This is about why we suffer so much disappointment when matters before the Court or before the Tribunal or even application brought for decision before the Department of Home Affairs (DHA) or such other department fail. Generally, each delegate or decision maker apply the law accordingly.
It is interesting to know that there is abuse of power in making the decision. This is causing the disappointment when these people with authority misuse their power and most of the victims are helpless and have no option at all to continue.
In Jay Rone Bonifacio before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT), the applicant was charged with sexual assault and was sentenced to three months imprisonment. He served it and whilst serving his sentence, his visa was eventually cancelled on character ground even before he was found guilty under section 501 of the Migration Act (1958) (‘the Act).
During the hearing, there was a certificate issued as to the manner for which he was arrested and detained at the DHA premises. There were issues too— if the employer would continue to hire him knowing the decision on his criminal matter and if this was compelling and compassionate ground to allow his cancelled visa restored.
Purported conduct of the applicant
We demanded under the Act for the production of CCTV video during his arrest or detention in which the certificate was issued. The demand was in writing and found with the file. The member did not act instead, he did not make it as an issue as this could have added to applicant’s misbehavior during his custody. This was not acted.
Employer support or not
The member in his last attempt to find out the truth issued a request to see if the employer for whom he was working will allow him to continue working knowing that he pleaded guilty to the crime charged and served a three-month sentence.
The employer whom he was working for one year continued to support him and agreed to hire him again claiming that due to its urgent need for such skill with his job, they needed him. This was not resolved in the applicant’s favour.
We argued that there is compelling ground to allow him to return to work due to acute needs in the auto industry and it is in the public interest to do so. This was not favourably acted, too.
The member refused the application and the only recourse is for us to file an application for review in Court. But how do we expect a person to make a further application when he could not even support his family overseas?
Where will he get the money to pay his expenses and his court fees? A complaint was filed against the member of the AAT and was investigated, but the decision was not disclosed due to privacy. But the applicant was removed and sent back to the Philippines.
The case failed because the member did not do what he needed to do properly.
Image by witwiccan from Pixabay