{"id":503,"date":"2021-04-28T14:13:47","date_gmt":"2021-04-28T04:13:47","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blmigration.com.au\/?p=503"},"modified":"2025-10-17T15:08:39","modified_gmt":"2025-10-17T05:08:39","slug":"pr-refused-due-to-domestic-violence-convictions","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.blmigration.com.au\/en\/pr-refused-due-to-domestic-violence-convictions\/","title":{"rendered":"PR refused due to domestic violence convictions"},"content":{"rendered":"\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\"news\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n

The Visa Applicant in <\/span>He and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Migration) [2021] AATA 797 (8 April 2021)<\/span><\/a> was refused his permanent residence (PR) visa (Resident Return Visa) on the basis of his criminal convictions relating to domestic violence. The Tribunal affirmed the finding that he did not satisfy the character test but on the basis of discretionary factors remitted the decision back to the Department to exercise its discretion to grant the visa despite not satisfying the character test.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Facts<\/b><\/p>\n

The Visa Applicant (who was previously an Australian PR) was convicted of the following domestic violence offences:<\/span><\/p>\n

    \n
  1. 2012 \u2013 contravene family violence intervention order with intention to cause harm\/fear \u2013 he was sentenced to a good behaviour bond;\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n
  2. 2014 \u2013 2 counts of unlawful assault, 2 counts of contravene family violence interim intervention order and 5 counts of contravene family violence intervention order \u2013 he was sentenced to various terms of imprisonment to be served in part concurrently. Effectively, his effective sentence was 90 days of imprisonment;\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n
  3. 2015 – one count of contravene family violence interim intervention order which was ultimately dismissed due to language difficulties and that he had been in custody for over a year without bail on this charge;\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n
  4. 2015 \u2013 one count of assaulting police which resulted in a $1,000 fine;\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n
  5. 2015 \u2013 ‘recklessly cause injury’, ‘contravene family violence intervention order \u2013 intend harm\/fear’, ‘contravene family violence final intervention order’, ‘unlawful assault’, and ‘behave in offensive manner in public place’, for which he was sentenced to 99 days of imprisonment and put on a Community Corrections Order for 6 months.\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    After he was released from prison in 2015, he converted to Christianity and lived in Australia without any troubles as a PR. He returned to China in September 2019 as his father was seriously ill (where his father later died). He then remained in China until COVID-19 pandemic which affected his ability to return to Australia.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

    He applied for the Resident Return (permanent) visa which was refused on the basis of not satisfying the character test of s 501(1)(6)(d)(i) \u2013 that he had a risk of engaging in criminal conduct if he were allowed to enter or remain in Australia.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

    Tribunal Finding<\/b><\/p>\n

    Despite having supporting character references, witness statements from his daughter and wife, years that had lapsed since his last conviction and a positive psychologist\u2019s report, the Tribunal found that his propensity to commit offences were not simply due to his domestic dynamics. The Tribunal was not satisfied that his underlying anger management issues were properly resolved (or that there was any evidence of such) and therefore there was still an underlying risk of criminal violent conduct should he become anxious or angry. There was a \u2018more than a minimal or remote chance\u2019 of the risk of criminal conduct being engaged. Thus, his PR visa was rejected and the Tribunal agreed up until this point.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

    A refusal on the basis of not satisfying the character test is discretionary. Therefore, the Tribunal must then still consider discretionary factors on granting the visa despite not meeting the character test.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n