XJGN and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship & Multicultural Affairs (Migration)
[2023] AATA 2453
•10 August 2023
XJGN and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship & Multicultural Affairs (Migration) [2023] AATA 2453 (10 August 2023)
Division:GENERAL DIVISION
File Number(s): 2023/3473
Re:XJGN
APPLICANT
AndMinister for Immigration, Citizenship & Multicultural Affairs
RESPONDENT
DECISION
Tribunal:The Hon. John Pascoe AC CVO, Deputy President
Date:10 August 2023
Place:Sydney
The reviewable decision of 18 May 2023, not to revoke the cancellation of the Applicant’s visa is affirmed.
............................[SGD]........................................
The Hon. John Pascoe AC CVO, Deputy President
CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – visa cancellation – mandatory cancellation under s 501(3A) of the Migration Act 1958 – where Applicant does not pass character test – whether there is ‘another reason’ to revoke the cancellation – consideration of Direction No. 99 – Protection of the Australian community – whether the Applicant committed family violence – links to the Australian community – expectations of the Australian community – legal consequences of the decision – reviewable decision affirmed
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth) s 499, 501
CASES
FYBR v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCAFC 185
BNGP v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2022] FCA 878
SECONDARY MATERIALS
Direction No. 99 – Migration Act 1958 – Direction under section 499: Visa refusal and cancellation under section 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under section 501CA
REASONS FOR DECISION
The Hon. John Pascoe AC CVO, Deputy President
10 August 2023
BACKGROUND:
I note the Respondent’s Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions contains a helpful factual summary of this matter, much of which is replicated below:
The Applicant is a 39 year old man who was born in Iran. He has been recognised as stateless.
The Applicant arrived in Australia as an unauthorised maritime arrival in January 2011 and has not departed since.
He was granted a Protection visa in June 2011.
As of 14 July 2023, the Applicant had the following criminal record:
Date of offence
Date of conviction
Offence
Punishment
19/7/16
5/9/16
Destroy or damage property <=$2000 (DV) – T2
$600 fine and 6 month bond
20/7/19
27/11/19
Larceny – T2
$1,500 fine
16/2/20
24/6/20
Dishonestly obtain property by deception – T1
$500 fine, $19.54 compensation
5/5/23
22/6/21
Drive motor vehicle while licence suspended – 1st off
$1,000 fine; disqualified from driving for 6 months
14/5/20
6/7/20
Behave in offensive manner in/near public place/school
Section 10A conviction with no other penalty
14/5/20
6/7/20
Deposit litter (small item)
Section 10 dismissed
15/5/20
6/7/20
Rider not wear approved bicycle helmet/fitted/fastened
$150 fine
14/5/20
6/7/20
Ride bicycle on footpath (16 yrs or older)
Section 10 dismissed
9/6/20
28/8/20
Drive motor vehicle while licence suspended – 1st off
Section 10A conviction with no other penalty; disqualified from driving for 3 months
10/6/20
20/4/21
Enter inclosed land not presc premises w/o lawful excuse
$300
10/6/20
20/4/21
Resist officer in execution of duty – T2
12 month conditional release order
21 October 2022 – call up – breach – Section 10A conviction with no other penalty
24/6/20
20/12/21
Robbery – T1
Two year community corrections order
21 October 2022 – offence called – breach – and Applicant sentenced to two years and 6 months imprisonment (aggregate) commencing 8 February 2022 with a 12 month indicative sentence for this offence
14 December 2022 – order confirmed
1/8/20
30/3/21
Possess prohibited drug
Section 10 dismissed
7/4/21
20/12/21
Goods in personal custody suspected being stolen (not m/v)
$300 fine
4/6/21
20/12/21
Licence expired less than 2 years before – first offence
$500 fine
20/6/21
23/8/21
Stalk/intimidate intend fear physical etc harm (domestic) – T2
$800 fine
10/9/21
5/8/22
Destroy or damage property
Section 10A conviction with no other penalty
26 September 2022 – order confirmed
10/9/21
5/8/22
Stalk/intimidate intend fear physical etc harm (personal – T2 (2 counts)
12 months imprisonment (aggregate) commencing 5 August 2022 for each count
26 September 2022 – order varied to 12 months imprisonment (aggregate) commencing 22 January 2022
15/11/21
31/5/22
Drive motor vehicle during disqualification period – 2nd off
8 months imprisonment (aggregate) – four month indicative sentence for this offence
20 June 2022 – order varied to 12 month community correction order
19/11/21
31/5/22
Drive motor vehicle during disqualification period – 2nd off
8 months imprisonment (aggregate) – four month indicative sentence for this offence
20 June 2022 – order varied to 12 month community correction order
31/11/21
01/12/21
Destroy or damage property
$400 fine
30/11/21
1/12/21
Destroy or damage property
$500 fine
1/1/22
21/10/22
Common assault – T2
Two years and 6 months imprisonment (aggregate) commencing 8 February 2022 with an indicated sentence of 4 months for this offence
14 December 2022 – order confirmed
8/2/22
21/10/22
Enter build/land w/I commit indictable offence – T1
Two years and 6 months imprisonment (aggregate) commencing 8 February 2022 with an indicated sentence of 4 months for this offence
14 December 2022 – order confirmed
8/2/22
21/10/22
Steal property in dwelling – house
Two years and 6 months imprisonment (aggregate) commencing 8 February 2022 with an indicated sentence of 4 months for this offence
14 December 2022 – order confirmed
8/2/22
21/10/22
Common assault – T2
Two years and 6 months imprisonment (aggregate) commencing 8 February 2022 with an indicated sentence of 4 months for this offence
14 December 2022 – order confirmed
In October 2022 the Applicant’s visa was mandatorily cancelled under section 501(3A) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act), on the basis that he had a substantial criminal record.
In November 2022 the Applicant sought revocation and provided further evidence in support.
In May 2023, a delegate of the Minister decided, under s 501CA(4) of the Act, not to revoke the visa cancellation decision.
The Applicant sought review of this decision at the Administrative Appeals Tribunal on 19 May 2023.
LAW AND POLICY:
The relevant legislation and policy is outlined below.
Section 501CA(4) of the Act states:
(4) The Minister may revoke the original decision if:
(a) the person makes representations in accordance with the invitation; and
(b) the Minister is satisfied:
(i) that the person passes the character test (as defined by section 501); or
(ii) that there is another reason why the original decision should be revoked.
In exercising the power under s 501CA(4) of the Act, the Tribunal must comply with Direction No. 99 – Visa refusal and cancellation under section 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under section 501CA (Direction 99).
On 23 January 2023 the Minister made Direction 99 pursuant to s 499 of the Act to guide decision-makers in the exercise of the power in s 501CA(4). The Direction came into effect on 3 March 2023.
Paragraph 5.2 of the Direction sets out the following principles relevant to the exercise of the discretion:
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 risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community.
4) Australia has a low tolerance of any criminal or other serious conduct by visa applicants or those holding a limited stay visa, or by other non-citizens who have been participating in, and contributing to, the Australian community only for a short period of time.
5) With respect to decisions to refuse, cancel, and revoke cancellation of a visa, Australia will generally afford a higher level of tolerance of criminal or other serious conduct by non-citizens who have lived in the Australian community for most of their life, or from a very young age. The level of tolerance will rise with the length of time
a non-citizen has spent in the Australian community, particularly in their formative years.
6) Decision-makers must take into account the primary and other considerations relevant to the individual case. In some circumstances, the nature of the non-citizen’s conduct, or the harm that would be caused if the conduct were to be repeated, may be so serious that even strong countervailing considerations may be insufficient to justify not cancelling or refusing the visa, or revoking a mandatory cancellation. In particular, the inherent nature of certain conduct such as family violence and the other types of conduct or suspected conduct mentioned in paragraph 8.55(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 risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community.
Section 6 of the Direction provides that, informed by the principles in paragraph 5.2 of the Direction, a decision-maker must take into account the considerations identified in section 8 and 9, where relevant to the decision.
Section 8 of the Direction provides that the five primary considerations are:
(a)Protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct (Primary Consideration 1);
(b)Whether the conduct engaged in constituted family violence (Primary Consideration 2);
(c)The strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia (Primary Consideration 3);
(d)The best interests of minor children in Australia (Primary Consideration 4); and
(e)Expectations of the Australian community (Primary Consideration 5).
Section 9 of the Directions provides that the four other considerations which must be taken into account where relevant are:
(a) Legal consequences of the decision;
(b) Extent of impediments if removed;
(c) Impact on victims; and
(d) Impact on Australian business interests.
ISSUE:
The parties are agreed that the Applicant does not pass the character test as defined in section 501(6). The only issue before the Tribunal is whether there is ‘another reason’ why the cancellation of the Applicant’s visa should be revoked under section 501CA(4) of the Act.
EVIDENCE:
Evidence of the Applicant:
The Applicant was born in October 1983 in Iran. He said that he was not an Iranian citizen, nor a citizen of any other country.
The fact that he was stateless had impacted his life in a variety of ways, including being able to attend school, study, or work for the government.
The Applicant has a number of siblings. His father died when he was very young, and his mother died in 2019. One brother had also died in Iraq. Two other brothers currently lived in Iraq, four sisters lived in Iran and one sister lives in Canada.
The Applicant arrived in Australia in January 2011 and spent time on Christmas Island. He was granted a protection visa in June 2011.
The Applicant said that since his arrival in Australia he had worked in a factory in Brisbane, and after moving to Sydney he had worked as a painter, and ultimately started his own painting company. The business ultimately collapsed because his business partner at the time made a serious error in relation to a painting job which resulted in significant damages being awarded against the company.
At the time, in approximately 2013, the Applicant was imprisoned, after being accused of sexual assault for which he was ultimately acquitted.
The Applicant said that he started taking drugs, he thought, in 2018 or 2019. At first, he said, he did not use all the time, but rather when out clubbing and with friends. He said he had ‘bad friends’ at the time, and that his drug use increased over time, moving from marijuana to ‘ice’. He said that drug use affected his life and that as a result of using drugs he lost most things in his life – friends, family, and his future. He said his drug use had caused him to lie, steal and get into arguments. He felt that he would not have committed the offences for which he was convicted if he had not been using drugs.
The Applicant accepted that he had been convicted of a number of serious offences. In 2019, he had been convicted of larceny, which involved stealing a phone from a woman he had approached at a shopping centre, and who had tried to assist him by allowing him to use her phone.
In June 2020, he was convicted of dishonestly obtaining goods by deception. After driving away from a petrol station without paying for $20 of petrol.
He had also been found guilty of a number of driving offences, in particular driving without a licence when he knew that his licence had been suspended.
Generally, the Applicant agreed with the police fact sheets in relation to the various matters for which he had been convicted.
Some of the most serious charges related to offences against women.
On one occasion he had robbed a sex worker of her phone after failing to pay her, and on another occasion he had assaulted a sex worker in order to avoid paying her. The Applicant denied that he had harmed the sex workers at all. In relation to the assault, when it was put to him that he had signed a set of agreed facts and pleaded guilty to that offence, he said that he did not see the facts relating to that assault.
The Applicant was also questioned in relation to an incident where he had punched his former partner, Ms B, in the face and stole her property. The Applicant said that he and Ms B were dating at the time of this incident and that the relationship had been ongoing for about three or four months. He said Ms B was using drugs at the time and that that was a contributing factor to the Applicant’s offending against her. The Applicant said that striking Ms B was not intentional, but that she was transferring money out of his bank account. The Applicant agreed that he had pleaded guilty to this offence on the basis that striking her was intentional.
When the Applicant was asked his opinion in relation to the seriousness of assaulting a woman, he said that he had ‘never raised my hand to a woman’. He also said he had never hurt a woman in his life. This assertion was directly contradicted by the evidence in relation to the crimes for which he was convicted.
The Applicant accepted the basic facts of his convictions, which involved an assault against public officials carrying out their duties, but said that there had been a misunderstanding. In particular, there was an incident in 2021 where the Applicant was being transferred to a quarantine hotel. He said he became agitated and was hitting the door of the transport because he was thirsty, was finding it difficult to breath, and had been left in the van while his transfer to the hotel was being put in place. He was COVID-19 positive at the time, and he said that he had unintentionally coughed at the officials carrying out his transfer in a small space.
The Applicant also admitted to, on one occasion, assaulting police and urinating on his cell floor without warning or request to go to the toilet. He said this was because he had been imprisoned without cause.
When questioned in relation to reports of abusing prison staff using epithets such as ‘white aussie dogs’ through the prison emergency intercom, calling a female member of the prison staff a ‘dog cunt’, and banging on his cell doors for extended periods, he said that he had been beaten and treated badly, and so he had no other choice.
The Applicant accepted that in relation to his behaviour in prison, he was not under the influence of drugs or alcohol.
The Applicant expressed remorse for his offending.
The Applicant said that he had not sought any treatment in relation to anger management, and said that he had no problem at this time. When it was put to him that his criminal history suggested that he did have an anger problem, he said yes when he was using drugs.
The Applicant had not participated in any programs in relation to drug rehabilitation and had not had any psychological treatment of any kind. Although he did say that he had seen a psychologist in Villawood for a matter unrelated to his offending. He had not initiated any treatment.
The Applicant also stated that he was not in a relationship with a ‘young lady’, contrary to the report of Mr Watson-Munro, which itself appeared to be somewhat contradictory in relation to this issue.
The Applicant said that if he were released into the community, he would live somewhere away from the people he had previously been in contact with, but he was not sure where that would be and that he would arrange it once he got out.
He said that he would work as a painter, although he did not have any job offers at the time of the hearing. He said however, that he knew people who would give him a job.
The Applicant agreed that he had no family in Australia, and that no friends or indeed, any third party had provided a statement to the Tribunal. The Applicant said this was because he was not in contact with them and did not have their contact details.
The Applicant said that his skin condition was being properly treated in immigration detention and was under control.
Mr Watson-Munro:
Mr Watson-Munro gave evidence as to his long experience and qualifications as a consultant psychologist. He said that he had assessed some 30,000 people over the course of his career.
He affirmed his report of 27 June 2023. Mr Watson Munro said he had spoken with the Applicant by telephone on 15 & 16 June, for a total of about 1 and a half hours. His report was largely based on what the Applicant had told him.
Mr Watson Munro said that he had not used any actuarial tools in making his assessment, and that if he had used actuarial testing in his assessment the Applicant’s assessed risk would be higher.
Mr Watson Munro said that the Applicant had had a traumatic childhood, and that he had grown up without a father figure. He said that the Applicant had symptoms of depression and anxiety which he said were mild to moderate at the time of his examination of the Applicant.
The Applicant was said to have substance abuse issues, but Mr Watson Munro said that he was in a state of partial remission and on the way to full remission.
He said the Applicant now has insight and that he wants to reform. Mr Watson Munro felt there was no current need for pharmaceutical treatment but that he would benefit from cognitive behavioural therapy and social skills training.
Mr Watson-Munro assessed the Applicant’s risk of re-offending as moderate trending to low but said the caveat on that assessment was an intensive treatment plan including weekly psychotherapy.
Mr Watson Munro referred to various protective factors which would be important for the Applicant remaining at a moderate to low risk, including maintaining relationships and remaining drug free. If any of these supporting factors were to fall away the Applicant would be at higher risk of re-offending.
The Applicant was said to have learned from his offending and was said to be now very aware of the consequences of re-offending.
DECISION:
PRIMARY CONSIDERATION 1 – PROTECTION OF THE AUSTRALIAN COMMUNITY
In considering this primary consideration, I have had regard to paragraph 8.1 of Direction 99.
There are two limbs to this consideration:
(a)the nature and seriousness of the conduct of the non-citizen; and
(b)the risk to the Australian community should the non-citizen re-offend.
The nature and seriousness of the offending:
The Applicant has a long criminal history, with many of his offences involving assault or theft from vulnerable people, assault of public officials in the course of their duties, offences against women and domestic violence offences. His offences separately and cumulatively must be taken very seriously.
The offence for which his visa was cancelled occurred when he was being transported to a quarantine hotel during COVID. At the time the Applicant was COVID positive, and in summary, had attempted to kick the doors of the transport van open, and afterwards removed his mask and coughed in a shared, enclosed space.
The Applicant’s conduct exposed the transporting officials to the risk of serious harm at a time when COVID was considered a public health emergency. It is not an excuse that the conduct occurred because the Applicant was thirsty and uncomfortable.
I note that a number of his offences were committed against sex workers, whom he had engaged for sexual activity. The assaults were carried out against the women after these services had been performed, and with the Applicant refusing to pay. Given the victims were young women, and in one case at least, a foreign national, and very vulnerable, they were clearly very frightened. It did not help the Applicant that at the hearing he continued to deny punching one of his victims in the back of the head when she was sitting in front of him in a moving vehicle because he wanted to get out. He had been found guilty of this offence in the criminal courts.
His domestic violence offences involved assault and robbery. Although at the hearing the Applicant said that he respected women, his criminal convictions demonstrated otherwise. He showed a complete lack of respect for the sex workers he had engaged and for his domestic partner. It is also relevant that he abused female prison staff using epithets such as ‘dog cunt’.
The Applicant’s many driving offences also demonstrate a complete lack of respect for the law. The evidence demonstrates clearly that he continued to drive when he was aware that he did not have a licence to do so.
The risk to the Australian community should the Applicant re-offend:
In assessing the risk the Applicant poses to the community I take into account the evidence of Mr Watson Munro that on his assessment, the Applicant is a moderate to low risk to the community, but that in the absence of the various protective factors to which he referred the Applicant would be at higher risk. Further, Mr Watson Munro stated that if actuarial methods had been used to assess the Applicant’s risk, he would have been rated at a higher level of risk.
The Applicant has not sought treatment for anger management, although his behaviour, for example – towards the transporting officials, and prison officials, indicates that he has a serious problem with anger management, and that it is not a problem related only to drug use. In fact, on the evidence, the Applicant demonstrates a complete lack of self-control as demonstrated, for example, in the prison incident reports, and when being transported to the quarantine hotel September 2021.
The Applicant’s bizarre and unacceptable behaviour at times when he said he was not on drugs is a clear indication of the need for treatment. In this regard, I note that Mr Watson Munro said that the Applicant needed an intensive treatment plan in relation to his psychological health. There was no evidence of any such plan being put in place, and in fact, the evidence was that the Applicant had not sought any psychological help, including in detention at Villawood, where such assistance is available.
I was also very concerned that although the Applicant said that he respected women, all of his behaviour demonstrated the contrary. On many occasions, his victims were women who were extremely vulnerable. The Applicant showed them no consideration and no respect at all.
There was nothing in the evidence to indicate that his behaviour towards women would change if he were to be released into the community. It is not enough for the Applicant to say that all of his offending was due to drug use, especially as he gave evidence that he was not using drugs at the time a number of incidents occurred.
In light of all of the evidence, I find that the protective factors referred to by Dr Watson-Munro are not present at this time. Accordingly, in my opinion the Applicant is, on the most favourable assessment, at moderate risk of re-offending.
On the basis of all of the relevant evidence, I give this consideration very heavy weight against revocation of the delegate’s decision.
PRIMARY CONSIDERATION 2 – FAMILY VIOLENCE
All family violence must be taken very seriously. It was of concern that the Applicant said that he had never raised a hand against a woman, when he had been convicted of violent acts against women, including his former partner. It was also of concern that the Applicant sought to minimise the seriousness of his offending by putting some of the blame on the victim because of her drug use, although I accept that the relationship between the parties was very dysfunctional.
The fact sheet in relation to this matter shows that the Applicant entered the victim’s home without permission, punched her in the face, took two portable speakers from the bedroom and ran away.
Although the Applicant gave a different version of events at the hearing, he had, in fact, pleaded guilty to this offence and was convicted.
I give this consideration heavy weight against revocation of the delegate’s decision.
PRIMARY CONSIDERATION 3 – THE STRENGTH, NATURE AND DURATION OF TIES TO AUSTRALIA
The Applicant’s representative argued strongly that the Applicant had close ties to Australia. The Applicant has lived in Australia for approximately 12 years and has a history of working and building a business, which he may not have lost had he not been imprisoned on a charge that was ultimately not substantiated.
I accept that the Applicant has skills as a painter and that he developed a business which was lost as a result of a serious error on the part of his business partner, resulting in substantial damages claims, and which occurred while the Applicant was in prison.
There was no evidence that the Applicant worked regularly as a painter after the collapse of the business.
The Applicant has no family in Australia. He did not have any definite offer of employment, although he said he could approach people, if released, who could offer him employment. No details of any potential employer were provided to the Tribunal.
The Applicant said that he was not in any relationship, and he also did not have any certainty as to where he would live if released from detention. The only consideration seemed to be a desire not to live near the people he regarded as previously having been a bad influence.
There is no evidence of the Applicant being a member of a social or sporting group.
The only relationship of which there is any evidence before the Tribunal ended with violence, and was only of a brief duration.
It is troubling that the Applicant arrived in Australia at the age of approximately 28 and apart from the limited evidence as to his painting business, did not appear to have developed any social networks, sporting, religious or emotional ties in Australia over the ensuing 12 year period. Although he said he had friends, he said he did not have contact details for any of them. No one gave any statement or evidence in support of the Applicant.
Overall, I give this consideration low to moderate weight in favour of revocation.
PRIMARY CONSIDERATION 5 – EXPECTATIONS OF THE AUSTRALIAN COMMUNITY
Direction 99 sets out the expectations of the Australian community. Broadly, these encapsulate the findings of the Federal Court in FYBR v Minister for Home Affairs FCAFC 185, where the Full Court decided by majority that it is not for the decision-maker to assess the expectations of the Australian community for the purpose of applying this consideration. Rather, the expectations of the community that decision-makers are required to consider are set out in direction at paragraph 8.5.
Although the Australian community has shown itself to be compassionate towards refugees, and to have a degree of tolerance for those that have suffered trauma resulting in behavioural issues, Direction 99 makes it clear that there is limited or no tolerance for many aspects of the Applicant’s behaviour. There is limited tolerance for repeated offending against public officials in execution of their duties, family violence, and crimes against women.
In apportioning weight to this consideration, I have regard to the Applicant’s traumatic background, and the fact that he has faced some adversity in Australia, along with his criminal history and the nature of the crimes for which he has been convicted.
I give this consideration heavy weight against revocation.
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS:
Legal consequences of the decision
It was accepted by both parties that a decision to affirm the delegates decision would, or may, result in the Applicant being detained for an indeterminate or indefinite period of time. I accept the evidence of Mr Watson-Munro that this would have deleterious consequences for the Applicant’s mental health.
In relation to his physical health the evidence was that his allergic condition is being well managed and treated in detention.
The Respondent drew the Tribunal’s attention to the non-compellable powers of the Minister and to the comments of the Federal Court in the case of BNGP v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2022] FCA 878, where the court stated that contemplating the possibility that a Minister might exercise these powers in the future is not irrational and does not lack good faith. In relation to the Respondent’s argument in this regard, the Applicant drew the Tribunal’s attention to current policy in relation to the Minister’s non-compellable powers.
I accept the argument on behalf of the Applicant that he will not be returned to Iraq, or Iran, and that no third country is likely to accept him.
I also accept that he has served his sentence in the criminal justice system and that the potential deleterious consequences of indefinite detention cannot be underestimated.
I give his very heavy weight in favour of revocation of the delegates decision.
CONCLUSION:
In weighing the evidence overall, I am reluctantly of the view that, considered as a whole, the weight of evidence is in favour of non-revocation of the delegates decision.
Those factors which weigh in favour of the Applicant including the legal consequences of the decision, to which I give very heavy weight, are not sufficient to outweigh those considerations, including primary considerations, which weigh against revocation of the cancellation decision.
Accordingly, the reviewable decision of 18 May 2023, not to revoke the cancellation of the Applicant’s visa, is affirmed.
I certify that the preceding 95 (ninety - five) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of The Hon. John Pascoe AC CVO, Deputy President
..............................[SGD]......................................
Associate
Dated: 10 August 2023
Date(s) of hearing: 2 & 3 August 2023 Solicitors for the Applicant: Mr Checker McCarthy Solicitors for the Respondent: Ms Cody Allen
0
1
0