WWXF and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, and Multicultural Affairs (Migration) - [2023] AATA 2275

WWXF and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, and Multicultural Affairs (Migration) [2023] AATA 2275 (27 July 2023)
Division: GENERAL DIVISION
File Number(s): 2022/5341
Re:WWXF
APPLICANT

AndMinister for Immigration, Citizenship, and Multicultural Affairs
RESPONDENT

DECISION

Tribunal:Senior Member Dr Linda Kirk
Date:27 July 2023
Place:Sydney

Pursuant to section 43 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth), the reviewable decision made by the delegate of the Respondent dated 21 June 2022 to refuse the Applicant a Partner visa is set aside; and substituted with a decision not to refuse the grant of the visa under subsection 501(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth).
..............................[SGD].........................................
Senior Member Dr Linda Kirk
Catchwords

MIGRATION – matter remitted from the Federal Circuit Court of Australia – refusal to grant a Temporary (Partner) Class UK visa – where visa was refused under s 501(1) because applicant did not pass character test – substantial criminal record - Ministerial Direction No. 99 – primary considerations – protection of the Australian community – seriousness of offending and future risk – expectations of the Australian community – other considerations – international non-refoulement obligations - extent of impediments if removed – links to the Australian community – the strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia – reviewable decision set aside and substituted
Legislation
Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
Migration Act 1958 (Cth)
Cases

Cameron v The Queen (2002) 209 CLR 339
FHHM v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2021] FCA 775
FYBR v Minister for Home Affairs (2019) 272 FCR 454
Suleiman v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2018) 74 AAR 545
Jagroop v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection and Another (2016) 241 FCR 461
Jal v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (Migration) [2016] AATA 789
Minister for Immigration v HSRN [2023] FCAFC 68
Plaintiff M1/2021 v Minister for Home Affairs (2022) 400 ALR 417
PNLB and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] AATA 162
Poi-ilaoa and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Migration) [2021] AATA 587
Saleh and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (Migration) [2017] AATA 367
WWXF and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs (Migration) [2022] AATA 2868
Secondary Materials

Direction No. 99 – Visa refusal and cancellation under section 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under section 501CA
REASONS FOR DECISION

Senior Member Dr Linda Kirk
27 July 2023
INTRODUCTION

This is an application for review of a decision of a delegate of the Minister of Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs (‘the Respondent’), dated 16 June 2022, to refuse to grant WWXF (‘the Applicant’) a Partner Visa (Temporary) (Class UK) (Subclass 820) and Partner Visa (Residence) (Class BS) (Subclass 801) (‘Partner visa’) pursuant to s 501(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (‘the Act’).[1]
[1] Exhibit R1, G2, 20-34.
The Applicant was born in 1976 and is a citizen of the Republic of North Macedonia (‘Macedonia’).[2]
[2] Ibid, G1, 2; G7, 63.
On 31 August 2008, the Applicant arrived in Australia on a Prospective Marriage (Subclass 300) visa, which allowed him to remain in Australia until 23 June 2009.[3]
[3] Ibid, G13, 141 [10].
On 19 June 2009, the Applicant applied for a Partner Visa (Temporary) (Class UK) (Subclass 820) and Partner Visa (Residence) (Class BS) (Subclass 801) with the same sponsor as the Prospective Marriage (Subclass 300) visa, LM, who is now his former wife.[4] The Applicant was granted a Bridging C visa on the day of this application. His relationship with LM ended in 2011 and he withdrew the application.[5]
[4] Ibid, [11]; G48, 386.
[5] Ibid, G14, 151 [10]; G48, 386.
On 6 December 2013, the Applicant made a new application for a Partner visa, sponsored by his current partner, MZ.[6]
[6] Ibid, G13, 142 [12].
On 17 June 2016, a delegate of the Respondent refused the application.[7] The Applicant sought merits review of the decision in the Migration and Refugee Division of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (‘the Tribunal’).[8]
[7] Ibid, [13].
[8] Ibid.
On 29 September 2016, the Applicant was taken into custody by NSW Police on charges of supplying cocaine.[9]
[9] Ibid, G4, 55.
On 7 March 2017, the Applicant was invited to attend a Tribunal hearing in April 2017 to give evidence and present arguments relating to the refusal of his Partner visa application.[10]
[10] Ibid, G14, 152 [19].
On 20 March 2017, the Applicant’s representative informed the Tribunal that the Applicant was in Long Bay Correctional Centre, having been arrested on drug supply charges.[11] The Applicant’s representative advised the Tribunal that the Applicant had pleaded guilty to a number of charges and had been remanded for sentencing on a date to be fixed.[12] The matter was postponed to 11 May 2017, but the Applicant failed to appear at the scheduled Tribunal hearing and the application was dismissed.[13]
[11] Ibid, 152.
[12] Ibid, [19].
[13] Ibid, [20].
On 26 May 2017, the Tribunal’s dismissal of the application was confirmed,[14] and the Applicant became an unlawful non-citizen on 27 June 2017.[15]
[14] Ibid.
[15] Ibid, 142 [15].
On 15 January 2018, the Applicant successfully sought judicial review of the Tribunal’s dismissal decision in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia, and the matter was remitted to the Tribunal.[16]
[16] Ibid, [16].
On 3 August 2018, the Applicant was convicted of Supply prohibited drug > indictable quantity, Supply prohibited drug >= commercial quantity and Deal with property proceeds of crime < $100,000 and sentenced to five years and three months’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of three years and five months. (‘August 2018 convictions’).[17]
[17] Ibid, [18].
On 24 May 2019, the Applicant was granted a Bridging E (Class WE) visa, which expired on 27 November 2020.[18]
[18] Ibid, [19].
On 16 January 2020, the Tribunal reconsidered the dismissal application in accordance with the orders of the Federal Circuit Court and remitted the delegate’s decision to refuse to grant the Applicant a Partner visa.[19]
[19] Ibid, [17].
On 28 November 2020, the Applicant became an unlawful non-citizen for a second time.[20] He was released from Mannus Correctional Centre and taken by Australian Border Force officers into immigration detention.[21] The Applicant has been detained at Villawood Immigration Detention Centre since this date.[22]
[20] Ibid, [20].
[21] Ibid, G4, 37; G13, 142 [20].
[22] Ibid, G13, 142 [20].
On 30 November 2020, the Applicant applied for a Bridging E (Class WE) visa.[23]
[23] Ibid, 141 [2].
On 3 December 2020, a delegate of the Respondent refused this application, because they were not satisfied that the Applicant would abide by visa condition 8564 (must not engage in criminal conduct).[24] The Applicant applied to the Tribunal for merits review of the delegate’s decision.[25]
[24] Ibid, G10, 75 [7].
[25] Ibid, [8].
On 17 December 2020, the Tribunal set aside the delegate’s decision, finding that the Applicant would comply with the relevant visa conditions.[26]
[26] Ibid, G13, 148 [73].
On 4 January 2021, the Department issued a Notice of Intention to Consider Refusal (‘NOICR’) of the Applicant’s Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) visa application under s 501(1) of the Act.[27] On 1 February 2021, the Applicant’s legal representative responded to the NOICR.[28]
[27] Ibid, G48, 362.
[28] Ibid, G9, 70.
On 21 April 2021, the Applicant was invited to make comments on further information received by the Department.[29] On 18 May 2021, the Applicant’s legal representative responded to that invitation.[30]
[29] Ibid, G49, 405.
[30] Ibid, G52, 435-454.
On 21 June 2022, a delegate refused to grant the visa under s 501(1) of the Act (the ‘Reviewable Decision’)[31] for reason that the Applicant did not meet the character test under s 501 of the Act.
[31] Ibid, G2, 9.
On 27 June 2022, the Applicant applied to the Tribunal for review of the Reviewable Decision.[32]
[32] Ibid, G1, 5.
On 6 September 2022, a differently constituted Tribunal affirmed the Reviewable Decision.[33]
[33] [2022] AATA 2868.
On 3 March 2023, by consent, Justice Yates made orders quashing the Tribunal’s decision and remitted this matter for redetermination by the Tribunal.[34]
[34] The notation to the Court’s orders provides that the Tribunal decision of 6 September 2022 was affected by jurisdictional error because the Tribunal considered for itself the content of the community’s expectations, contrary to Ministerial Direction 90 and FYBR v Minister for Home Affairs (2019) 272 FCR 454.
The matter was heard by the Tribunal as presently constituted on 21 and 22 June 2023. The Applicant attended the hearing in person and was represented by counsel. He gave oral evidence and was cross-examined at the hearing.
The following persons also gave oral evidence and were cross-examined at the hearing:
- Dr Kala Ram, psychologist
- MZ, Applicant’s partner
- MG, family friend
- DM, Applicant’s acquaintance
- RB, Applicant’s acquaintance
- VVZ, MZ’s mother
- ZZS, MZ’s cousin
- TK, MZ’s best friend
- JH, Applicant’s acquaintance
- KR, family friend
The material before the Tribunal is as follows:
·Applicant’s Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions dated 23 May 2023 - ASFIC
·Psychological Report of Dr Kala Ram dated 14 June 2023- Exhibit A1
·Statement of the Applicant dated 18 June 2023 – Exhibit A2
·Statement of the Applicant dated 24 May 2023 – Exhibit A3
·Bundle of New Witness Statements filed 23 May 2023 – Exhibit A4
·Bundle of Medical Reports for MZ filed 23 May 2023 – Exhibit A5
·Statement of JH dated 24 May 2023 - Exhibit A6
·Statement of KR dated 6 June 2023 – Exhibit A7
·Applicant’s Documents filed for Hearing on 1 and 2 September 2022 – Exhibit A8
·Section 501G Documents filed on 7 July 2022 – Exhibit R1
·Respondent’s Tender Bundle filed on 22 August 2022 – Exhibit R3
·Respondent’s Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions dated 13 June 2023 - RSFIC
The Tribunal has reviewed the evidence before it and refers to all relevant materials below.
LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK
Subsection 501(1) of the Act provides:
… The Minister may refuse to grant a visa to a person if the person does not satisfy the Minister that the person passes the character test.
Paragraph 501(6)(a) of the Act relevantly provides that a person does not pass the ‘character test’ if the person has a ‘substantial criminal record’. Subsection 501(7) of the Act relevantly provides:
(7) For the purposes of the character test, a person has a substantial criminal record if:
(a)the person has been sentenced to death; or
(b)the person has been sentenced to imprisonment for life; or
(c)the person has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more; or
(d)the person has been sentenced to 2 or more terms of imprisonment, where the total of those terms is 12 months or more; or
(e)the person has been acquitted of an offence on the grounds of unsoundness of mind or insanity, and as a result the person has been detained in a facility or institution; or
(f)the person has:
(i)been found by a court to not be fit to plead, in relation to an offence; and
(ii)the court has nonetheless found that on the evidence available the person committed the offence; and
(iii)as a result, the person has been detained in a facility or institution.
MINISTERIAL DIRECTION NO. 99
Subsection 499(1) of the Act provides:
The Minister may give written directions to a person or body having functions or powers under this Act if the directions are about:
(a) the performance of those functions; or
(b) the exercise of those powers.
Subsection 499(2A) of the Act provides that “A person or body must comply with a direction under subsection (1).”
On 23 January 2023, the Minister, for the purposes of s 499 of the Act, made a direction titled “Direction No. 99 – Visa refusal and cancellation under section 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under section 501CA” (‘the Direction’). The commencement date for operation of the Direction was 3 March 2023. Upon its commencement, the Direction revoked the operation of “Direction no. 90 – Visa refusal and cancellation under s 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under s 501CA”.
Paragraph 5.1 sets out the objectives of the Direction. Sub-paragraphs 5.1(1) and (2) provide:
(1)The objective of the Act is to regulate, in the national interest, the coming into, and presence in, Australia of non-citizens. Relevantly, a non-citizen who does not pass the character test (see Annex A for explanation) is liable for refusal of a visa or cancellation of their visa.
(2)Specifically, under subsection 501(1) of the Act, non-citizens may be refused a visa if they do not satisfy the decision-maker that they pass the character test. Under subsection 501(2), non-citizens may have their visa cancelled if the decision-maker reasonably suspects that they do not pass the character test, and the non-citizens do not satisfy the decision-maker that they do pass the character test. Where the discretion to refuse to grant or to cancel a visa is enlivened, the decision-maker must consider the specific circumstances of the case in deciding whether to exercise that discretion.
Paragraph 5.1(4) provides:
(4)The purpose of this Direction is to guide decision-makers in performing functions or exercising powers under section 501 and 501CA of the Act. Under section 499(2A) of the Act, such decision-makers must comply with a direction made under section 499.
Paragraph 5.2 of the Direction sets out the principles which provide the framework within which decision-makers should approach their task of deciding whether to refuse a visa under s 501 of the Act. These principles are 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 non-citizens in the expectation that they are, and have been, law-abiding, will respect important institutions, such as Australia's law enforcement framework, and will not cause or threaten harm to individuals or the Australian community.
(2)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 [sic] 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 noncitizens 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 cancellations of a visa, Australia will generally afford a higher level of tolerance of criminal or other serious conduct by noncitizens 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 8.55(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 [sic] risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community.
Paragraph 6 of the Direction provides:
Informed by the principles in paragraph 5.2, a decision maker must take into account the considerations identified in sections 8 and 9, where relevant to the decision.
Paragraph 7(1) provides that, when taking the relevant considerations into account, ‘information and evidence from independent and authoritative sources should be given appropriate weight.’
Paragraph 7(2) states that ‘[p]rimary considerations should generally be given greater weight than the other considerations.’ That does not preclude the Tribunal, however, based on the specific circumstances of each case, to give an ‘other’ consideration the equivalent of or greater weight than a primary consideration.[35] Paragraph 7(3) states that ‘[o]ne or more primary considerations may outweigh other primary considerations.’ However, as Kenny and Mortimer JJ stated in their joint judgment in Jagroop v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection and Another, ‘the weighing process in each case is in substance left, as it must be, to the individual decision-maker exercising the power under s 501’.[36]
[35]Suleiman v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2018) 74 AAR 545, [23]; [28] (Colvin J).
[36](2016) 241 FCR 461 [57].
Paragraph 8 of the Direction sets out five Primary Considerations that the Tribunal must take into account. They are:
1)protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct;
2)whether the conduct engaged in constituted family violence;
3)the strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia;
4)the best interests of minor children in Australia; and
5)expectations of the Australian community.
Paragraph 9 of the Direction sets out four Other Considerations which must be taken into account. These considerations are:
a)legal consequence of the decision;
b)extent of impediments if removed;
c)impact on victims; and
d)impact on Australian business interests.
Annex A of the Direction contains an overview of and guidance on how the character test is to be applied. Relevant to the present case, paragraph 5 of Section 2 of Annex A provides as follows:
5.Not of good character on account of past and present criminal or general conduct (section 501(6)(c)(i) and (ii))
(1)A person does not pass the character test if the person is not of good character, having regard to their past and present criminal and/or their past and present general conduct.
(2)The concepts of criminal conduct and general conduct are not mutually exclusive. Conduct can be both general and criminal at the same time or it may be either general or criminal conduct: Wong v Minister for Minister Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2002] FCAFC 440 at [33].
(3)In considering whether a person is not of good character, all the relevant circumstances of the particular case are to be taken into account to obtain a complete picture of the person's character.
a)In Godley v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (2004) 83 ALD 411, Lee J said at [34] [sic]'the words "of good character" mean enduring moral qualities reflected in soundness and reliability in moral judgement in the performance of day to day (sic) activities and in dealing with fellow citizens. It is not simply a matter of repute, fame or standing in the community but of continuing performance according to moral principle. A person of ill repute by reason of past criminal conduct may nonetheless, on objective examination at a later stage in life, be shown to be a person reformed and now of good character.'[37]
(4)In order to fail this limb of the character test, a person need not necessarily have a recent criminal conviction, or have been involved in recent general conduct which would indicate that they are not of 'good character'. However, the conduct in question must be sufficient to indicate a lack of enduring moral quality that outweighs any consideration of more recent good behaviour.
a)In Godley, Lee J went on to say 'For a finding to be made under section 501(6)(c) that a person is not of good character it is necessary that the nature of the conduct said to be criminal, be examined and assessed as to its degree of moral culpability or turpitude. Furthermore, there must be examination of past and present criminal conduct sufficient to establish that a person at the time of decision is not then of good character. The point at which recent criminal conduct, (as the term 'present criminal conduct' is to be understood), becomes past criminal conduct must be a matter of judgement. If there is no recent criminal conduct that circumstances will point to the need for the Minister to give due weight to that fact before concluding that a visa applicant is not of good character'.
‘Before past and present general conduct may be taken to reveal indicia that a visa applicant is not of good character continuing conduct must be demonstrated that shows a lack of enduring moral quality. Although in some circumstances isolated elements of conduct may be significant and display lack of moral worth they will be rare, and as with consideration of criminal conduct there must be due regard given to recent good conduct.’
[37]The passage quoted appears at paragraph [51] not [34].

Paragraphs 5.1 and 5.2 of Section 2 of Annex A relevantly provide:
5.1Past and present criminal conduct
(1)In considering whether a person is not of good character on the basis of past or present criminal conduct, the following factors are to be considered:
a)the nature and severity of the criminal conduct;
b)the frequency of the person's offending and whether there is any trend of increasing seriousness;
c)the cumulative effect of repeated offending;
d)any circumstances surrounding the criminal conduct which may explain the conduct such as may be evident from judges' comments, parole reports and similar authoritative documents; and
e)the conduct of the person since their most recent offence, including:
i.the length of time since the person last engaged in criminal conduct;
ii.any evidence of recidivism or continuing association with criminals;
iii.any pattern of similar criminal conduct;
iv.any pattern of continued or blatant disregard or contempt for the law; and
v.any conduct which may indicate character reform.
5.2Past and present general conduct
(1)The past and present general conduct provision allows a broader view of a person's character where convictions may not have been recorded or where the person's conduct may not have constituted a criminal offence.
a)in considering whether the person is not of good character, the relevant circumstances of the particular case are to be taken into account, including evidence of rehabilitation and any relevant periods of good conduct.
…
ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION
The two issues for determination by the Tribunal are:
1)whether the Applicant can satisfy the Tribunal that he passes the character test; and, if not,
2)whether the Tribunal should exercise its discretion conferred by s 501(1) of the Act to refuse to grant the Partner visa to the Applicant.
If the Applicant satisfies the Tribunal that he passes the character test, the weight of authority indicates that the Tribunal must not refuse to grant the Partner visa to the Applicant. If the Applicant does not satisfy the Tribunal that he passes the character test, the Tribunal must consider whether to exercise its discretion to refuse to grant the visa.
EVIDENCE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL
Early years in Macedonia
The Applicant was born and raised in Macedonia, formerly a part of Yugoslavia. He is the eldest of two children.[38] The Applicant’s father owned a restaurant and his mother worked as a teacher and his family were financially stable. His parents’ marriage was ‘dysfunctional’ and his father was physically abusive towards his mother, him and his brother. His parents divorced when he was aged approximately ten due to his father's alcoholism and family violence perpetrated against them. Following his parents’ divorce, the Applicant’s father ‘took everything with him’ and left his family with nothing and provided no child support. The Applicant became the head of the family.[39]
[38] Transcript, 17.
[39] Ibid.
At the age of ten, the Applicant worked in building construction during his school holidays. At the age of 13, after he completed elementary school, the Applicant left his hometown in Macedonia and commenced high school at a military school in Sarajevo, Bosnia which was also a boarding school.[40] This school was the most prestigious and elite in Yugoslavia and the selection process was very strict. His school fees were fully covered by the government, and he received a full stipend.[41]
[40] Ibid.
[41] Ibid.
During the Applicant’s second year of military school, the civil war broke out. The students at the military school became part of the Serbian army and he was sent into combat at the age of 15. He served in the general infantry for one and a half years. The Applicant told the Tribunal that this was a very difficult time as he and his fellow soldiers had no food and there were a lot of casualties.[42] Eventually an agreement was reached with the mediation of the United Nations, and the students departed the military barracks leaving behind the heavy artillery, and were able to travel safely in a convoy to the Serbian side.[43] The Applicant stayed in Sarajevo for a couple of months and then he was moved back to Belgrade. At this time, Macedonia declared its independence from Yugoslavia and the Applicant returned to his home country.[44]
[42] Ibid.
[43] Ibid, 18.
[44] Ibid.
After returning to Macedonia, the Applicant joined the police academy so that he could finish his schooling.[45] He then became an active police officer in the Department of Police in Macedonia. At the age of 18, he joined a Special Forces unit known as ‘Tigri’.[46] The Applicant explained to the Tribunal that the selection process for the unit was very competitive, and of the 5,000 applicants only 16 were chosen. He worked in this unit for approximately eleven years from 1995 to 2006.[47] During this period, the Applicant received training in many countries, including the United States, Israel, Germany, France and Turkey and he worked in ‘extremely dangerous and delicate situations.’[48] From 2000 to 2001, Al-Qaeda opened five or six cells in the Balkans region, and it operated in Kosovo, Bosnia and Macedonia.[49] The Applicant was a leader of a tactical working team for six to seven years and the leader of a sniper team.[50] The Applicant referred to photos in evidence taken by a French news correspondent that depict him and members of his unit during the conflict in 2001, which were published in newspapers and remain publicly available through Getty Images.[51]
[45] Ibid.
[46] Exhibit A1, 2 [1.3].
[47] Transcript, 19.
[48] Transcript, 20; Exhibit A1, 2 [1.3].
[49] Transcript, 21.
[50] Exhibit A1, 2 [1.3].
[51] Transcript, 20-21.
The Applicant told the Tribunal that the identity of the members of the Special Forces was ‘a top secret’ and ‘highly protected’ because of the operations in which they were involved and the ‘highly dangerous’ people they were targeting.[52] He confirmed that he was responsible for causing the deaths of some of these targets, including a high ranking terrorist of the UCK, during a military operation in 2001.[53] Following an internal investigation, it was found that the operation was legal and fully justified, as their lives were in danger.[54]
[52] Ibid, 21.
[53] Ibid, 22.
[54] Ibid.
The Applicant explained to the Tribunal that the conflict ended with a peaceful agreement mediated by the United States. The UCK was demilitarised, and its members were given amnesty and subsequently formed a political party. The former head of the UCK is now the leader of the Democratic Union for Integration (DUI) party in Macedonia.[55] For the past 20 years the DUI has been a member of the coalition government in Macedonia.[56] In the parliament, 32 of the 120 seats are held by ethnic Albanians, and 8 of the 20 cabinet ministers are ethnic Albanians.[57]
[55]Exhibit A8, 236.
[56] Ibid.
[57]Exhibit A8, , 274.
Relationships and migration to Australia
The Applicant married his first wife when he was aged 20 and they had one daughter who is now aged 28. He and his first wife divorced after eight years of marriage. He continued to have contact with his daughter who was aged 13 when he migrated to Australia. She now lives in Switzerland, and the Applicant is in regular contact with her.[58]
[58] Exhibit A1, 2 [1.4]; Transcript, 31.
The Applicant met his second wife, LM, online and he immigrated to Australia. In October 2008 he applied for his first Partner visa, and he and LM subsequently married. From 2008-2011, the Applicant worked in a warehouse and was a delivery driver for Kempsey food importer, Marko Polo Foods.[59] He and LM separated in 2011 before he obtained his permanent partner visa. Their divorce was finalised in 2022.[60]
[59] Exhibit A1, 4 [1.13].
[60] Ibid, 3 [1.7].
The Applicant met his current partner MZ at the end of 2011, and they commenced a relationship in early 2012. He and MZ bought a coffee shop in Newtown and converted it into a restaurant and bar. He was working 16-17 hour days, and MZ also helped him when she had time. In 2013, the Applicant lost the working rights on his visa. As a consequence, they had to do a ‘fire sale’ of the business and sold the restaurant.[61]
[61] Ibid, 4 [1.13].
Following the sale of the business, the Applicant experienced a difficult time. He explained that he was accustomed to working from 7am until midnight in his business and ‘from that tempo of living, I just became useless. I started watching a lot of YouTube and Netflix, sleeping in everyday until 11am.’[62] MZ financially supported him, and he also helped her with her business at the markets.[63] He also had prior investments in companies, including a security business overseas, and he had savings from the profits he had made from the restaurant.[64]
[62]Ibid, 4 [1.13].
[63] Ibid.
[64] Ibid.
Drug and alcohol use
The Applicant first commenced drinking alcohol in Bosnia when he was in elementary school. There was no age restriction on the consumption of alcohol, and he would drink when he attended discos on the weekend.[65] When he was at military school, he was not allowed to drink due to the nature of the work, as he could be called out at any given time.[66]
[65] Ibid, 4 [1.16].
[66] Ibid.
The Applicant was first exposed to drugs in the military where they were given stimulants, including amphetamines. He first used cocaine in 1999 at the age of 20, however he did not begin regular use of cocaine until two years later during his time in the Special Forces. He said that it was the practice to use alcohol and drugs to cope with the ‘mental strain of warfare, exposure to death, losing people close to you and trauma of killing other people.’[67]
[67] Ibid, 5 [1.22].
After he migrated to Australia, the Applicant consumed alcohol on a social basis. In 2013, following the loss of his work rights, his alcohol consumption increased. He told Dr Ram, ‘I was not happy with my life. I had so much free time, I started going out more in the city, meeting new people, going to night-time markets, hanging out in the city and going to clubs.’[68]
[68] Ibid, 4 [1.17].
After he immigrated to Australia, the Applicant used cocaine occasionally, on a social, recreational basis only.[69] In 2012, he started hanging out with ‘corporate people’ and he started to used cocaine on a social basis, approximately once per week. The loss of his work rights in 2013 was the catalyst for an increase in his cocaine use. He told Dr Ram, ‘I was forced to become a house husband. Staying home all day and doing nothing, and of course socialising with wrong people.’[70] He started going into the city and having lunches and drinking with ‘corporate people’ on a daily basis.[71]
[69] Ibid, [1.18].
[70] Ibid.
[71] Transcript, 25.
Following MZ’s breast cancer diagnosis in 2015, the Applicant ‘lost the plot’. In 2016, he was ‘using and abusing cocaine.’ This resulted in many arguments between him and MZ and they separated at her request, and he moved into an apartment in the city.[72] He told Dr Ram that he consumed alcohol and used cocaine to ‘escape reality.’[73] The Applicant told the Tribunal that he did not take drugs other than cocaine, with the exception of MDMA that he took few times in his ‘young days’.[74]
[72] Ibid, 45.
[73] Exhibit A1, 4-5 [1.19].
[74] Transcript, 24.
Criminal history
The Applicant’s Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission Check Results Report dated 14 December 2020 details his criminal history:[75]
[75] Exhibit R1, G3, 37.

62.     03/08/18

63.     Supply prohibited drug > indictable quantity

64.     Imprisonment 3 years and 4 months, non-parole period 2 years

65.     03/08/18

66.     Supply prohibited drug >= commercial quantity

67.     Imprisonment 5 years and 3 months, non-parole period 3 years and 5 months (Form 1 matters taken into account)

68.     03/08/18

69.     Deal with property proceeds of crime < $100,000

70.     Taken into account on Form 1

71.     21/03/11

72.     Stalk / intimidate intend fear of physical / mental harm

73. s.9 bond – 12 months

74.     21/03/11

75.     Possess prohibited drug

76. s. 9 bond – 12 months

77.     21/03/11

78.     Supply a prohibited drug

79.     100 hours community service order

80.     01/10/09

81.     Stalk / intimidate intend fear of physical /mental harm

82. s. 9 bond 12 months

October 2009 conviction

On 1 October 2009, the Applicant was convicted in the NSW Local Court on a count of Stalk/intimidate intend fear of physical/mental harm – T2 and was placed on a good behaviour bond under s 9 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) for a period of 12 months.[76]
[76] Ibid, 38.
A NSW Police Facts Sheet dated 29 September 2009 provides the background to this conviction.[77] The Applicant’s then wife, LM, came to believe that the Applicant only wished to remain in a relationship with her as she had sponsored his Partner visa. She began the process of cancelling her sponsorship and having their marriage annulled.[78] On the evening of 23 September 2009, the Applicant returned home to discover that LM had packed his bag.[79] The Facts Sheet records that the Applicant then threatened to damage LM’s computers and her children’s PlayStation, ripped an internet cable from a wall while LM’s daughter was using it, pushed chairs and furniture over on the balcony of LM’s home, and threatened to distribute images and videos of a personal nature to LM’s place of work and people living in her local area.[80] The Applicant denied the allegations, however the police obtained an Apprehended Violence Order (AVO). There are no recorded breaches of this AVO.[81]
[77] Ibid, G50, 408.
[78] Ibid, 409.
[79] Ibid.
[80] Ibid, 409-410.
[81] Ibid, G2, 24; G50, 410.
The Applicant’s evidence is that on 23 September 2009, he and LM had a verbal argument when she complained about him being on his computer and not taking out the garbage. He claims that he unplugged the modem from the wall and left the house, stating, ‘I’m not that person who can handle arguments so I move away [from the situation].’[82] He went to the coffee shop downstairs and LM called the police. The Applicant denies that he damaged any property or made any threats to distribute images or videos of a personal nature.[83] After he was served with the AVO, he moved out of their home and lived with a friend. When he attended court, he did not understand the charges against him because at this time his English was ‘zero’ and he pleaded guilty.[84] LM subsequently ‘dropped’ the AVO, and he returned back to their home, and they lived together as a couple for a further three years.[85] He claims the incident was a ‘one-off happening’.[86]
[82] Exhibit A1, 3 [1.6].
[83] Transcript, 41.
[84] Ibid.
[85] Ibid, 40-41.
[86] Ibid, 40.
March 2011 convictions
On 21 March 2011, the Applicant was convicted of one count each of Possess prohibited drug and Supply prohibited drug. He was called up for a breach of his good behaviour bond from 2009, placed on a further bond for a period of 12 months on the possession count, and ordered to serve 100 hours of community service on the supply count.[87]
[87] Exhibit R1, G3, 38.
A NSW Police Report dated 25 May 2010 provides the background to these convictions.[88] About 10.30pm on 24 May 2010, NSW Police officers approached a blue BMW Sedan after it was seen to drive in an ‘erratic manner’. The Applicant had been driving the vehicle and a woman was in the passenger seat. The officers observed that the female passenger ‘appeared to be heavily affected by drugs’, but the Applicant said she was ‘fine’.[89] The officers proceeded to search the vehicle and then the passengers. At this point, the Applicant ‘ran from police’ until he was apprehended. He was handcuffed and officers ‘observed a large clear resealable plastic bag containing white powder’ next to him.[90] The Applicant was searched and $950 in seven one hundred dollar notes and five fifty dollar notes was found in his wallet. The officers also searched the surrounding area and discovered three small resealable bags containing ‘white powder and white granules’ underneath a parked car.[91]
[88] Exhibit R3, 29-30.
[89] Ibid, 30.
[90] Ibid, 29-30.
[91] Ibid, 30.
The police report records that when questioned by the officers, the Applicant admitted the bags were his, which he said contained ‘cocaine and ice’. He said he bought the cocaine and ice ‘from a Chinese man in the cross, [and uses] it to supply to women in exchange for sex’.[92] The Applicant informed the officers he paid $350 dollars for the cocaine but would not disclose how much he paid for the ice. Numerous text messages were also found on the Applicant’s mobile which, according to NSW Police, ‘indicated the possibility of drug supply by the accused’. One of these messages was received from ‘Anne’, the female passenger who was in the vehicle with the Applicant at the time they were stopped.[93] The text message read ‘can you come 2 see me wur white girlfriend. plse, and how long? Anne [sic]’. The text message was received at 10.13pm on 24 May 2010, just before the vehicle stop. The report notes that ‘white’ means cocaine in ‘drug use’ jargon. Several other text messages were viewed on the Applicant’s phone by NSW Police which indicated the possibility of drug supply.[94]
[92] Ibid.
[93] Ibid.
[94] Ibid.
The Applicant’s evidence is that at the time of this offending, he was in a casual relationship with a woman named Anne and they enjoyed using cocaine together. On 24 May 2010 he bought drugs and went to Anne’s house to catch up with her. She told him to wait downstairs for her until her son left the house. When they were sitting in the car the police car stopped next to them and the police searched the car and found two bags of cocaine. He does not remember if Anne sent him a text message. He denies that he was supplying drugs at this time, and stated that when police searched his apartment they did not find any drugs or drug paraphernalia.[95]
[95] Transcript, 42.
August 2018 convictions
On 3 August 2018 the Applicant was convicted of Supply prohibited drug > indictable quantity, Supply prohibited drug >= commercial quantity and Deal with property proceeds of crime < $100,000 and sentenced to five years and three months’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of three years and five months.[96]
[96] Exhibit R1, G13, 142 [18].
The background to these convictions is detailed in the sentencing remarks of NSW District Court Judge Zahra SC.[97] In April 2016, the State Crime Command Drug Squad began investigating the Applicant in relation to cocaine supply.[98] On 27 April 2016, NSW Police obtained a warrant to intercept the Applicant’s mobile telecommunication service.[99] Police were able to discover that the Applicant ‘had an extensive customer base’ and that he was ‘supplying drugs on a regular basis from within and around his apartment’ in Woolloomooloo.[100] ‘Numerous calls’ were also intercepted where ‘the offender admitted that he was a drug supplier’.[101]
[97] Ibid, G4, 39-42.
[98]Ibid, 40.
[99]Ibid.
[100]Ibid.
[101]Ibid.
On 1 September 2016, an undercover operative contacted the Applicant on his mobile phone and negotiated the purchase of 139.8 grams of cocaine.[102] The Applicant agreed to supply the drug on 2 September 2016 at his apartment, and said he had to obtain the drugs from an ‘up-line source’.[103] On 2 September 2016, the undercover operative went to the Applicant’s apartment and purchased the cocaine for $35,000.[104] On 7 September 2016, the undercover operative contacted the Applicant via text message and asked to see the Applicant the following day, to which he agreed.[105] On 8 September 2016, the undercover operative again went to the Applicant’s apartment and purchased 140.1 grams of cocaine for $35,000.[106] On 14 September 2016, the undercover operative again contacted the Applicant via text message and asked to meet him.[107] On 15 September, the undercover operative went to the Applicant’s apartment and purchased 111.8 grams of cocaine for $28,000.[108] On 22 September 2016, the undercover operative contacted the Applicant on his mobile phone and negotiated the purchase of six ounces of cocaine for a later date. The Applicant agreed to meet the following week.[109]
[102]Ibid.
[103]Ibid.
[104]Ibid.
[105] Ibid, 41.
[106]Ibid.
[107]Ibid.
[108]Ibid.
[109] Ibid.

On 29 September 2016, the undercover operative contacted the Applicant on his mobile phone and negotiated the purchase of six ounces of cocaine. The Applicant agreed to supply the drug inside his apartment and waited outside for the undercover operative to arrive. Shortly before midday, NSW Police approached the Applicant and arrested him.[110] During the execution of a search warrant at the Applicant’s apartment, police located and seized three plastic bags of 167.4 grams, 75.2 grams, and 0.67 grams of white powder containing cocaine.[111] They also discovered a Chanel handbag in its box (new) with a receipt for $6,650, and a Gucci leather bag in its box (new).[112]
[110] Ibid.
[111] Ibid, 42.
[112]Ibid.
The extent of the Applicant’s client base and the extent of his supply of cocaine were presented in a schedule provided on sentencing.[113] It identified the monies the Applicant received by reference to deposits into his bank account.[114] Judge Zahra observed that ‘[t]he evidence of the offender’s pattern of supply of prohibited drugs would indicate [the Applicant] engaged in organised activity’ and ‘[o]n the offender’s own account he had an extensive customer base and was supplying drugs with some frequency, at times daily’.[115] His Honour accepted the Crown’s description of the Applicant as a ‘mid-level supplier’ and, despite the Applicant’s later statements to the contrary, accepted that the offences were committed for financial gain.[116]
[113] Ibid, 43.
[114] Ibid, 43; 46.
[115]Ibid, 43.
[116]Ibid, 43-44.
The Applicant told the Tribunal that the circumstances surrounding his offending were that a friend of his from the Macedonian community, who had committed a crime and had been bailed, asked him to help him ‘find the good stuff’ as he knew that the Applicant had contact with suppliers of cocaine. The Applicant made a ‘wrong decision’ and he made the contact necessary to get the amount of cocaine his friend requested. He was unaware that his friend was a police informant, and he subsequently supplied drugs to the undercover officer.[117]
[117] Transcript, 43.
The Applicant’s evidence is that prior to this offending he was not supplying commercial quantities of cocaine but was only supplying ‘a couple of grams’ to his friends.[118] He told the Tribunal that his dealing was ‘a hundred per cent’ related to his drug use.[119]
[118] Ibid, 47.
[119] Ibid, 25.
Responsibility and remorse for offending
In his statement dated 22 January 2021, the Applicant stated:
Firstly, in regards to my offending, I really have no excuse, nor do I blame anyone but myself. I found myself in very dire circumstances and was dealing with a lot of difficult emotions. I feel I lost my way. The person that was my rock in life and who intended to spent the rest of my life with, had been diagnosed with Cancer. The outcome was unknown and still to this day is unknown. We separated temporarily and I had to live alone and try and survive. I was not thinking straight and fell into a lifestyle of drinking and drugs. I am so embarrassed to admit that, but it is the truth I cannot hide from it. The humiliation and shame a very strong deterrent to reoffending, not to mention losing 4 years of my life in jail. I am very, very sorry for being involved in drugs. Once I was in jail, I knew that the only option I had for a better life was to turn my life around.[120]
[120] Exhibit R1, G16, 174.
The Applicant told the Tribunal that he takes ‘full responsibility’ for his offending and that he made a ‘big mistake’. He is embarrassed about his actions, and it has cost him seven years of his life.[121] He is no longer in contact with any of his former associates with whom he used drugs. They did not visit him in gaol or help him in any way. They are not the kind of people he wishes to know. He said that he does not want to waste his life and time with them.[122]
[121] Transcript, 44.
[122] Ibid, 49.
The Applicant’s evidence is that he understands the harm that his drug dealing had on the community:
I harm the community. I know the impact of exactly what I did. Maybe not – kilos was not going through my hands, but all the grams, and everything, it’s impact on the community. And I know people who – I know that I harm people. People destroy their life with the cocaine, with the usage of cocaine. And that – all that grams, it was like some internal circle of my people, two of them, they lost a marriage since then, you know, like – I know what’s the impact of that thing, and that life, and that thing. And I know they got access to that through me. Like, it’s obvious – it’s obvious and I’m taking full responsibility for that, and it is what it is. I know what’s the impact of the drugs, exactly, on the community, on the friends of everyone, and on myself as well …[123]
[123] Transcript, 27.
Work and activities in gaol
The Applicant was first incarcerated at Silverwater Correctional Centre. He joined a work program and turned up to work on time and completed his job satisfactorily. He was then transferred to Long Bay Correctional Centre. He was seen as ‘responsible and cooperative’ and was given the role of a ‘sweeper’. His evidence is that he was ‘trusted’ by the officers and ‘given privileges’ and ‘more freedom’ than other prisoners. He would regularly hold cooking classes for other inmates and the Corrective Service officers would also attend. When he was moved to Goulburn Correctional Centre, he was again given the job of a sweeper.
The Applicant was next moved to Mannus Correctional Centre and was given a C2 Classification.[124] He completed many courses and classes and obtained certificates from Riverina TAFE. The Applicant spent three months working on Blaze Aid, where he tore down fences and replaced them with new ones for the NSW farmers that had been affected by the bushfires. This work was undertaken without any supervision. He also assisted with the Tumbarumba Festival by helping set up and clean up after the event. This work was also unsupervised and ‘reflected that [his] officers trusted [him] greatly.’[125]
[124] Exhibit R1, G16, 175.
[125] Ibid.
Rehabilitation
The Applicant’s evidence is that he has not consumed alcohol or used drugs since his arrest in September 2016, being a period of nearly seven years.[126]
[126] Transcript, 25.
In his statement dated 22 January 2021, the Applicant stated:
I can swear to you that I never want anything to do with drugs again or people who take them. What is not commonly known to people on the outside, is that there are more drugs smuggled into jail than are on the streets. Corrective Services know this. Everyone who is in jail knows it too. I never failed a urine drug test ever, although once I didn't take one because I couldn't give the urine when they asked me. They conduct these tests regularly and randomly.[127]
[127] Exhibit R1, G16, 175.
The Applicant told the Tribunal that since he has been incarcerated, he has started ‘doing a lot of exercise’ and he is a ‘different person’. His ‘mind is clear’ and he feels ‘like a newborn.’[128]
[128] Transcript, 27.
The Applicant is confident that he will remain abstinent in the community. He told the Tribunal that when he was taking drugs and abusing alcohol his life was ‘miserable’ and he feels ‘disgusted’ when he thinks about how he used to be at this time. He explained:
I just want to keep my life so simple. I want to dedicate it to the business opportunities, what I have with [MZ]. And my values are now very, very different.
…
So my values and things, what I believe and everything is changed, you know. I will never, never go back to that – to that … again, and – I can be happy with … I’m a happy person, I’m a positive person. I am the one who is teaching everyone – I’m the one – and every officer can say, and can confirm, the one who tried to take the people out of drugs, from not taking drugs.[129]
[129] Ibid.
The Applicant told the Tribunal that he will be ‘too busy’ to go back to his former lifestyle. He stated:
After seven years of my time – of my life, I have a completely different view and values into my life and I appreciate the small things. That was never the case before.[130]
[130] Ibid, 36-37.
Pre-release report
The pre-release report for the Applicant, dated 15 September 2020, prepared by Corrective Services NSW, Community Corrections, contains the following assessment and recommendation:[131]
[131] Exhibit R1, G15, 171-172.
Assessment and recommendation
Key reasons for release to parole
·Despite his immigration status he has achieved approval for involvement in off complex community projects
·Has complied with unit and centre routine
·He presents with exceptional works reports
·Assessed risk of re-offence medium low
·Completed a significant non parole period without incident
Key reasons against release
·There does not appear to be intervention or case management based reason against [WWXF]’s release from custody
Overall assessment
[WWXF] advised that he entered Australia and had been residing here for eight years before his involvement in the offences. He admitted that he was involved in the limited social use of illicit substances in Macedonia and acknowledged that his drug use directly correlated with his involvement in these offences and contact with pro criminal associates. [WWXF] explained that when last in the community he was maintaining an unconventional lifestyle that involved frequenting social occasions and involving himself in the use of illicit substances. He acknowledged that his contact with pro-criminal persons provided them with the opportunity to influence and motivation into committing these offences.
[WWXF] is the beneficiary of the ongoing support of his partner, who has offered post release accommodation and support in Australia. He acknowledged that the on going support of his partner is paramount to his adaptation to a lawful community lifestyle and successful re-integration, stating that he is focusing on abstinence from all illicit substance use and ceasing contact with all negative associates. Despite the geographical distance from his partner he has received frequent visits and maintains contact with family members via telephone.
[WWXF] appears to have developed insight into the criminogenic factors associated with his offending, and presents as motivated to make personal change. Whilst he is not eligible for inclusion in departmental programs, he has reflected upon his behaviour which was evident during conversation and completion of Practice Guide for Intervention Worksheets focused on offence mapping and impact of offending.
[WWXF] verbalised his apparent insight into the impact his abuse issues have had on his personal circumstances and decision-making processes. Additionally, [WWXF] identified the need to engage with community based interventions such as contact with a drug and alcohol support services for education and counselling sessions and continue to reflect on consequential thinking.
Since entering custody in 2016, [WWXF] has maintained a satisfactory level of compliance and has only incurred one institutional misconduct charge. Centre staff, describe [WWXF] as a respectful inmate. He has continued employment throughout this custodial sentence and has attracted positive case notations pertaining to his work performance and despite his immigration status has obtained approval for off complex employment with the Blaze aid crew.
Should [WWXF] remain in Australia and complete a parole period, case management will focus on strengthening relapse prevention strategies and assist him via referral to Community based drug and alcohol education and counselling sessions. Despite his immigration status, [WWXF]’s proposed New South Wales post release address has been deemed suitable should he be released from immigration detention.
Recommendation
Community Corrections recommends that a parole order is made for [WWXF], with the addition of the following conditions:
·16. The offender must;
b) not use or be in possession of a prohibited drug or substance, except those that have been prescribed for the offender
·16. The offender must;
c) The offender must also undertake and maintain AOD programs or counselling if directed to do so. lf such a direction is given, the offender must authorise in writing that his/her treating health service provider make available to the officer, a report on his or her medical and/or other conditions at all times
·32. The offender must submit to the supervision of Community Corrections in New South Wales, until such time as the offender has been removed/deported. lf the offender is release from Immigration detention or returns to Australia before the expiry of his/her order, the offender must report to Community Corrections in New South Wales within seven days.
The supervision level requirements for the Applicant were reported as follows:[132]
Supervision level
[WWXF] has been assessed at a medium low risk of reoffending according to the Level of Service Inventory- Revised (LSI-R). For the first 6 weeks following release to parole, Community Corrections supervises all new parolees at the New parolee supervision level. At this level, parolees must have weekly face-to-face contact with their Community Corrections Officer, including a home visit in the first 2 weeks.
After the first 6 weeks, Community Corrections will supervise [WWXF] at the tier 2 supervision level of the Service Delivery Standards. He will be required to report to a Community Corrections Officer every 6 weeks, and home visits will not be required. If the Community Corrections Officer identifies any concerns, the officer may revise the risk assessment and supervision level.
[132] Ibid, 170.
Counselling
The Applicant’s evidence is that for the past three years he has been having online counselling with a counsellor from the NSW Service for the Treatment and Rehabilitation of Torture and Trauma Survivors (STARTTS) and he has found it very helpful.[133] He intends to continue counselling with his counsellor if he returns to the community.[134] He explained:
[T]he most important thing is, like, to talk to someone, and to admit all the problems – when you have the problem, you have a problem, mental or – especially the mental, you have to admit, you know, you have to ask for the help. Now … I feel open to keep doing the things even outside, yes, because I’ve seen helpful it can be, like to talk to the professional people, to not hesitate to talk to those people. And they can really help you, like, in dealing with traumatic or any kind of stressful situation. And if I was, like, sceptic before, now I am good, I am tough. Now I know anytime I can reach – I can reach. And I have the good – the contacts and everything to reach straightaway for help from the professional people …[135]
[133] Transcript, 37.
[134] Ibid.
[135] Ibid, 29.
Psychological report – Dr Kala Ram
Dr Ram interviewed the Applicant via audio-visual link on 17 May 2023 for a period of four hours,[136] prepared a report dated 13 June 2023, and gave oral evidence at the hearing.
[136] Exhibit A1, 7 [2.2].
In her oral evidence, Dr Ram told the Tribunal that when she does an assessment she uses ‘a triangulation methodology’ which involves obtaining information that is taken from a number of different sources. It includes ‘a clinical interview with the client, the administration of psychometric tools, review of written records, such as the police fact sheets, a criminal history, and any psychology records that are available, and collateral information available from the family or partners of the client.’[137]
[137] Transcript, 3.
In her report, Dr Ram stated that the Applicant’s presentation is consistent with Post-traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), as it was evident from his history that he experienced ‘repeated traumatisation during his service in the military from age 15.’[138] She noted that the Applicant reported that following the war, he experienced ‘frequent nightmares, intrusive memories and flashbacks of the incidents which continue until the present day.’ In her opinion, ‘the trauma and significant, longstanding anxiety experienced during his formative years likely predisposed him to the development of PTSD.’ This was confirmed from the results from the PTSD Checklist for DSM-5 (PCL-5) and MZ’s reports.[139] Dr Ram explained that according to the DSM-5, individuals with PTSD are 80% more likely than those without PTSD to have symptoms that meet diagnostic criteria for at least one other mental health disorder (e.g., including substance use disorders). In her view, the Applicant’s ‘specific traumas appear to have precipitated his use of illicit substances, as supported by his commencement of same when he was in the military.’[140]
[138] Exhibit A1, 11 [5.4].
[139] Ibid. The PCL-5 is a 20-item self-report measure that assesses the presence and severity of PTSD symptoms. Items on the PCL-5 correspond with DSM-5 criteria for PTSD. The PCL-5 can be used to quantify and monitor symptoms over time, to screen individuals for PTSD, and to assist in making a provisional or temporary diagnosis of PTSD. A total score of 33 or higher suggests the individual may benefit from PTSO treatment. The Applicant’s score exceeds the cut-off score: Exhibit A1, 11 [5.4].
[140] Exhibit A1, 11 [5.5].
Dr Ram also found that the Applicant meets the criteria for Major Depressive Disorder with Anxious Distress, recurrent episode. She reached this view based on his self-reported depressive symptomatology as an adult, his Depression Anxiety Stress Scale (DASS) results and MZ’s reports.[141] At the hearing, Dr Ram confirmed her findings that for depression, anxiety, and stress, the Applicant is in the 87th to 95th percentile.[142]
[141] Ibid, 12 [5.6].
[142] Transcript, 7.
Dr Ram opined that the Applicant’s ‘multiple traumatic events, depression and long-standing anxiety experienced during his formative years likely predisposed him to the development of a substance use disorder as a maladaptive coping mechanism (i.e. escape from reality).’[143] She noted that the Applicant had reportedly abstained from alcohol and drugs since entering custody on 29 September 2016, and therefore ‘his substance use would be in sustained remission (meaning that none of the criteria for a Substance Use Disorder have been met >12 months).’[144]
[143] Exhibit A1, 12 [5.7].
[144] Ibid, [5.8].
In her oral evidence, Dr Ram reported that while the Applicant was in custody, he undertook various courses to address his criminogenic needs, and since he has been in immigration detention he has had ‘counselling … to address his depression and his trauma symptoms’. In her view, ‘he’s done everything he can do within his parameters to reduce his risk of relapse.’[145]
[145] Transcript, 4.
Dr Ram noted that the ‘current limbo and environment’ in which the Applicant is in ‘is likely contributing to his current depression, and anxiety scores as evident on the DASS.’ In her view, ‘[t]his state of uncertainty and helplessness is thereby likely to impede the full remission of his PTSD and depressive symptoms and in fact may be retriggering’ for the Applicant.[146] She noted that notwithstanding that the Applicant ‘continues to have a mental health diagnosis which has contributed to his prior offending, he has demonstrated insight, accountability, proactiveness and a commitment to therapy to address this criminogenic need (both prior to and following his arrest).’[147] She observed that his treatment to date ‘has been restrictive in nature insofar as the mode (i.e., telehealth) and therefore intervention.’[148] Dr Ram told the Tribunal that she believes that when the Applicant is ‘able to access psychotherapy face-to-face, he will be able to better address the PTSD.’ She explained that ‘[w]ith trauma work, you need to be able to provide a client with a safe and stable environment to do therapy, so it’s somewhat difficult to do in the current environment that he’s in.’[149]
[146]Exhibit A1, 17 [5.9].
[147]Ibid.
[148]Ibid.
[149] Transcript, 5.

In relation to the Applicant’s responsibility for his criminal offending, Dr Ram stated that his ‘early plea of guilty, and decision to refrain from alcohol and drug use moving forward is … suggestive of taking responsibility and genuine contrition.’[150] Dr Ram was asked whether she formed the view that the Applicant is remorseful for his offending. She stated:
Yes, the applicant’s definitely remorseful. He has spent the last few years thinking about what he’s done, the impact that his actions have had on his partner, his family as a result. He’s developed insight into his mental health, his alcohol and drug use, and he’s shown motivation to address those issues over the years.[151]
[150]Exhibit A1, 17 [5.10].
[151] Transcript, 13.
In her report, Dr Ram stated that if the Applicant ‘continues engagement in counselling, his prognosis remains promising and therefore his risk of recidivism is considered low (as supported by the [the Level of Service Inventory- Revised] LSI-R).’[152] She opined that the ‘additional protective factors’ that indicate a low risk of recidivism include the Applicant’s ‘strong support from his partner and family; stable accommodation; plans to resume work in his business; insight into the relationship between his mental health and secondary drug misuse; demonstrated helpseeking behaviours; sound vocational history; reported contrition; and realistic direction for his future.’[153]
[152] Exhibit A1, 12 [5.10]. The LSI-R is an actuarial assessment tool designed to identify the offenders' risk and needs with regard to recidivism. It seeks to classify an offender's risk of re-offending as well as to identify their particular criminogenic needs. Based on a social learning model of crime, the LSI-R has 54 items, which are grouped into 10 subscales: criminal history; education/employment; finances; family/marital; accommodations; leisure/recreation; companions; alcohol/drug; emotional/personal; and attitude/orientation. The Applicant falls within the Low Risk classification for re-offending (i.e approximately 11.7% chance of recidivism).
[153] Exhibit A1, 12 [5.11].
Relationship with MZ
The Applicant described to the Tribunal his relationship with MZ:
[MZ]’s my wife. I will get old with [MZ]. Like, we’ve been for long, long time now together, went through a lot of journeys. Like, she’s my rock and without [MZ], my life and my rehabilitation and – even in custody – my life in gaol was easy because of [MZ]. It’s like, I had full support from her, my family, her family – because my family is mostly overseas – and she proved – she proved, like – she is my rock. She is my – all my future, everything, is just with [MZ]. And we just try to make up to her, like, with all – she’s been waiting for six years now, six, seven and a half years, and of course I want to make up the best and what she deserves to be done for, from my side.[154]
[154] Transcript, 28.
In his statement dated 24 May 2023, the Applicant described the support he wants to provide to MZ if he is able to return to the community and live with her:[155]
My partner [MZ] has cancer and needs my support. She has been left alone to deal with this illness.
I am very concerned about her ability to make decisions clearly regarding her health. She is very upset and I worry a lot about her.
If I were with [MZ], I could give her the emotional and physical support she needs to help her recovery …
I do all that I can via the phone but that is not enough. She really needs a lot of compassion, comfort, care and understanding and she is being denied that because I am where I am. I feel as though I am letting her down which adds to my frustration and anxiety.
[155] Exhibit A3, 2 [12-15].
The Applicant told the Tribunal that he and MZ have ‘a lot of plans for the future.’ They have land in Newcastle, and they have talked about having a cattle farm.[156]
[156] Transcript, 36.
Employment plans
The Applicant told the Tribunal that he plans to work two jobs if he is able to return to the community. His day job will be with a friend who owns a tobacco importation company, and the Applicant will be responsible for supplying the chain stores.[157] He will also have the opportunity to do some work in Dubai for the company.[158] In the evenings he will work at the Flemington Market with MZ.[159]
[157] Ibid, 28, 32.
[158] Ibid, 32.
[159] Ibid, 28.
Fear of harm on return to Macedonia
The Applicant’s evidence is that he fears harm on return to Macedonia due to his military service, his dealing with terrorists during his role in the Special Forces unit of the police in Macedonia, and his role in the armed conflict during the civil war. Although his identity was protected as a member of the Special Forces unit, a French news correspondent was able to take a photo of him and this photo is publicly accessible via the internet. He claims he has been threatened and there was a ‘bounty on his head’. The Applicant’s evidence is that the terrorist he killed in 2001 is the nephew of a prominent politician and he is well known to members of the coalition government in Macedonia. He fears that if he returns to Macedonia they will try and execute him in accordance with Albanian law, and he will not be able to obtain state protection.[160]
[160] Transcript, 23.
MZ, Applicant’s partner
MZ provided two written statements dated 24 July 2022[161] and 22 May 2023[162] and gave oral evidence in person at the hearing.
[161]Exhibit A8, 8-20.
[162] Exhibit A4, 2-19.
In her statement dated 22 May 2023, she described her current state of health and her strong desire to be reunited with the Applicant:[163]
Today as I write this statement, I still have so many hurdles to overcome. My health has been adversely affected by the stress caused by the immigration saga. I have to address chemotherapy, I have to have more tests done, I have to see my gastro surgeon about a hiatus hernia that has come back, I have to start my infusions, I have to commence the monthly injections and I have to see my psychologist to try and help me through all of this. But sincerely, the one person that can help make this journey easier by being by my side is [WWXF]. My partner, my soul mate, my rock of Gibraltar, my everything. I am hoping the Senior Member can relate to what I say next... Have you ever experienced the comfort of just sitting with someone, not talking, not engaging, but just sitting and experiencing a great deal of comfort knowing that person is just there? Or that gentle and reassuring hand or hug, that brings with it a sense of calmness and tranquility? I desperately yearn for that. It is what all humans wish and long for. I have found all the qualities I love and admire in [WWXF] as a person, and as a partner but we are kept separated. I understand that laws must be adhered to. I respect that. I know that [WWXF] screwed up and we are here because of his actions. The District Court punished [WWXF], rightfully so, he broke the law. He has learnt from this, which he is expected to do and has done. I do not know what my crime is. Why am I being punished and traumatized? I am not referring to cancer, I am referring to why [WWXF] and I are kept separated and why we cannot live our lives together in Australia? What is my crime? Why can I not ask to be the supported while trying to fight for my life? Would leaving me without my family and friends be a suitable penalty for [WWXF]’s actions? Am I not an Australian Citizen who has the right to ask for help when in need? Is it right that my pleas are ignored or deemed irrelevant or insignificant? What more can I do? Please tell me. I just want to be happy and healthy, and I am trying but it is very difficult while you keep [WWXF] detained and facing the possibility of being deported.
Please know that all of this is a very difficult and heartbreaking situation for me. I just would like the opportunity to live my life without the stress and strain of my life being put on hold. Of not knowing what comes next, or where to next. Not knowing whether I will spend my life here with my loved ones or forced to live in a country where everything is foreign to me. I truly am scared. I feel as if this whole situation is paralyzing, and I do not know what to do. It's frightening and heartbreaking. It diminished the quality of my life and that of those I love. I am asking that I be considered and thought of, not neglected. I want to have the will to live, I want to have the strength to fight cancer, but the person who is most integral is all of this is being kept away from me. Please let [WWXF] come home to me where he belongs. I cannot go through anymore of these kinds of proceedings. I feel as though I have been humiliated and embarrassed and have had to pour my heart out to complete strangers who may or may not care. Please take into consideration my mother and my nieces and nephews I love so dearly, and most importantly [WWXF] who has been separated from all of us for what seems an eternity. Could you please find it in your heart to let [WWXF] come home. I don't think I could live without him any longer. Thank you for taking the time to read my letter.
[163] Ibid, 17-18 [62–64].
During her oral evidence at the hearing, MZ told the Tribunal that she is waiting to have chemotherapy, and she requires two more surgeries and possibly a third. She currently is not having any cancer treatment, but she is seeing a psychologist. She does not think she can have further treatment without WWXF, and she has ‘nothing left in the tank.’[164]
[164] Transcript, 54.
In her statement dated 24 July 2022, MZ described the Applicant’s relationship with her nephew, CVS, and her other nieces and nephews:[165]
With regards to the best interest of minor children in Australia, [the Applicant] is the Godparent of [CVS] who he very much loves and adores. [The Applicant] would care for [CVS] when his mother [ZZS] would leave him with [him]. [The Applicant] has never harmed any child nor does he have the propensity to do so. He is very affectionate and loving with the children of close relatives and friends. Therefore, he would never be a threat to any minor children in Australia. [CVS] and [I1] and [I2] frequently ask when they will be able to have fun again with [the Applicant]. They communicate with him on FaceTime in my presence and are looking forward to seeing him again. I do not have the heart to tell them that there is a chance that both [the Applicant] and I may not be able to stay in Australia. This would be heartbreaking for them. They have a great time with [the Applicant]. and should not be robbed creating memories with him. Childhood memories are their interaction with other adults shapes who they are in the future. I believe both [the Applicant] and I have a positive affect on the children.
[165]Exhibit A8, 11 [13].
MZ was asked about her view of the Applicant’s promises that he will remain abstinent from drugs. She replied:
… I don’t think it’s a promise, I think it’s a commitment that he’s undertaken and – I don’t – I don’t know how – I can’t answer for WWXF, but it must be pretty stressful for him being detained not knowing about his future, having me on the outside, feeling he’s failed me. If that’s not a big stressor to fall back into or rely on substance, illegal drugs, I don’t know what is. He hasn’t. He’s made that commitment to himself, he’s made it to me, and he’s made it to this relationship and he’s made it to, I suppose, everyone, not just – it’s not a promise. It’s not just words. It’s been proven by his actions. So it’s not like you can say, ‘He promised to do this,’ and it’s just empty words, He has shown that he’s committed.[166]
[166] Transcript, 54
ZZS, MZ’s cousin
ZZS provided two written statements dated 21 July 2022[167] and 14 May 2023[168] and gave oral evidence by phone at the hearing.
[167] Exhibit A8, 57-61.
[168] Exhibit A4, 25-29.
In her oral evidence, ZZS told the Tribunal that MZ is her first cousin and is like her older sister. She has known the Applicant for 11-12 years.[169]
[169] Transcript, 62.
In her statement dated 21 July 2023, ZZS wrote that she has not had any contact with the Applicant since he was incarcerated, however MZ keeps her updated on his well-being. In the past, the Applicant ‘has been very kind and caring and respectful’ to her, her husband and CVS. The Applicant has not met her younger son, MS. She stated that the Applicant was involved in CVS’s christening, and she previously has left CVS in the care of the Applicant and MZ. The Applicant ‘clearly cared’ for CS and ‘showed great love and showered him with affection.’ She believes that the Applicant and MZ ‘will continue be a positive impact on [her] children’s lives.’[170]
[170]Exhibit A8, 58.
VVZ, MZ’s mother
VVZ provided two statements dated 25 July 2022[171] and 15 May 2023[172] and gave oral evidence by phone at the hearing.
[171]Ibid 21-30.
[172]Exhibit A4, 20-24.
In her statement dated 15 May 2023, VVZ addressed the Applicant’s offending, and the consequences should he reoffend:
I was very concerned with his drug conviction. I have forgiven him for his carelessness and stupidity in this matter. It caused our family a great deal of embarrassment. But this is behind us all now. He is very sorry for this and most definitely will never ever do anything like that again. He knows the consequences are way too high, not only would it be an automatic loss of freedom, but it would also mean he would lose the support of our family. Consequences aside, I truly feel that he is totally reformed would never reoffend.
During her oral evidence at the hearing, VVZ was asked about what she foresees for MZ and the Applicant’s relationship if he is able to return to the community. She stated:
I think good. Very good, yes. They’ve been very good together, so they should be good if he comes out. I’m looking forward him coming out.
TK, MZ’s best friend
TK provided two written statements dated 30 July 2022[173] and 20 May 2023[174] and gave oral evidence by phone at the hearing.
[173] Exhibit A8, 78-86.
[174] Exhibit A4, 30-37.
During her oral evidence, TK told the Tribunal that MZ is her best friend and is like her sister. She provided MZ with support when she was diagnosed with cancer the second time. She was with her every day at the hospital when MZ had surgery in February 2023, and she would bring MZ home-cooked food. However, she will be working when MZ has her second operation and will not be able to visit her. She told the Tribunal that what they want is for ‘[WWXF] to be next to [MZ] for everything.’[175]
[175] Transcript, 66.
MG, family friend
MG provided two written statements dated 23 July 2022[176] and 17 May 2023[177] and gave oral evidence in person at the hearing.
[176] Exhibit A8, 62-63.
[177] Exhibit A4, 38-40.
MG told the Tribunal that he has known the Applicant and MZ since 2010. He visited the Applicant twice while he was in prison - once in Silverwater and once in Long Bay. Since the Applicant has been in immigration detention they have been constantly in touch via phone and video calls.[178] He has observed that the Applicant ‘shows a complete rejection to the way of life he was obviously leading before he was put away.’[179]
[178] Transcript, 80.
[179] Ibid, 81.
KR, family friend
KR provided a statement dated 6 June 2023[180] and gave oral evidence at the hearing by phone.
[180] Exhibit A7.
KR told the Tribunal that he has visited the Applicant on numerous occasions over the six or so years he has been incarcerated, and they speak on the phone at least multiple times a week so that he can ‘check up on him.’ He has observed that the Applicant is ‘very embarrassed for what he’s put his family, … partner, [and] his friends through’ and he is ‘very remorseful.’ He believes that the Applicant has ‘grown a lot over these years, and he’s taken full responsibility for his actions … [and] he doesn’t blame anyone’. The way the Applicant has ‘behaved while he’s been incarcerated and how he’s helped others is … proof that he’s really grown and matured as a man.’[181]
[181] Transcript, 78.
KR told the Tribunal that when MZ had her recent surgery, he flew to Sydney from the Gold Coast to be with her at the hospital. The Applicant phoned him ‘every 10-15 minutes just to see how things were progressing’. He has observed that the Applicant ‘feels extremely frustrated and helpless not being there.
CONSIDERATION AND REASONS
1)Does the Applicant pass the ‘character test’?
In the representations and documents that the Applicant submitted to the Department of and the Tribunal, he does not dispute the information in the National Criminal History Check report dated 14 December 2020 recording his criminal convictions and sentences.[182]
[182]Exhibit R1, G3, 37-38.
It records that on 3 August 2018, the Applicant was convicted of Supply prohibited drug > indictable quantity, Supply prohibited drug >= commercial quantity and Deal with property proceeds of crime < $100,000 and sentenced to five years and three months’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of three years and five months.
The Applicant concedes that he does not pass the character test by virtue of his ‘substantial criminal record’,[183] deriving from the imposition of a term of imprisonment upon him of 12 months or more.[184] It follows that the Applicant does not pass the character test, and the discretion to refuse to grant the Applicant a visa in s 501(1) is enlivened.
2) Should the Tribunal exercise its discretion conferred by s 501(1) of the Act to refuse to grant the visa to the Applicant?
[183] Migration Act 1958 (Cth) s 501(6)(a).
[184] Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ss 501(7)(d), 501(7A); ASFIC [14].
In considering whether to exercise its discretion under s 501(1) of the Act to refuse to grant the Applicant the Partner visa, the Tribunal has had regard to the following considerations as required by the Direction.
Primary consideration 1 – Protection of the Australian community
Paragraph 8.1 of the Direction provides that, when decision-makers are considering the protection of the Australian community, they:
(1) … should keep in mind that the Government is committed to protecting the Australian community from harm as a result of criminal activity or other serious conduct by non-citizens. In this respect, decision-makers should have particular regard to the principle that 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.
(2)Decision-makers should also give consideration 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.
a) Nature and seriousness of the conduct
Paragraph 8.1.1 of the Direction provides:
(1) In considering the nature and seriousness of the non-citizen's criminal offending or other conduct to date, decision-makers must have regard to the following:
a)without limiting the range of conduct that may be considered very serious, the types of crimes or conduct described below are viewed very seriously by the Australian Government and the Australian community:
i.violent and/or sexual crimes;
ii. crimes of a violent nature against women or children, regardless of the sentence imposed;
iii. acts of family violence, regardless of whether there is a conviction for an offence or a sentence imposed;
b)without limiting the range of conduct that may be considered serious, the types of crimes or conduct described below are considered by the Australian Government and the Australian community to be serious:
i.causing a person to enter into or being party to a forced marriage (other than being a victim), regardless of whether there is a conviction for an offence or a sentence imposed;
ii.crimes committed against vulnerable members of the community (such as the elderly and the disabled), or government representatives or officials due to the position they hold, or in the performance of their duties;
iii.any conduct that forms the basis for a finding that a non-citizen does not pass an aspect of the character test that is dependent upon the decision-maker's opinion (for example, section 501(6)(c));
iv.where the non-citizen is in Australia, a crime committed while the non-citizen was in immigration detention, during an escape from immigration detention, or after the non-citizen escaped from immigration detention, but before the non-citizen was taken into immigration detention again, , or an offence against section 197A of the Act, which prohibits escape from immigration detention;
c)with the exception of the crimes or conduct mentioned in subparagraph (a)(ii), (a)(iii) or (b)(i) above, the sentence imposed by the courts for a crime or crimes;
d)the frequency of the non-citizen's offending and/or whether there is any trend of increasing seriousness;
e)the cumulative effect of repeated offending;
f)whether the non-citizen has provided false or misleading information to the Department, including by not disclosing prior criminal offending;
g)whether the non-citizen has re-offended since being formally warned, or since otherwise being made aware, in writing, about the consequences of further offending in terms of the non-citizen's migration status (noting that the absence of a warning should not be considered to be in the non-citizen's favour).
h)where the conduct or offence was committed in another country, whether that offence or conduct is classified as an offence in Australia.

Having regard to paragraph 8.3(3) of the Direction, the Tribunal finds that the Applicant has strong and long-standing family and social links with Australian citizens. The Applicant has a genuine and loving relationship with MZ, an Australian citizen, with whom he has been in a de facto relationship for more than 12 years. There are numerous supporting statements before the Tribunal, including those from the witnesses who gave oral evidence at the hearing, which demonstrate that he has many supportive friends, including members of MZ’s family, who are Australian citizens.
In addition to his family and social networks, the Applicant has other social ties established during his employment in Australia, including operating his own business from 2008 to 2013. Relevantly to paragraph 8.3(4)(a)(ii) of the Direction, the Applicant made a positive contribution to the Australian economy during this period and will continue to do so if he returns to the community. He has maintained links with business associates during his time in gaol and immigration detention, and he has an offer of employment in a tobacco importation company, and he intends to resume working in the evenings at the Flemington Market with MZ.
Guided by paragraph 8.3(1) of the Direction, the Tribunal has considered the impact of exercising the discretion to refuse to grant the Applicant the Partner visa on MZ and his friends, including members of MZ’s family, who are Australian citizens. Based on MZ’s statements and her oral evidence, and the written and oral evidence of the witnesses in relation to the effect on MZ’s physical and mental health of a refusal to grant the Applicant the Partner visa, the Tribunal finds that she will experience considerable physical hardship and emotional distress if the visa is refused. The impact on the Applicant’s friends, including members of MZ’s family, will also be significant as his physical absence will mean they will have to provide MZ with considerable support during her ongoing treatment for cancer, and he will be precluded from participating in important family and social events. Given this significant negative impact of the Applicant being refused the Partner visa on the Applicant’s family and friends, particularly MZ, the Tribunal finds that this weighs heavily against the exercise of the discretion to refuse to grant the visa.
For the stated reasons and having applied the guidance in paragraph 8.3 of the Direction, the Tribunal finds that Primary Consideration 3 weighs heavily against exercising the discretion to refuse to grant the Applicant the Partner visa.
Primary Consideration 4 – Best interests of minor children in Australia affected by the decision
Paragraph 8.4 of the Direction provides:
(1)Decision-makers must make a determination about whether cancellation or refusal under section 501, or non-revocation under section 501CA is, or is not, in the best interests of a child affected by the decision.
(2) This consideration applies only if the child is, or would be, under 18 years old at the time when the decision to refuse or cancel the visa, or to not revoke the mandatory cancellation of the visa, is expected to be made.
(3) If there are two or more relevant children, the best interests of each child should be given individual consideration to the extent that their interests may differ.
(4) In considering the best interests of the child, the following factors must be considered where relevant:
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.
Paragraph 8.4(1) of the Direction requires the Tribunal to make a determination about whether refusal of the Partner visa is, or is not, in the best interests of minor children in Australia affected by the decision. If there are two or more relevant children, the best interests of each child should be given individual consideration to the extent that their interests may differ: paragraph 8.4(3).
The Applicant has no minor children. He has a relationship with MZ’s nephews, CVS and MS, aged nine and six years respectively, who reside with their parents, ZZS and her husband. Having regard to the factors in paragraph 8.4(4)(a), the Applicant’s evidence is that he is ‘important in [the children’s] development’.[199] MZ and the Applicant are the godparents of CVS who the Applicant ‘very much loves and adores’. The evidence is that the Applicant was involved in CVS’s christening, and ZZS has left CVS in the care of the Applicant and MZ. The Applicant has not met MS as he was born following the Applicant’s incarceration in September 2016.[200] ZZS and the children have not had contact with the Applicant since he went to gaol.
[199]ASFIC [49].
[200]Exhibit A8, 57-58.
Having regard to the factors in paragraph 8.4(4)(b) of the Direction, if the Applicant is released into the Australian community, he is likely to play a positive role for the children, particularly as godfather to CVS, until they reach adulthood. As the children are aged six and nine years, there are a number of years during which the Applicant will be able to contribute to their development. Relevant to paragraph 8.4(4)(c), there is no evidence that the Applicant's prior criminality has had a direct negative impact on the children. As the Tribunal has found that there is a low risk of the Applicant reoffending, there is little likelihood that his future conduct will have a negative impact on the children.
Whereas the Applicant’s relationship with MS and CVS is significant, guided by paragraph 8.4(4)(a) and (e) of the Direction, the Tribunal has given less weight to this consideration as the relationship between the Applicant and the children is non-parental, he has been absent from CVS’s life for more than six years, and has had no involvement in MS’s life, and there are other persons who already fulfil a parental role in relation to both children.
Relevantly to paragraph 8.4(4)(d) of the Direction, the Tribunal recognises that the nature of the Applicant’s relationship with CVS and MS is likely to be different if he is not residing in Australia as he will not have a physical presence in their lives. However, it is satisfied that the Applicant will be able to maintain contact with the children via phone and video calls facilitated by his partner and their aunt, MZ, irrespective of his place of residence.
There is no evidence relevant to the factors in paragraph 8.4(4)(g) and 8.4(4)(h) that MS or CVS have faced any harm from him in the past. Nor is there evidence that the children would be at risk of harm from the Applicant if he returns to the community.
For the stated reasons and having applied the guidance in paragraph 8.4 of the Direction, the Tribunal finds that Primary Consideration 4 weighs against exercising the discretion to refuse to grant the Applicant the Partner visa.
Primary Consideration 5 – Expectations of the Australian Community
Paragraph 8.5 of the Direction relevantly provides:
(1) 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 enter or remain in Australia.
(2) In addition, visa cancellation or refusal, or non-revocation of the mandatory cancellation of a visa, may be appropriate simply because the nature of the character concerns or offences is such that the Australian community would expect that the person should not be granted or continue to hold a visa. In particular, the Australian community expects that the Australian Government can and should refuse entry to non-citizens, or cancel their visas, if they raise serious character concerns through conduct, in Australia or elsewhere, of the following kind:
(a) acts of family violence; or
(b) …
(c)commission of serious crimes against women, children or other vulnerable members of the community such as the elderly or disabled; in this context, 'serious crimes' include crimes of a violent or sexual nature …;
(d)…
(e)…
(f) ...
(3)The above expectations of the Australian community apply regardless of whether the non-citizen poses a measureable (sic) risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community.
(4)This consideration is about the expectations of the Australian community as a whole, and in this respect, decision-makers should proceed on the basis of the Government's views as articulated above, without independently assessing the community's expectations in the particular case.
The effect of paragraph 8.5 is that it imputes to the Australian community the expectation that non-citizens who have permission to remain in Australia will obey Australian laws. This consideration does not involve an inquiry into what the Australian community does or does not expect, because this is normatively expressed in the terms of the consideration: paragraph 8.5(4). Rather, the relevant inquiry is ‘whether it is appropriate to give more or less weight to a deemed community expectation’ of refusal of a visa ‘that might otherwise arise simply because of the nature of the non-citizen’s character concerns or offences.’[201] As a normative expression, this consideration indicates the likelihood that community expectations will in most cases lead to refusal of a visa, without dictating an inflexible conclusion. The question for a decision-maker is the weight to be attached to this consideration.[202]
[201]FYBR and Minister for Home Affairs (2019) 272 FCR 454 per Charlesworth J [77].
[202]Minister for Immigration v HSRN [2023] FCAFC 68.
Having regard to the expectations of the Australian community as stated in paragraph 8.5 of the Direction, the Applicant has been convicted of four drug offences and one family violence offence in Australia. Having regard to the principles in sub-paragraph 5.2(2)-(5) of the Direction, the Australian community would expect that the Applicant should not be granted a visa on account of the very serious nature of the offences he has committed.
The Applicant arrived in Australia in August 2008 at the age of 32, and he is now aged 47 years. Having regard to the principles in sub-paragraph 5.2(5) of the Direction, particularly the length of time the Applicant has resided in Australia, the Tribunal finds that the Australian community would likely afford some degree of tolerance for his criminal behaviour as he has lived in Australia for almost 15 years. The Tribunal finds that the length of time the Applicant has been living in Australia is a factor that supports a finding that there is a higher level of tolerance by the Australian community for his criminal conduct than there would be for a non-citizen who has not lived in the community for an extended period. However, this tolerance would be mitigated by the fact that the Applicant has been incarcerated in gaol or detention for nearly seven years, being nearly half the time he has resided in Australia.
Having had regard to the Government’s views in relation to the expectations of the Australian community as expressed in the Direction and giving them appropriate weight, and taking into account the nature, seriousness and impact of the Applicant’s criminal offending, and the duration of his residency in Australia, the Tribunal finds that Primary Consideration 5 weighs in favour of exercising the discretion to refuse to grant the Applicant the Protection visa.
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
Paragraph 9 of the Direction sets out the ‘Other considerations to be taken into account in making a decision under s 501(1) as follows:
(1) In making a decision under section 501(1), 501(2) or 501CA(4), other considerations must also be taken into account, where relevant, in accordance with the following provisions. These considerations include (but are not limited to):
a) legal consequence of the decision;
b) extent of impediments if removed;
c) impact on victims;
d) impact on Australian business interests
While the primary considerations carry particular weight, the Direction provides at paragraph 9 that ‘other considerations’ must be taken into account by the decision-maker where relevant. Paragraph 7(2) states that ‘[p]rimary considerations should generally be given greater weight than the other considerations.’
The Tribunal notes that these considerations are ‘other’ considerations, as opposed to ‘secondary’ considerations. As Colvin J observed in Suleiman v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (‘Suleiman’):[203]
Direction 65 [now Direction 99] makes clear that an evaluation is required in each case as to the weight to be given to the 'other considerations' (including non‑refoulement obligations). It requires both primary and other considerations to be given 'appropriate weight'. Direction 65 does provide that, generally, primary considerations should be given greater weight. They are primary in the sense that absent some factor that takes the case out of that which pertains 'generally' they are to be given greater weight. However, Direction 65 does not require that the other considerations be treated as secondary in all cases. Nor does it provide that primary considerations are 'normally' given greater weight. Rather, Direction 65 concerns the appropriate weight to be given to both 'primary' and 'other considerations'. In effect, it requires an inquiry as to whether one or more of the other considerations should be treated as being a primary consideration or the consideration to be afforded greatest weight in the particular circumstances of the case because it is outside the circumstances that generally apply.
[203](2018) 74 AAR 545 [23].
In FHHM v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs,[204] Wigney J held that this analysis ‘tends to overcomplicate or over intellectualise the issue’. His Honour held that the use of the word ‘generally’ in clause 8(4) of Direction 79 (the same wording is used in section 7(2) of the Direction) ‘recognises that there may well be cases where the circumstances are such that one or more “other considerations” may be deserving of more weight than one or more primary considerations’.[205] His Honour also held that the formulation identified in Suleiman ‘is at least potentially problematic because it tends to suggest that a decision-maker cannot give greater weight to one or more of the “other considerations” in any given case unless they consider that the case is somewhat unusual or out of the ordinary’.[206]
[204][2021] FCA 775 [22].
[205]Ibid [23].
[206] Ibid.
The ‘other’ considerations relevant to the Applicant’s circumstances are considered in the following paragraphs.
a) Legal consequences of decision
Paragraph 9.1 of the Direction provides:
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 non-citizen.
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 Direction contains specific provisions relevant to non-citizens in relation to whom a protection finding has been made (paragraph 9.1.1) and to non-citizens in relation to whom no protection finding has been made (paragraph 9.1.2). A protection finding has not been made in relation to the Applicant, but he has raised non-refoulement claims.
Paragraph 9.1.2 provides as follows:
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 501C A. 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 501C A, 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 195 A 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 noncitizen makes a valid application for a protection visa, the non-citizen would not be liable to be removed while their application is being determined.

As the Applicant has raised non-refoulement claims, the Tribunal must ‘read, identify, understand and evaluate’ those claims: paragraph 9.1.2(1); Plaintiff M1/2021 v Minister for Home Affairs.[207]
[207]Plaintiff M1/2021 v Minister for Home Affairs (2022) 400 ALR 417 [9] (‘Plaintiff M1/2021’).
The Applicant fears harm if he is returned to Macedonia, specifically as a result of his service as a member of the Special Forces unit (Tigri), which was engaged in armed conflict with Albanian nationalists and the UCK.[208] He claims that the UCK was headed by the person who is now the leader of the DUI party in Macedonia,[209] which is a coalition partner in the Macedonian government. He also claims he was captured (unmasked) on video and in photographs by a French news correspondent, while he was defending a burning village under attack,[210] and thereby ‘outed’ as a member of the Tigri at the time of the conflict with the UCK.[211] He further claims he has been ‘subjected to death threats, and constant racketeering’.[212]
[208] Applicant’s statement dated 31 July 2022 [11]; ASFIC [59].
[209]Exhibit A8, 236.
[210]Ibid, 6 [11].
[211] ASFIC [59].
[212]Exhibit A8, 6, [11].
The Applicant relies on country information that reports that Macedonia is rife with corruption, and that the authorities commit numerous human rights abuses.[213] He submits that this country information demonstrates that should he be returned to Macedonia he faces a real chance of serious harm and/or or a real risk of significant harm because of his service in the Tigri.[214] Accordingly, he claims he is owed non-refoulement obligations under the Act, and this Other consideration should be given significant weight.[215]
[213]Ibid 246.
[214] ASFIC [59].
[215]Ibid [61].
The Respondent contends that the appropriate course is for the Tribunal to defer assessment of whether the Applicant’s claims engage non-refoulement obligations given the contested nature of the harm which may arise should he be returned to Macedonia.[216] Alternatively, it contends that if the Tribunal is minded to consider the Applicant’s non-refoulement claims, these should be given little weight in circumstances where the Applicant is able to make an application for a protection visa in which these claims will be fully assessed.[217]
[216]RSFIC [98].
[217] RSFIC [99].
Guided by paragraph 9.1(1) of the Direction, the Tribunal has had regard to ss 189 and 198 of the Act and finds that a legal consequence of exercising its discretion to refuse to grant the Applicant the Partner visa is that he will be an unlawful non-citizen and subject to immigration detention pending his removal to Macedonia. Section 197C provides that the obligation to remove the Applicant from Australia under s 198 is unaffected by any non-refoulement obligations he may be owed. If the Applicant were to make a protection visa application before he is removed to Macedonia, the protection claims made in this application would need to be assessed. However, the assessment of these claims will be a consequence of the Applicant’s application for a protection visa. It will not a legal consequence of the decision of the Tribunal to exercise its discretion to refuse to grant the Applicant the Partner visa. Accordingly, the Tribunal finds that a legal consequence of its decision to exercise its discretion to refuse the visa is that the Applicant will be liable for removal to Macedonia where he may face persecution or other serious harm.
The Tribunal has had regard to paragraph 9.1.2(2) of the Direction which recognises that it is not necessary at the section 501 stage for a decision-maker to consider non-refoulement issues in the same level of detail as they are considered in a protection visa application. Accordingly, the Tribunal is satisfied that it need not undertake a full and comprehensive assessment of whether the Applicant engages Australia’s non-refoulement obligations. The Applicant has made claims that will require a full assessment if he makes an application for a protection visa, which he will be permitted to make: section 501E(2)(a). On the basis of the evidence before it, the Tribunal finds that the Applicant has non-refoulement claims that require assessment prior to his removal from Australia.
For the reasons stated above, the Tribunal finds that a legal consequence of its decision to exercise the discretion to refuse to grant the Applicant the Partner visa is that he will be an unlawful non-citizen subject to detention and liable to removal from Australia, and this legal consequence is not affected by any application the Applicant may make for a protection visa. The Tribunal finds that Other consideration a) weighs heavily against exercising the discretion to refuse to grant the Applicant the Partner visa.
b)Extent of impediments if removed
Paragraph 9.2 of the Direction provides:
1)    Decision-makers must consider the extent of any impediments that the non citizen may face if removed from Australia to their home country, in establishing themselves and maintaining basic living standards (in the context of what is generally available to other citizens of that country), taking into account:
a)    the non-citizen's age and health;
b)    whether there are substantial language or cultural barriers; and
c)    any social, medical and/or economic support available to them in that country
Having regard to the factors in paragraph 9.2(1)(a), the evidence before the Tribunal is that the Applicant is aged 47 years, and he is generally in good physical health, however he suffers from PTSD and Major Depressive Disorder with Anxious Distress, and his Substance Use Disorder is in sustained remission. If the Applicant is returned to Macedonia, his separation from his partner, her family and their friends will cause him considerable emotional hardship and will negatively impact his mental health and possibly cause him to relapse into substance abuse.
Having regard to the factors in paragraph 9.2(1)(b) of the Direction, the Tribunal finds that the Applicant will not face language and cultural barriers if he were to return to Macedonia. He left there when he was aged 32 , and he speaks Macedonian. His familiarity with the language and culture is such that he would not experience significant language and cultural barriers on return.
Relevantly to the factors in paragraph 9.2(1)(c) of the Direction, as a citizen of Macedonia, the Applicant would have the same access to any social, medical and economic support as other citizens. The Direction provides that the extent of any impediments to an Applicant in establishing themselves and maintaining basic living standards is to be considered in the context of what is generally available to other citizens of that country. The standard and ease of access to these supports may not be of the same high standard and as widely available as those services are to the Applicant in Australia. The Applicant has owned and operated a restaurant and bar and therefore he has skills which should allow him to find paid employment in the hospitality industry. The Applicant’s mother resides in Macedonia, and she may be able to provide him with some practical support until he is able to find employment.
As noted above, there has been no protection finding made for the Applicant and therefore he is liable for removal to Macedonia under s 198 of the Act, irrespective of whether he engages Australia’s non-refoulement obligations. Therefore, the Applicant’s claims that he may face persecution of other serious harm on return to Macedonia is relevant to this consideration. Whereas the Tribunal has not conducted a full assessment of the Applicant’s non-refoulement claims, it accepts that for the purposes of this consideration that his fears of harm on return to Macedonia are at least plausible and may amount to a significant impediment to the Applicant re-integrating into the community and living in safety.
For the reasons stated above, the Tribunal finds that Other consideration b) weighs against exercising the discretion to refuse to grant the Applicant the Partner visa.
c) Impact on victims
The Direction states in paragraph 9.3(1):
(1) Decision-makers must consider the impact of the section 501 or 501CA decision on members of the Australian community, including victims of the non-citizen's criminal behaviour, and the family members of the victim or victims, where information in this regard is available and the non-citizen being considered for visa refusal or cancellation, or who has sought revocation of the mandatory cancellation of their visa, has been afforded procedural fairness.
There is no evidence before the Tribunal of the views of any victims impacted by the Applicant’s offending. The Tribunal has therefore given this consideration neutral weight.
d) Impact on Australian business interests
Paragraph 9.4(1) of the Direction provides:
(1) Decision-makers must consider any impact on Australian business interests if the non-citizen is not allowed to enter or remain in Australia, noting that an employment link would generally only be given weight where the decision under section 501 or 501CA would significantly compromise the delivery of a major project, or delivery of an important service in Australia.
The Applicant’s evidence is that MZ has a significant role in the berry industry in Australia from the perspective of buyers, growers, workers and innovative developments.[218] This is supported by statements from MZ, and her employer and work colleagues.[219] In her oral evidence to the Tribunal, MZ told the Tribunal that the Applicant is referred to at work as her ‘handbrake’ because not knowing what his future holds has affected her mental well-being and ability to work.[220] MZ’s evidence, and that of her employer and work colleagues, is that she could not be replaced if she were to leave and this may result in the loss of jobs, the loss of the opportunity to create jobs, and loss of income for those involved in the berry industry.[221]
[218]Exhibit A8, 34-40; ASFIC [70].
[219] Ibid, 31-40.
[220] Transcript, 54.
[221]Exhibit A8, 34-40; ASFIC [70].
The Respondent submits that this evidence is not relevant where MZ would not be required to leave her employment, or Australia, in the event that the Applicant is not granted the Partner visa.[222] Further, it contends that the Direction recognises that an employment link would generally only be given weight where the decision under section 501 would significantly compromise the delivery of a major project, or delivery of an important service in Australia.
[222] RSFIC [108].
The Tribunal finds that while the exercise of the discretion to refuse to grant the Applicant the Partner visa will adversely affect MZ’s participation in the berry industry and may cause her to leave her employment due to the negative impact on her mental health and well-being, it is not satisfied that this would significantly compromise the delivery of a major project in Australia or the delivery of an important service in Australia.
For the reasons stated above, the Tribunal finds that Other consideration c) is of neutral weight.
CONCLUSION
In summary, the Tribunal finds that Primary Consideration 1 weighs in favour of the exercise of the discretion to refuse to grant the Partner visa. The Applicant’s criminal offending is serious, particularly as it involved drug supply and family violence offences. Despite the low risk of him committing future criminal offences, the nature and seriousness of the harm that the offending would cause to the community and individuals is such that the protection of the Australian community is best served by the refusal of the Partner visa.
Primary Consideration 2 weighs marginally in favour of exercising the discretion to refuse to grant the Applicant the Partner visa as the Applicant’s family violence offending, although serious, is historic and has not been repeated.
Primary Consideration 3 weighs heavily against the exercise of the discretion to refuse to grant the Partner visa given the very significant negative impact of a refusal on the Applicant’s family and friends, particularly MZ.
Primary Consideration 4 weighs against the exercise of the discretion to refuse the Partner visa as it is in the best interests of the Applicant’s godson, CVS, and MS for him to be permitted to remain in Australia.
Primary Consideration 5 weighs in favour of exercising the discretion to refuse to grant the Partner visa as the expectations of the Australian community are that Applicant’s serious drug and family violence offences should deny him the privilege of remaining in Australia, and this is not outweighed by the duration of his residency in Australia.
In regard to the relevant Other Considerations, the legal consequence of the exercise of the discretion to refuse the grant of the Partner visa, being that the Applicant will become liable to be removed from Australia without an assessment of whether he engages Australia’s non-refoulement obligations unless he makes an application for a Protection visa, and the extent of the impediments he may face on return to Macedonia, weigh heavily against exercising the discretion to refuse the Partner visa.
For the reasons stated above, the Tribunal is satisfied that the discretion to refuse the Applicant the Partner visa should not be exercised.
DECISION
Pursuant to section 43 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth), the reviewable decision made by the delegate of the Respondent dated 21 June 2022 to refuse the Applicant a Partner visa is set aside; and substituted with a decision not to refuse the grant of the visa under subsection 501(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth).

I certify that the preceding 222 (two hundred and twenty-two) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Senior Member Dr Linda Kirk

.................................[SGD].......................................
Associate
Dated: 27 July 2023

Date(s) of hearing:

21 and 23 June 2023

Counsel for the Applicant:

Mr O Jones

Solicitor for the Applicant:

Dobbie and Devine Immigration Lawyers Pty Ltd

Solicitor for the Respondent:

Mr R Harvey, Australian Government Solicitor

62. 03/08/18	63. Supply prohibited drug > indictable quantity	64. Imprisonment 3 years and 4 months, non-parole period 2 years
65. 03/08/18	66. Supply prohibited drug >= commercial quantity	67. Imprisonment 5 years and 3 months, non-parole period 3 years and 5 months (Form 1 matters taken into account)
68. 03/08/18	69. Deal with property proceeds of crime < $100,000	70. Taken into account on Form 1
71. 21/03/11	72. Stalk / intimidate intend fear of physical / mental harm	73. s.9 bond – 12 months
74. 21/03/11	75. Possess prohibited drug	76. s. 9 bond – 12 months
77. 21/03/11	78. Supply a prohibited drug	79. 100 hours community service order
80. 01/10/09	81. Stalk / intimidate intend fear of physical /mental harm	82. s. 9 bond 12 months

Date(s) of hearing:	21 and 23 June 2023
Counsel for the Applicant:	Mr O Jones
Solicitor for the Applicant:	Dobbie and Devine Immigration Lawyers Pty Ltd
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Mr R Harvey, Australian Government Solicitor