The Applicant was taken to the sentencing remarks where it is recorded in relation to the payments:
[2]
Inquiries conducted by the AFP with Austrac revealed that between 9 February 2006 and 14 August 2006 a total of $77,581 was remitted to beneficiaries in Brazil, Nigeria and Pakistan. Those payments ranged from $1,390 to $7,137 per transaction.[7]
[3]
He said he could not recall whether the $77,581 figure was correct, but confirmed having sent money to Brazil, Nigeria and Pakistan. He did not say that all the money was for his sister, and confirmed some may have been payment for drugs.
On reflection, the Applicant says that while the carriage of illegal drugs was a grave error in judgement which triggered a difficult period in his life, it also became a turning point. The time he spent in prison was a transformative period of 'intense reflection'. He felt a deep sense of despair and regret, but used the time and experience to better himself.
The Applicant did not record any incidents of misconduct while in prison. Upon his release from prison, he returned to his previous employment, where he worked full-time and substituted his income with a second job. He is now married, has a young son and continues to work hard to take care of his family. The Applicant writes that he has dedicated himself to rebuilding his life and contributing positively to the community. His relationships have improved as family and friends observed the genuine changes he had made.
[4]
Andy Bonsu and the Applicant attend the same church. Mr Bonsu has known the Applicant for approximately for 20 years, He described him as being supportive and committed to the church and as a responsible individual.
Semuel Abalo has known the Applicant for over 20 years and is also attends church with the Applicant. He is aware of the Applicant's offending and believes he is a reformed person who offers support to young people to ensure they do not become involved in crime.
Benedict Imasuen-Brodrick has known the Applicant for 20 years. He has witnessed 'profound personal transformation and growth' in the Applicant. In his statement he says he is a hardworking and reliable individual who wishes to contribute to the community.
Nwabufo Chukwuneke has known the Applicant for six years. He is familiar with the Applicant's offending conduct and has observed significant positive changes in his life.
Richard Avetti has known the Applicant for 22 years. He is aware of his conviction and writes the Applicant has proven to be an important part of the community.
Angela Ekwensi has known the Applicant for 12 years. She observed that the Applicant has taken responsibility for his offending and has shown a strong commitment to personal growth and rehabilitation.
Tony Oikelomen is aware of the Applicant's offending and imprisonment. He writes of the Applicant's selflessness, contribution to the church and volunteering with young people.
[5]
The Applicant was convicted of a serious offence. The sentencing remarks and the significant custodial sentence he received as a first-time offender are indicative of the seriousness.
The Applicant provided character references who gave evidence at the hearing. The referees were aware of his offending, and spoke positively of his reform and contribution to the Australian community. He has provided evidence of his contribution through paid employment and paying tax. I accept that he is making a positive contribution to the community. It is to his credit that he has been open about his offending. He regularly goes to church and participates in activities which strengthen the church and benefit the broader community.
The Citizenship Policy at CPI 15 provides that the length of time since an offence was committed is a mitigating factor. In the Applicant's case, his offending occurred in 2006 and the non-parole period ended on 29 February 2012. I take into account that more than a decade has passed since he fulfilled the obligations of his sentence, during which time there is no evidence to suggest further offending. While in custody, he appears to have been a model prisoner who worked hard.
CPI 15 also provides that in the case of a serious offence, a significant amount to time may have to pass before a person can be considered of good character. The policy specifically identifies drug trafficking, including importation and supply, as serious offences. In this matter, the sentencing remarks reveal a level of sophistication to the Applicant's offending. It was not a spontaneous, single lapse of judgement and he appeared to have been the sole organiser of the importation and distribution of the cocaine.
In total, the evidence does not support the Applicant's claim that a significant driver of his offending was the need to help his sister pay for medical treatment. His continued reliance on his sister's illness to explain his offending conduct is not credible and weighs against a finding of good character.
Weighing all the available evidence, I am not satisfied that the Applicant is of good character at this time as required by the Act. Significant time has passed since the offending and the evidence supports a conclusion that the Applicant is now making a positive contribution to the community. However, the Applicant maintains that the offending was driven by external forces which clouded his judgement. This explanation is largely at odds with the facts as found by the District Court. On balance, I am not able to be positively satisfied that the Applicant is of good character at this time.
[6]
In considering the evidence, I am unable to make a positive finding of good character at this time and the Applicant does not satisfy s 21(2)(h) of the Act.
[7]
For the reasons set out above, the reviewable decision is affirmed.
[8]
I certify that the preceding 39 (thirty-nine) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of General Member Evans.