TNFD and Director-General of Security

[2015] AATA 752

TNFD and Director-General of Security [2015] AATA 752 (25 September 2015)

Division	SECURITY DIVISION
File Number(s)	2014/4292
Re	TNFD
APPLICANT
And	Director-General of Security
RESPONDENT

File Number(s)	2014/4294; 2014/4627
Re	TNFD
APPLICANT
And	Minister for Foreign Affairs
RESPONDENT

DECISION

Tribunal	Deputy President J W Constance Deputy President S E Frost Senior Member N Isenberg
Date	25 September 2015
Place	Sydney

In accordance with section 43 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth), it is decided that:

1.in application 2014/4292, the adverse security assessment issued by the Director-General of Security in respect of the Applicant is affirmed;

2.in application 2014/4294, the decision of the Minister for Foreign Affairs to cancel the Applicant’s Australian passport is affirmed;

3.in application 2014/4627, the decision of the Minister for Foreign Affairs to order that the Applicant surrender his Jordanian passport/travel document is affirmed.

.................[sgd].......................................................

Deputy President J W Constance

Catchwords

NATIONAL SECURITY – adverse security assessment – cancellation of Australian passport – order to surrender foreign travel document - likely to engage in conduct which might prejudice security – decisions affirmed

Legislation

Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) s 43AAA(3)
Australian Passports Act 2005 (Cth) ss 22, 50
Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979 (Cth) ss 4, 17(1), 35(1), 37(2), 54, 61

Foreign Passports (Law Enforcement and Security) Act 2005 (Cth) ss 15(1), 16(1), 23

Cases

BLBS and Director-General of Security [2013] AATA 820
MYVC v Director-General of Security [2014] FCA 1447

Sayed Akbar Jaffarie v Director-General of Security and Migration Review Tribunal [2014] FCAFC 102

Secondary Materials

Security Assessment Determination No.2, issued 28 July 2010.

REASONS FOR DECISION

Deputy President J W Constance
Deputy President S E Frost
Senior Member N Isenberg

25 September 2015

A:        INTRODUCTION

1. The Applicant was born in Jordan and is 44 years old.  In 1992 he was granted Australian citizenship.  He retained his Jordanian citizenship.

2. In March 2013, the Applicant was issued an Australian passport.  At the time he also held a Jordanian passport.

3. Subsequently to the issue of the Australian passport, the Director-General of Security issued an adverse security assessment in relation to the Applicant under the provisions of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979 (Cth). It was assessed that:

   ·the applicant would be likely to engage in conduct that might prejudice the security of Australia or a foreign country if he were to hold an Australian passport;

   ·the applicant would likely engage in politically motivated violence, or activities in support of politically motivated violence, if he were to travel overseas using an Australian passport;

   ·unless the applicant’s foreign travel documents were surrendered, the applicant would be likely to engage in conduct that might prejudice the security of Australia or a foreign country. [1]

   [1] Exhibit UR1 section 3 p.3.

4. On the basis of this assessment the Director-General requested the Minister for Foreign Affairs to cancel the Applicant’s Australian passport and to order the surrender of his Jordanian travel documents.  In accordance with this request the Minister cancelled the Applicant’s passport (which we will refer to as “the cancellation decision”) and ordered the surrender of his Jordanian passport (“the surrender decision”).

5. The Applicant was notified of the cancellation decision and the surrender decision by letters delivered to him by hand on 6 February 2014.

6. The Applicant was notified of the adverse security assessment and again notified of the cancellation and surrender decisions by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade by letters dated 28 February 2014.

7. The Applicant has applied to the Tribunal to review the adverse security assessment and the cancellation and surrender decisions.

8. For the reasons which follow, and those set out in the Classified Reasons for Decision, the adverse security assessment will be affirmed.  The cancellation and surrender decisions will also be affirmed.

   B:       THE ISSUES

9. The first issue for the Tribunal is whether to affirm as correct, to vary or to set aside the Director-General’s adverse security assessment.

10. The second issue for determination is whether the Minister’s decision to cancel the Applicant's passport is the preferable decision.

11. The third issue is whether the Minister’s decision to order the surrender of the Applicant’s Jordanian passport is the preferable decision.

    C:       BACKGROUND

    Notification of the adverse security assessment

12. Initially the Applicant was not notified of the making of the adverse security assessment as the Attorney-General had issued a certificate in accordance with paragraph 38(2)(a) of the ASIO Act. It was determined that the withholding of the notice was essential to the security of Australia. On 6 February 2014, the Australian Federal Police executed a search warrant at the Applicant’s residence. During this search the Police Officers seized the Applicant’s passport and provided him with correspondence from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade advising him of the cancellation and surrender decisions.

13. The certificate issued by the Attorney-General was later revoked. A further certificate under paragraph 38(2)(b) was issued by the Attorney-General precluding only parts of the adverse security assessment being disclosed to the Applicant

14. On 28 February 2014, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade wrote to the Applicant advising him once more of the making of the cancellation and surrender decisions and advising him of the existence of the adverse security assessment.[2]

    [2] Exhibit UR1 section 6 p.41.

    Request by ASIO to interview of the Applicant

15. On 27 May 2014, two officers of ASIO attended the Applicant’s residence and advised the Applicant that they wished to talk to him about concerns ASIO held in relation to him. The Applicant declined to be interviewed and referred the officers to his solicitor.

    D:       THE LAW TO BE APPLIED

    D.1:  The functions of ASIO

16. The functions of the Organisation are set out in subsection 17(1) of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979 (Cth) (“the ASIO Act”) and include the following:

    (a) to obtain, correlate and evaluate intelligence relevant to security;

    …

    (c) to advise Ministers and authorities of the Commonwealth in respect of matters relating to security, in so far as those matters are relevant to their functions and responsibilities.

    D.1.1  The meaning of “security”

17. In section 4 of the ASIO Act, “security” is defined to include:

    (a) the protection of, and of the people of, the Commonwealth and the several States and Territories from:

    ……..

    (iii) politically motivated violence;

    ……

    (b) the carrying out of Australia’s responsibilities to any foreign country in relation to a matter mentioned in any of the sub paragraphs of paragraph (a) or the matter mentioned in paragraph (aa).

18. The relevant part of the definition of politically motivated violence states that the expression means:

    …acts or threats of violence or unlawful harm that are intended or likely to achieve a political objective, whether in Australia or elsewhere, including acts or threats carried on for the purpose of influencing the policy or acts of a government, whether in Australia or elsewhere.

19. In Sayed Akbar Jaffarie v Director-General of Security and Migration Review Tribunal[3] the Full Court of the Federal Court rejected an argument that the definition of security should be interpreted in a confined manner based on the breadth of the heads of power contained in the Australian Constitution.  The Court said:

    The term ‘security’ and the phrase ‘the protection of Australia’s territorial and border integrity’ are thus not to be read in the confined manner advanced on behalf of Mr Jaffarie.  Nothing in paragraph (aa) suggests that the phrase should be given anything other than the natural and ordinary meaning of the words employed. Indeed, if anything, the statutory context in which the phrase is employed strongly suggests that no pedantic or unnecessary construction should be placed upon the phrase.[4]

    [3] [2014] FCAFC 102.

    [4] [2014] FCAFC 102, at para 64.

    D.1.2:  The power of ASIO to furnish security assessments

20. The functions of the Organisation set out in subsection 17(1)(c) “include the furnishing to Commonwealth agencies of security assessments relevant to their functions and responsibilities.” [5]

    [5] Subsection 37(1) of the ASIO Act.

    D.1.3:  What is a ‘security assessment’?

21. Subsection 35(1) of the ASIO Act provides in part:

    Security assessment or assessment means a statement in writing furnished by the Organisation to a Commonwealth agency expressing any recommendation, opinion or advice on, or otherwise referring to, the question whether it would be consistent with the requirements of security for prescribed administrative action to be taken in respect of a person or the question whether the requirements of security make it necessary or desirable for prescribed administrative action to be taken in respect of a person, and includes any qualification or comment expressed in connection with any such recommendation, opinion or advice, being a qualification or comment that relates or that could relate to that question.

22. Prescribed administrative action is also defined in subsection 35(1). The definition includes, in paragraph (c) “the exercise of any power, or the performance of any function, in relation to a person under the Australian Citizenship Act 2007, the Australian Passports Act 2005 or the regulations under either of those Acts”.

    D.1.4:  What is an ‘adverse security assessment’?

23. Subsection 35(1) provides the following definition:

    adverse security assessment means a security assessment in respect of a person that contains:

    (a) any opinion or advice, or any qualification of any opinion or advice, or any information, that is or could be prejudicial to the interests of the person; and

    (b) a recommendation that prescribed administrative action be taken or not be taken in respect of the person, being a recommendation the implementation of which would be prejudicial to the interests of the person.

    D.1.5:  A statement of grounds must accompany an adverse security assessment

24. Subsection 37(2) of the Act provides:

    An adverse … security assessment shall be accompanied by a statement of the grounds for the assessment, and that statement:

    (a) shall contain all the information that has been relied on by the Organisation in making the assessment, other than information inclusion of which would, in the opinion of the Director-General, be contrary to the requirements of security; and

    (b) shall, for the purposes of this Part, be deemed to be part of the assessment.

    D.2:     The role of the Minister for Foreign Affairs

25. Subsection 22(1) of the Australian Passports Act 2005 (Cth) provides:

    The Minister may cancel an Australian travel document.

    An Australian passport is an Australian travel document.[6]

    [6] See subsection 6(2).

26. Subsection (2) provides, in part:

    Without limiting subsection (1), the Minister may cancel an Australian travel document that has been issued to a person if:

    ……

    (d)  a competent authority makes a refusal/cancellation request in relation to the person.

    ASIO is a competent authority under the Australian Passports Act.

27. Subsection 16(1) of the Foreign Passports (Law Enforcement and Security) Act 2005 (Cth) provides:

    (1) If a competent authority makes a request under section 13, 14 or 15 in relation to a person, the Minister may order the surrender of the person's foreign travel documents.

    A Jordanian passport is a foreign travel document.

28. Subsection 15(1) of the same Act provides in part:

    (1) If a competent authority suspects on reasonable grounds that:

    (a) unless a person's foreign travel documents are surrendered, the person would be likely to engage in conduct that:

    (i) might prejudice the security of Australia or a foreign country; or

    (ii) might endanger the health or physical safety of other persons (whether in Australia or a foreign country); or

    (iii) might interfere with the rights or freedoms of other persons (whether in Australia or a foreign country) set out in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; or

    (iv) might constitute an indictable offence against this Act; or

    (v) might constitute an indictable offence against a law of the Commonwealth, being an offence specified in a Minister's determination; and

    (b) the person should be required to surrender the person's foreign travel documents in order to prevent the person from engaging in the conduct;

    the competent authority may request the Minister to make an order under section 16 in relation to the person's foreign travel documents.

    ASIO is a competent authority under the Foreign Passports (Law Enforcement and Security) Act 2005.

    D.3:     Applications for review by this Tribunal

    D.3.1   Review of the adverse security assessment

29. Section 54 of the ASIO Act provides that an application may be made to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for a review of an adverse security assessment.

30. Section 61 provides that every Commonwealth agency concerned with prescribed administrative action to which the assessment is relevant, shall treat the findings of the Tribunal, to the extent that they do not confirm the assessment, as superseding that assessment.

31. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) also has special provisions for the making of decisions in relation to security assessments. Subsection 43AAA(3) provides:

    The Tribunal must not make findings in relation to an assessment that would, under section 61 of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979, have the effect of superseding any information that is, under subsection 37 (2) of that Act, taken to be part of the assessment unless those findings state that, in the Tribunal’s opinion, information is incorrect, is incorrectly represented or could not reasonably be relevant to the requirements of security.

    D.3.2   Review of the decision to cancel the Applicant's passport

32. Section 50 of the AustralianPassports Act provides that an application may be made to this Tribunal to review a decision of the Minister to cancel an Australian passport.

    D.3.3  Review of the decision to order the surrender of the Applicant’s Jordanian travel documents

33. Section 23 of the Foreign Passports (Law Enforcement and Security) Act 2005 provides that an application may be made to this Tribunal to review a decision of the Minister to order the surrender of a person’s foreign travel documents.

    E:        THE APPLICATION OF POLICY – SECURITY ASSESSMENT DETERMINATION NO.2

34. On 28 July 2010, the Director-General of Security issued the above Determination to provide guidance to the decision-maker in making security assessments under the ASIO Act.

35. Subsection 37(4) of the ASIO Act provides that any such determination is not binding on the Tribunal.  Nevertheless, we respectfully adopt the reasoning of the Tribunal in BLBS and Director-General of Security,[7] that subsection 37(4) “does not prevent our deciding this matter consistently with the policy of the Direction [sic] unless persuaded that the policy expressed in the Determination is inconsistent with the ASIO Act or would produce an unjust outcome in the circumstances of a particular case.” [8]  There is nothing in the evidence before us, either in the open or the closed sessions, which gives any reason to regard the policy expressed in the Determination as being inconsistent with the provisions of the ASIO Act. Nor is the evidence such that deciding the application consistently with the policy would produce an unjust outcome.

    [7] [2013] AATA 820 at paras 48-54.

    [8] At para.54.

36. In reaching our conclusion that the adverse assessment should be affirmed, we have applied the terms of the Determination.

    E.1:      The relevant provisions of the Security Assessment Determination No.2

    Matters to be taken into account

37. Clause 6 provides in part:

    6.  In formulating a security assessment, three primary considerations are to be taken into account:

    6.1.  The prescribed administrative action and type of security assessment;

    6.2.  The assessment subject; and

    6.3. Consequences to security.

38. Clause 6.1 provides in part:

    (b)The decision maker must identify in the security assessment what access, ability, power, performance and/or function is being sought and/or affected (the relevant prescribed administrative action) in relation to the assessment subject.

    ...

    (d) The decision maker may then ascertain the necessary quantity and quality of information required to make the security assessment.

39. Under the heading “Making a finding or the conclusion” clause 7.2.5 of the Determination provides:

    a.    A decision maker should consider whether there is enough information to justify a finding or conclusion being drawn.

    b.    Any finding or conclusion in an assessment (whether immediate or final) which is adverse to the assessment subject should be judged to be at least ‘likely’.

40. Clause 5(m) provides:

    (m)   The ‘test’ terms used in clauses 6 and 7 are to be interpreted as below:

    ...

    (ii)   ‘Likely to be’: The ‘likely to be’ test is met if the decision maker is of the opinion that there is a real, and not remote, possibility that the risk could occur. It is not necessary that the risk is ‘more likely than not’ to occur. (emphasis in the original)

41. Again, we adopt the interpretation by the Tribunal in BLBS and Director-General of Security.[9] The term ‘likely’ in 7.2.5(b) is not to be given the same meaning as ‘likely to be’ in clause 5(m). As stated by the Tribunal:

    ……the word “likely” in clause 7.2.5(b) was used in its ordinary sense and does not require further embellishment in order to apply the policy of the determination

    ……

    The expression “at least likely” in cl 7.2.5 (b), used in its ordinary sense but read in context as part of the Determination, does not in our opinion, convey the meaning of “more likely than not”. A possibility supported by such relevant and probative material as a reasonable mind would accept to be adequate to support the conclusion that the event foreshadowed is plausibly and plainly foreseeable, would be understood, in that context, to come within what the Tribunal understands to be the ordinary meaning of the expression “at least likely”.[10]

    [9] [2013] AATA 820.

    [10] [2013] AATA 820 at paras 62-63.

    F:        THE ASSESSMENT AND THE STATEMENT OF GROUNDS

42. The relevant unclassified part of the assessment made by the Director-General of Security is set out above in the Background section of these reasons.

43. The unclassified Statement of Grounds[11] states, in part:

    [11] Exhibit UR1 to section 4 p.108.

    Consequences to security

    8. ASIO assesses that if [the Applicant] is permitted to travel overseas using an Australian passport, he would be likely to engage in conduct that might prejudice the security of Australia or a foreign country.

    Matters taken into account

    9. The matters taken into account in this assessment are relevant to security. Due and proper regard has been given to the requirements of procedural fairness, any relevant legislative tests, the currency, credibility, nature and authenticity of the relevant information and sources available to ASIO, including what weight should be accorded to the available information. Only information with a reasonable nexus to the assessment subject and relevant to the requirements of security has been taken into account.

    Recommendation

    10. ASIO suspects on reasonable grounds that [the Applicant] would be likely to engage in conduct that might prejudice the security of Australia or a foreign country if he were to hold an Australian passport, and his passport should be cancelled and/or refused in order to prevent him engaging in that conduct.

    11. Consequently, ASIO requests, pursuant to section 14 (1) of the Passports Act, that the Minister for Foreign Affairs:

    a. cancel any current Australian passport held by [the Applicant]; and

    b. refuse to issue [the Applicant] further Australian passport, should he apply for one.

1. In MYVC v Director-General of Security [12] the Federal Court said:

   Importantly … a suspicion that something exists is more than mere idle wondering about its existence. Rather, it is a positive feeling of actual apprehension or mistrust amounting to a slight opinion, but without sufficient evidence. Whatever the source of the suspicion is, it has to be sufficient to create in the mind of a reasonable person an actual apprehension or fear that the matter being considered actually exists. Where a statute requires a decision maker to determine whether there is a real chance or possibility that something might happen in the future, the decision maker must estimate the likelihood that one or more events would give rise to the occurrence of that thing. In many, if not most, cases, determining what is likely to occur in the future will require findings as to what has occurred in the past because, as Brennan CJ, Dawson, Toohey, Gaudron, McHugh and Gummow JJ said in Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Guo (1997) 191 CLR 559 at 575:

   ... what has occurred in the past is likely to be the most reliable guide as to what will happen in the future.

   G.       EVIDENCE

   [12] [2014] FCA 1447 at para.52.

   G.1.     The evidence of the Applicant

2. The Applicant provided an affidavit affirmed 2 December 2014 and gave oral evidence.

3. In his affidavit the Applicant stated that:

   I have not engaged in conduct that might prejudice the security of Australia or a Foreign country.   I was not travelling overseas to engage in conduct that might prejudice the security of Australia or a foreign country.[13]

   [13] Exhibit UA1 p.2.

4. When he gave oral evidence, the Applicant said that at the time the Police conducted the search of his home they seized some post office receipts, diaries, telephones and chargers, clothing and camping equipment. Some of the camping equipment was used by family members and part was obtained for his proposed trip to Jordan.  All items, with the exception of a sleeping bag, have been returned to the Applicant.

5. The Applicant’s parents live in Jordan.  He wishes to travel to Jordan to see his parents and to holiday.  As the Applicant is the eldest son of his parents, it is important that he be able to travel to Jordan in the event of the death of a parent. In addition to wishing to be able to travel to Jordan, the Applicant would like to be able to visit the United Arab Emirates (where his brothers are living) and Malaysia.

   G.2.     The evidence of Mr Sawyer

6. Mr Sawyer is a Senior Executive Service Officer of ASIO and has been an ASIO officer for ten years.  He has significant experience managing counter-terrorism investigations and conducting security assessments regarding whether passport should be refused or cancelled.

7. Mr Sawyer provided an affidavit affirmed 29 October 2014,[14] and gave evidence in both the open and closed hearings.

   [14] Exhibit UR1 section 3.

8. In his affidavit Mr Sawyer stated, in part:

   20. The nature and extent of ASIO’s investigation to inform a security assessment will vary from case to case. This is because ASIO’s investigative actions are appropriate and proportionate to address the security concerns in each specific case.

   21. The security assessment of the applicant was conducted in accordance with Security Assessment Determination No. 2 made by the Director-General on 28 July 2010 pursuant to section 37 (4) of the ASIO Act. The security assessment involved consideration of the applicant’s activities and character as relevant to security. The assessment only took into account security-relevant information with a reasonable nexus to the applicant. In each case the currency, credibility, nature and authenticity of the information were considered.

9. In response to questions raised by the Applicant, Mr Sawyer said that so far as he was aware, when the search warrant was executed, no documents indicating that the Applicant was involved in transferring funds overseas were located. 

10. Mr Sawyer gave evidence concerning the factors favourable to the Applicant and considered by ASIO.

11. He acknowledged that the Applicant stated that he had not committed any offences.  In response to this denial Mr Sawyer stated that:

    It is ASIO’s continued assessment that if the applicant held an Australian passport he would be likely to engage in conduct that may prejudice the security of Australia or a foreign country and his passport should remain cancelled in order to prevent him from engaging in that conduct.[15]

    H.       CONSIDERATION

    [15] Exhibit UR1 section 3 p.5..

    H.1.     The argument on behalf of the Applicant

12. Counsel for the Applicant argued that on the open material we could not be satisfied that the Director-General had reasonable grounds to suspect that the Applicant would be likely to engage in the specified conduct if an Australian passport was issued to him and if he retained his Jordanian travel documents.  On this basis the Director-General was not entitled to make the cancellation and surrender request and the consequent actions in response to those requests were invalid.

    H.2.  Discussion

    H.2.1   The adverse security assessment

13. If the only evidence before us was that provided during the open hearing, we would have agreed with the submissions of Counsel for the Applicant.  In fact, this was conceded by Counsel for the Respondents. The Applicant has consistently denied any wrongdoing and he has not been charged with any offences.  Mr Sawyer was unaware of any evidence which demonstrated that the Applicant had been involved in the transfer of funds overseas for purposes which might prejudice the security of Australia or a foreign country.  The Applicant explained that he wished to travel to Jordan in order to visit his parents, and not for any purposes which might prejudice the security of Australia or a foreign country.

14. However, based on the classified evidence, we are satisfied that the Applicant was not a truthful witness when he gave evidence before us.

15. We have concluded that the assessment by ASIO that:

    ·[the Applicant] would be likely to engage in conduct that might prejudice the security of Australia or a foreign country if he were to hold an Australian passport;

    ·[the Applicant] would likely engage in politically motivated violence, or activities in support of politically motivated violence, if he were to travel overseas using an Australian passport;

    ·unless [the Applicant’s] foreign travel documents were surrendered, the applicant would be likely to engage in conduct that might prejudice the security of Australia or a foreign country.

    is correct.

16. In general we have followed the principles to guide decision-makers which are set out in Security Assessment Determination No.2. We have determined that there is sufficient information before us to justify the findings and conclusions in the assessment.  In accordance with clause 7.2.5(b) of the Determination, we are satisfied that the findings and conclusions adverse to the Applicant are at least likely.

17. The prescribed administrative action which is under consideration is the power of the Minister under the Australian Passports Act 2005 to cancel the Applicant’s Australian passport and the power under the Foreign Passports (Law Enforcement and Security) Act 2005 to order the surrender of the Applicant’s Jordanian passport. Based on the evidence given in the closed hearing, we have considered the consequences to security of the decision to cancel the Applicant’s passport. We are satisfied that the information provided to us is of the necessary quantity and quality to make the security assessment.

18. We have not made any findings that have the effect of superseding any information that is taken to be part of the assessment.  The provisions of subsection 43AAA(3) are not enlivened.

    H.2.2   The cancellation of the Applicant’s passport

19. The second decision for review is that of the Minister for Foreign Affairs to cancel the Applicant’s passport. The power to cancel a passport is discretionary. Section 22(2) of the Australian Passports Act provides that where a request is made from a competent authority (in this case ASIO) the Minister may cancel a passport.

20. On the basis of the evidence given in the closed hearing, we are satisfied that there are grounds to justify the cancellation of the Applicant’s passport in order to prevent conduct which would be prejudicial to the security of Australia. We are also satisfied that the cancellation of the Applicant’s passport is the preferable decision having regard to those grounds.

    H.2.3   The order for surrender of the Applicant’s Jordanian travel documents

21. The final decision for review is that of the Minister to order the surrender of the Applicant’s Jordanian travel documents.  This power is discretionary.  Section 16 gives the Minister the power to make such an order following a request by a competent authority.  ASIO is such an authority for the purposes of the Act.

22. On the basis of the evidence given at the closed hearing, we are satisfied that the making of an order for the surrender of the Applicant’s Jordanian travel documents is justified as we are satisfied that without such an order the Applicant would be likely to engage in conduct that might prejudice the security of Australia or a foreign country.  Further, we are satisfied that the Applicant should be required to surrender his travel documents in order to prevent his engaging in that conduct.

    I.        CONCLUSION

23. The decision of the Director-General of Security to issue the adverse security assessment in respect of the Applicant will be affirmed.

24. The Minister’s decision to cancel the Applicant’s Australian passport will be affirmed.

25. The Minister’s decision to order the surrender of the Applicant’s Jordanian travel documents will be affirmed.

69.      

70.     I certify that the preceding 68 (sixty-eight) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Deputy President J W Constance, Deputy President S E Frost and Senior Member N Isenberg. 

...[sgd]..............................................................

Associate

Dated   25 September 2015

Date(s) of hearing	9-12 June 2015
Date final submissions received	12 June 2015
Counsel for the Applicant	G Foster
Solicitors for the Applicant	Zali Burrows Lawyers
Counsel for the Respondents	P Melican
Solicitors for the Respondents	Australian Government Solicitor