An Indian national who was convicted of 11 traffic-related offences and went on to live in Australia unlawfully after his visa was cancelled, has been denied a partner visa due to his risk of repeating “criminal conduct” in Australia.
K Singh* first arrived in Australia in January 2007 on a student visa that was cancelled in March 2010 due to a lack of progress in studies. But he continued to live in Australia as an unlawful citizen until 17 January 2015.
During the eight years of his stay in Australia, he racked up several traffic offences and 11 court convictions for offences ranging from driving without licence and driving while suspended to drunk driving and giving false information to police. He also had two restraining orders against him during this period.
He married an Australian citizen just days after he went back to India and now has a four-month-old daughter with her. In April last year, the Department of Home Affairs refused his partner visa application based on the character requirement.
Mr Singh’s wife appealed the decision and told the Administrative Appeals Tribunal that her husband was a “changed man” now and that he had stopped consuming alcohol. Mr Singh also told the Tribunal that he had been undertaking counselling.
USA, New Jersey, Jersey City, Judges gavel Source: Tetra images RF
His wife said that her elder daughter has no contact with her biological father and thinks that Mr Singh is her father. She said it would be very difficult for them to live in India if her husband isn’t given a visa.
The Tribunal also heard evidence from a psychologist who found that the risk of Mr Singh’s reoffending was in the “lowest category possible” for an actuarial instrument, and his level of risk was equal to that of a “normal community-dwelling male adult”.
However, the AAT placed only limited weight this, saying the psychologist relied heavily on “self-serving” statements of Mr Singh and that the report was prepared on a single assessment of 90 minutes.
AAT Member Richard West said while the offences were not of violent or sexual nature but he had shown a “repeated and willful disregard” for drink-driving laws in Australia and there was no evidence that Mr Singh had changed sufficiently to avoid a repetition of his previous offending.
Source: Dave Hunt
“I am satisfied that had he remained in Australia there would have been a significant risk that he would engage in further criminal conduct by driving under the influence of alcohol,” Judge West said.
The AAT said the risk that he may re-offend if allowed to enter Australia does have the potential to impact on his daughters.
“It is possible that [he] may drive under the influence of alcohol while [his daughter] is a passenger in his car, directly exposing her to harm.”
In upholding the decision to refuse Mr Singh a partner visa, the Tribunal, last week, acknowledged that it would have a negative impact on his wife and daughters.
However, it said the “protection” and the “expectations of the Australian community” outweigh any other considerations and favour not granting him a visa.
*Full name not revealed.
