Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
On or about March 30, 2016 I attended at the immigration office in The Civic
for the purpose of inquiring about extending my Visitor Visa not knowing I had
failed to comply with the requirement of leaving the country every three
months (due to a Vancouver travel agents advice incompetence) and
reapplying. I was granted a temporary visa for five days, expiring on April
7th, to file the documentation. Because there was not enough room for full
disclosure I authored a series of addendums and provided additional evidence.
I was notified that processing would take between two to three weeks. The
decision was made and delivered to me on April 13th; which comprised a total
of only four business days.
March 21st ACT Chief Minister Andrew Barr; and on March 16th to
Attorney General George Brandis QC;
(2)
(3)
the police report filed on March 22nd with AFP Sr. Constable Lauren
Greenup pursuant to the theft of my flatmates bike in my possession
and control at the Woden bus interchange;
(4)
(5)
Error #2:
600.211 Genuine NOT MET
Reasoning: Details of reasons for staying are not supported with any
documentation.
Firstly, I state in Addendum A: Graduated from law school in Cardiff, Wales
in 1987; and the only other time I left Canada was to travel to Texas in late
April 2013.
Third, I state:
In January 2015 I commenced a new career in mine financing. []
Over 500 calls to Australian executives led to introducing myself
in early May to Andrew Mortimer. [] He and I entered a strategic
alliance agreement [] the primary purpose of which is to procure
the expansion of his business to the North American market. [] I
continue to assist his pursuit of this corporate objective and want to
be available to meet with him and prospective investors if the need
arises.
There is full documentation of this; namely, the correspondence of Andrew
Mortimer, dated November 30, 2015, and a copy of the first and last page of
our Strategic Alliance Agreement.
Error #3:
The assessor also states inaccurately identifying me in the plural:
They have declared they are a volunteer for Penny Wong. No
evidence was provided to support these claims.
There was sufficient evidence, namely the first page of a twenty-one page
submission (with four other documents: page lengths: 22, 23, 37 & 71):
Again I am inaccurately identified in the plural. Not only did I represent this;
My trip to Australia for as long as I intend to be here has been and
continues to be exclusively financed by my mother. She is a retired
Federal Judge (Tax Court of Canada). She receives a substantial
pension and has the means necessary to pay all my expenses for as
long as I remain in the country. Also see Addendum D.
said Addendum consisted of: Evidence of access to funds to support your
stay: See correspondence herein from my mother dated March 31, 2016.
In it she states:
This is to confirm that I am the mother of Bradley Kempo, that I
have exclusively financed my son's trip to Australia [...] and that I
fully intend to pay all his expenses for as long as he remains in your
country.
This is also to confirm that my current financial status as a retired
Federal Tax Court of Canada Justice enables me to make and
continue the above mentioned commitment.
The submitted Commonwealth Bank statement indicated she had already
made $8,000 available to cover expected and incidental expenses.
To add to the documentation I submitted correspondence with a very recent
bank statement which stated:
Last Thursday, on March 31st, I submitted the [visa extension
application]. Find enclosed herein my Commonwealth Bank
statement for the month of April. Note that today my mother
transferred $700 (minus the fee) into my account. While the
purpose of the funds was to reimburse me for the costs of my
passport (see receipt in my application documents) and the visa
(plus $100 for incidentals), this further demonstrates her
commitment to finance my visit to Australia.
Both were more than totally sufficient to prove I would have sufficient funds
to finance my continued stay in Australia. Full credibility should have been
granted given she is a former federal judge and I am a member of the
Canadian Bar and have been since September 21, 1990.
Error #5:
600.215 Length of Stay NOT MET
Reasoning: Applicant did not state the dates they intend to remain
and depart from Australia.1
I refer you to my previous argument in the section entitled Error #1.
Error #6:
600.213 PIC 4011 Incentive to return NOT MET
Reasoning: Applicant has declared they are employed, however has
not provided evidence to confirm they will be returning to their
employment in Canada.2
When one is self-employed, as I indicated I was in Question 39, there is no
other person who can proffer this evidence except the applicant. Further, no
evidence was requested by the form that would provide that confirmation.
Those who answer Part 7, Question 43 with a ticked No box would not be
aware of this requirement if there even is one.
1
2
Error #7:
600:221 Visitor NOT MET
Reasoning: Applicant states they intent to amend legislation for
Penny Wong and appears to want to do consultation work with
Government. No documents that support these claims intents are
business related rather than tourist related. Under 600.221, the
applicant must be seeking to visit Australia, or remain in Australia
as a visitor for any other purpose not related to business or medical
treatment.3
I refer you to my previous argument in the section entitled Error #3 with
respect documents that support these claims. It is, when contextualized
within the totality of the allegations made herein, a brazen error of fact and
law to characterize what I submitted to Senator Wong as business related.4
Fabricated is the allegation that it appears [I] want to do consultation work
with Government. This is most telling of the assessors determination to
assist with conspiratorial punitive retaliation.
The most compelling evidence of this employment termination and criminal
prosecution justifying malfeasance is the date of the decision: 13 April 2016.
I was advised by a senior visa official at The Civic office processing the
application it was going to take two to three weeks and it was only four
business days. The chosen date proves specific knowledge in the possession
of the intelligence community. Those responsible arranged for the application
processing time to be swift to meet this deadline in order to signal the
motivation for the relief refusal was geo-political and not based on the merits.
3
4
2.13
2.14
You, Minister, know all too well, as does Prime Minister Turnbull, his cabinet
appointees and their predecessors dating back to the government of former
P.M. Howard whats transpired in this still publicly non-transparent back11
(2)
(3)
make moot the AFP criminal complaint of March 22nd and the request
for another AFP and an Attorney General investigation dated April
13th, as there will be no witness. What was done to shorten my stay
12
13
shes now saddled with the amounts referenced supra because Im a target
for punitive retaliation directly related to back-channel matters is intolerable.
The government must take steps to address what she incurred.
At minimum the foregoing circumstances require your office to conduct a
comprehensive internal investigation or refer the matter to whatever
department or agency that does so, like the AFP. At maximum, that must
occur and my mothers expenses related to the tribunal process ought to be
waived and she reimbursed for the additional costs.
Refusal to pursue the former will constitute an abdication of ministerial
responsibility.
Should there be a need to provide answers to relevant questions by way of an
interview or otherwise, a desire for elucidation on any matter or more
documents, do not hesitate to contact me.
Regards,
Brad Kempo Esq.
c.c.
14
ADDENDUM
The Error of Law
The submission to Senator Wong was alleged to be a business.
Interpretation Act 1987
33 Regard to be had to purposes or objects of Acts and statutory
rules
In the interpretation of a provision of an Act or statutory rule, a
construction that would promote the purpose or object
underlying the Act or statutory rule (whether or not that purpose
or object is expressly stated in the Act or statutory rule or, in the
case of a statutory rule, in the Act under which the rule was
made) shall be preferred to a construction that would not
promote that purpose or object.
The purpose of the relevant provisions of the Act and Migration Rules relating
to visitor visas is to deny foreigners entrance who would take on gainful
employment at the expense of Australians.
being able to generate income to support ones family and/or oneself. The
Senator did not seek the submission; I offered it unilaterally without terms,
conditions or provisos. Her office did not pay any remuneration for that
authorship nor what followed.
15