Login / Join
Immigration Daily News Cancellation of Sudanese Refugee's Visa Overturned, Poor Health of Visa Holder a Major FactorAustralian Immigration Daily News
Breaking Australian immigration news brought to you by Migration Alliance and associated bloggers. Please email help@migrationalliance.com.au
- Font size: Larger Smaller
- Hits: 2521
- 8 Comments
Cancellation of Sudanese Refugee's Visa Overturned, Poor Health of Visa Holder a Major Factor
What would you do?
Suppose you had to decide whether to revoke a visa cancellation?
Suppose the visa holder had compiled a lengthy criminal record during his stay in Australia?
But suppose that the visa holder also suffered from very serious medical conditions, there were inadequate facilities in his home country to provide him with adequate medical care, and returning him to his home country would amount to a virtual death sentence?
The Deputy President of the AAT, BW Rayment, was faced with this dilemma in a case that was recently decided, Ahmed and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (Migration)(2017) AATA 1908 (25 October 2017).
The background of the case was the visa holder had come to Australia in 2006, after obtaining an “offshore” Refugee and Humanitarian visa (Subclass 200). The visa holder was originally from Sudan, where he was born in 1973. In the year 2000, his village was attacked by armed soldiers; during this attack, he witnessed the murder of his elder brother and of his father, who died in his arms. He fled from his village to Khartoum, the capital of Sudan, and then to Egypt. While he was in Egypt, the UNHCR determined that he had refugee status. And then, to compound the tragic circumstances of his early life, shortly before he left Egypt to come to Australia he tripped on a railway track and was run over by a train, causing him to lose both of his legs.
During the period of his residence in Australia, his criminal history included a record of convictions for offences such as destroying or damaging property, affray (using or threatening to use violence against another person), larceny, possessing a prohibited drug, having goods in custody suspected of having been stolen, and, lastly, the offence that ultimately led to the cancellation of his visa, an assault occasioning actual bodily harm. The visa holder was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months for this last offence. At the conclusion of his non-parole period of 6 months, he was immediately taken into immigration detention.
The visa holder also suffered from a raft of medical conditions, including, beyond the loss of limbs that he had suffered, diabetes, suspected tuberculosis, and also chronic mouth ulcerations which made it impossible for him to swallow and which had led to his being taken to an intensive care unit. During the 6 month period that the visa holder had been held in immigration detention, he was hospitalized for at least a week on three separate occasions.
There was also evidence before the Tribunal which established that there are very limited medical resources in Sudan. The Tribunal member concluded that if he were to be returned to the Sudan as a consequence of the cancellation of his visa, he would be exposed to a “life-threatening situation”.
The Tribunal concluded that the risks to the visa holder’s health amounted to a “very strong discretionary reason” in favour of setting aside the visa cancellation.
Also weighing significantly in the decision was the fact that the visa holder’s mother, who had also come to Australia on a refugee visa, and had become an Australian citizen, was dying of cancer, and the visa holder was her only relative in Australia.
So, what do you think? Do the compassionate circumstances here outweigh the visa holder’s history of criminal conduct?
Did the Tribunal decide this case correctly?
I think it did – what are your views?
Comments
-
Tuesday, 31 October 2017So your view is that if this person who has had a life filled with trauma gets a parking ticket, he should be removed from Australia and returned to Sudan, where he will be unable to get adequate medical treatment and will likely die? Even though his mother in Australia is terminally ill with cancer and he is her only source of companionship and emotional support in Australia? I suggest that it is a very dubious proposition that receiving a "parking ticket" should constitute grounds for visa cancellation.
It is my strongly held opinion that the visa cancellation powers under the Act should be applied thoughtfully and compassionately; returning a seriously ill person to a 3rd world country which lacks basic medical care does not meet that test. -
Tuesday, 31 October 2017
Very interesting case. It was excellent to see the balancing exercise undertaken in this case to assess whether or not the cancellation should stand. I am a bit surprised that someone who has come here on a refugee visa has had no employment since and has been on a disability pension for most of their stay in Australia.
I think the matter is going to get the attention of the Minister for a personal cancellation by the looks of it. Notwithstanding the serious "impediments" to the individuals health. I do not think that someone who has had such a serious criminal history with no obvious contribution to Australian society should remain here. -
Tuesday, 31 October 2017
The Tribunal's decision makes it clear that the visa holder was unable to work after arriving in Australia as the result of having lost his legs in an accident before he arrived in Australia. It can certainly be argued whether this person made "no obvious contribution to Australian society"; the record before the Tribunal is silent as to such matters, other than identifying that the visa holder obviously did make a significant contribution by providing companionship and emotional support to his mother, also a Sudanese refugee. And should not Australia be providing a place of residency to refugees as part of its contribution to the world community - by what legal standard is the right of a refugee to remain to be measured by whether the refugee does or does not make "an obvious contribution" - who is to judge that?
-
Tuesday, 31 October 2017
many people get chances they dont deserve hes has been given another chance he was a waste of space to start with as a hard working tax payer & good citizen i resent your implication that i am cruel i have seen several cases over the years of grubs like this ripping this society apart because of well meaning Administrative Appeal Tribunal decisions giving many chances to serious non resident criminals if you dont want too be deported to a 3rd world country or anywhere else sick or not dont seriously break the law be a good citizen how many chances do you recommend this guy or others be given i am all for giving people a second chance is there a magic number of serious crimes by recidivists before enough is enough i am interested for democratic rights that also protects australian society as well as these misplaced people
-
Thursday, 02 November 2017
It is not worth it Kevin, haven't you seen through previous posts that Michael Arch is very biased, and that all his comments and posts are very left-wing oriented. He doesn't care very much for any Australians whether they are murdered, robbed or abused by any refugee, who though cannot contribute to society & the Australian community, can very well and VERY ably contribute to Criminal activity. I have a feeling that even my present comment won't be published herein.
-
Thursday, 02 November 2017
Quote: "It is my strongly held opinion that the visa cancellation powers under the Act should be applied thoughtfully and compassionately; returning a seriously ill person to a 3rd world country which lacks basic medical care does not meet that test."
I am not commenting on this particular case (as I do not know the facts about it) but on your comment above.
By your logic, if an Immigrant is seriously ill, they are allowed to continue committing criminal acts, at any level, without fear of deportation, all while being supported by the Australian tax payer.
At what point does a county's obligation of being "thoughtful and compassionate" end and an individual taking responsibility for their actions begin.
At what point do we put the welfare of the victims of crime (past and future) above those of a serial criminal? -
Friday, 03 November 2017
I think that the Deputy President made a mistake in this case, legally the applicant is allowed to be deported under Migration Law, yes there are "compassionate" circumstances in this case but this individual has committed a vast array of crimes even with their disability. I do not feel compassion for this applicant, they have chosen their path and should be wearing the consequences of their actions rather than passing the burden on to the tax payer. I do not see the sense in how we bring refugees into Australia and then we foot the bill for their welfare because its in the interests of "world society". There is no such thing, we are a sovereign country and can do what we want, Australian society are merely cuckolds for the left and bleeding hearts who want to help everyone in the world when we simply cannot afford to. A yearly government expenditure of $170 billion on welfare is enough to say "STOP".
this is a joke!
Immigration blog
if you cant be a good citizen here you should not be allowed to stay why was he not vetted properly along with many others in the first place this is a substantial criminal history now the taxpayer has to pay for this grub he should have been deported years earlier in his criminal career. where should compassion start & end i think the decision in this case is morally right but if he even gets so much as a parking ticket in the future deport him