VLWP and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection

[2015] AATA 375

Division GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION

File Number

2014/3233

Re

VLWP

APPLICANT

And

Minister for Immigration and Border Protection

RESPONDENT

DECISION

Tribunal
Ms G Ettinger, Senior Member

Date 29 May 2015

Place Sydney
The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

The Tribunal orders pursuant to section 35(2) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 that the name and address of the Applicant and his wife not be identified or published in connection with these Reasons for Decision.

........................................................................
Ms G Ettinger, Senior Member
CATCHWORDS
CITIZENSHIP – good character – two year bond imposed following charge of assault of wife in 2012 – Applicant and his representative focused on explaining the assault was due to back pain and a fever – no medical evidence to substantiate back pain and fever - little indication of regret expressed – citizenship refused – decision under review affirmed.

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – confidentiality – application for order made on the basis that the applicant’s wife has a medical condition – whether granting of order is justified – application granted.

LEGISLATION
Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) s 35(2)

Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth) s 21(2) (h)

Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) s 10

CASES
Devasahayam and Comcare [2010] AATA 784

Drake v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Ethnic Affairs (No 2) (1979) 2 ALD 63
Irving v Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (1996) 68 FCR 422

Shi v Migration Agents Registration Authority (2008) 82 ALJR 1147

SECONDARY MATERIALS
Australian Citizenship Instructions, Chapter 5 - Citizenship by conferral

REASONS FOR DECISION
Ms G Ettinger, Senior Member
29 May 2015

SUMMARY

The Applicant is a citizen of India, aged 34, who came to Australia on a student visa in 2007. He completed his course in hospitality management and Asian cooking, has worked in an Indian restaurant in Sydney, and now owns and operates an Indian restaurant, and drives a taxi.
He met his wife in 2009 and they married in India in 2011. They have two young children.
The Applicant obtained his permanent residence in 2012, and now seeks citizenship. The Applicant seeks review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, (the Minister), dated 27 May 2014, refusing him citizenship. The decision made by the Minister who is the Respondent in the proceedings before the Tribunal, was to refuse the Applicant’s application for Australian citizenship on the basis that his criminal conviction precluded him from satisfying the good character requirement of section 21(2)(h) of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth) (the Citizenship Act).
The Minister’s decision arose as a result of the Applicant being charged on 2 March 2012 with common assault of his wife on 24 February 2012. I have noted that the charge was proven, but that pursuant to section 10 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), no conviction was recorded. The Applicant served a two year good behaviour bond which expired in March 2014. There is no evidence that he breached that bond. However, assault is considered serious because it involves violence. It was also in the presence of the couple’s baby. (Australian Citizenship Instructions (ACIs) clause 10.5.2).
I am not satisfied that the Applicant fully appreciates the seriousness of the incident. Both he and his representative, Mr Slater of Brett Slater Solicitors sought to excuse the behaviour by describing back pain and a fever the Applicant claimed to have been suffering on the day of the assault. I noted that there was no medical evidence to support those claims.
The Applicant did however provide an X-ray report dated 24 June 2014 which indicated that appearances on the X-ray were consistent with early involvement of the cervical spine by ankylosing spondylitis. Ankylosing changes were also noted in the lower lumbar spine. The Applicant says that he suffers considerable back pain.
On the basis of the legislation, the ACIs, and the evidence, I affirmed the decision under review. My reasons follow.
CONFIDENTIALITY ORDERS
The Tribunal has power pursuant to section 35(2) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) (the AAT Act), to order a private hearing, and give also to give directions prohibiting or restricting the publication of the names and addresses of witnesses appearing before the Tribunal if it is satisfied that it is desirable to do so by reason of the confidential nature of any evidence or for any other reason.
Following the hearing of this matter, and during the preparation of the Reasons for Decision, on 13 May 2015 the Applicant wrote to the Tribunal requesting that the Reasons for Decision from his hearing not be published. The reason he gave was that the reference in the Reasons for Decision to the assault on his wife which may have influenced the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection to refuse his citizenship application, would cause the couple embarrassment. The application for confidentiality was referred to the Respondent, who opposed it. This was followed by a submission from Mr Slater, solicitor of Brett Slater Solicitors, who represented the Applicant at the hearing. Mr Slater requested an order of the Tribunal that the decision in this matter not be published, or in the alternative that the names of the Applicant and his wife not be published.
In response to Mr Slater’s submission, the Respondent vigorously opposed the application, citing the principles espoused in section 35(3) of the AAT Act, and citing case law, including Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Administrative Appeals Tribunal (2009) 181 FCR 130, a decision of the Full Federal Court, which included Justice Downes, the then President of the Tribunal.
In coming to a decision, the Tribunal is mindful of the principles it must take into account, and notes that section 35(3) of the AAT Act, provides that when considering whether to prohibit or restrict the publication of certain matters:
… the Tribunal shall take as the basis of its consideration the principle that it is desirable that hearings of proceedings before the Tribunal should be held in public and that evidence given before the Tribunal and the contents of documents lodged with the Tribunal or received in evidence by the Tribunal should be made available to the public and to all the parties, but shall pay due regard to any reasons given to the Tribunal why the hearing should be held in private or why publication or disclosure of the evidence or the matter contained in the document should be prohibited or restricted.
The Tribunal accordingly generally conducts its hearings in public, and publishes the resultant decision in full, and would only depart from this approach if it is satisfied that there are proper and cogent reasons for doing so: Devasahayam and Comcare [2010] AATA 784 at [6].
I note the Applicant’s acknowledgment that both he and his wife were aware at the outset that the Tribunal would publish its decision. He has, since his first application for a confidentiality order was made, provided documents, the results of a consultation with a general practitioner for his wife made on 22 May 2015, the same day on which Mr Slater wrote to the Tribunal on the Applicant’s behalf. Mr Slater submits on behalf of the Applicant that publication would embarrass him and his wife, and further submits the Applicant’s wife is suffering from depression and an unspecified mental disorder for which she is seeking medical assistance.
I am mindful of the submissions of both parties, and of course of the discretion under section 35(2) of the AAT Act to give a direction that the Applicant and his wife’s names not be published if it is desirable to do so. I have taken into account the situation regarding the health of the Applicant’s wife, and on that basis have agreed that the decision be published with the names of the Applicant and his wife de-identified. The Tribunal has also de-identified the names of certain witnesses.
ISSUE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL
The issue before the Tribunal is whether the Applicant is of good character pursuant to section 21(2)(h) of the Citizenship Act at the time of the Tribunal's decision (Shi v Migration Agents Registration Authority (2008) 82 ALJR 1147).
LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK
The relevant legislation in this matter is the Australian Citizenship Act 2007, in particular section 21(2)(h). The ACIs, are also relevant. The Tribunal must take Guidelines into account unless there is a cogent reason not to (Drake v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Ethnic Affairs (No 2) (1979) 2 ALD 634).
Whether the Australian Citizenship Instructions are lawful
I noted Mr Slater’s submissions on behalf of the Applicant in regard to the ACIs being in conflict with the Citizenship Act, and suggesting that the ACIs were therefore not to be followed. His submissions were directed to section 24(6) of the Citizenship Act.
I do not accept his argument, and am mindful that in the decision of the delegate made on behalf of the Minister, it was noted in relation to section 24(6), that the prohibition does not apply. The decision to refuse the Applicant citizenship was made on the basis of not meeting the indicia for good character in section 21(2)(h).
As already stated above, the Tribunal must apply lawful government policy unless there are cogent reasons to the contrary, and I can discern none here. (Re Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs).
Further, I am mindful that during the hearing, Ms Krishnan of the Australian Government Solicitor who represented the Respondent, tendered a memorandum dated 19 November 2014 from the Director, Citizenship Policy Section of the Department of Immigration and Border Protection. The contents which follow, were said to take effect from that date, and would be used to update the ACIs. They deal with a consideration of the length of time a decision maker should consider following a criminal conviction and its legal consequences before granting an applicant citizenship. I am mindful that the Applicant was charged with assault of his wife, but that there was no conviction recorded. I am mindful also that it is a legal requirement that each case must be assessed on its merits and other factors such as the seriousness of the offence, and any extenuating circumstances relating to the offence should be taken into account. The memorandum dated 19 November 2014 provides:
Situation
Length of time since applicant was under obligation to court.
In considering whether a person has a demonstrated pattern of good behaviour since their criminal conviction (a mitigating factor listed in chapter 10 of the ACIs), decision makers should take into account the length of time the person was subject to an obligation to a court (e.g. a good behaviour bond, sentence, disqualification of licence etc.) compared to the length of time the person was free from that obligation and has not re-offended.
For example: if a person was subject to a 12 month behaviour bond, and the person has not reoffended for an equivalent 12 month period following the expiry of the bond, this may be a factor in favour of finding a renewed pattern of good behaviour.
Please note, however, it is a legal requirement that each case must be assessed on its merits and other factors such as the seriousness of the offence and any extenuating circumstances relating to the offence should be taken into account.
The ACIs will be updated to reflect this advice but it takes effect from today.
WHETHER THE APPLICANT WAS OF GOOD CHARACTER AT THE TIME OF THE TRIBUNAL’S DECISION
For the sake of completeness I note that a person may, pursuant to section 21(1) of the Citizenship Act, make application to the Minister to become an Australian citizen. Section 21(2) of the Act provides eligibility, and is qualified by the requirement for good character in section 21(2)(h).
The Citizenship Act does not define good character. Guidance is found in Chapter 10 of the ACIs which offers guidance on policy in relation to the interpretation of, and exercise of powers under, the Citizenship Act and Regulations in relation to good character. As already stated, they are Government policy and should be applied unless there are cogent reasons not to do so (Re Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs).
Good character is an indication of whether an applicant is likely to uphold and obey the laws of Australia, and the other commitments made through the pledge should they be approved for citizenship. In order to decide whether a person is of good character the Tribunal must consider the nature of any offences, the Applicant’s general conduct, any mitigating circumstances, and weigh up relevant factors, and apply community standards: clause 10.1.2
The ACIs cite Justice Lee in Irving v Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (1996) 68 FCR 422, as to the meaning of good character. His Honour said:
Unless the terms of the Act and regulations require some other meaning be applied, the words “good character” should be taken to be used in their ordinary sense, namely, a reference to the enduring moral qualities of a person, and not the good standing, fame or repute of that person in the community. The former is an objective assessment apt to be proved as a fact while the latter is a review of subjective public opinion… A person who has been convicted of a serious crime and thereafter held in contempt in the community, nonetheless may show that he or she has reformed and is of good character… Conversely, a person of good repute may be shown by objective assessment to be a person of bad character.
A non-exhaustive list of characteristics that an applicant of good character would have, are at clause 10.3.4. The ACIs describe persons of good character as persons who would, amongst other things:
·respect and abide by the law in Australia and other countries;
·be honest and financially responsible;
·be truthful in their dealings with the Australian Government, other governments and organisations;
·not be violent, involved in drugs or unlawful sexual activity, and not cause harm to others through their conduct;
·and not be associated with others who are involved in anti-social or criminal behaviour, or others who do not uphold and obey the laws of Australia.
The ACIs set out relevant factors when considering the implications of a person’s criminal record for their character. They include the nature and seriousness of the offence (crimes of violence, including domestic violence, are regarded as serious offences), whether it was pre-meditated, whether it was a one-off offence or whether there was a pattern of criminal behaviour, and the length of sentence.
In order to decide whether the Applicant is of good character (section 21(2)(h) of the Act), I must make the decision on the basis of all the evidence before me at the time of making that decision (Shi v Migration Agents Registration Authority (2008) 82 ALJR 1147). I have taken into account the legislation and evidence, taken the guidance of the ACIs, and must look holistically at the Applicant’s behaviour over a lasting or enduring period of time. The time is not specified in the ACIs. However, I have noted that the amount of time considered to be lasting or enduring depends on the merits of each case, and will in most cases will go back prior to any visa application. Mitigating factors such as the length of time between a date of conviction and the Applicant’s application for citizenship, are relevant. The ACIs assist by indicating that an applicant’s behaviour does not need to be faultless, but that the aggregate of their qualities must be weighed against ordinary community standards or behaviour.
I am also mindful of the further guidance of the ACIs which has been in effect since 19 November 2013 which follows:
Length of time since applicant was under obligation to court.
In considering whether a person has a demonstrated pattern of good behaviour since their criminal conviction (a mitigating factor listed in chapter 10 of the ACIs), decision makers should take into account the length of time the person was subject to an obligation to a court (e.g. a good behaviour bond, sentence, disqualification of licence etc.) compared to the length of time the person was free from that obligation and has not re-offended.
For example: if a person was subject to a 12 month behaviour bond, and the person has not reoffended for an equivalent 12 month period following the expiry of the bond, this may be a factor in favour of finding a renewed pattern of good behaviour.
In that regard, I am mindful that the Applicant’s first breach of the law was dealt with by a fine, and that in connection with the assault on his wife on 24 February 2012, no conviction was recorded, but that he served a two year good behaviour bond which ended in March 2014. There is no evidence before me indicating that the Applicant did other than serve the good behaviour bond without any breaches.
Both the Applicant and his wife provided statements to the Tribunal, and both gave oral evidence. The Applicant, in describing the incident which escalated to the assault on 24 February 2012, referred to his statement at paragraph 7 which stated: During the said argument [my wife] threw a milk bottle at me. It did not hit me but hit the wall.
In his oral evidence, the Applicant told me that the statement was incorrect, and that the milk bottle (which was likely to have been the baby’s bottle, as his wife was feeding the baby before she threw the bottle), hit him on the forehead. He also gave evidence that he slapped his wife twice. The Applicant’s wife told me that she and her husband were arguing on the night of 24 February 2012, and that she could not remember how many times he slapped her.
A police fact sheet dated 24 February 2012 records relevantly:
… The PINOP went to the kitchen and made the milk when the defendant came in and said: “What a shameless girl you are you can’t see that baby is crying What meaning is that, fuck your mother, fuck your sister-in-law. We are from rich family, you are from poor family. We want more dowry from you, but you never gave us that.” The PINOP went over to the sofa and gave the baby a bottle, the whole time the defendant was saying the same things to her. The PINOP said “Please stop saying these things to me” and the defendant came up very close to her and slapped her to the left cheek and the left arm. He then held her very rough to her right harm (sic) causing her immediate pain. The PINOP said “please stop doing this the baby will get hurt.” The defendant did not listen. He kept slapping the PINOP to the face while the baby was still on her lap. it was hurting her ….
….
The police report records that a couple of hours later at 9:15 pm on 24 February 2012, the Applicant was interviewed by police at Auburn Police Station, where he reported that his wife had thrown a full baby bottle at him which hit him on the head. The Police Report recorded that earlier in the day his wife had admitted throwing the baby’s bottle at her husband, but that when the report was being prepared later on, she denied having admitted that.
In her statement which was before the Tribunal, the Applicant’s wife said that on 24 February 2012, she threw a milk bottle towards her husband, which went past him, and hit the wall. In her oral evidence, she told me that she threw the milk bottle, but was not sure that it hit the wall. She said that it may have hit her husband in the head. She was not sure.
The Applicant told me that his wife called the police, who arrested him, and that an AVO was entered into. He said that his wife spent the night with a friend, but returned the next day, and that they have been happy together, and have had a second child since that incident. That evidence was corroborated by the Applicant’s wife.

I have noted that mitigating factors may mean that, despite serious offending, a person may be found to be of good character. Factors include the time that has elapsed since offending, whether the person has accepted responsibility and has shown remorse for their conduct, their age at the time of offending, and any extenuating circumstances relating to the offences. Evidence of length of employment, stable family life and community involvement may be indicators of good character, and references from independent people such as employers may be helpful: clause 10.5.2.
In that regard I noted that the Applicant continues in his employment as a restaurateur and taxi driver, and that his two year good behaviour bond expired in March 2014. He expressed some remorse at the incident of 24 February 2012, but both he and his lawyer concentrated on emphasising extenuating circumstances for the assault. In that regard the Applicant told me that he has been suffering back pain continuously since 2008. He said that he has suffered spondylitis for some ten years, and has an injection a month for the condition. As already stated above, he provided an X-ray report dated 24 June 2014 which indicated that appearances on the X-ray were consistent with early involvement of the cervical spine by ankylosing spondylitis. Ankylosing changes were also noted in the lower lumbar spine. He provided a prescription dated 19 January 2015, (Exhibit A3), indicating it was for medication for his back.
However there was no actual contemporaneous medical evidence provided to me, and certainly none associated with the incident of 24 February 2012. The Applicant’s argument regarding extenuating circumstances does not carry much weight.
The Applicant’s wife confirmed that her husband has a back condition, and that she has to assist him to arise from sitting on a sofa. That seems curious in light of the Applicant’s evidence that he drives a cab for some 10 – 12 hours a day, which of course involves a lot of sitting, and getting in and out to assist passengers with luggage. He also told me that he works in his 40 seat restaurant two days and nights a week on a regular basis. That includes lifting 12 litre saucepans.
The Applicant also said that he was suffering a fever on the night of the assault. Once again there is no medical evidence or any other detail relating to that.
I am satisfied that there were some inconsistencies in the evidence of both the Applicant and his wife in relation to the events of 24 February 2012.
Other witnesses
I also heard oral evidence and had a statement from the Applicant’s brother, who lives with the couple. He described tension between the couple some 10 or 15 days before the assault, saying that the Applicant’s threw a glass of water in his face on that occasion. Mr Slater who represented the Applicant made submissions which implied that the Applicant’s wife was prone to that kind of behaviour. I did not accept that as submitted, that it was a lead in to the events of 24 February 2012.
Mr Karanpal made a statement and gave oral evidence before the Tribunal. He resided with the Applicant and his wife sometime ago. He said that he was not present for the incident of 24 February 2012, but remarked that it was out of character for the Applicant to have committed an assault. He said that the Applicant is a good and even tempered person.
CONSIDERATION
In coming to a decision regarding whether the Applicant is of good character for purposes of his application for citizenship, I have considered the various indicia discussed in the ACIs. This has included a consideration of the seriousness of the offences with which he has been charged, whether there was a pattern of behaviour, or whether the offence was a one-off, whether there were extenuating circumstances, the Applicant’s age, and his behaviour since the commission of any crime. I have also considered the references the Applicant has provided.
I have next considered the indicia from the ACIs, commencing with a review of the offences with which the Applicant has been charged.
Seriousness of the offences
In December 2008, the Applicant was fined for behaving in an offensive manner in or near a public place or school. That offence does not influence my decision in regard to whether the Applicant is of good character pursuant to section 21(2)(h) of the Citizenship Act.
However, the assault on 24 February 2012 involved domestic violence in the presence of a child, and is therefore to be regarded as serious (clause 10.5.2). Mr Slater referred me to Tupkovic and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2014] AATA 467 where he stated that in a similar case, the Tribunal, noting Mr Tupkovic was given the benefit of section 10 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, held that the outcome being, no conviction recorded and a good behaviour bond, did not suggest serious offences. I noted on further reading of the case, that the matters involved in Tupkovic were traffic offences, that the most recent conviction took place nearly six years before the case came before the Tribunal in 2014, and that the Tribunal accepted that Mr Tupkovic’s profuse apologies for his mistakes were genuine. On that basis Tupkovic can be distinguished as the Applicant’s case involved a recent assault on his wife in the presence of their child which is much more serious. Further I discerned that rather than remorse, the Applicant sought to excuse his behaviour in terms of raising mitigating circumstances, being his back pain and a fever, unsubstantiated by medical evidence.
The Applicant was sentenced to a two year good behaviour bond in 2012 which ended in March 2014. There is no allegation that the bond was breached in any way.
Whether the offences were ‘one-off’ or part of a pattern of behaviour
The offences which the Applicant has been charged with have been discussed above. I am satisfied that they were ‘one-off’, and that he has not re-offended.
Whether there were any extenuating circumstances
Both the Applicant and Mr Slater tried to explain away the assault by telling me that the Applicant was unwell, in pain, and had a fever at the time of the assault. I could not accept those as excuses, or extenuating circumstances because there was no medical evidence provided, and it appears the Applicant has suffered some back pain for many years.
The Applicant’s age at the time of the offences
The Applicant was approximately 31 years old at the time of the assault in 2012. He had been married since 2011, had been in Australia since 2007, had completed a course in hospitality management and Asian cooking, and owned a restaurant. He was a mature adult.
Behaviour since commission of the offences
There was no allegation that the Applicant breached his bond, and there is no evidence he has re-offended in any way since.
Mr Nicholas Backo, a caseworker at Family and Community Services wrote to the Applicant and his wife supporting the Applicant’s application for citizenship. He indicated case workers had visited the couple at their home twice, and commented that the couple had engaged with appropriate services as recommended by Community Services. He stated that case workers observed the couple had presented as being in a supportive relationship and committed to ensuring no further violent incidents occurred.
Referees
A number of persons provided references for the Applicant.
Ms Antonella Franze, President of a local Business Chamber stated that she had known the Applicant for two years since becoming President. She stated that he was a valued member of the Business Chamber. She also praised the Applicant, and the good reputation of his restaurant, and was grateful her meetings could be held there. She did not mention any assault.
Mr Neil Johnson who has considerable public service in his background, strongly recommended the Applicant for citizenship on the basis of his and his wife’s diligence in running the restaurant and a taxi business. He described the Applicant as a competent, loyal and conscientious worker and colleague, who could be relied upon in a crisis. He did not mention any assault.
Mr Ramandeep made a Statutory Declaration in which he mentioned the assault in February 2012, the fact he had known the Applicant since his arrival in Australia in 2007, and found the couple to be happily married and very sensible at sharing their responsibilities. In relation to the assault he stated: It was just the bad day for them and I think now they had made sure it would never happen in their again.
Mr Sandeep Kumar Sharma made a Statutory Declaration in which he mentioned the assault in February 2012, the charge and the good behaviour bond. He stated: I would to ensure the department their husband-wife relationship very healthy. And behaviour of [the Applicant] is significantly improved. And I fully support his application.
It is only to be expected that referees chosen by a person would provide favourable references. Neither Ms Franze nor Mr Johnson mentioned the assault in their correspondence, so that it carries little weight. The references family members give also carry little weight. As submitted by the Respondent, the case workers only saw the Applicant and his wife twice; their evidence is however of some value.
CONCLUSIONS
In coming to a conclusion regarding the Applicant’s application for citizenship, I have had to consider whether he is of good character.
In considering good character, I am mindful that it is not defined in the legislation, but relates to the moral qualities of the person. The various indicia relating to good character from the ACIs, explored above, are not exhaustive, and the particular circumstances of each case must be taken into account. In summary, the Applicant offended on two occasions, the first of which I do not take into account in deciding this matter. I do however, whilst acknowledging that it is more likely than not to have been a one-off, find that pursuant to the ACIs, domestic violence, and in the presence of a child, is a serious matter.
I am not satisfied that the Applicant has fully recognised the import of the assault in the sense that both he and his counsel concentrated on extenuating circumstances with no supporting medical evidence.
Ultimately, I am not satisfied that the Applicant can presently be held to be of good character in the terms of the legislation, and application of the ACIs. Providing he continues to not re-offend, he may be able to reapply for citizenship, and convince the Minister that he is of good character.
DECISION
The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.
The Tribunal orders that pursuant to section 35(2) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, the name and address of the Applicant and his wife not be identified or published in connection with these Reasons for Decision.

I certify that the preceding 65 (sixty five) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Ms G Ettinger, Senior Member
..............................[sgd]..........................................
Associate
29 May 2015

Date of hearing

Date final submissions received

17 March 2015

27 May 2015

Solicitors for the Applicant

Mr B Slater, Brett Slater Solicitors

Solicitors for the Respondent

Ms R Krishnan, Australian Government Solicitor

[2015] AATA 375

29 May 2015

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Administrative Law

Statutory Interpretation

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Natural Justice

Procedural Fairness

Standing

Statutory Construction

Remedies

Division	GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION
File Number	2014/3233
Re	VLWP
APPLICANT
And	Minister for Immigration and Border Protection
RESPONDENT

Tribunal	Ms G Ettinger, Senior Member
Date	29 May 2015
Place	Sydney