This is a story of desperation, a saga that stretches across half a lifetime and in which no one has actually done anything wrong yet but where an injustice is poised to happen unless one man does the right thing.
And it's a story where you can have your say – you are invited below to make a call in this case; to say what you would do if you had the ministerial power.
This is Byung Woo Song. Everyone calls him Sam.
Australia has been Sam's home since he came here from his birthplace of Korea on a student visa in 1992. Unless Immigration Minister Peter Dutton exercises his power to intervene in exceptional cases, Sam will be deported within weeks. We'll come to his exceptional circumstances, a tale with complex details but a simple moral imperative, in a moment.
Sam's parents have died. His family contact is limited to infrequent conversations with one of his sisters.
But Sam – a practising Christian who has the strength of character to have ceased his misuse of alcohol and beaten an addiction to nicotine, instead becoming a marathon runner – has profound succour through his membership of the St Kilda Baptist church. Here are some words from his friend, that church's reverend, Stacey Aslangul.
"He is deeply loved and appreciated. He has spent his years here playing local soccer and coaching kids sport, manning soup kitchens, running marathons for charity and doing odd jobs at church. In return, his many friends fed him and gave him lodgings."
Here's Stacey with Sam. Both this and the previous portrait were done this week by Joe Armao.
Here's a summary of Sam's story:
- A fraudulent biblical college ripped him off, taking the entire $15,000 his family had given him to finance his religious and language studies.
- He ran out of visa options so applied in 1998 for what was known as a "resolution of status" visa.
- An administrative error held up the processing of that until 2011, during which time he was on a bridging visa. He was not legally permitted to work and was not eligible for social security benefits or public healthcare.
- He nevertheless contributed to his community in the way Stacey has described above.
- In return, his friends fed him and gave him lodging. He is currently being housed by St Kilda Baptist church.
Sam's situation was, though, financially unsustainable. So his friends convinced him to re-contact the department and seek a successful conclusion to "resolution of status" application. His application was rejected. He appealed to the Migration Review Tribunal. That, too, was rejected.
All of which left him one final option. Under the Migration Act, Peter Dutton, below, has the power to overturn the tribunal's ruling should he feel so doing would be in the public interest.
According to Sam's lawyer, Genevieve Hamilton, the minister has total discretion, but there are official guidelines that indicate what he might consider. Here's Genevieve: "They say that the public interest may be served through the government responding with care and compassion in a situation involving unique or exceptional circumstances. Factors to be considered in the guidelines include the length of a person's time in Australia and degree of their integration into the community."
Late last month, Sam got a letter from the department informing him the minister had decided "it would not be in the public interest to intervene". No reason was given. Genevieve is seeking to find out through Freedom of Information law why the minister opted to not use his power.
Sam's only hope now is that Peter Dutton changes his mind. There is much to suggest that this would be the decent and strong thing to do. After all, here's a man who is valued and even loved by his community, who has spent most of his adult life in Australia, has demonstrated he has much to contribute, who has people ready, willing and able to employ him and who will be bereft if deported.
Through unusual circumstances – where nobody was egregiously at fault, neither Sam nor the departmental staff – the situation has long-since evolved from primarily legal to primarily humanitarian. It is also a pragmatic question – throw Sam out of the land that has long been his home, and nobody wins. Alternatively, Peter Dutton has an opportunity to benefit the public.
What do you think he should do? You are welcome to have your say, and/or to pose questions for Sam, Stacey and Genevieve here.
295 comments
More comments
Comments are now closed