Veliu and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (Migration)

This case concerned Mr Adil Veliu, who sought to remain in Australia. Mr Veliu first entered Australia in 1991, but returned in 1994 using a fraudulent identity and passport. He remained in Australia for almost 17 years, during which time he married an Australian citizen under the fraudulent identity, though his wife and children remained in Albania. His wife later arrived in Australia and eventually obtained permanent residency. Mr Veliu's own visa applications, made under both his real and fraudulent identities, faced numerous refusals and appeals. The Minister ultimately refused Mr Veliu's Partner Visa application on character grounds, leading to the review by the Tribunal.

The core legal issue before the Tribunal was whether Mr Veliu satisfied the character test under section 501(6) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). This involved determining if his past and present general conduct indicated that he was not of good character. The Tribunal was required to consider various factors, including his history of serious breaches of immigration law, such as entering Australia on a false passport and using a fraudulent identity for an extended period. The Tribunal also had to assess the weight to be given to character references provided by community members and his family, and consider whether these, along with his remorse, demonstrated enduring moral qualities and rehabilitation.

The Tribunal reasoned that while Mr Veliu had provided references from community members suggesting he was a hardworking and respected individual, and that his actions may have been born of desperation, these did not outweigh the seriousness of his conduct. The Tribunal noted that the decision to refuse his visa was based on his general conduct, not a criminal record, and that the references provided by Mayor Adem were given little weight due to concerns about the basis of his knowledge. The Tribunal applied the principles that the character test focuses on enduring moral qualities and that the protection of the Australian community and community expectations are primary considerations.

Ultimately, the Tribunal affirmed the decision under review. This meant that Mr Veliu's Partner Visa application was refused. The effect of this affirmation, due to section 501F(2) of the Act, was that any other pending visa applications for Mr Veliu, with limited exceptions, would also be refused by operation of law.