YLFR and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (Migration)

[2021] AATA 612

YLFR and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (Migration) [2021] AATA 612 (19 March 2021)

Administrative Appeals Tribunal

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL              )
  )   No: 2020/5716
GENERAL DIVISION  )

Re: YLFR
Applicant

And: Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs
Respondent

DIRECTION

TRIBUNAL:  Member R Bellamy

DATE OF CORRIGENDUM:            23 March 2021

PLACE:           Brisbane

The Tribunal directs the Registrar, pursuant to subsection 43AA(1) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth), to alter the text of the decision made on 19 March 2021 such that the File Number on page 1 reads ‘2020/5716’.

........................[SGD].......................

Member R Bellamy

Division:GENERAL DIVISION

File Number:          2017/5406

Re:YLFR

APPLICANT

AndMinister for Immigration and Border Protection

RESPONDENT

DECISION

Tribunal:Member R Bellamy

Date:19 March 2021

Place:Brisbane

The decision under review is set aside and substituted, such that the Tribunal finds the visa applicant passes the character test under section 501(6) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) and his application for a Visitor (Class FA) visa should not be refused under s501(1) of the Act.

.................[SGD]...................................

Member R Bellamy

CATCHWORDS

MIGRATION – visa refusal – whether Applicant fails character test under s 501(6) – whether not of good character – whether more than minimal or remote risk of reoffending – historical offences committed when intoxicated – strong evidence of reform and rehabilitation – decision set aside and substituted.

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958 (Cth)

SECONDARY MATERIALS

Direction No 79 – Visa refusal and cancellation under s501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under s501CA

REASONS FOR DECISION

Member R Bellamy

19 March 2021

INTRODUCTION

1. On 8 January 2020, “Mr B” applied for a Visitor (Class FA) visa (“the visa”).[1]  Mr B normally resides in the United Kingdom. On 24 July 2020, a delegate of the Minister (“the Respondent”) notified Mr B of the intention to refuse the visa application on character grounds.[2] The notice informed Mr B that the Respondent intended to consider whether there were grounds to refuse the visa on the basis that there was a risk that Mr B would engage in criminal conduct in Australia. In response, Mr B provided a Personal Circumstances form on 30 July 2020.[3] On 10 September 2020, the Respondent refused to grant the visa under s 501(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (“the Act”) on the grounds that Mr B did not satisfy the character test.[4]

   [1] Exhibit G1, Section 37 Documents, T7, page 141 to 152.

   [2] Ibid, T5, page 29

   [3] Ibid, T8, pages 153 to 166.

   [4] Exhibit G1, Section 37 Documents, T2, page 13.

2. In this case, an application for review of the decision by the Tribunal may only be made by the relative that Mr B intends to visit, being his son. On 21 September 2020, the Applicant sought review of the decision. The Tribunal has jurisdiction to review the decision pursuant to s 348 of the Act. Mr B’s son is the Applicant in this application for review, and I will refer to him in these reasons as “the Applicant”. Mr B is the visa applicant and I will continue to refer to him as “Mr B”.

3. The hearing of this application proceeded on 11 March 2021. Mr B, his wife “Mrs B” and the Applicant gave evidence via video conference. The Tribunal also received the written evidence that is listed in the attached exhibit list, marked “Annexure A”.

   BACKGROUND

4. Mr B was born in 1962 and is a citizen of the United Kingdom. In 1982, he formed a relationship with “Mrs B” and they had two children together, being the Applicant (born in 1983) and a daughter (born in 1985). They remain together, living in the United Kingdom. 

5. The Applicant moved out of his parents’ home in 2000. He married and had three children, born in 2007, 2009 and 2010 respectively. The Applicant, his wife and their children relocated to Australia in 2015. The Applicant is an Australian citizen who serves in the Australian Defence Force. His three children are Australian citizens. The Applicant’s sister, who also has children, remained in the United Kingdom. Mr B and Mrs B wish to travel to Australia for a holiday to spend time with the Applicant and his family.        

6. A Police Certificate from the Criminal Records Office of the Police service in the United Kingdom[5] shows that between May 2005 and September 2009, Mr B committed 12 criminal offences. There are no entries prior to May 2005 or after September 2009. The 12 offences were:

   [5] Ibid, T3.

   ·     battery (x2) on 7 May 2005, for which he received a caution;

   ·     common assault on 22 October 2007, for which he received a caution;

   ·     battery on 15 November 2007, for which he received “community order 24 months”;

   ·     driving a motor vehicle with excess alcohol on 4 May 2008, for which he was disqualified from driving and required to complete a drink-driving rehabilitation course;

   ·     battery (x2) on 4 May 2008, for which he received a “conditional discharge two years”;

   ·     battery on 6 June 2008, for which he received a “community order supervision requirement for 24 months program requirement 60 days”;

   ·     breach of conditional discharge (x2) on 2 July 2008, for which he received a “community order supervision requirement 60 days”;

   ·     sending a letter or other article conveying a threat on 28 March 2009, for which he received a “community order program requirement 60 days residence requirement six months supervision requirement”; and

   ·     battery on 9 September 2009, for which he received a community order supervision requirement.

7. The Police Certificate does not contain details of the offences and there is no other independent evidence of the factual basis of Mr B’s offending before me. What can be gleaned from the Police Certificate is that the penalties for the violent offences and the threat were all either cautions or community-based orders, despite Mr B’s repeated offending. Those penalties suggest that the offending was considered by the sentencing courts to be at the lower end of the range of seriousness. Aside from that, I am reliant on the accounts of the offending given by Mr B and his wife which, taken together, I find credible and I accept.

8. In January 2010, Mr B suffered a brain injury that affected his memory. He said he only has clear memories of events until around the age of 18 and that his memory of the offences he committed is very hazy. However, he has been told about the offences by several people. He was told about the first violent offence by Mrs B, his sisters and his daughter. He believes he was probably drunk at the time, was involved in a shouting match with Mrs B and that he “hit out at her”.[6] He said he believed that the rest of the offences against his wife were “basically the same” from what he had been told.[7] He said he was drinking “far too much at the time”.[8]

   [6] Transcript, page 8, lines 1 to 13.

   [7] Ibid, lines 14 to 18.

   [8] Ibid, line 26.

9. In a written statement[9], Mrs B had said:

   “…unfortunately [Mr B] was involved in a road traffic accident, as a predestrian (sic), in January 2010, where he sustained significant injuries including a head injury which as (sic) left him with an aquired brain injury. As a consequence of this he has short and long-term memory problems and cannot remember anything that has happened in his life after the age of 16…I remember that there was a drink-driving offence and he received a ban for this and the majority were against me domestic violence and were due to excessive alcohol abuse. He was only ever violent when he had been drinking for 99% of the time he was a very placid person. Since his accident he no longer drinks excessively.”

   [9] Exhibit G1, Section 37 Documents, T9, page 167.

10. In the hearing, Mrs B said the violent offences were committed against her and they were “all the same type of incident”.[10] She said:

    “What had happened is is that [Mr B] would have a lot to drink, then would get verbally more aggressive and he’d start saying that it was all – you know – it was my fault that – you know – that he was doing these things. And then a lot of it was that he’d push me. He’d either came to me and actually catch me and he caused me some bruising but they’re all usually of the same thing. That he’d drink a lot. I’d go up to bed. Got in bed asleep and he couldn’t wake me up and he’d start shouting. I tried to then leave and that’s when he would sometimes get physically aggressive with me.” [11]

    [10] Transcript, page 16, lines

    [11] Ibid, lines 9 to 19.

11. When asked about the shoving, she said “He was just like pushing me, you know.  Tried to stop me leaving, really”. When asked if Mr B pushed her against anything, she said:

    “Usually if – sometimes it was near a wall but usually he was just pushing me out. You know?  To stop me going out the front door because we have a long – we have a hallway.”[12]

    [12] Ibid, lines 22 to 25.

12. When asked how Mr B would “catch her”, she said:

    “With his hands or his fists. You know. He’d actually catch me. You know?  Sometimes on the arm. Sometimes on the chest. Never really on the face or anything but usually on the arms or the chest.”[13]

    [13] Ibid, lines 26 to 30.

13. Mrs B added that she usually called 999 (the emergency number in the United Kingdom) during these incidents. Mr B never tried to stop her doing that. When she called 999, Mr B calmed down and when the police arrived, he let them in and “He admitted every time what he had done”.[14]

    [14] Ibid, lines 38 to 46.

14. The two breaches of conditional discharge arose from Mr B attending the family home when he was not allowed to. Mrs B called the police and he left. [15] This appears to relate to a period of around two months when Mr B, by court order, had to stay away from the family home so he lived with the Applicant.[16]

    [15] Ibid, page 20, lines 14 to 19.

    [16] Ibid, page 22, lines 34 to 41.

15. Mrs B described the offence entitled “Sending a letter or other article conveying a threat” as follows:

    “He’d left a message on the answer phone, just saying that I was a bitch and I was – you know, it was all my fault and he was just quite threatening in how he was saying it, so I just reported it.”[17]

    [17] Ibid, page 20, lines 24 to 26,

16. The drink-driving offence occurred at around 12.30pm when Mr B was driving to watch a football match, after having consumed alcohol the night before. He did not realise that he was still affected by alcohol at that time.[18]

    [18] Ibid, page 12, lines 35 to 39; page 17, lines 18 to 30.

17. As part of his community order, Mr B had weekly meetings with a probation officer and he spoke with a psychologist. He had been molested as a child and has clear memories of this. It appears that, from speaking with the psychologist, he came to believe that he had been abusing alcohol to block out the memories. When I asked Mrs B if she was aware of the abuse before Mr B engaged in this counselling, she said she was although she did not ask him about it before then.[19] I am satisfied that Mr B self-medicated with alcohol. Mr B has not sought counselling to deal with the abuse.[20] However, he talks about it a lot more now than he used to. He talks with Mrs B, his daughter and his sisters (who were also victims).[21]   

    [19] Ibid, page 8, line 26 to page 9, line 8; page 17, lines 34 to 44.

    [20] Ibid, page 9, lines 10 to 13.

    [21] Ibid, lines 13 to 24.

18. In a written statement, dated 22 November 2020,[22] Mr B said:

    “These incidents where during a short period of my life and do not reflect the reality of my life before or since then with the majority of my adult life showing no incidents occurring. I think that my behaviour then would have been impacted by my alcohol consumption and will have impaired my judgement including being able to fully process the implications of my behaviour. However, since 2009 and particularly since my road traffic accident in 2010, I have reduced my alcohol intake and now only drink moderately in social situations when out with my wife and therefore, I do not feel that I am going to relapse into drinking excessively again as I have not done so for a long time.”

    [22] Exhibit A2, Statement of the visa applicant dated 22 November 2020.

19. In the hearing, I asked Mr B why he stopped offending after September 2009. He said:

    “I think I got my drinking under control...Well, I’ve actually cut it completely out now.  Over the years I have slowly worked at putting [it] out of my system.”

20. I then asked Mr B why he did that, to which he replied:

    “What I did. It always came back to the fact that I was drinking too much. So I worked it out myself that if I was to get back to a bit of normal life that I’d have to really bring the alcohol under control and not let it control me.” [23]

    [23] Transcript, page 9, lines 26 to 44.

21. Mr B saw his doctor in his efforts to reduce his drinking, and that when he had his drinking under control; he consumed around two to three drinks each night. He said he probably had an alcohol addiction at the time.[24]

    [24] Ibid, page 9, line 40 to page 10, line 11.

22. When Mrs B gave evidence, I asked her why Mr B had stopped offending after September 2009. She said:

    “I think it was because we had a long discussion about the – if he was carrying on then that would be it, I would go and I wouldn’t come back.  And I think that we’re more important to each other than – you know – getting divorced and that was my big thing that I said to him, that if he carried on then that would be it.  He would be on his own…I think if we didn’t have each other I think we would struggle.  Both of us would struggle because we have been together so long.”[25]

    [25] Ibid, page 18, lines 15 to 25.

23. According to Mrs B, Mr B has not consumed alcohol to excess or engaged in any aggressive behaviour since the last offence in September 2009.[26]

    [26] Ibid, page 18, lines 26 to 27.

24. There is medical evidence before me indicating that in July 2019, Mr B reported that he consumed 42 units of alcohol per week. The Respondent quite reasonably expressed concern about this, and asked Mr B about it in the hearing. Mr B said he thought he had reported how many drinks he consumed, and he thinks that was converted to units by the person he reported it to. He thought he reported around 20 pints per week.[27] That still seems a lot; however that level of alcohol consumption has not led to any offending or aggression. Mr B now does not drink at all. He stopped in October 2020 for medical reasons.[28]

    [27] Ibid, page 13 line 33 to page 14, line 7.

    [28] Ibid, page 18, lines 30 to 29.

25. Mr B was granted a visa to visit Australia in 2016. He and Mrs B visited the Applicant and his family. Mr B said he consumed alcohol on this trip when they went out for meals.[29] There is no evidence that Mr B committed any offences or engaged in any kind of anti-social behaviour while he was here during that time.

    [29] Ibid,  page 10, lines 22 to 29.

26. Mr B was again granted a visa to visit Australia in January 2018. He and Mrs B visited the Applicant and his family, and during their visit they took the Applicant’s three children to the Gold Coast for a week where they visited some theme parks.[30] According to Mrs B, they did things together, and Mr B supervised the children, cooked for them, and went on rides with them.[31] Mr B consumed alcohol on that trip but he said he did not drink to excess.[32] Again, there is no evidence that Mr B committed any offences or engaged in any kind of anti-social behaviour during this visit.

    [30] Ibid, page 11.

    [31] Ibid, page 19, lines 17 to 24.

    [32] Ibid, lines 38 to 45.

27. I am satisfied that Mr B has not committed any offences, or engaged in aggressive behaviour, in the United Kingdom or Australia since September 2009.  

28. In February 2018, Direction 65 was replaced with Direction 79. Direction 79 emphasises that violence, particularly violence against women and children, is considered very serious such that the Australian Community generally expects that a person who has committed offences of that nature would not be permitted to enter or remain in Australia.

    ISSUES

29. The issues for this Tribunal to consider are:

    (a)whether Mr B passes the character test as defined in s 501(6) of the Act; and

    (b)if he does not pass the character test, whether the discretion in s 501(1) of the Act should be exercised to refuse to grant the visa.

    CHARACTER TEST

30. The first issue I must consider is whether Mr B passes or fails the character test as defined in s 501(6) of the Act.

31. The Respondent contended that Mr B does not pass the character test on two separate and independent grounds, found in subsection 501(6)(c) and subsection 501(6)(d)(i) of the Act, respectively. It was not contended by the Respondent that any other subsections of s501 (6) apply and I am not satisfied that any do.

    Whether Mr B is “not of good character”

32. Subsection 501(6)(c) of the Act provides:

    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.

33. In applying this subsection, I am guided by paragraphs 5 and 5.1 of section 2 of Annex A of Ministerial Direction No. 79 (“the Direction”). Of particular relevance are the following parts of paragraph 5:

    (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] ‘the words “of good character” mean enduring moral qualities reflected in soundness and reliability in moral judgement in the performance of day-to-day 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.’

    (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.

34. Paragraph 5.1 relevantly states:

    (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 judge’s 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.

35. Apart from the instance of drink-driving, Mr B’s offending consists solely of domestic violence and an abusive phone call. Mr B was verbally aggressive to Mrs B, and when she tried walk away, he shoved her and sometimes struck her with his open hand or fist. She said he never tried to stop her from calling the police and when the police came he admitted to what he had done. On the spectrum of domestic abuse, the nature and severity of Mr B’s conduct was at the lower end. However, that is not to say it was not serious. All abuse within relationships is abhorrent and unacceptable, in all of its forms, to any degree. Even lower-level abuse can cause psychological and emotional damage to the victim in terms of stripping them of their sense of security and/or self-worth, not to mention the potential collateral damage to other family members.

1. Mr B committed 12 offences between May 2005 and September 2009. This is frequent offending, although I do not discern a trend in increasing seriousness.

2. The cumulative effect of Mr B’s repeated offending was that over a four year period, Mrs B was subjected to verbal and physical aggression on several occasions. It reached the point where, Mrs B, despite feeling that she needed Mr B, she was prepared to end their long-term relationship if Mr B continued to treat her that way.   

3. Mr B’s domestic abuse offences all occurred when he was intoxicated. The drink-driving offence occurred after he had been intoxicated the previous evening and I accept that it was unintentional. Mr B’s offending is inextricably linked to his abuse of alcohol, and there is no evidence of him committing offences when not intoxicated.

4. Prior to 2005, Mr B had not committed any offences. His offending does not display a pattern of continued or blatant disregard or contempt for the law. Rather, it displays a predisposition to verbally and physically abuse his wife when intoxicated. After his most recent offence in September 2009, he took steps to reduce his alcohol intake because he realised his abuse of alcohol precipitated his offending. In October 2020, he stopped consuming alcohol. He has not offended or engaged in aggressive behaviour since September 2009.

5. In these proceedings, Mr B did not seek to deny, minimise, justify or excuse his offending. Nor did Mrs B or the Applicant, which is relevant because if they had, it would have given me cause for concern that perhaps Mr B had sought to minimise or justify his offending to them.

6. The Respondent contended that Mr B has not demonstrated a sufficient level of insight into his offending because he “does not accept that his offences were serious” because he pointed out that the punishments received were all non-custodial. However, Mr B did acknowledge that “the incidents are of a serious nature” and he said that the non-custodial punishments should indicate that they were not of “an extremely serious violent nature”[33], which is accurate.

   [33] Exhibit A2, Statement of the visa applicant dated 22 November 2020.

7. Mr B did not seek to make anything out of the abuse he suffered as a child: he mentioned it only in response to a question from the Tribunal and he did not dwell on it. I am satisfied that Mr B accepts full responsibility for his offending and that he considers that he, and only he, is responsible for making sure he does not re-offend in the future. He has proven his commitment by going eleven years without abusing alcohol, offending or exhibiting any kind of aggression. This is very strong evidence that he has reformed and is now of good character. Mrs B does not have any concerns that Mr B will revert to excessive drinking or aggressive behaviour.[34] Her evidence is backed up by her actions: she was prepared to end her relationship if that behaviour continued yet she remains married to him.   

   [34] Transcript, page 19, lines 26 to 27.

8. In addition, Mr B’s daughter and one of her own daughters, who live in the United Kingdom, have provided letters in which they describe Mr B in very positive terms.[35] Mr B’s daughter asserts that Mr B is remorseful and that the offending reflected a period in Mr B’s life when he was struggling to cope. She says Mr B sees her children almost every day and she trusts him completely with them. Mr B’s granddaughter describes a very loving, kind, caring grandfather who has never displayed any aggression in her presence. Of course, these witnesses are not impartial; however I do give some weight to their evidence.      

   [35] Exhibit A6 Statement of the visa applicant’s daughter dated 15 November 2020; Exhibit A7, Statement of the visa applicant’s granddaughter dated 15 November 2020.

9. For the first 25 years of Mr B’s adult life he did not commit any offences. I am not satisfied that his offending during 2005 to 2009 is sufficient to indicate a lack of enduring moral quality that outweighs his good behaviour in the past 11 years. I am not satisfied that having regard to Mr B’s past and present criminal conduct, he is not of good character. 

10. There is no evidence of any non-criminal “past and present general conduct” that could suggest that the Applicant is not of good character.     

11. Mr B does not fail the character test under s 501(6)(c) of the Act.

    Whether there is a risk that Mr B will engage in criminal conduct in Australia

12. Subsection 501(6)(d)(i) of the Act provides:

    For the purposes of this section, a person does not pass the character test if:

    …

    (d)  in the event the person were allowed to enter or to remain in Australia, there is a risk that the person would:

    (i)  engage in criminal conduct in Australia; or

13. In applying this subsection, I am guided by paragraph 6 of section 2 of Annex A of the Direction which provides that the grounds are enlivened if there is evidence suggesting that there is “more than a minimal or remote chance” that the person, if allowed to enter or to remain in Australia, would engage in conduct specified in section 501(6)(d) of the Act.

14. I do not have the benefit of an expert risk assessment to assist me in my consideration of this issue. However, the reasons underlying Mr B’s offending are not complex.  

15. His offending occurred in circumstances when he was intoxicated and his abuse of alcohol stemmed from his inability to cope with memories of childhood abuse. While he has not engaged in any professional treatment to deal with that trauma, he deals with it now by discussing it with those close to him. I do not consider his failure to get professional help to be a risk factor that could lead him to abuse alcohol once again. While Mr B said he thought he was addicted to alcohol when he was abusing it, he was able to reduce his intake to an acceptable level for 11 years and he is now abstinent, so I do not consider his past addiction to be a significant risk factor.

16. Apart from the drink-driving offence, the only target of Mr B’s offences was Mrs B. The risk of re-offending largely relates to her. She told Mr B that if he were to re-offend against her, she would end their relationship. Mr B has not offended against her in 11 years. 

17. Mr B and Mrs B have visited Australia twice since the offences without incident. If Mr B’s visa is granted, he will once again travel to Australia with Mrs B and they will remain here for a matter of weeks. Their short time in Australia will further reduce any risk of Mr B offending while here.   

18. Lastly, and most crucially, I am satisfied that Mr B has reformed and is of good character.

19. I am not satisfied that there is more than a minimal or remote chance that Mr B, if allowed to enter or to remain in Australia, would engage in criminal conduct. He does not fail the character test under s501 (6)(d)(i) of the Act.

    Conclusion

20. I am mindful that the Government, on behalf of the Australian community, has expressed in very strong terms that a person with a history of domestic violence should generally not be permitted entry to Australia. It should be a rare case when such a person passes the character test and obtains a visa. This is such a case given the particular facts and circumstances of Mr B’s past offending and the overwhelming evidence of successful rehabilitation. On the evidence before me, I am satisfied that Mr B passes the character test. Accordingly, there is no power under s501 (1) of the Act to refuse to grant the visa.

    DECISION

21. I set aside the decision under review and substitute it with a finding that the visa Applicant passes the character test in section 501(6) of the Migration Act 1958 and his visa application should not be refused under s501(1) of the Act.

I certify that the preceding 56 (fifty-six) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Member Rebecca Bellamy

......................[SGD]............................................

Associate

Dated: 19 March 2021

Date of hearing:

11 March 2021

Applicant:

By videoconference

Solicitor for the Respondent:

Mr Michael Palfrey

HWL Ebsworth Lawyers

ANNEXURE A – EXHIBIT LIST

EXHIBIT	DESCRIPTION OF EVIDENCE	PARTY	DATE OF DOCUMENT	DATE RECEIVED
G1	Section 501 G-Documents (T1 to T24 paged 1 to 236)	R	VARIOUS	4 NOVEMBER 2020
A1	Applicant’s Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions	A	UNDATED	8 JANUARY 2021
A2	Statement of Mr B the visa applicant	A	22 NOVEMBER 2020	11 DECEMBER 2020
A3	Medical evidence from the Clayton Brook Surgery relating to the visa applicant	A	30 OCTOBER 2020	11 DECEMBER 2020
A4	Official copy of register of title from Her Majesty’s Land Registry	A	5 NOVEMBER 2020	11 DECEMBER 2020
A5	Statement of the visa applicant’s wife	A	22 NOVEMBER 2020	11 DECEMBER 2020
A6	Statement of the visa applicant’s daughter	A	15 NOVEMBER 2020	11 DECEMBER 2020
A7	Statement of the visa applicant’s granddaughter	A	15 NOVEMBER 2020	11 DECEMBER 2020
A8	Statement of Julie Dowd	A	30 NOVEMBER 2020	11 DECEMBER 2020
R1	Respondent’s Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions	R	12 FEBRUARY 2021	15 FEBRUARY 2021