TVVT and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs (Migration)

TVVT and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs (Migration) [2023] AATA 4034 (4 December 2023)
Division:GENERAL DIVISION
File Number: 2019/0755
Re:TVVT
APPLICANT

AndMinister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs
RESPONDENT

DECISION
Tribunal:Deputy President Britten-Jones
Date:4 December 2023
Place:Melbourne

The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.
.................[sgd].......................................................
Deputy President Britten-Jones
CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – mandatory cancellation of applicant’s visa – applicant has substantial criminal record including violence after periods of prison and detention – whether there is ‘another reason’ to revoke mandatory cancellation decision - he would face significant impediments and serious risk of harm if removed to South Sudan – the primary considerations of the protection and expectations of the Australian community outweigh the countervailing considerations – decision under review is affirmed
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth)
CASES
CKT20 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2022] FCAFC 124
Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs v Viane [2021] HCA 41
NRFX v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FCA 21
NZYQ v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] HCA 37
Plaintiff M1/2021 v Minister for Home Affairs [2023] HCA 17
SZRTN v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2014] FCA 303
Tanielu v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2014] FCA 673
WKMZ v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2021] FCAFC 55
SECONDARY MATERIALS
Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs (Cth), Direction No 99: Visa refusal and cancellation under section 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under section 501CA (23 January 2023)
DFAT Country Information Report for South Sudan dated 5 October 2016
REASONS FOR DECISION
Deputy President Britten-Jones
4 December 2023

This is an application for review of a decision to not revoke the mandatory cancellation of the applicant’s Global Special Humanitarian (class XB) (subclass 202) visa (the applicant’s visa) under s 501(3A) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth).[1]
[1] All references to legislation are to the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) unless otherwise stated.
THE DECISION TO CANCEL THE APPLICANT’S VISA AND SUBSEQUENT PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On 16 July 2018 the applicant’s visa was mandatorily cancelled (the cancellation decision) by a delegate of the Minister under s 501(3A) on character grounds due to his substantial criminal record and because he was serving a sentence of imprisonment of over 12 months.
On 23 July 2018 the applicant sought revocation of the cancellation decision and made representations in support of revocation.
On 11 February 2019 a delegate of the Minister decided not to revoke the cancellation decision (the non-revocation decision). On 13 February 2019, the applicant applied to the Tribunal for review of the non-revocation decision. The Tribunal’s decision setting aside the delegate’s decision was set aside by the Federal Court and remitted to the Tribunal. There was another hearing in the Tribunal which affirmed the non-revocation decision. That decision was also set aside by the Federal Court. The Tribunal heard the matter again on 22 November 2023.
LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK
Under s 501(3A), the Minister must cancel a visa that has been granted to a person if:
(a)the Minister is satisfied that the person does not pass the character test because of the operation of paragraph (6)(a) (substantial criminal record), on the basis of paragraph (7)(a), (b) or (c); and
(b)the person is serving a sentence of imprisonment, on a full-time basis in a custodial institution, for an offence against a law of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory.
The character test referred to in s 501(3A) is outlined in s 501(6). Relevantly, s 501(6) provides that a person does not pass the character test if the person has a substantial criminal record (as defined by sub-s (7)). For the purposes of s 501(6)(a), and relevant to this matter, a person has a substantial criminal record if the person has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more.[2]
[2] Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (Migration Act) s 501(7)(c).
Where a visa has been cancelled as set out above, the Minister has a power under s 501CA(4)(b) to revoke the cancellation decision if satisfied that the visa holder passes the character test, or that there is another reason why the original decision should be revoked:
501CA Cancellation of visa—revocation of decision under subsection 501(3A) (person serving sentence of imprisonment)
(1) This section applies if the Minister makes a decision (the original decision) under subsection 501(3A) (person serving sentence of imprisonment) to cancel a visa that has been granted to a person.
(2) For the purposes of this section, relevant information is information (other than non‑disclosable information) that the Minister considers:
(a)would be the reason, or a part of the reason, for making the original decision; and
(b)is specifically about the person or another person and is not just about a class of persons of which the person or other person is a member.
(3) As soon as practicable after making the original decision, the Minister must:
(a)give the person, in the way that the Minister considers appropriate in the circumstances:
(i)a written notice that sets out the original decision; and
(ii)particulars of the relevant information; and
(b)invite the person to make representations to the Minister, within the period and in the manner ascertained in accordance with the regulations, about revocation of the original decision.
(4) The Minister may revoke the original decision if:
(a)the person makes representations in accordance with the invitation; and
(b)the Minister is satisfied:
(i)that the person passes the character test (as defined by section 501); or
(ii)that there is another reason why the original decision should be revoked.
Where the cancellation decision is not revoked, the right to have that decision reviewed by the Tribunal is enlivened.
ISSUES BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL
The applicant does not pass the character test prescribed under s 501(6)(a) as he has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more, and therefore has a ‘substantial criminal record’ as defined under s 501(7). Therefore, the applicant cannot rely on s 501CA(4)(b)(i) to have the mandatory visa cancellation revoked.
Section 501CA(4)(b)(ii) requires the Tribunal to examine the factors for and against revoking a mandatory cancellation decision to assess if there is ‘another reason’ why the cancellation decision should be revoked. This assessment is made by reference to the representations made by the applicant which I am required to read, identify, understand and evaluate.[3] Deciding whether or not to be satisfied that ‘another reason’ exists might be the product of necessary fact finding, or the product of making predictions about the future, or it might be about assessments or characterisation of an applicant’s past offending.[4]
[3] Plaintiff M1/2021 v Minister for Home Affairs [2022] HCA 17 at [22] and [36].
[4] Minister for immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs v Viane [2021] HCA 41 at [14].
The applicant gave oral evidence. There was also oral evidence from his former youth justice case manager and the expert, Dr Zimmerman. There was a topic of sensitivity raised by the applicant’s counsel and which it was agreed should be treated discretely by ensuring that no persons other than the parties, their representatives and Tribunal staff were present during evidence on that topic. I will maintain that approach in these reasons. In reaching my decision I have taken that evidence into account. Where it is necessary to refer to that evidence, I will refer to the ‘sensitive evidence’.
The applicant does not pass the character test. The only issue for the Tribunal is whether there is ‘another reason’ to revoke the cancellation decision having regard to the principles and considerations in Direction 99.[5]
[5] Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs (Cth), Direction No 99: Visa refusal and cancellation under section 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under section 501CA (23 January 2023) (Direction 99).
DIRECTION 99
The purpose of Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs (Cth), Direction No 99: Visa refusal and cancellation under section 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under section 501CA (23 January 2023) (Direction 99) is to guide decision-makers in performing functions or exercising powers under s 501 and s 501CA. Under s 499(2A), the Tribunal must comply with a direction made under s 499.
The relevant principles that the Tribunal must apply to the task of deciding whether to revoke a mandatory cancellation are set out in paragraph 5.2 of Direction 99 as follows:
(1) Australia has a sovereign right to determine whether non-citizens who are of character concern are allowed to enter and/or remain in Australia. Being able to come to or remain in Australia is a privilege Australia confers on noncitizens in the expectation that they are, and have been, law-abiding, will respect important institutions, such as Australia's law enforcement framework, and will not cause or threaten harm to individuals or the Australian community.
(2) Non-citizens who engage or have engaged in criminal or other serious conduct should expect to be denied the privilege of coming to, or to forfeit the privilege of staying in, Australia.
(3) The Australian community expects that the Australian Government can and should refuse entry to non-citizens, or cancel their visas, if they engaged in conduct, in Australia or elsewhere, that raises serious character concerns. This expectation of the Australian community applies regardless of whether the non-citizen poses a measureable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community.
(4) Australia has a low tolerance of any criminal or other serious conduct by visa applicants or those holding a limited stay visa, or by other non-citizens who have been participating in, and contributing to, the Australian community only for a short period of time.
(5) With respect to decisions to refuse, cancel, and revoke cancellation of a visa, Australia will generally afford a higher level of tolerance of criminal or other serious conduct by non-citizens who have lived in the Australian community for most of their life, or from a very young age. The level of tolerance will rise with the length of time a non-citizen has spent in the Australian community, particularly in their formative years.
(6) Decision-makers must take into account the primary and other considerations relevant to the individual case. In some circumstances, the nature of the non citizen's conduct, or the harm that would be caused if the conduct were to be repeated, may be so serious that even strong countervailing considerations may be insufficient to justify not cancelling or refusing the visa, or revoking a mandatory cancellation. In particular, the inherent nature of certain conduct such as family violence and the other types of conduct or suspected conduct mentioned in paragraph 8.5(2) (Expectations of the Australian Community) is so serious that even strong countervailing considerations may be insufficient in some circumstances, even if the non-citizen does not pose a measureable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community.
In making a decision under s 501CA(4), the following are primary considerations:
(a)protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct;
(b)whether the conduct engaged in constituted family violence;
(c)the strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia;
(d)the best interests of minor children in Australia; and
(e)expectations of the Australian community.
In making a decision under s 501CA(4), other considerations must also be taken into account, including (but not limited to):
(a)legal consequences of the decision;
(b)extent of impediments if removed;
(c)impact on victims; and
(d)impact on Australian business interests.
In applying the considerations (both primary and other), information and evidence from independent and authoritative sources should be given appropriate weight. Primary considerations should generally be given greater weight than the other considerations. One or more primary considerations may outweigh other primary considerations.[6]
[6] Direction 99 at 7.
BACKGROUND
The applicant is a 27 year old man who was born in what is now South Sudan. As a child he experienced trauma associated with a violent upbringing and war. He suffered a gun shot wound and witnessed many atrocities. He arrived in Australia in 2006 at the age of 10 and lived with his father, stepmother and siblings. He had difficulties at school in Australia because he did not speak English and he faced violent conditions at home. When he was 14 years old he was assisted to leave home to escape his violent father but he struggled to find places to stay and was, at times, homeless. He began using cannabis and then methamphetamine which led to criminal conduct.
CONSIDERATION
Protection of the Australian community – 8.1 of Direction 99
When considering the protection of the Australian community, I have regard to the principle that the Government is committed to protecting the Australian community from harm as a result of criminal activity. Entering or remaining in Australia is a privilege that Australia confers on non-citizens in the expectation that they are, and have been, law abiding, will respect important institutions, and will not cause or threaten harm to individuals or the Australian community. As required by paragraph 8.1(2) of Direction 99, I give consideration below to:
(a)the nature and seriousness of the non-citizen’s conduct to date; and
(b)the risk to the Australian community, should the non-citizen commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct.
The nature and seriousness of the non-citizen’s conduct – 8.1.1 of Direction 99
The applicant’s criminal record is extensive and he accepts that his conduct has been very serious. There was frequent offending as a youth involving violence, property damage, dishonesty and drugs. As an adult, the applicant committed two acts of armed robbery whilst on bail in April 2017 for which he received a custodial sentence of 13 months. The first involved threatening behaviour with a flick knife towards two young victims aged 15 years. In the second offence he threatened two victims with a pair of scissors. The sentencing Judge noted that armed robbery is taken very seriously by the courts but his offending was ‘towards the lower reaches of the range of offending’. The Judge said:
Your offending was not particularly planned, your rewards modest, no disguise or real getaway strategy employed. Nonetheless, it has had a significant impact on your two victims, who have put forward victim impact statements and all of your victims were vulnerable, given their young ages. It further needs to be stated that people are entitled to go about their business in the city without being subject of offending such as yours.
Your present period in custody represents your first time in the adult system. The impact of this on you is not to be underestimated and you have had an enforced period of being drug-free, as well as having applied yourself voluntarily undertaking educational programs. You do appear motivated to change. In my view, you are reclaimable and to this effect, the prosecutor has agreed that a combined sentence of imprisonment, followed by a community corrections order would represent an adequate penalty in all of the circumstances of your case…
The applicant received a further three month custodial sentence on 9 May 2018 for violent and drug related offending.
As set out earlier in these reasons, in July 2018, the applicant’s visa was mandatorily cancelled and he was placed in immigration detention for nine months before successfully applying to the Tribunal to set aside that decision. The applicant then embarked on a string of offending involving violence between 25 June and 29 July 2019, merely months after the favourable decision by the Tribunal on 6 May 2019. The reasons for sentence for this offending noted that during this time the applicant committed theft, armed robbery, common assault and intentionally causing injury amongst other offences. The sentencing judge said:
[I]t is noted that the use of a tyre iron as a weapon in the charged armed robberies is neither an aggravating or mitigating circumstance. Your use of the weapon on victims who were trying to comply with your demands was, I observe, unnecessarily violent. The act as a whole shows some evidence of planning by the use of false number plates on stolen cars in order to disguise the fact that the vehicle was stolen or that the same vehicle was being used. Keeping other plates in the car shows a degree of planning and a degree, minor though it is, of sophistication.
The causing injury charge reflects a total disregard for the victim and again, unnecessary violence towards a vulnerable employee. Defence counsel conceded that the offending was serious and conceded that much of the offending was against ‘soft targets’. They submitted that the offending was opportunistic.
The applicant was sentenced to a total term of seven years and nine months for this most recent offending.
In addition on 27 July 2019, there were offences of theft of a motor vehicle, traffick methylamphetamine, possess controlled weapon without excuse and a further dishonesty offence relating to stolen goods for which he received a sentence of seven days imprisonment and was fined.
The significant custodial sentences reflect the seriousness of his offending. The applicant has offended frequently over a significant period of time. The cumulative effect of his offending is very serious. His violence has caused great harm to many persons including the vulnerable. He has shown a complete disregard for authority by re-offending and breaching his bail conditions. He continued to offend even after the cancellation decision was revoked. In summary, the applicant’s offending was extremely serious and is a very significant factor in terms of whether I am satisfied that there is ‘another reason’ to set aside the non-revocation decision.
The risk to the Australian community should the non-citizen commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct – 8.1.2 of Direction 99
In considering the need to protect the Australian community from harm, I have regard to the Government’s view that the Australian community’s tolerance for any risk of future harm becomes lower as the seriousness of the potential harm increases. Some conduct and the harm that would be caused, if it were repeated, is so serious that any risk that it may be repeated may be unacceptable.[7] As required by paragraph 8.1.2(2) of Direction 99, I also have regard to, cumulatively:
(a)the nature of the harm to individuals or the Australian community should the non-citizen engage in further criminal or other serious conduct; and
(b)the likelihood of the non-citizen engaging in further criminal or other serious conduct, taking into account:
(i)information and evidence on the risk of the non citizen re-offending; and
(ii)evidence of rehabilitation achieved by the time of the decision, giving weight to time spent in the community since their most recent offence (noting that decisions should not be delayed in order for rehabilitative courses to be undertaken).
[7] Direction 99 at 8.1.2(1).

In terms of measuring the risk to the Australian community, guidance can be found in the decision of Mortimer J (as she then was) in Tanielu v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection.[8] Her Honour states that, to determine an unacceptable risk, one has to evaluate what the consequences of reoffending are as well as the likelihood of the person engaging in that conduct in the future.
[8] (2014) 225 FCR 424; [2014] FCA 673.
Nature of harm if further criminal or other serious conduct – 8.1.2(2)(a) of Direction 99
If the applicant were to engage in further similar criminal offending, the nature of the harm would be very serious because it resulted in serious physical and psychological harm. The sentencing judge for the 2017 offending spoke of the victims’ loss of their sense of security as a result of the applicant’s offending.
Likelihood of further criminal or other serious conduct – 8.1.2(2)(b) of Direction 99
The applicant has expressed remorse for his offending and says that he has learnt his lesson. He understands that he has hurt people by his offending but says the main reasons for his crimes were to get food and because he was on drugs. He knows now that drugs are not the answer and he is committed to avoiding drugs and continuing the suboxone program. He knows he should distance himself from bad influences and he says he has matured. He wants to work and get stable accommodation so he can participate positively in the community. He has completed some courses in prison which will help him get employment. In a letter dated 24 August 2023 from Ms Robinson, Assessment and Transition Coordinator at the Department of Justice and Community Safety, it is noted that the applicant has many supports and referrals for support in place and that he has commenced a re-link program that focuses on practical skills for coping, setting goals, money management and rebuilding relationships post-release. The Tribunal received evidence that there were organisations that had indicated that they could help him upon his release. He has also completed some rehabilitative courses such as anger management, losing sleep, drugs and alcohol and some violence programs although he is waiting to complete the violence program necessary to get parole. He has the support of his former youth justice case manager who has given written and oral evidence that she will support him in whatever way she can if he is released. She believes that he has learnt from his past and that he has matured.
These are all positive factors which I take into account. It is also positive that the applicant has abstained from drugs and alcohol and that his last offending was over four years ago. I accept the applicant’s submission that his age, the passage of time and associated increase in maturity are factors that result in a decreased risk of reoffending.
The applicant has some support from his family, but he says that he does not want to live with his stepmother or see his father anymore.
The applicant has been assessed by a forensic psychiatrist, Dr Zimmerman, who provided a report dated 26 September 2023 and gave oral evidence to the Tribunal. Dr Zimmerman considered the applicant’s criminal history, past substance abuse and mental health. She diagnosed him with post-traumatic stress disorder and considered that he was suffering from methamphetamine and cannabis use disorders both in remission in the context of being treated with suboxone and incarceration. She said:
Substance misuse and the lack of a pro-social network are the key areas that have been associated with [the applicant’s] prior violent offending. Alongside these are his PTSD and poor skills in regulating emotions and behaviours as well as lack of stable accommodation. These are the areas that need addressing in the future.
With respect to his risk of re-offending, Dr Zimmerman concluded:
Looking at [the applicant’s] history, the nature of the difficulties he faces and the supports and services in place, it is my opinion that he currently poses a medium risk of violence.
There is an earlier report dated 6 July 2022 from a clinical psychologist who said:
[51] [The applicant] will likely continue to reoffend if he continues to use methamphetamines and does not access treatment services regularly and consistently. [The applicant] is a very vulnerable individual and has built strong negative defence mechanisms, centred around avoidance, aggression, and addiction. His drug addiction to ice and cannabis over the years has been his own way of self-medicating, to feel better about himself, regulate his emotions and build his confidence. Subsequently, this drug addiction has escalated, and his mental health has continued to decline, with chronic homelessness, with impulsivity and risk-taking behaviours.
…
[57] The writer believes that with more targeted interventions in the community with a high level of everyday support for his mental health issues, the likelihood of rehabilitation will increase. Currently, with no intervention, the writer believes that [the applicant’s] risk of recidivism is quite high. However, with follow through on the below recommendations, the writer believes that [the applicant] does have a moderate likelihood of rehabilitation and significant improvement in his mental health and in his daily functioning.
Whilst the applicant has made positive statements about avoiding drugs and crime, he has not shown by his past conduct that he is capable of doing so. There are some improvements in the supports available to him and the applicant now says that he is more willing than in the past to seek and accept help, both of which suggest he has a better chance of staying out of trouble if released again. However, he will need to arrange accommodation, noting that he does not want to live with either of his parents. It is likely that he will face many difficulties if released for the reasons Dr Zimmerman said:
I believe that the possibility of problems in dealing with stress exists for [the applicant[]. His childhood and teen years provided him with few skills for dealing in a non-damaging manner with stresses in his life. Forming new links to prosocial peers and avoiding old friendship groups that was so important to him in the past will be challenging for him. I believe that this is an area where future problems are possible. This is an area that needs to be factored in as relevant in formulating [the applicant’s] situation in the future.
In conclusion, I find that the applicant poses a medium risk of further violent offending. Given the serious consequences that would arise from re-offending, it is my view that the applicant presents an unacceptable risk to the Australian community.
Conclusion as to protection of the Australian community – 8.1 of Direction 99
The Government is committed to protecting the Australian community from harm as a result of criminal activity by non-citizens.[9] The applicant has committed serious crimes and has shown that he is not adequately rehabilitated in particular because of his most recent violent offending only months after his release from detention. There remains a significant risk of violent re-offending and therefore, the protection of the Australian community is a factor that weighs heavily against the applicant.
[9] Direction 99 at 8.1(1).
Family Violence – 8.2 of Direction 99
The applicant has not committed family violence. This factor is neutral.
Strength, Nature and Duration of Ties to Australia – 8.3 of Direction 99
This primary consideration provides at paragraph 8.3 of Direction 99:
(1) Decision-makers must consider any impact of the decision on the non-citizen's immediate family members in Australia, where those family members are Australian citizens, Australian permanent residents, or people who have a right to remain in Australia indefinitely.
(2) In considering a non-citizen's ties to Australia, decision-makers should give more weight to a non-citizen's ties to his or her child and/or children who are Australian citizens, Australian permanent residents and/or people who have a right to remain in Australia indefinitely.
(3) The strength, duration and nature of any family or social links generally with Australian citizens, Australian permanent residents and/or people who have a right to remain in Australia indefinitely.
(4) Decision-makers must also consider the strength, nature and duration of any other ties that the non-citizen has to the Australian community. In doing so, decision-makers must have regard to:
a) the length of time the non-citizen has resided in the Australian community, noting that:
i.considerable weight should be given to the fact that a non citizen has been ordinarily resident in Australia during and since their formative years, regardless of when their offending commenced and the level of that offending; and
ii.more weight should be given to the time the non-citizen has resided in Australia where the non-citizen has contributed positively to the Australian community during that time; and
iii.less weight should be given to the length of time spent in the Australian community where the non-citizen was not ordinarily resident in Australia during their formative years and the non citizen began offending soon after arriving in Australia.
The applicant has lived in Australia since he was 10 years old. I give considerable weight to the fact that he has lived in Australia during and since his formative years. However, his offending began when aged about 14 or 15 years and there have only been limited periods of positive contribution to the community since then.
The applicant has developed limited ties by his employment as a brick layer for about six months and by doing work experience at IGA and a primary school. He has also done some roof tiling work which he could pursue if released. He completed years 8 to 10 of his secondary schooling and has learnt to speak English. He played some football in 2016. The applicant’s ability to create strong and positive ties within the community was impacted significantly by his father’s violent conduct which caused him to leave home when 14 years old. Further, he was abused by the family that took him in after leaving his home.
The applicant has a good relationship with his stepmother, but he does not want to return to live with her because of associated trauma. She provided a statutory declaration dated 9 April 2019 in support of the applicant. She referred to her children (the applicant’s half-siblings) who she said would be emotionally affected for the rest of their lives if the applicant were deported. One of these children provided a statement of support. I take into account that he has ties to his stepmother and siblings in Australia and that they would be adversely impacted if he were removed to South Sudan. I note that the applicant wants nothing to do with his father because he is a violent alcoholic.
The applicant developed a close and ongoing relationship with his former youth justice case manager who continues to support him. He had a strong relationship with a caseworker from Jesuit Social Services. These persons would be very disappointed if he were removed to South Sudan. He also developed a close relationship with a worker from a youth support service who has now passed away. These relationships represent ties with the Australian community.
I conclude that the strength, nature and duration of the applicant’s ties to the Australian community through his family and support workers are moderately significant. The applicant’s ties through work or volunteering are less significant. The applicant arrived in Australia in 2006 when he was 10 years old. He is now 28 years old, so he has spent most of his life in Australia; including during those formative teenage years. I conclude that the applicant’s ties to Australia is a factor weighing moderately in favour of revoking the cancellation decision.
Best interests of minor children – 8.4 of Direction 99
I must determine whether non-revocation of the cancellation of the applicant’s visa is, or is not, in the best interests of a child who is affected by the decision. The following factors that I must consider where relevant to this application include:[10]
(a) the nature and duration of the relationship between the child and the non-citizen. Less weight should generally be given where the relationship is non-parental, and/or there is no existing relationship and/or there have been long periods of absence, or limited meaningful contact (including whether an existing Court order restricts contact);
(b) the extent to which the non-citizen is likely to play a positive parental role in the future, taking into account the length of time until the child turns 18, and including any Court orders relating to parental access and care arrangements;
(c) the impact of the non-citizen's prior conduct, and any likely future conduct, and whether that conduct has, or will have a negative impact on the child;
(d) the likely effect that any separation from the non-citizen would have on the child, taking into account the child's or non-citizen's ability to maintain contact in other ways;
(e) whether there are other persons who already fulfil a parental role in relation to the child;
(f) any known views of the child (with those views being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child);
(g) evidence that the child has been, or is at risk of being, subject to, or exposed to, family violence perpetrated by the non-citizen, or has otherwise been abused or neglected by the non-citizen in any way, whether physically, sexually or mentally;
(h) evidence that the child has suffered or experienced any physical or emotional trauma arising from the non-citizen's conduct.
[10] Direction 99 at 8.4(4).
The applicant has a half-sister who gave a statement dated 16 April 2019. She has three children. There was evidence of another half-sibling who had recently had a child. These children would be deprived of an uncle if he were removed but his relationship with these children is non-parental and has been extremely limited. Non-revocation would not be in their best interests but I give minimal weight to this consideration.
Expectations of the Australian community – 8.5 of Direction 99
The Australian community expects non-citizens to obey Australian laws while in Australia. Where a non-citizen has engaged in serious conduct in breach of this expectation, or where there is an unacceptable risk that they may do so, the Australian community, as a norm, expects the Government to not allow such a non-citizen to remain in Australia.[11] The applicant has failed to obey the laws of Australia and would therefore be expected to be removed from the community. His criminal conduct was very serious and there is an unacceptable risk of further re-offending. I take into account that the Australian community would have a higher level of tolerance of the applicant’s criminal past because he has lived in Australia for most of his life, including during his formative years as a teenager. The applicant has been in Australia for 17 years since he was 10 years old.
[11] Direction 99 at 8.5(1).
Paragraph 8.5(4) of Direction 99 provides that, as a decision-maker, I must consider the expectations of the Australian community as a whole and proceed on the basis of the Government’s views expressed therein, without independently assessing the community’s expectations in the particular case. It is not for me, as a decision maker, to make my own assessment of community expectations. However, in the weighing up exercise by which I evaluate whether to exercise my discretion, I am still entitled, and indeed should where appropriate, give weight to the circumstances particular to the applicant. In this regard, the following words of Stewart J in FYBR v Minister for Home Affairs[12] remain apposite to the expectations of the Australian community under Direction 99:
[97] … The community thus expects that it will be necessary in every case to assess the circumstances particular to the visa applicant in question in order to reach an evaluative assessment of “appropriateness”. That assessment is not an assessment of what the Australian community expects in the particular case. The Australian community expects people to obey the law, and if they do not (or there is a risk that they will not) then that is relevant to whether or not they will be granted a visa, and in some cases it may be appropriate that they will be refused a visa because of their disobedience (or the risk of their disobedience). Direction 65 does not ascribe to the Australian community a relevant expectation with regard to the outcome in the particular case. That is a matter for the decision-maker.
…
[102] It is difficult to conceive of a case where an unfavourable character assessment, whether on the basis of the commission of an offence or the risk that an offence will be committed, will be other than against the grant of a visa. In any particular case, the weight to be attached to that consideration because of the particular circumstances of the character assessment may be slight. In another case, because of the severity of the character assessment, the weight may be substantial. Thus, the character assessment, even through the prism of community expectations, may not be decisively against the applicant. In many cases it will not be…
[12] (2019) 272 FCR 454; [2019] FCAFC 185.
In considering the weight to be attached to the expectations of the Australian community as part of the evaluative exercise in determining whether there is another reason to revoke the cancellation decision, I take into account his traumatic childhood which involved witnessing atrocities of war and being personally subjected to violence and sexual abuse. I also take into account the hurdles for the applicant fleeing a foreign war torn country plus his issues related to the sensitive evidence since he arrived in Australia.
The applicant has failed to obey the laws of Australia and would therefore be expected to be removed from the community. His criminal conduct was very serious and I find that the Australian community expects that the Australian government should cancel the applicant’s visa. However, I give this consideration less weight because his criminal conduct must be seen in the context of his traumatic childhood.
Other Considerations
In deciding whether there is ‘another reason’ to revoke the cancellation of the applicant’s visa, I must also take into account the ‘other considerations’ listed in Direction 99, but these are not exhaustive.[13]
[13] SZRTN v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2014) 141 ALD 395, 409 at [86]; [2014] FCA 303.
Legal Consequences of Decision – 9.1 of Direction 99
This other consideration provides at paragraph 9.1 of Direction 99:
(1) Decision-makers should be mindful that unlawful non-citizens are, in accordance with section 198, liable to removal from Australia as soon as reasonably practicable in the circumstances specified in that section, and in the meantime, detention under section 189, noting also that section 197C(1) of the Act provides that for the purposes of section 198, it is irrelevant whether Australia has non-refoulement obligations in respect of an unlawful noncitizen.
(2) A non-refoulement obligation is an obligation not to forcibly return, deport or expel a person to a place where they will be at risk of a specific type of harm. Australia has non-refoulement obligations under the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees as amended by the 1967 Protocol (together called the Refugees Convention), the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (the CAT), and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and its Second Optional Protocol (the ICCPR). The Act, particularly the concept of 'protection obligations', reflects Australia's interpretation of non-refoulement obligations and the scope of the obligations that Australia is committed to implementing.
(3) International non-refoulement obligations will generally not be relevant where the person concerned does not raise such obligations for consideration and the circumstances do not suggest a non-refoulement claim.

The applicant has articulated the prospect of Australia breaching its non-refoulement obligations as a reason for revoking the cancellation decision. This is in addition to, and distinct from, his underlying claimed fear of harm if removed to South Sudan.
I note that the risks of harm that the applicant will face if removed are also relevant to non-refoulement obligations and the extent of impediments if removed.
The respondent submits that the Tribunal is entitled to and should defer consideration of non-refoulement obligations because it is open to the applicant to apply for a protection visa. The applicant submits that no further deferral is reasonable in the circumstances of the applicant’s extensive history before the Tribunal and an earlier finding in 2019 by the Tribunal that Australia owed the applicant non-refoulement obligations.
The applicant has not applied for a protection visa but it is open to him to do so. Consequently, the applicant is not the subject of a protection finding (as defined in s 197C) and paragraph 9.1.2 of Direction 99 is relevant:
9.1.2 Non-citizens not covered by a protection finding
(1)Claims which may give rise to international non-refoulement obligations can also be raised by a non-citizen who is not the subject of a protection finding, in responding to a notice of intention to consider cancellation or refusal of a visa under section 501 of the Act, or in seeking revocation of the mandatory cancellation of their visa under section 501CA. Where such claims are raised, they must be considered.
(2)However, where it is open to the non-citizen to apply for a protection visa, it is not necessary at the section 501/section 501CA stage to consider non-refoulement issues in the same level of detail as those types of issues are considered in a protection visa application. The process for determining protection visa applications is specifically designed for consideration of non-refoulement obligations as given effect by the Act and where it is open to the person to make such an application a decision-maker, in making a decision under section 501/section 501CA, is not required to determine whether non-refoulement obligations are engaged in respect of the person. Having considered the person's representations, the decision-maker may choose to proceed on the basis that if and when the person applies for a protection visa, any protection claims they have will be assessed, as required by section 36A of the Act, before consideration is given to any character or security concerns associated with them.
(3)Non-refoulement obligations that have been identified for a non-citizen with respect to a country, via an International Treaties Obligations Assessment or some other process outside the protection visa process, would not engage section 197C(3) to preclude removal of the non-citizen to that country. In these circumstances, in making a decision under section 501 or 501CA, decision-makers should carefully weigh any non-refoulement obligation against the seriousness of the non-citizen's criminal offending or other serious conduct. However, that does not mean an adverse decision under section 501 or 501CA cannot be made for the non-citizen. A refusal, cancellation or nonrevocation decision will not necessarily result in removal of the non-citizen to the country in respect of which the non-refoulement obligation exists. For example, consideration may be given to removal to another country, or the Minister may consider exercising his/her personal discretion under section 195A to grant another visa to the non-citizen, or alternatively, consider exercising his/her personal discretion under section 197AB to make a residence determination to enable the non-citizen to reside at a specified place in the community, subject to appropriate conditions. Further, following the visa refusal or cancellation decision or non-revocation decision, if the non citizen makes a valid application for a protection visa, the non-citizen would not be liable to be removed while their application is being determined.
The applicant submits that the Tribunal should not speculate or find that the applicant will apply for a protection visa if unsuccessful on this application. I accept that submission but it remains the case under paragraph 9.1.2(2) of Direction 99 that, where it is open to the applicant to apply for a protection visa, I am ‘not required to determine whether non-refoulement obligations are engaged in respect of the person’ and I ‘may choose to proceed on the basis that if and when the person applies for a protection visa, any protection claims they have will be assessed…’ (emphasis added).
The decision of the High Court in Plaintiff M1/2021 v Minister for Home Affairs[14] (Plaintiff M1/2021) provides that I am required to read, identify, understand and evaluate the representations made by the applicant. Those representations included a claim of non-refoulement under domestic law.
[14] [2022] HCA 17.
I intend to defer assessment of whether the applicant is owed non-refoulement obligations because it is open to the applicant to apply for a protection visa. That does not mean that I ignore the representations made by the applicant. Plaintiff M1/2021 makes it clear that a decision-maker must not do that,[15] but ‘one available outcome’ is the deferral of the substantive assessment of such a claim.[16] This is consistent with the terms of paragraph 9.1.2 of Direction 99. I am not bound by an earlier finding of non-refoulement obligations made as part of a decision that has now been set aside. I take into account that there is likely to be considerable delay if the applicant does take the step of applying for a protection visa.
[15] Plaintiff M1/2021 v Minister for Home Affairs [2022] HCA 17 at [23].
[16] CKT20 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2022] FCAFC 124 at [105].
In this case, the applicant has clearly raised claims which may give rise to international non-refoulement obligations. I deal with them below. Paragraph 9.1.2(2) of Direction 99 provides that it is not necessary at the s 501CA stage to consider non-refoulement issues in the same level of detail as those types of issues are considered in a protection visa application. That sub-paragraph applies in this case and allows the decision-maker to defer substantial assessment of non-refoulement issues, as I have decided to do in this matter.
Applicant’s representations including as to risk of harm
The applicant made representations concerning risk of harm in South Sudan. The applicant fears persecution and harm if returned to South Sudan because of how he would be treated due to the sensitive evidence, his mental health conditions, being a returnee from the West without support from family or at all, being a man of recruitment age and being of Nuer ethnicity.
The High Court has provided the following guidance for this situation:[17]
[37] … [The Tribunal is] not required to determine whether the plaintiff was owed non-refoulement obligations (by conducting an assessment of the merits of the plaintiff's claim) in the same manner, or to the same extent, as would be called for by a direct application of the international instruments to which Australia is a party or by reference to the domestic implementation of those obligations.
…
[39] Where the cancelled visa is not a protection visa and a decision-maker defers assessment of whether non-refoulement obligations are owed to permit a former visa holder to avail themselves of the protection visa procedures provided for in the Migration Act, it nevertheless may be necessary for the decision-maker to take account of the alleged facts underpinning that claim where those facts are relied upon by a former visa holder in support of there being “another reason” why the Cancellation Decision should be revoked.
(Footnotes omitted)
[17] Plaintiff M1/2021 v Minister for Home Affairs [2022] HCA 17 at [37] and [39].
CKT20 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs[18] (CKT20) makes clear that I am required to consider facts underpinning the claim such as the risk of harm arising from violence and instability along ethnic lines. In CKT20 the Full Court of the Federal Court rejected the Minister’s submission that there was no obligation to consider a claim based on ethnicity in South Sudan.[19]
[18] [2022] FCAFC 124.
[19] CKT20 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2022] FCAFC 124 at [97] to [106].
The applicant said he was scared of being removed to South Sudan and feared being killed, including for reasons related to the sensitive evidence. He fears being forced into the military. He fears persecution as a western returnee who may be perceived as a traitor. He fears harm from the ongoing instability and insecurity in South Sudan. The applicant is Nuer and would face ethnic discrimination and even persecution. These fears are worsened because the applicant no longer speaks Nuer or Arabic.
It is apparent from the DFAT Country Information Report for South Sudan dated 5 October 2016, and a more recent report from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR)[20] that the situation in South Sudan remains dire. There are violations of international humanitarian law, the denial of humanitarian assistance to those in need, restricted rights of freedom of association and a very poor health system. South Sudan continues to suffer from long term political, inter-ethnic and communal conflict and a weak rule of law. UNHCR considers that persons fleeing South Sudan are likely to meet the criteria for refugee status. The applicant would be at risk of harm from ethnic violence because he is a Nuer.
[20] UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), UNHCR Position on Returns to South Sudan - Update III (October 2021)
In summary, I accept the applicant’s concerns as expressed in his representations that he will likely face serious harm if removed to South Sudan. It is not in dispute that the applicant left South Sudan as a child with his family due to the war. The applicant would have no family support or other network if removed to South Sudan. He may be forced to join the army. The risk of harm is a factor that weighs heavily in favour of revocation of the cancellation decision.
Consequence of the decision
Relevant to the consequences of my decision is the High Court case of NZYQ v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs[21] and the subsequent legislation in the Migration Amendment (Bridging Visa Conditions) Act 2023 which was assented to on 17 November 2023. The High Court found that ss 189(1) and 196(1) were beyond the legislative power of the Commonwealth insofar as they applied to NZYQ and that his continuing detention was unlawful. As a result of this decision many detainees have been released. It would appear that the impact of the decision is that many detainees will no longer be subjected to indefinite detention but may be released on certain conditions such as a requirement to wear a monitoring device or be subject to a curfew. However, there is no evidence suggesting the Minister considers the applicant to fall into this cohort and will be released.
[21] [2023] HCA 37.
If the cancellation decision is not revoked, s 198(2B) would require the applicant’s removal from Australia if he did not make an application for another visa. The respondent submits that the legal consequence of a non-revocation decision by the Tribunal is not affected by NZYQ because s 198 of the Act (read with s 197C(1) and (2)) will continue to require the applicant’s removal. The applicant agrees with that submission and says that the consequences of removal are catastrophic for the applicant. This is consistent with my previous finding that the applicant will likely face serious harm if removed to South Sudan.
If the cancellation decision is not revoked, he will either be removed to South Sudan or face ongoing detention (which I expand upon below). In either event, the consequence for the applicant would be serious. In South Sudan he would likely be harmed and face discrimination for being a Nuer and a western returnee. In detention, his mental health will deteriorate, and he will continue to be separated from the community.
I note that if the cancellation decision is not revoked, the applicant may remain in detention whilst any protection visa application is considered or while the Minister considers the possibility of re-settlement or the exercise of a personal discretion in favour of the applicant. The delay associated with this may be significant. There is some merit in the applicant’s submission that he would have no reasonable prospects of success in a protection visa application, although that involves a measure of speculation. There is no evidence before me suggesting that re-settlement or the exercise of a personal discretion would be considered. Ongoing detention would impact the mental health of the applicant and would have adverse consequences. Dr Zimmerman noted in her report that the applicant appeared to be deteriorating in his reports to mental health staff over time during his last period in detention and said that he would be at risk of deterioration of his resilience the longer he is held in detention with a growing risk of frustration and depression. In WKMZ v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship,Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs,[22] Kenny and Mortimer JJ considered the impact of further detention, which is apposite to the applicant:
… The period of a person’s loss of liberty may be very lengthy, and have no chronologically fixed endpoint, being dependent on the completion of various administrative and executive steps and inquiries. The person concerned will have no accurate conception of when her or his detention might end.
[22] [2021] FCAFC 55 at [132].
The prospect of further detention is a factor that weighs in favour of revoking the cancellation decision. It would appear from the High Court’s decision in NZYQ that indefinite detention is no longer a likely consequence, although the applicant suggests that NZYQ may not apply to him in which case the prospect of indefinite detention remains. If NZYQ was applied to the applicant then he may be released and subjected to certain conditions such as a requirement to wear a monitoring device or a curfew. The applicant gave evidence that these conditions would cause him to not feel capable of applying for jobs, would cause stigma and shame (that he would feel like a criminal in the community), and that it would hamper his re-integration into the Australian community. Whilst this potential consequence is less severe than ongoing detention, I accept that it would still have a negative impact on the applicant.
The effect of the applicant’s primary contentions is that NZYQ would not apply to him and that there remains a very real prospect of removal to South Sudan or indefinite detention. In the alternative, the applicant contends that even if NZYQ did apply, there would still be a negative impact on the applicant. Both the applicant and the respondent accept that an immediate consequence of a non-revocation decision is removal to South Sudan so I give that consequence very significant weight when deciding whether there is another reason to revoke the cancellation decision. Whether NZYQ will apply to the applicant involves a significant measure of speculation, but, in any event, I take these potential consequences into account and accept the applicant’s contention that they weigh in favour of revoking the cancellation decision.
Extent of impediments if removed – 9.2 of Direction 99
Direction 99 requires that I consider the extent of any impediments that the applicant may face if removed from Australia to South Sudan in establishing himself and maintaining basic living standards (in the context of what is generally available to other citizens of that country), taking into account:
(a)the applicant’s age and health;
(b)whether there are substantial language or cultural barriers; and
(c)any social, medical and/or economic support available to him in that country.
The applicant is in relatively good physical health, but he has been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder, substance use disorders in remission and past episodes of depression. He is not receiving ongoing treatment by way of medication for his mental health, but he is on a suboxone program for his past addictions. Dr Zimmerman noted that he was prescribed the antipsychotic quetiapine for the voices he was hearing in the past but he does not feel that he requires this at the moment.
Dr Zimmerman said in her report that removal to South Sudan is likely to cause profound emotional distress on the applicant. Worsening life stressors and newly experienced traumatic events would aggravate the effects of trauma that have already been experienced by the applicant and place him at risk of full-blown PTSD. Any return to South Sudan would include experiences that carry a high risk destabilising the applicant’s mental state. Dr Zimmerman further considered that it is extremely unlikely that the applicant would have access to mental health treatment services in South Sudan and, in that context, he would likely experience a significant worsening of post trauma syndrome as a result of adverse life events.
I agree that treatment is unlikely to be available in South Sudan given that it is well known that South Sudan has limited mental health facilities. To treat his past drug addiction, the applicant is still on a suboxone program and it is unlikely that he would be able to continue with that treatment in South Sudan. These limited treatment opportunities would have a significant detrimental impact on his physical and mental health.
I find that the applicant would face significant impediments if removed to South Sudan and he would have great difficulty establishing himself and maintaining basic living standards. This arises primarily because the applicant left South Sudan when he was a young child and has no network of family or friends to support him there and because he has forgotten the language. The matters referred to above in relation to risk of harm are also relevant to extent of impediments and I will not repeat them here. The impact of the humanitarian crisis and ongoing tribal instability in South Sudan would have a significant impact on the applicant because of his unfamiliarity with the country and his lack of family or other support. There would be substantial language and cultural barriers, made worse by his limited education and matters related to the sensitive evidence, which would create significant impediments on the applicant establishing himself and maintaining a basic living standard in South Sudan. His health issues would also create impediments.
This is a factor that weighs heavily in favour of revocation of the cancellation decision.
Impact on victims – 9.3 of Direction 99
There was no evidence of impact on victims within the meaning of the Direction. This factor is neutral.
Impact on Australian business interests – 9.4 of Direction 99
There was no evidence of impact on Australian business interests within the meaning of the Direction. This factor is neutral.
CONCLUSION AS TO WHETHER TO REVOKE THE CANCELLATION OF THE VISA
I have considered the specific circumstances relating to the applicant as part of my consideration. I am now required to carry out the evaluative exercise of weighing up the factors to determine whether I am satisfied that there is ‘another reason’ to revoke the cancellation decision.
The primary considerations of the protection and expectations of the Australian community weigh in favour of not revoking the cancellation decision. The countervailing considerations are the applicant’s ties to Australia, the best interests of children, the extent of impediments if removed, the risk of harm if removed and the prospect of indefinite detention or potentially some form of monitoring if released into the community under NZYQ.

This is a case where there is an unacceptable risk that the applicant will engage in further violent criminal conduct. The applicant has not shown that he is adequately rehabilitated particularly in the circumstances of his most recent violent offending for armed robbery, assault, causing injury, theft and drug possession in July 2019 so soon after his release from detention. The Australian community expects a visa to be cancelled where there is a real risk of physical harm to the community. The risk of further violent offending remains real and unacceptable.
As an adult in the community, the applicant engaged in frequent offending often involving violence. He continued to act violently even after serving time in prison and detention. He has clearly not learnt his lesson. This high risk of harm to the community outweighs the countervailing considerations. I take into account that the prospect of indefinite detention or return to South Sudan will have very significant consequences for the applicant, but the risk to the community if he is released is too great. He has forfeited his privilege of remaining in Australia.
I reach this conclusion by applying the principles in paragraph 5.2 of Direction 99 to the specific circumstances of the applicant, whose most recent sentence in the County Court was for seven years and nine months.
(a)Being able to remain in Australia is a privilege Australia conferred on the applicant in the expectation that he would be 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.[23] The applicant has not been law-abiding; he has shown disregard for Australia’s law enforcement network by offending whilst on bail; and he has caused serious harm to people, including children, in the Australian community.
(b)The applicant, as a non-citizen who has committed serious crimes, should generally expect to forfeit the privilege of staying in Australia.[24]
(c)The Australian community expects that the Australian Government should cancel the visas of non-citizens who commit crimes in Australia which raise serious character concerns.[25] This expectation of the Australian community applies regardless of whether the applicant poses a measurable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community.
(d)With respect to the level of tolerance of criminal conduct that Australia will generally afford, it is accepted that the applicant has lived in the Australian community for most of his life and from a very young age.[26] However, I consider that his contribution to the Australian community has not been significant. After spending a significant period in juvenile detention, the applicant continued to commit crimes as an adult even after spending time in prison and immigration detention. He was no longer a child when he committed his violent conduct in 2019 and he should have been well aware of the consequences of his actions given that he was 23 years old.
(e)This is a case where the nature of the applicant’s conduct and the harm that would be caused if it were repeated are so serious that even strong countervailing considerations are insufficient to justify revoking the cancellation decision.[27] The crimes of violence against children and a vulnerable employee raise serious character concerns and are of the kind mentioned in paragraph 8.5(2) of Direction 99. I consider this offending so serious that it outweighs any countervailing considerations.
[23] Direction 99 at 5.2(1).
[24] Direction 99 at 5.2(2).
[25] Direction 99 at 5.2(3).
[26] Direction 99 at 5.2(5).
[27] Direction 99 at 5.2(6).
I am not satisfied that there is another reason to revoke the cancellation decision.
DECISION
The decision of the Tribunal is to affirm the reviewable decision.

I certify that the preceding 87 (eighty-seven) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Deputy President Britten-Jones

.............................[sgd]...........................................
Associate
Dated: 4 December 2023

Date of hearing: 22 November 2023

Date final submissions received: 29 November 2023

Counsel for the Applicant: Laurel Bull

Solicitors for the Applicant: Asylum Seeker Resource Centre

Counsel for the Respondent: Jonathan Barrington

Solicitors for the Respondent: Sparke Helmore Lawyers

[2023] AATA 4034

4 December 2023

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Administrative Law

Statutory Interpretation

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Procedural Fairness

Statutory Construction

Natural Justice

Jurisdiction

Date of hearing:	22 November 2023
Date final submissions received:	29 November 2023
Counsel for the Applicant:	Laurel Bull
Solicitors for the Applicant:	Asylum Seeker Resource Centre
Counsel for the Respondent:	Jonathan Barrington
Solicitors for the Respondent:	Sparke Helmore Lawyers