The firm and principal, Ziya Zarifi, represented Alovale Junior Leo’o Olo, a New Zealand man convicted of inflicting grievous bodily harm on a stranger, assaulting the mother of his children, and hitting his young son “so hard it caused welts and bruising”.

Leo’o Olo was sentenced to two years imprisonment. Despite being granted immediate parole, he was beyond the 12-month threshold to meet the immigration minister’s character test.

Even leaving aside the criminal conviction, Leo’o Olo did not seek treatment for violence or drug use, has a history of disrespect for Australian laws, and gave inconsistent evidence to the tribunal.

Bellamy said when a matter is found to be futile, law firms should advise people in Leo’o Olo’s position to “keep their money”.

“He should not expect to remain in Australia,” Bellamy found.

Bellamy added Leo’o Olo did not benefit from his lawyers’ or his lay witnesses’ attempts to “manipulate” the tribunal.

“The tribunal is concerned with credible evidence and reasonable inferences. It is not persuaded by lies, speculation or exaggeration.

VIEW ALL

“I will not waste time and tribunal resources, which are public resources, addressing each and every disingenuous utterance made on the applicant’s behalf,” Bellamy said in her written reasons.

The tribunal was told a number of implausible claims on Leo’o Olo’s behalf, including likening his removal from Australia and the forced absence from the lives of his new partner’s children to the experiences felt by Indigenous Australians of the stolen generations.

The new partner and her children are not Indigenous Australians, and Leo’o Olo is not related to them.

“I do not accept that his forced removal from Australia is comparable to the forced removal of Indigenous Australian children from their kin, culture and traditional land,” Bellamy said.

Leo’o Olo’s mother also gave “fanciful evidence” that he would be pressured to join his uncles in the Mongrel Mob.

However, the mother was found to have “an answer to everything, no matter how outlandish”, and could “not keep her story straight”.

“She said one brother was in hiding because the other brother shot someone, but later she said he was in hiding because of the mischief he gets up to. First, she had no idea where he was hiding, then he was hiding in Wellington. She had no idea who was after him, then it was gangs, then she had no idea again,” Bellamy said.

Leo’o Olo’s lawyer went even further and contended people would assume he was a Mongrel Mob member because of his uncles.

Zarifi said it would cause a “social stigma and prejudice” that would hurt his “ability to find employment, secure housing and build a positive social network” in New Zealand.

“There was no credible evidence people would even know the applicant is related to these men or, if it did become known, that it would place him in danger or lead to him being stigmatised,” Bellamy said.

Bellamy did not analyse each of the deceitful statements made on Leo’o Olo’s behalf because it was an expedited matter.

If Leo’o Olo appeals, Bellamy said it would “create an opportunity” for the Federal Court to determine the extent to which the tribunal should “engage with material that is obviously lacking merit”.

“Particularly in circumstances where the sheer volume could raise a suspicion that there was an intention to create appeal points,” she said.