In our previous article, we talked about the possible impact of drunk driving on the application for permanent residency in Australia. If the permanent residency is really revoked by the Immigration Service because it does not meet the personality requirements, the visa applicant can appeal to the Migration Court and apply to rescind the Migration Board's decision. Under what circumstances will the immigration court rescind the Immigration Board's decision? Let's find the answer in the latest immigration court case.
Mr. H's case
Born in England in 1971, Mr. H emigrated to Australia with his family at the age of 2. Mr. H's parents, grandparents, younger daughters, brothers and sisters, and uncles and aunts all transferred Australian citizenship. However, the maverick is not willing to transfer to Australian citizens, only to apply for a permanent residence visa in Australia.
Mr. H, with a history of drug abuse, committed more than 180 drug-related offences between 1989 and 2017; In 2017, an immigration visa inspector revoked Mr. H's right to permanent residence in Australia on the grounds that he did not meet the personal requirements of a permanent residence visa. Mr. H appealed to the Migration Court.
According to Section 501 (3A) of the Immigration Act 1958, if the visa holder has a serious criminal record, the immigration agency must cancel the visa of the signatory. Mr. H's prison period of two years or so is a serious criminal record. As a result, he did not comply with the legal personality requirements, resulting in the cancellation of the Australian permanent residence visa.
Mr. H told the Migration Court that he had a compassionate reason not to be cancelled, and that the Migration Court considered Mr. H's case in detail on the basis of his personal circumstances.
[法]court proceedings
The court first considered the impact of the case on Australian society. Although Mr. H claimed that his series of crimes were not serious crimes and were caused by long-term drug abuse, the court considered the crime to be a crime, let alone a long-term recidivism. The number of these 180-odd crimes has seriously affected the peace and order of Australian society. Mr. H claims that he has not used drugs for 11 months; However, the Court held that Mr. H had not participated in any drug rehabilitation training and that there was no expert to prove that Mr. H would not be guilty again; according to Mr. H's history, Mr. H had a very high probability of taking drugs again.
The court went on to consider the impact of the case on Australian citizens, especially minors. Mr. H claimed that his daughter, born in 2012, needed his own care and that cancelling his signature would seriously affect his daughter's interests. However, the court found that since the end of 2013, Mr. H has not seen his daughter because of drug abuse. Although Mr. H's daughter is a cause for sympathy, because Mr. H has not seen his daughter for a long time, the court held that the reason for sympathy was not strong.
The court finally considered Australia's social expectations for the Immigration Service. The immigration court found some of Mr. H's past crimes, including domestic violence and sequestration, to be unacceptable to Australian society. Although Mr. H has lived in Australia since he was two years old, his family and friends are in Australia, but the court held that the United Kingdom is a country with a language and culture very close to Australia, and that Mr. H can continue to live in the United Kingdom without much difficulty.
The court fully considered all the circumstances, compared the evidence in favour of Mr. H and confirmed the decision of the Immigration Board to cancel Mr. H's Australian permanent resident visa and upheld the original sentence.
epilogue
When Captain James Cook sent the first batch of British criminals to Australia in 1770, I am afraid he did not expect that, nearly 300 years later, Feng Shui took turns and Australia even kicked the criminals back to the United Kingdom. In this case, Mr. H actually has a lot of visa applications that can be prepared without preparation, leading to factors that benefit him or her are guided in a negative direction by the court.
Disclaimer: this article is written by Advocate of WB Legal, copyright and all rights reserved by WB Legal Group Weber Group. This article is not a legal opinion; the firm and its lawyers are not liable for any loss caused by reliance on the content of this article. Please contact the law firm for formal legal advice.
