Australian Visa cancellations under section 501

The Australian Human Rights Commission explains how visas can be cancelled under section 501 of Australia’s Migration Act.

The five broad categories under which visas can be refused or cancelled:

  • substantial criminal record
  • conviction for immigration detention offences
  • association with persons suspected of engaging in criminal conduct
  • past and present criminal or general conduct
  • significant risk of particular types of future conduct.

So it is not just a criminal record with more than one year imprisonment.

Association with a gang suspected of being involved in criminal conduct is one that may address War hero with no criminal record held in Australian prison

Lawyer Michael Pena-Rees told Fairfax that Mr Rutene had “exceptional good character” and no criminal record in New Zealand or Australia.

Mr Pena-Rees said police used tasers on Mr Rutene, who moved to Australia three years ago and lived with his partner and her son.

He was forcibly detained and forced into solitary confinement for four days, because of his connection with the Rebels motorcycle gang, Mr Pena-Rees said.

“The Rebels OMC is not a criminal organisation in Western Australia,” Mr Pena-Rees told Fairfax.

“To be a risk to national security because of his connection to an outlaw motorcycle club is an abhorrent and ill-conceived decision in light of the fact that Ko is a decorated ex-soldier, who, as part of the ANZAC spirit, served overseas for the same reasons as Australia and its soldiers.”

Note that Rutene only moved to Australia three years ago. He obviously has significant links to New Zealand.

His detention may be draconian but Australia has chosen to decline visas for people they deem at risk of criminal involvement.

I doubt many New Zealanders would be happy with Australians coming here and joining the Mongrel Mob or Black Power.

Details of visa cancellation criteria:

Background paper: Human rights issues raised by visa refusal or cancellation under section 501 of the Migration Act

2 When can a visa be refused or cancelled under section 501?

2.1 A two stage decision-making process

There are two stages of the decision-making process under section 501. At the first stage, the Minister or the delegate must consider whether the person passes the character test (referred to as the ‘threshold test for refusal or cancellation’ in the sections below). The character test is set out in subsection 501(6), and is discussed in section 2.3 below.

If the Minister or the delegate is satisfied that the threshold test under subsection 501(1), (2), or (3) for refusal or cancellation has been met, this triggers the second stage of the decision-making process under section 501. At this stage, the Minister or the delegate must decide whether to exercise their discretion to refuse or cancel the person’s visa.

2.2 Stage 1: The threshold test for refusal or cancellation

(a) Refusal or cancellation by the Minister or a delegate under subsections 501(1) or (2)

The Minister may refuse to grant a visa to a person under section 501(1) if the person does not satisfy the Minister that he or she passes the character test.

A person’s visa may be cancelled under section 501(2) of the Migration Act if:

  • the Minister reasonably suspects that the person does not pass the character test, and
  • the person does not satisfy the Minister that they pass the character test.

The power in subsections 501(1) and 501(2) can be exercised by the Minister personally, or by a delegate of the Minister. In practice, certain DIAC officers usually act as the Minister’s delegates in making such decisions.

(b) Refusal or cancellation by the Minister under subsection 501(3)

The Minister may refuse to grant a visa or may cancel a person’s visa under subsection 501(3) of the Migration Act if:

  • the Minister reasonably suspects that the person does not pass the character test and
  • the Minister is satisfied that the refusal or cancellation is in the national interest.

This power can only be exercised by the Minister personally. ‘National interest’ is not defined – it is a matter for the Minister to determine what constitutes the national interest in making a decision about whether to refuse or cancel a person’s visa.

It is also important to note the Minister’s personal powers under sections 501A and 501B of the Migration Act. These powers enable the Minister to set aside an initial decision by a delegate or the Administrative Appeals Tribunal in relation to refusal or cancellation under section 501, and substitute it with his or her own decision to refuse or cancel the visa on character grounds. These personal powers are discussed in section 5.3 below.

2.3 The character test

(a) Introduction

Section 501 of the Migration Act provides that a person does not pass the character test if they fall within any of the grounds specified in subsections 501(6)(a) to (d). These grounds can be grouped into five broad categories:

  • substantial criminal record
  • conviction for immigration detention offences
  • association with persons suspected of engaging in criminal conduct
  • past and present criminal or general conduct
  • significant risk of particular types of future conduct.

Further guidance on the interpretation and application of these grounds is contained in Direction No. 55. Each of these categories is discussed briefly below.

(b) Substantial criminal record

A person will not pass the character test if they have a ‘substantial criminal record’, as defined in subsection 501(7). For the purposes of the character test, a person has a ‘substantial criminal record’ if they have been:

  • sentenced to death or to imprisonment for life
  • sentenced to imprisonment for 12 months or more
  • sentenced to two or more terms of imprisonment where the total of these terms is two years or more
  • acquitted of an offence on the grounds of unsoundness of mind or insanity, and as a result they have been detained in a facility or institution.

A person who has a ‘substantial criminal record’ will automatically fail the character test, regardless of any mitigating factors which attended their offending. However, mitigating factors may be taken into account at the second stage under section 501, when the decision-maker is considering whether to exercise the discretion to refuse or cancel the person’s visa (discussed in section 2.4 below).

(c) Conviction for immigration detention offences

In 2011 the character test in section 501 was amended to include additional grounds upon which the Minister or a delegate may decide to refuse to grant, or to cancel, a person’s visa. These amendments to the character test were introduced following disturbances in the Christmas Island and Villawood Immigration Detention Centres in March and April 2011. Due to these amendments, a person will fail the character test if that person has been convicted of any offence which was committed while the person was in immigration detention, or during or after an escape from immigration detention, before being re-detained. Also, an escape from immigration detention is itself an offence which will result in the person failing the character test under section 501.

The effect of these amendments is that if a person commits an offence while in (or while escaping from) immigration detention, pursuant to subsection 501(6)(aa) or (ab) their criminal behavior will trigger the power in section 501 to refuse or cancel their visa, even if the offence is not serious enough to warrant a sentence of 12 months’ imprisonment (or any period of imprisonment). Under subsection 501(6)(aa) or (ab) therefore, a lower level of criminality may cause a person to fail the character test, because of the context in which their offence was committed, as compared to the criminality required for a ‘substantial criminal record’ for the purposes of subsection 501(6)(a).

Also, unlike under the ground of ‘past and present criminal or general conduct’ in subsection 501(6)(c) (discussed below), under subsections 501(6)(aa) and (ab) there is no consideration of the severity (or lack thereof) of the offending, or any mitigating circumstances. If an ‘immigration detention offence’ conviction has been recorded, the person will automatically fail the character test.

(d) Association with persons suspected of engaging in criminal conduct

A person does not pass the character test under subsection 501(6)(b) if the person ‘has or has had an association with someone else, or with a group or organisation, whom the Minister reasonably suspects has been or is involved in criminal conduct’.

Direction No. 55 requires that in establishing ‘association’ for the purposes of the character test, decision-makers are to consider:

  • the nature of the association
  • the degree and frequency of association the person had or has with the individual, group or organisation, and
  • the duration of the association.

Direction No. 55 also requires decision-makers to assess whether the person was sympathetic with, supportive of, or involved in the criminal conduct of the person, group or organisation, and directs that ‘mere knowledge of the criminality of the associate is not, in itself, sufficient to establish association’. The association must have some negative bearing upon the person’s character in order for the person to fail the character test on this ground.

(e) Past and present criminal or general conduct

Under subsection 501(6)(c) of the Migration Act, a person does not pass the character test if, having regard to the person’s past and present criminal conduct and/or general conduct, the person is ‘not of good character’.

In considering whether a person is ‘not of good character’, Direction No. 55 requires decision-makers to take into account ‘all the relevant circumstances of the particular case … to obtain a complete picture of the person’s character’, including evidence of ‘recent good behaviour’.

In determining whether a person’s past or present criminal conduct means that they are ‘not of good character’, decision-makers are to consider:

  • the nature, severity, frequency and cumulative effect of the offence/s
  • any surrounding circumstances which may explain the criminal conduct
  • the person’s conduct since the offence/s were committed, including:
    • the length of time since the person last engaged in criminal conduct
    • any evidence of recidivism or continuing association with criminals; any pattern of similar offences; or any pattern of continued or blatant disregard or contempt for the law
    • ‘any conduct which may indicate character reform’.

The consideration under subsection 501(6)(c)(ii) of a person’s past or present general conduct allows the decision-maker to take into account ‘a broader view of a person’s character where convictions may not have been recorded or where the person’s conduct may not have constituted a criminal offence’. In considering this broader view of character, the decision-maker should take into account all relevant circumstances, including evidence of rehabilitation and any relevant periods of good conduct’.

Direction No. 55 sets out the following factors which may be considered in determining whether a person’s past or present general conduct means that they are ‘not of good character’:

  • whether the person has been involved in activities which show contempt or disregard for the law or human rights (such as war crimes, crimes against humanity, terrorist activities, drug trafficking, ‘political extremism’, extortion, fraud, or ‘a history of serious breaches of immigration law’)
  • whether the person has been removed or deported from Australia or another country, and the circumstances that led to the removal or deportation
  • whether the person has been dishonourably discharged or discharged prematurely from the armed forces of another country as the result of disciplinary action in circumstances, or because of conduct, that in Australia would be regarded as serious.

(f) Significant risk of particular types of future conduct

Subsection 501(6)(d) provides that a person does not pass the character test if there is a significant risk that, while in Australia, the person would:

  • engage in criminal conduct
  • harass, molest, intimidate or stalk another person
  • vilify a segment of the Australian community
  • incite discord in the Australian community or in a segment of the community or
  • represent a danger to the Australian community or to a segment of the community, whether by way of being liable to become involved in activities that are disruptive to, or in violence threatening harm to, that community or segment, or in any other way.

Direction No. 55 provides that these ‘significant risk’ 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 remain in Australia, would engage in [the prescribed] conduct’. It is not sufficient to find that the person has engaged in such conduct in the past – there must be a significant risk that the person would engage in such conduct in the future.

Direction No. 55 also states that the operation of the last three grounds of ‘future conduct’ set out above must be balanced against Australia’s ‘well established tradition of free expression’. The Direction states that these grounds are not intended to be used in order to deny entry or continued stay of persons merely because they hold and are likely to express unpopular opinions, even if those opinions may attract strong expressions of disagreement and condemnation from some elements of the Australian community.

Leave a comment

10 Comments

  1. jamie

     /  12th November 2015

    If the details are accurate, it’s difficult to understand what he’s doing in detention when they could have just put him on a plane back to NZ.

    What am I missing?

    Reply
    • J Bloggs

       /  12th November 2015

      He’s in detention becuase he is appealing his removal, and because past history has shown the Australian authorities that if you don’t detain people undertaking visa appeals, then they disappear and have to be tracked down again at great cost (even more likely when said person has links to criminal organsiations which don’t want to cooperate with authorities). If he wasn’t appealing, he’d already be on his way.

      BTW, thank you Pete for finding and posting this – would that some other posters on other fora take the time to read the actual policies before commenting

      Reply
    • jaspa

       /  12th November 2015

      It is difficult to understand why people are electing to stay in a detention centre rather than return to NZ, especially when they have family here. However, I was speaking last night with someone who has family members involved with the Rebels over there and it would seem that some of the detainees have unfinished business of various kinds in NZ that they would rather not come back and face, if you know what I mean.

      Btw, I do not mean the former soldier mentioned above specifically; I have no knowledge of his circumstances.

      Reply
      • DaveG

         /  12th November 2015

        He(the former soldier) has failed the Good Character test, associating with a criminal bikie gang earns you that, and good riddence.

        Reply
      • kittycatkin

         /  12th November 2015

        I must confess to not having thought of the unfinished business-it should have been obvious, but it wasn’t to me.

        Reply
  2. David

     /  12th November 2015

    NZ deported Aussie bikers not so long back who were trying to set up a chapter here even though no one has broken any laws, it’s a bit tough but hard to condem given what gangs do.

    Reply
    • kittycatkin

       /  12th November 2015

      I had forgotten that; you are quite right.

      The problem is that nobody can claim that they don’t know that some gangs are involved in crime-though I think that the Black Power is less inclined that way than others. I don’t know how people join these gangs-I’d guess that they seek the gang out. But we all know what these gangs do, so someone who wants to be a patched member has no excuse.

      Reply
  3. kittycatkin

     /  13th November 2015

    If someone has been sentenced to death, wouldn’t they be dead & so not in need of a visa ?

    Seriously; what about a refugee who’s been unjustly sentenced to death or life imprisonment and who has fled their country and sought political asylum elsewhere ? Or someone who’s been given life and then acquitted because of DNA evidence that proves their innocence ?

    Some of these seem a bit dodgy to me.

    Reply
  1. New Zealander with no serious convictions being deported from WA | Your NZ

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s