has died since he has been in prison). He said to the delegate that he may be excluded from his community and the circumstances could bring shame to his family. He wrote along similar lines in his written submissions but he did not expand upon this in the hearing.
The Respondent drew the Tribunal’s attention to the recent decision of the Full Federal Court in Hong v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2019] FCAFC 55. At [48], the majority (Bromwich and Wheelahan JJ, Logan J dissenting) said, relevantly, quoting with approval from AYY17 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCAFC 89:
It is common ground that nothing in the statutory constraints to be found within Pt 7AA of the Migration Act (as discussed, for example, in BMB16 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2017) 253 FCR 448 per Dowsett, Besanko and Charlesworth JJ) affects the relevant existing case law on this topic, namely, the duty to consider claims and issues arising from material before it as that law applies to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal under Pt 5 of the Migration Act. In that regard, we note that:
·The Tribunal review function requires it to consider all claims made by an applicant and its essential components or integers: Htun v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (2001) 233 FCR 136 per Allsop J (as the Chief Justice then was)(at [42]), with whom Spender J agreed.
·The Tribunal is only required to consider such claims where they are either:
(a)The subject of substantial clearly articulated argument, relying on established facts; or
(b) Clearly emerge from the materials: NABE v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (2004) 144 FCR 1 per Black CJ, French and Selway JJ (at [55] and [68]) and AWT15 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCA 512 per Barker J (at [67]).
Following this authority, given that Mr Sheik did not raise any claims in relation to

non-refoulement, in the Court’s words, in ‘substantial clearly articulated argument,’ relying on established facts, and that no non-refoulement considerations ‘clearly emerge from the materials’, the Tribunal does not find that this other consideration is engaged in this review.
Strength, nature and duration of ties (paragraph 14.2)
The Direction requires that decision-makers have regard to how long a non-citizen has resided in Australia, noting that less weight should be given where the person began offending soon after arriving in Australia and more weight should be given to the time the non-citizen has spent contributing positively to the Australian community. The Tribunal must also have regard to family or social links the person may have with Australian citizens and the effect on a non-citizen’s immediate family in Australia.
Mr Sheik first entered Australia in September 2006. He has resided here since that time. The movement record (GD4, p 40) indicated that he has left Australia on three occasions. On two of those occasions, in 2008/9 and 2011, for approximately two months, and on one occasion in 2012 for approximately two weeks. Mr Sheik confirmed to the Tribunal that on each of these occasions he had returned to India.
Mr Sheik has been in custody since June 2015 and is due to complete his sentence, he informed the Tribunal, in June 2020. Although eligible for parole, he has not been considered for grant of parole because of the cancellation of his visa, but by all reports has been a well-behaved prisoner. He committed his first offence five years after he arrived in Australia, and the second offences two years after that.
Mr Sheik met MN in Australia in 2009 and they married in March 2010 (GD9, p 104). The Tribunal accepts that theirs is a genuine and loving marital relationship, which has endured in spite of the understandable tensions that arose from the two incidents of offending, and in particular the serious second offending and Mr Sheik’s concealment from his wife of it until the day before he was remanded pending sentence.
In cross-examination, MN presented to the Tribunal as a sensible person who has addressed the realities of her husband’s conduct head-on. It is understandable that she made the decision to travel, as Mr Sheik said, ‘to clear her mind’ for an extended period whilst he is in custody and she said she plans to return to Australia around March 2020. It is notable that she has kept in regular contact with her husband.
MN is the principal tie Mr Sheik has with this country, although it is acknowledged that he also has a network of friends, several of whom provided written statements of support and two of whom gave up their time to attend the hearing and give oral evidence of his character. The Respondent conceded that MN would suffer emotional hardship if

Mr Sheik was removed as would, to a lesser extent, his circle of friends in Australia.
The Direction exhorts a decision maker to give more weight in this consideration to time a non-citizen has spent contributing positively to the Australian community. As mentioned above, it is a fact Mr Sheik has a good employment record, which is to his credit.
The Direction requires a decision maker (at paragraph 14.2(1)(b) to consider the effect of non-revocation on a non-citizen’s immediate family members. Mr Sheik has no direct family members in Australia, except his wife. Most of his siblings and step-siblings live in India (G6, p 71), with one step-sister residing in Nigeria. It seemed clear to the Tribunal on Mr Sheik’s and MN’s evidence that MN’s parents and brother have not had any contact with Mr Sheik for some time, since he commenced his sentence in 2015, so his ties with them could not objectively be said to be strong. Therefore, in this regard, the major effect of non-revocation would be on MN. The Applicant submitted that his wife would face significant cultural challenges if she relocates to India. She is trained in occupational therapy; Mr Mohammed told the Tribunal that his late brother was a physiotherapist in India and it was his understanding that there is not a strong call for occupational therapists in that country. Mr Sheik also noted that MN does not speak Hindi and that her mental health may be affected by having to relocate, and by the pollution that exists in his home city. In answer to a question put by Mr Orchard, MN said that it was her intention, if her husband is repatriated, to go to India to be with him, and agreed that was a choice she had decided to make.
The Tribunal considers, on balance, taking into account his good employment record but principally given the effect it has on the Applicant’s wife, this consideration weighs in favour of revoking the mandatory cancellation of Mr Sheik’s visa. However, given that the Applicant began offending relatively soon after he arrived in this country, and then offended again, this fact attenuates the weight that otherwise would be given, meaning that this consideration, in aggregate, weighs only slightly in the Applicant’s favour.
Impact on Australian business interests (paragraph 14.3)
It was clear on the written evidence, and it was conceded by the Respondent, that
Mr Sheik has had a commendable work history since he first arrived in Australia. He has occupied responsible positions and there is evidence that he was a diligent and trusted employee. He has also been entrepreneurial, providing evidence of the flavoured ices business mentioned above, and also a food stall he operated before he went into custody. The Direction, however, states that this consideration should generally only be given weight where non-revocation would significantly compromise the delivery of a major project, or delivery of an important service in Australia. There was no evidence before the Tribunal that would be the case in relation to Mr Sheik, so the Tribunal finds that this consideration is not engaged. It weighs neutrally in this consideration.
Impact on victims (paragraph 14.4)
The impact on victims of the offending has been discussed earlier. This part of the Direction relates to the impact on victims of criminal behaviour where there is information about that impact in relation to the non-citizen’s migration status. There was no such information before the Tribunal, so this consideration was not considered further, and weighs neutrally in this assessment.
Extent of impediments if removed (paragraph 14.5)
The Direction requires consideration of any impediments a non-citizen may face if repatriated, in terms of re-establishing him or herself in their home country and maintaining basic living standards, in the context of what is generally available to citizens of that country. The Direction requires a decision-maker (paragraph 14.5(1)) to take into account the non-citizen’s age and health; any substantial language or cultural barriers that may exist; and any social, medical or economic support available in their home country.
There were no submissions put to the Tribunal from parties that Mr Sheik is not otherwise in good health; he speaks Hindi and English. He told the Tribunal that he would live in the family home if he was repatriated. He understands the cultural mores of India through his growing up and regular return visits there, although no doubt there have been changes during the almost 13 years that he has been absent, living in Australia.
He has undertaken an academic qualification in Australia in Hospitality Management (G6, p 51) and has a creditable record of employment here, which would stand him in good stead in similar occupations in India. In prison he has added to his skills with an impressive accumulation of qualifications, amongst others a certificate in commercial cookery and a university certificate in horticulture. He has also has played sport, participated in prison community activities and has undertaken German language classes.
It is a fact that Mr Sheik came to Australia aged 21 and has spent his early adult life in this country, building up qualifications, experience and a network of friends. Repatriation would therefore present some challenges, but these challenges are, in my considered view, surmountable, given his age and with his employment prospects. I note, also, that two of Mr Sheik’s brothers and a sister have all provided written statements of support (GD, pp 93-98) for their brother and interpret that they, and other family members, would be supportive of him if repatriated.
Mr Sheik’s main field of employment has been in hospitality, including at higher end accommodation establishments. It may be that such employment opportunities are less plentiful in India, but they do exist.
On balance, the Tribunal finds that this consideration may weigh very slightly in favour of revoking the mandatory cancellation of the visa.
Conclusion
In terms of the Direction, of the three primary considerations, one is not relevant to Mr Sheik and neither of the other two weighs in favour of revoking the mandatory cancellation decision; they weigh heavily against revocation. Of the other considerations, I find that two weigh in favour of revocation, but only slightly.
The offending of which Mr Sheik was found guilty in 2015 was very serious in nature. He raped a woman while she slept. She was a woman he had only met some hours before. He also committed an indecent assault on another woman, whom he had also known for a similarly short period of time. At the time he was in a loving marriage with a supportive wife, with a steady job and a circle of supportive friends. The Tribunal is aware that a decision not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the visa will have a significant impact on the Applicant, and a correlatively major impact on his wife, MN, but the Tribunal finds that the conduct in September 2013 by the Applicant is completely unacceptable.

The Tribunal concludes that his offending conduct, in the circumstances in which it occurred and taking into account the submissions made by Mr Sheik, is so serious, as is any risk of harm if this conduct were to be repeated (considering paragraph 6.3(4) of the Direction), that the privilege of holding a visa to reside in Australia should not be restored.
DECISION
The Tribunal affirms the decision made on 27 February 2019 to refuse to revoke the cancellation of the Class BS Subclass 801 Partner visa formerly held by the Applicant.

I certify that the preceding 108 (one hundred and eight) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Senior Member D. J. Morris

.............[sgd]...........................................................
Associate
Dated: 22 May 2019

Date(s) of hearing: 13 - 14 May 2019

Applicant: In person

Advocate for the Respondent: Mr Christopher Orchard

Solicitors for the Respondent: Sparke Helmore
Appendix – List of Exhibits
A1 Written statement of the Applicant, received 23 April 2019
A2Letter from Victorian Department of Justice and Regulation psychologist, dated 26 July 2018
A3A bundle of photographs, 4 pages
A4A volume of photographs and other documents, received 23 April 2019

A5 Character reference from Mr Salman Shaikh, undated.
R1 Paginated government (‘GD’) documents, lodged 18 March 2019 (227 pages)
R2Paginated supplementary government (‘SGD’) documents, lodged 7 May 2019 (732 pages)

[2019] AATA 961

22 May 2019

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Administrative Law

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Natural Justice

Procedural Fairness

Statutory Construction

Remedies

Jurisdiction

Date(s) of hearing:	13 - 14 May 2019
Applicant:	In person
Advocate for the Respondent:	Mr Christopher Orchard
Solicitors for the Respondent:	Sparke Helmore