Xiang and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship
[2008] AATA 23
•10 January 2008
Administrative Appeals Tribunal
DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2008] AATA 23
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
) No 2007/0042
GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION ) Re XIAN ZHI XIANG Applicant
And
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
Respondent
DECISION
Tribunal Senior Member M D Allen Date10 January 2008
PlaceSydney
Decision The decision under review is affirmed.
.................[sgd].......................
M D Allen Senior Member
CATCHWORDS
IMMIGRATION – application for review of decision by minister of immigration and citizenship refusing to grant partner-provisional and partner-migrant visa to applicant’s husband – character test – false and misleading statements and documents in a material particular – three primary considerations: protection of australian community; expectation of australian community; best interests of the child; and other considerations – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 sections 234(1), 499(1), 499(2), 501(1) and 501(6)(c)
Oath Act 1900
CASE LAW
Rokobatini v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (1999) 90 FCA 583
Goldie and Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [1999] FCA 1277
Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Baker (1997) 73 FCR 187
Re Wati and Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2000] AATA 984
Re Phuoc Tuog Tran and Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (unreported AAT decision No.12357)
Re Hobbins and Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2006] AATA 279
Re Beale v Minister for Immigration, Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2002] AATA 714
Re Lachmaiya and Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1994) 19 AAR 148
Re Ayaad v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2000] AATA 935
Re McKay and Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and indigenous Affairs [2004] AATA 861
Kaur v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCAFC 70
Re Su and Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and indigenous Affairs [2005] AATA 107
Cai Lian Su v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 681
REASONS FOR DECISION
10 January 2008 Senior Member M D Allen 1. By application made the 19th day of January 2007 the Applicant sought review of a decision by a delegate of the Respondent refusing to grant a combined Class UF (Partner-Provisional) and a Class BC (Partner-Migrant) visa to her husband Yue Feng Lai.
2. The application was refused on the grounds that the visa Applicant was not of good character and that the seriousness and prolonged nature of his conduct both past and present outweighed any considerations to exercise discretion to grant a visa.
3. Section 501 of the Migration Act 1958 reads inter alia:
“(1) 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.
…
(6) For the purposes of this section, a person does not pass the character test if:
…
(c) having regard to either or both of the following:
(i) the person’s past and present criminal conduct;
(II) the person’s past and present general conduct;
The person is not of good character; or
…
Otherwise the person passes the character test.”
4. Subsection 499(1) of the MA provides :
(1) 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.
5. Subsection 499(2) of the MA provides that “a person or body must comply with a direction under subsection (1)”.
This includes the Administrative Appeals Tribunal see Rokobatini v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (1999) 90 FCR 583.
6. On 23 August 2001 the Minister signed a direction issued pursuant to ss 499(1) of the MA. The direction is referred to as “Direction – visa refusal and cancellation under section 501 – No 21” (“the Direction”).
7. Subsection 234(1) of the MA provides that:
“(1) A person shall not, in connexion with the entry, proposed entry or immigration clearance, of a non-citizen (including that person himself or herself) into Australia or with an application for a visa or a further visa permitting a non-citizen (including that person himself or herself) to remain in Australia:
(a) present, or cause to be presented, to an officer or a person exercising powers or performing functions under this Act a document which is forged or false;
(b) make, or cause to be made, to an officer or a person exercising powers or performing functions under this Act a statement that, to the person’s knowledge, is false or misleading in a material particular; or
(c) deliver, or cause to be delivered, to an officer or a person exercising powers or performing functions under this Act, or otherwise furnish, or cause to be furnished for official purposes of the Commonwealth, a document containing a statement or information that is false or misleading in a material particular.”
8. Paragraph 501(6)(c) of the MA provides that the Respondent may have regard to a person’s past and present criminal conduct, general conduct, or both in ascertaining whether he or she is of good character. In this matter the Respondent has made a series of allegations against Mr Lai, which is submitted, shows that Mr Lai is not of good character.
9. Those allegations may be summed up as follows:
I. Mr Lai made, or caused or permitted to be made, statements that were false or misleading in his applications for:
(i) a Business (Short Stay) Subclass 456 visa lodged on 30 July 1998;
(ii) a second Business (Short Stay) Subclass 456 visa lodged on 4 September 1998;
(iii) a Tourist (Class Tribunal) Subclass 676 visa granted on 26 November 1999;
(iv) a Protection (Subclass 866) visa lodged on 16 December 1999;
(v) review of the decision refusing the grant of a Protection (Subclass 866) visa by the Refugee Review Tribunal lodged on 4 April 2000; and
(vi) a combined Partner (Provisional) (Class UF) and Partner (Migrant) (Class BC) visa (“Spouse visa”) lodged on 20 June 2005.
II. Mr Lai was an unlawful non-citizen in Australia from 23 October 2001 to 11 February 2005.
III. Mr Lai worked illegally in Australia from April 2000 until March 2005.
10. Both in correspondence to the Respondent and in evidence to this Tribunal, both the Applicant and Mr Lai stated the purpose he sought visas in 1998 and 1999 was to visit the Applicant who had been injured in a motor vehicle accident. No explanation was given by Mr Lai as to why initially on two occasions he applied for a Business (Short Stay) visa. A Business (Short Stay) visa is to allow the visa Applicant to come to Australia to explore business opportunities or take part in existing business opportunities. Quote obviously to make an application for this type of visa Mr Lai would have made representations as to business activities whereas he now maintains his reason for seeking a visa was to visit the Applicant.
11. As Mr Lai was not successful in obtaining a Business (Short Stay) visa, he engaged the services of a Migration Agent Mr David Deng. At Deng’s suggestion he then applied for a Visitor (Short Stay) visa. In order to obtain that visa Mr Lai acceded to Mr Deng’s suggestion that he represent himself as married. Then on 28 November 1999 Mr Lai declared in a Statutory Declaration made under the NSW Oaths Act 1900 that he had ceased to be married. Both statements were false.
12. Mr Lai arrived in Australia on 7 December 1999 on a Visitor (Short Stay) subclass 676 visa. On 18 December 1999 he and the Applicant were married.
13. On 16 December 1999 Mr Lai lodged an application for a Protection visa. Both in that application and in evidence before the Refugee Review Tribunal, he claimed to have been a leader of the Falun Gong Movement in Guangdong Province. His application for a protection visa was rejected, the RRT finding that the Applicant’s evidence lacked credibility.
14. In these proceedings on being cross-examined as to the evidence he gave before the RRT, Mr Lai blamed the interpreter at the RRT alleging that his evidence had been misinterpreted. I totally reject this assertion, particularly as misinterpretation was a common explanation whenever Mr Lai was cross-examined regarding discrepancies in his evidence.
15. Following the rejection of his application for a protection visa, Mr Lai had sought an exercise of Ministerial discretion to permit him to remain in Australia. In the letter to the Minister for Immigration seeking the exercise of that discretion, he stated that he and the Applicant had first met in 1993, when they were both in the business of office products. He also stated that the Applicant had become pregnant to him in 1995, but had had an abortion.
16. Mr Lai added in that letter:
“Later I knew she married to Australia, but she was not happy, because her husband often went to the gambling house, and often stay at his ex-wife’s home for the night. Zhi Xiang Xian was deeply hurt by the marriage. I was low spirited when I heard the bad news. When she was back to China in Aug.1997, she could not help phoning me, so we could contact with each other again from that time until she back to Australia. I found life had made us intelligent…”
17. In evidence Mr Lai stated that the information referred to in the letter to the Minister was wrong. He confirmed the Applicant’s evidence that they had first met in 1997 after the Applicant returned to China from Australia following her divorce.
18. Mr Lai also reiterated in the letter that he had been a “key leader of Falun Gong in Guangzhou”, a claim rejected by the RRT.
19. When questioned regarding discrepancies in his evidence to the Tribunal and the information in the letter to the Minister for Immigration, Mr Lai blamed the translation of his instructions to his solicitor even though, he stated that he had been able to communicate directly with his then solicitor in Mandarin. Pressed further he added “the solicitor made it up”.
20. An application for a Bridging Visa E to cover Mr Lai’s application requesting Ministerial intervention, was refused on 23 October 2001. From that time Mr Lai’s residence in Australia was unlawful.
21. Notwithstanding rejection of his application for a visa, Mr Lai remained in Australia. As at April 2000 Mr Lai had, in breach of his visa conditions, entered into employment. He continued in employment even though post October 2001 he was an unlawful non-citizen.
22. Following the successful completion of an IVF Programme the Applicant gave birth to a son Shen Shan Lai on 25 November 2004. It is not disputed that Mr Lai is the father of this child.
23. On 13 March 2005 Mr Lai departed Australia for China. Prior to this departure he had been granted a Bridging Visa E to enable him to depart. The reason Mr Lai gave to me for leaving Australia was that his mother was ill. I draw the inference that had Mr Lai’s mother not been ill, he would have remained in Australia albeit unlawfully.
24. Since returning to China the Applicant has visited Mr Lai on four occasions. In total she and the child have remained in China for periods aggregating 12 months since Mr Lai’s departure.
25. Unfortunately the child Shen Shan has not been in good health whilst in China. The Applicant says that his health has improved since they have returned to Australia and he is now attending a kindergarten.
26. Whilst in China, the Applicant was present, when Mr Lai completed his application for a Partner visa. In that application Mr Lai denied ever having been refused an entry permit or visa in Australia. Likewise he denied ever having held a Bridging Visa class E.
27. Both of the above statements were false. Mr Lai stated that the questions were misunderstood as he used a friend as an interpreter, as he could not afford a professional interpreter. Again he has sought to blame interpretation for inaccuracies in his statements.
28. According to a letter by the Mr Lai dated 5 May 2005, he and his wife had opened a Chinese restaurant in Sydney. Later after the failure of that restaurant he worked as a delivery driver for Hakka Pty Ltd. Given these activities by Mr Lai, I find it difficult to believe that Mr Lai did not have a working knowledge of English.
29. Mr Lai maintained in his application for a Protection visa and before the RRT that he would suffer persecution as a leader of Falun Gong. Since returning to China no action has been taken against him and accompanying his latest application for a visa is a certificate from the Guangzhou Notary Public Office that Mr Lai has no record of committing offences against the criminal law.
30. Reviewing the evidence in this matter I am satisfied that Mr Lai has consistently and deliberately made false or misleading statements regarding his position and his relationship with the Applicant to the Department of Immigration, its Minister and to the RRT. When asked for explanations, he has sought to blame interpreters and even accused his solicitor of “making it up”.
31. The Full Federal Court in Goldie v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (1999) FCA 127 considered the concept of good character as provided for by the MA. The Court said:
“The concept of ‘good character’ in s501 is not concerned with whether an applicant for entry meets the highest standards of integrity, but with a less exacting standard than that. It is concerned with whether the applicant for entry’s character in the sense of his or her enduring moral qualities, is so deficient as to show it is for the public good to refuse entry.”
32. Similarly in Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Baker (1997) 73 FCR 187, the Full Court of the Federal Court considered the phrase “past and present general conduct” as found at paragraph 501(6)(c)(ii) MA:
“In a comprehensive division of conduct into two categories that represent fundamental considerations in the making of a determination about character, the category that most naturally forms a dichotomy with criminal conduct, under the heading of ‘general conduct’, is conduct in general. The root meaning conveyed by the adjective ‘general’, as is made clear by the New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (1993), is the idea of universality. In s501(2), it expresses a contrast with the particularity inherent in the reference to ‘criminal conduct’. We do not think that there is any warrant for extracting, from the broad word ‘general’, a meaning that would eliminate conduct other than conduct so frequently indulged in as to be described as prevalent or usual. Just as the person’s criminal conduct on a few occasions may be very revealing of character, so also some instances of general conduct, as we understand the term, displayed but once or twice, may lay character bare very tellingly.”
33. In Re Wati and Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2000] AATA 984 the Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered the Applicant’s conduct in making false and misleading statements in his visa application when deciding whether the Applicant passed the character test. The Tribunal stated that, having considered the Applicant’s conduct, it:
“Concluded that his actions show a disposition to place his personal interests above his wider duty to abide by the migration laws of the Australian community whom he seeks to join. In the context of the Act, it seems to me that this disposition assumes a greater importance than it might in some others. This is so because the need for honesty and integrity in each individual is very important in the administration of Australia’s migration laws. Unless each Applicant shows honesty and integrity it is much more difficult to ensure that all applicants for entry are treated fairly and that their claims for entry are assessed by the same standards. It is for the public good, when viewed both internationally and domestically, that fairness and equity are maintained when there are many wishing to enter Australia and there are standards to be met.”
34. I am satisfied that at the time Mr Lai obtained a visa to visit Australia, it was his intention to marry the Applicant and remain in Australia.
35. I am satisfied that the material before me comprehensively demonstrates, and I so find, that the Applicant is not of good character as that term is explained in the above authorities.
36. In making that finding I am aware, that Mr Lai left Australia of his own accord. That occurred after four years of unlawful presence and unlawfully working. I have, as stated above, drawn the inference that but for his mother’s illness Mr Lai would still be residing and working in Australia.
37. As Mr Lai does not pass the character test, the discretion in s 501(1) MA is enlivened. In exercising that discretion I must follow and apply the Ministerial Directions made pursuant to ss 499(1) of the MA. I must have regard to three “primary considerations” and a number of “other considerations”.
38. The three primary considerations are:
(a) the protection of the Australian community and members of the community;
(b) the expectations of the Australian community; and
(c) in all cases involving a parental or other close relationship between a child or children and the person under consideration, the best interests of the child or children.
protection of the australian community
39. The Direction requires the Tribunal to consider whether Mr Lai should be refused a visa in the interests of protecting the Australian community. The harm which visa refusal prevents in this case is not a danger or risk to vulnerable members of the community. As in Re Phuoc Tuong Tran v Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (unreported Tribunal’s decision No.12357), the undue harm which would result, would be perceived reward Mr Lai would receive for his conduct. In Re Phuoc Tuong Tran (supra), the Tribunal said:
“Such a reward would be inimical to confidence in Australia’s legitimate immigration program. It is in the national interest to preserve faith in the evenness, fairness and good management of a migration program of which many thousands seek to avail themselves. It is important that the Australian Government is able to say to other applicants that they will not be permitted to profit from their lack of candour.
40. Mr Lai engaged in serious fraudulent conduct to arrive and remain in Australia, resided and worked in Australia illegally for a period in excess of five years. I find that this conduct constitutes serious misconduct.
41. Subsection 234(1) of the MA provides that a person shall not in connection with proposed entry into Australia or with an application for a visa cause to be made a statement that is false or misleading in a material particular. The penalty for breach of that subsection is stated to be imprisonment for 10 years or 1,000 penalty units, or both. That is to say that the Parliament regards the offence as a serious one, as demonstrated by the penalty imposed. In addition the Direction at paragraph 2.6(c) states that it is the Government’s view that making a false or misleading statement in connection with entry and stay in Australia is a serious crime against the MA.
42. Mr Lai has submitted that he was misled by migration agents and a solicitor. I do not accept this explanation. Although the ruse of stating that he was married was the idea of migration agent David Deng, Mr Lai agreed with it and provided a photograph of himself to facilitate the deception then swore a false Statutory Declaration.
43. Similarly I am satisfied that his evidence, both in his application for a Protection visa and before the RRT as to his involvement with the Falun Gong, was deliberately false.
44. In Re Hobbins and Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2006] AATA 279, DP Purvis AM QC stated:
“The conduct of the Visa Applicant indicated a contempt, if not a complete disregard for the law of Australia. She acted in breach of the Act. She made, or was a party to them making of false and misleading statements. She provided a bogus document. She may well have rendered herself liable to prosecution under the Act or Criminal Code. She was involved in a scheme designed to deceive immigration officials and which did deceive such officials. She consequently obtained entry into Australia, married in Australia and now seeks to use such marriage to re-enter the country. She is not prepared to bear any responsibility for the part that she played in the deceptions and seeks to place full blame upon the various agents. The Tribunal does not accept as warranted the position she seeks to assume. She demonstrated a disregard for the truth.”
To my mind a similar comment applies to Mr Lai.
45. The Direction requires the Tribunal to take into account the likelihood that the conduct may be repeated in considering the protection of the Australian community. In Re Beale v Minister for Immigration, Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2002] AATA 714 the Tribunal said:
“In considering whether or not there is likelihood that the conduct may be repeated, it is obvious that if the visa sought were to be granted, there would be no occasion for future repetition. However the risk of recidivism is not constrained in this way. If a person’s past conduct tends to show consistent or sustained evasion or breach of obligations over a substantial period of time, accompanied by the giving of false or misleading information, it is, I think, legitimate to conclude that similar misconduct may well occur in relation to other Australian law or law enforcement agencies if the perpetrator is admitted into the Australian community.”
Likewise in Lachmaiya and Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1994) 19 AAR 148 the Tribunal stated:
“…The observance of truth in dealing with officials in migration matters (particularly where the truth is known only to the person making the statement) is of fundamental importance to the control mechanism which this country exercises in visa applications… Australia can have no confidence that he would not again transgress (sic) in matters where truth and good faith could be deceptively withheld.”
46. I find that Mr Lai has repeatedly failed to be honest and fully frank with the Australian government and I also find that there is a likelihood that he would engage in similar conduct in the future. Given Mr Lai’s persistent conduct in breach of Australia’s Migration Laws over extensive period of time including overstaying and making false statements to gain entry to and remain in Australia, I find that it is likely he will again re-offend against Australian law.
47. I am also required to take into account the fact that an affirmation of the decision under review may prevent or discourage similar conduct by like-minded persons (paragraph 2.11 of the Direction). In Ayaad v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2000] AATA 935, the Tribunal said:
“Refusing an application which might otherwise have been accepted, where there has been falsity and deception, can only draw this fact to the attention of those who might be contemplating similar conduct the futility of such behaviour. The person who complies with the rules, the immigration legislation and regulations, is the one more likely to have an application favourable considered.”
Referring to the responsibility of a Court to take general deterrence into consideration in sentencing the Victorian Full Court in R v Kane [1974] VR 759 at 765 said a sentence should be such as to act as a deterrent not only to the offender but to others who might be of like mind.
48. I find that by refusing Mr Lai a visa it will prevent or discourage others, who may be tempted to make false claims in order to obtain visas.
49. Given Mr Lai contumelious disregard for the truth in making visa applications and his disregard for Australian law in working, whilst illegally in Australia the protection of the Australian community favours the non-granting of a further visa. He has demonstrated that the Australian community could not be certain of his adherence to Australian law.
expectation of the australian community
50. I find that the Australian community would expect the non-citizen in Australia would respect and abide by Australian laws and that expectation was broken when Mr Lai gave false reasons in applying for visas, gave false statements in attempt to obtain a Protection visa, and then worked in Australia knowing that he was an unlawful non-citizen and not permitted to work.
51. In this matter I agree with the approach taken by the Tribunal in Re McKay and Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2004] AATA 861, where the Tribunal stated that granting visas to “persons who systematically cheated the immigration system over a long period” would be an affront to the concept of fairness. In that matter the Tribunal continued:
“The success of Australia’s migration program, and the Australian people’s acceptance of it, rests in large part on the Act’s being administered in an organised, controlled and considered manner. The people’s legitimate expectations would be defeated if serious wrongdoing were rewarded in that way. Further, a humane approach to administering the Act requires considering the application at hand, not only in isolation, but also in the context of other applicants with similar needs and desires. Nor does it entail overlooking the important distinction between those who comply with the Commonwealth immigration laws and those who do not.”
52. I find, given Mr Lai’s past general conduct, the Australian community would expect that the decision under review be affirmed.
the best interests of the child
53. Paragraph 2.15 of the Direction states that in general, the best interests of a child will be served if the child remains with its parents. That such a proposition is almost axiomatic was accepted by the Full Court in the Federal Court in Kaur v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCAFC 70.
54. Whilst accepting that the best interests of a child is to be with both parents that does not mean that there may not be countervailing considerations.
55. In this matter the child is young and although attending kindergarten in Australia, I consider he would have no difficulty in adapting to life in China, where not only he would have his parents, but also extended family. The Applicant stated her son speaks Cantonese and understands some Mandarin.
56. I accept that medical facilities are better in Australia and that the child has become ill whilst in China. However as he grows older he may become more robust and there are medical facilities which the child has already attended in China. However I do accept the child’s lifestyle will be superior in Australia.
57. In any event the Applicant’s evidence was that should Mr Lai be refused a visa, she will remain in Australia with the child. She has, since Mr Lai’s departure, with the help of relatives visited China four times staying for extended periods. The Applicant and Mr Lai speak regularly on the telephone.
58. Whether the Applicant does return to China with the child is a matter for her. Mr Lai’s evidence was that as a foreign born child education would not be free but fees would have to be paid. As pointed out in Re Su and Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] AATA 107, even in Australia some parents pay fees.
59. Mr Lai currently obtained some part time employment from his brother. Prior to coming to Australia Mr Lai was engaged in commercial activities and no doubt he could do so again in order to support the Applicant and their child.
60. In any event the discussion of the situation of the child in China is theoretical in that the Applicant gave positive evidence that she intends to remain in Australia with the child who is an Australian citizen.
61. I find that the countervailing factors, namely the protection of the Australian community and the expectations of the Australian community as discussed above outweigh the best interests of the child.
other relevant considerations
The extent of disruption to the non-citizen’s family, business and other parts of the Australian community
62. I find that there is no evidence that Mr Lai has any business or other ties to the Australian community other than the Applicant and his child.
Genuine marriage to or de facto or interdependent relationship with an Australian citizen …
63. There is no doubt that the marriage between the Applicant and Mr Lai is genuine.
The degree of hardship caused to immediate family members lawfully resident in Australia
64. While I accept that the marriage between the Applicant and Mr Lai is genuine, I do not accept that Mr Lai’s absence from Australia causes any real hardship to the Applicant. Currently she receives Social Security Benefits for herself and the child, and stated in evidence that physically she is able to work. She has visited China in the past and there are no apparent restrictions on her doing so in the future.
65. At the time of the Applicant’s marriage to Mr Lai, the Applicant well knew he was on a visitor’s short stay visa. At the time the child was conceived she knew he did not have permanent residence in Australia and might not be able to obtain it. As pointed out in Re Su and Minister for Immigration (supra) and on appeal Cai Lian Su and Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 681 the awareness that a Visa Applicant may not be able to live in Australia lessened the weight of the Applicant’s claim to any exercise of compassion.
Family composition of the non-citizen’s family in Australia and overseas
66. No evidence was given to me that there were any siblings in Australia and Mr Lai’s family including siblings are in China. The Applicant also has family in China.
Evidence of rehabilitation and recent good conduct
67. I find there is no evidence of rehabilitation and recent good conduct so far as Mr Lai is concerned.
Whether the application is for a temporary or permanent visa
68. Mr Lai is seeking to migrate to Australia permanently on spouse grounds.
The purpose and intended duration of entry to or stay in Australia including any significant or compassionate circumstances
69. I find there are no significant compassionate circumstances. As stated above the Applicant in these proceedings well knew at all relevant times, that Mr Lai’s presence in Australia was subject to a temporary visa and that later his status had changed to that of unlawful non-citizen.
70. As stated above I find the primary consideration of the protection of the Australian community and the expectations of the Australian community outweigh any interest of the child and mitigate against the grant of a visa to Mr Lai. The decision under review is therefore affirmed.
71. Since the conclusion of the hearing in this matter I received a further written submission from the Applicant. Nothing in that document calls for any reply from the Respondent nor do its contents alter the conclusions that I have reached.
I certify that the 71 preceding paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Senior Member M D Allen.
Signed: ..........[sgd]...........
Mwela Kapapa, AssociateDate/s of Hearing: 26 – 27 November 2007
Date of Decision: 10 January 2008
Solicitor for the Applicant: Self-representedSolicitor for the Respondent: Clayton Utz Lawyers
13
0