Ansah and Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (Migration) - [2025] ARTA 323

Ansah and Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (Migration) [2025] ARTA 323 (4 April 2025)
Applicant/s:  Cameron Ebow ANSAH
Respondent:  Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs
Tribunal Number:                2025/0374

Tribunal:Senior Member N Manetta
Place:Adelaide
Date:4 April 2025

Decision:The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and in substitution decides that the cancellation of the applicant’s visa be revoked.

.........................[SGND]...................................
Senior Member N Manetta

Catchwords
MIGRATION – mandatory cancellation of a visa – section 501 of Migration Act - applicant a citizen of New Zealand – applicant does not pass character test – whether another reason for cancellation decision to be revoked – applicant guilty of serious violence in company of gang – applicant fulfilling a special role in a single-parent family in relation to a disabled brother – strong family ties to Australia – none in New Zealand – low risk of recidivism – decision set aside
Legislation
Migration Act, 1958 (Cth)
Cases
Frugtniet v ASIC [2019] HCA 16; (2019) 266 CLR 250; (2019) 79 AAR 9
Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs v LJTZ [2021] FCA 92
Pearson v Minister for Home Affairs [2022] FCAFC 203; (2022) 295 FCR 177
Secondary Materials
Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs (Cth), Direction no. 110 — Visa refusal and cancellation under section 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under section 501CA (7 June 2024)
Statement of Reasons

This is an application by Mr Cameron Ansah seeking a review of the decision of the respondent’s delegate dated 13 January 2025.[1] By this decision, the respondent’s delegate declined to cancel the revocation of Mr Ansah’s visa.[2] The cancellation had taken place earlier, and mandatorily so, following Mr Ansah’s conviction of very serious offences involving gang violence. For his offending, Mr Ansah received an aggregate sentence exceeding 12 months, part of which he was required to serve on a full-time basis in jail. In this circumstance, the respondent was obliged to cancel Mr Ansah’s visa under s 501(3A) of the Migration Act, 1958 (Cth) (‘the Act’). I shall describe the offending in due course.
[1] The delegate’s decision and reasons were before me at Hearing Book (‘HB’), 146ff.
[2] A Class TY Subclass 444 Special Category (Temporary) visa.
Mr Ansah made a timely application for an internal review. The internal-review delegate had two questions to consider under s 501CA(4)(b) of the Act. The first was whether Mr Ansah passed the so-called ‘character test’ as elaborated under s 501(6) and (7) of the Act. Given the serious offences to which I have already made reference, Mr Ansah did not pass the test, and the delegate’s conclusion in this regard was clearly correct.[3] The second question, which arose if the answer to the first question was no, was whether there was ‘another reason’ – that is, a reason other than Mr Ansah passing the character test – warranting the revocation of the cancellation decision. In addressing this second question, the delegate was required to apply any direction issued under s 499 of the Act. The delegate applied Direction no. 110 (‘the Direction’).[4] After weighing the various considerations required to be addressed under the Direction, the delegate concluded that, on balance, there was not another reason warranting the revocation of the cancellation decision. The delegate found that the power under s 501CA(4)(b)(ii) of the Act was not enlivened. The delegate decided, therefore, not to take action to revoke the visa cancellation.[5]
[3] See HB, 155-156, [4]-[9].
[4] Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs (Cth), Direction no. 110 — Visa refusal and cancellation under section 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under section 501CA (7 June 2024).
[5] HB, 174 [119]-[121].
TRIBUNAL’S TASK
I must address the same two questions as the delegate. I have already indicated that the delegate decided the first question correctly. I make the following prefatory remarks in respect of the second question. [6] In a case like this, the Tribunal hears the matter afresh on the evidence before it. It does not merely review the delegate’s decision for error but reaches the correct or preferable decision on the evidence adduced before it.[7] It hears evidence and oral submissions and receives written documents and written submissions. It follows that the Tribunal may set aside the decision under review notwithstanding the absence of any error in the delegate’s reasons if that is the correct or preferable decision on the evidence before it; equally, the Tribunal may affirm the decision under review notwithstanding the presence of a clear error in the delegate’s reasoning if that is the correct or preferable decision on the evidence before it.
[6] What follows in the balance of this paragraph is a series of standard observations that I include in all my decisions in this area.
[7] See, for example, Frugtniet v ASIC [2019] HCA 16; (2019) 266 CLR 250; (2019) 79 AAR 9 at [51]. This case concerned the Administrative Review Tribunal’s predecessor, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, but no different principles apply in this regard.
At the hearing before me, Mr Ehimudiamen appeared for Mr Ansah; Mr Burnham, for the respondent. I am grateful to them both for their measured advocacy and helpful submissions in what was undoubtedly a difficult case.
STATEMENT OF CONCLUSION
I have decided to set aside the decision under review and to substitute a decision that the cancellation of Mr Ansah’s visa be revoked.
I set out below the background facts and then my reasons for this conclusion.
BACKGROUND FACTS
Mr Ansah is a citizen of New Zealand, who was born there in 1999. He is of Ghanaian heritage, and his parents emigrated to New Zealand a few years before his birth. Mr Ansah has two brothers, Kevin and Dylan. Mr Ansah emigrated with his family from New Zealand to Australia in December 2006 when Mr Ansah was seven years of age. Mr Ansah completed his schooling in Australia and was awarded his high school certificate.
I accept the oral evidence given by Mr He, a friend, that Mr Ansar behaved creditably at school, was popular with both teachers and parents, and did not display antisocial tendencies. When Mr Ansah left school, he undertook a number of paid jobs including as an apprentice plumber, waiter, and shoe salesperson. He has also worked more recently packing vegetables and fruit for delivery. This work was done for Mr He.[8]
[8] HB, 76.
So far as Mr Ansah’s personal circumstances are concerned, I note that his life has been attended by difficulties within the family. First, I accept that his father was an abusive and violent alcoholic. He was abusive and violent both towards Mr Ansah’s mother and towards the children. The father eventually left the family home. His mother was required to work two jobs to ensure the family had sufficient resources to meet their basic needs.
Secondly, and significantly, Mr Ansah’s younger brother suffers from autism. This has been a challenge for the family. Mr Ansah had a close relationship with the younger brother, and Mr Ansah’s fraternal care and affection have made him something of a father figure to the younger brother. He was involved in the washing and dressing of his brother, for example. That was confirmed in Mr Ansah’s evidence and also in his mother’s, which I accept. The younger brother’s difficulties have now been substantially exacerbated by Mr Ansah’s ongoing absence from the family. The brother is unable to rationalise and accept Mr Ansah’s ongoing absence. The younger brother lashes out frequently according to Ms Ansah’s evidence to me. This version is supported by the documentary evidence before me.[9]
[9] See, for example, HB, 36, 40
I now turn to Mr Ansah’s criminal history. His record was before me in evidence.[10] The record is a concerning one, although relatively short. The most significant parts of the record consists of violent assaults. The first offence in the record consists of an assault occasioning actual bodily harm. The offence was found proven on 12 December 2018 in the Downing Centre Local Court. No conviction was recorded, and a conditional release order was made for two years commencing on 12 December 2018 and concluding on 11 December 2020.
[10] HB, 175-177.
The next conviction is in the same court on 22 November 2019. On that occasion Mr Ansah was found guilty of two offences. First, he was found guilty of failing to appear in accordance with a bail acknowledgment. Mr Ansah pleaded guilty to that charge, and the Court treated the matter as one where the breach was established but no action was required.[11] There was a further conviction of affray involving a serious assault in concert upon an innocent victim. The transcript of the sentencing hearing that was before me records, however, that it was ‘not implied in the Crown case that [Mr Ansah] was in any way cognisant or mindful’ of the fact that Mr Ansah’s co-accused would strike the victim with a bottle of alcohol that was hidden in the co-accused’s jacket.[12] That particular criminal conduct was found not to have been in Mr Ansah’s contemplation.[13] Mr Ansah did, however, run over to join two other people so as to drag the victim to the ground and fall on top of him. The Court observed that apart from that, it was unclear that Mr Ansah did anything.[14] One noteworthy feature of this offending, however, is Mr Ansah’s acting in concert with others. Mr Ansah received a community corrections order for 12 months for his part in the affray.
[11] Ex A2, 5.
[12] Ibid.
[13] Ex A2, 3.
[14] Ibid.
On 3 July 2020, Mr Ansah appeared in Court for having smashed property in someone’s house. A conviction was recorded and he was fined $500.[15]
[15] Ex A1.
On 20 November 2020, Mr Ansah was convicted of a number of very serious offences arising from an orchestrated attack upon young people celebrating a birthday party at a suburban home on 3 August 2019. This offending, dealt with in the Parramatta District Court, preceded the earlier offences of affray and destroying property to which I have referred.
I rely upon the sentencing remarks before me.[16] Mr Ansah was a member of the ‘Greater West’ gang. He and other gang members had gathered in a park where CCTV footage showed some of the group had knives. Mr Ansah was carrying a screwdriver.
[16] HB, 178ff.
Two of the gang members approached the house opposite the park and started looking for a person named ‘Singh’ whom they believed to be a member of a rival gang called ‘Inner West’. The others remained in the park. The two approaching the house were met by a female who told them to leave. They did not leave, but remained in the driveway. Mr Ansah and a number of other people then approached the premises. A violent assault ensued. There were a number of victims. The first victim, a seventeen-year old, was punched and stabbed and kicked to the head. Another was stomped on and kicked to the head and body by more than one person after he fell to the ground. He was also stabbed. A third received a knife wound to his right index finger as he tried to defend himself. A further party guest was grabbed by the collar and pushed against a wall. The weapons carried by the gang included a 40 cm machete and a 10 to 15 cm bowie knife. Mr Ansah did not carry or use these weapons, nor did he use the screwdriver he was carrying, but he was involved in the other physical violence, which was considerable. I reject his evidence to me that he did not know that other members in the gang were carrying weapons when he was with them in the park.
The interview given by Mr Ansah to the police, which is referred to in the sentencing remarks, includes certain important admissions. Mr Ansah’s gang considered themselves ‘soldiers’ and they were going ‘to war’ against the Inner West. The violence was scored, with the highest points being awarded to a stabbing. Mr Ansah and the gang had decided to gate-crash the party to seek out and fight ‘Inner West’ members. Mr Ansah was, in fact, the first to confront one victim and began to hit another victim, kicking and punching him while he was on the ground. He had taken gloves that night so that police could not detect his fingerprints. He was carrying a screwdriver as an offensive weapon, although, as I have said, he did not apparently use it.
The attack was clearly orchestrated; and Mr Ansah must be held accountable for other violence committed by the group even though he did not perpetrate it, since he was aware of the weapons that were being carried, and aware therefore of how the violent assault might pan out. Three counts of reckless wounding in company were laid against him, and he pleaded guilty to all three. The Court imposed an aggregate sentence of four years and four months for these offences (with a non-parole period of two years and ten months) that took into account a 25-per cent discount for the guilty pleas. Mr Ansah, I note, had been arrested and taken into jail on 10 October 2019, some time before the sentencing hearing in 2020.
I note that just three weeks after committing these offences, Mr Ansar was involved in the offence of affray to which I have earlier referred. All these offences occurred while Mr Ansah was on conditional liberty.
Mr Ansah served his non-parole period in jail. My attention was drawn to a number of incidents while he was in jail. On 26 April 2021, Mr Ansar and a fellow prisoner were involved in an argument with a third prisoner, who apparently had poor hygiene habits. The third prisoner used a guitar as a weapon against Mr Ansah’s fellow prisoner, while the latter used a frying-pan to strike back. It would appear that the main involvement in this incident belongs with Mr Ansah’s fellow prisoner.[17]
[17] Ex R1, 5.
In October 2021, Mr Ansar was involved in an orchestrated assault on a fellow prisoner with others. The other prisoner suffered significant facial injuries requiring treatment at Bathurst Base hospital.[18]
[18] Ex R1, 12.
One further incident, on 3 August 2022, involved aggressive and abusive language towards prison officers by a group of prisoners (including Mr Ansah). The officers deployed chemical sprays, and handcuffed the prisoners. It is recorded that Mr Ansah continued to be abusive and threatening throughout the incident. There were apparently no physical injuries.[19]
[19] Ex R1, 14.
On 15 May 2021, Mr Ansah was stabbed repeatedly to the left side of his neck by a fellow prisoner in an unprovoked assault. Initial medical results indicated a significant blood loss. He was transferred to Wagga Wagga Base Hospital for treatment.[20] It was clearly a serious assault.
[20] Ex R1, 7.
I note that Mr Ansah’s non-parole period expired on 9 August 2022. It appears he was granted parole with effect from that day. His records show he entered immigration detention on 9 August 2022.[21] Mr Ansah was then released in late December 2022 as a result of the Federal Court’s decision in Pearson v Minister for Home Affairs,[22] which decided that the mandatory cancellation of a person’s visa under the Act was not triggered by an aggregate sentence of the type Mr Ansah received. There followed legislative amendments with retroactive effect as a result of which Mr Ansah was re-detained in early March 2023. He spent a little over two months in the community, and he worked for Mr He during this time.
[21] HB, 217.
[22] [2022] FCAFC 203; (2022) 295 FCR 177.
There have been a number of incidents in detention involving Mr Ansah. These incidents are for the main part minor and mainly consist of strongly abusive language. There is one instance of a minor assault on 13 October 2023. There is also a report of a major disturbance when multiple inmates were observed participating in a physical altercation on 11 January 2024. The extent of Mr Ansah’s involvement in the altercation is not clear on the record before me,[23] but Mr Ansah’s evidence, which I accept in this regard, suggests that he was summoned by a detainee to participate in a fight that had broken out between detainees of Pacific Islander heritage and detainees of African heritage. Once again, there is the feature of acting in concert with others.
[23] HB, 223.
There is a further assault by Mr Ansah on a detainee consisting of three slaps to the left side of the detainee’s face. He was apologetic for his behaviour which he said was prompted by a belief that the detainee was spreading untrue rumours about his having stolen items.[24]
REASONS
[24] HB, 221.
Prefatory remarks
With this summary of the facts in mind, I come to the Direction. I usually set out four standard paragraphs that explain aspects of the Direction, and I do so again in what follows in paragraphs [28] – [31] below.
The Direction is framed against the stated objective of the Act, which is to regulate, in the national interest, the presence of non-citizens in Australia: see paragraph 5.1(1). The decision-maker is directed by paragraph 5.1(2) and (3) to consider the specific circumstances of the case. The explicit purpose of the Direction is to guide decision-makers in performing their functions under the Act: see paragraph 5.1(4).
Principles appear under paragraph 5.2 of the Direction. These principles provide the framework within which decision-makers should approach their task. They are stated in paragraphs numbered (1) to (8). I set out some of the salient features of these principles.
First, remaining in Australia is a privilege conferred on non-citizens in the expectation that they are law-abiding, will respect important institutions, and will not cause or threaten harm to individuals or the Australian community. Secondly, the safety of the Australian community is the highest priority of the Australian Government. Accordingly, non-citizens who engage in criminal or other serious misconduct should expect to forfeit the privilege of remaining in Australia, and the Australian community expects that the Australian Government should cancel visas or refuse non-citizens a right of entry where they have engaged in conduct that raises serious character concerns. This expectation arises whether or not the non-citizen poses a measurable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community. Fourthly, Australia has a low tolerance of any criminal or other serious conduct by non-citizens who have been participating in and contributing to Australia for a short period of time only. A higher level of tolerance of criminal or other serious misconduct may, however, be afforded to those who have lived in Australia for most of their life or from a very young age. Fifthly, the nature of the non-citizen’s conduct and the harm that would be caused if the conduct were to be repeated may be so serious that even strong countervailing considerations may prove an insufficient counterweight. In particular, I note that the inherent nature of certain conduct such as family violence is so serious that even strong countervailing considerations may prove insufficient justification (to warrant not cancelling the visa, not refusing the visa, or revoking a mandatory cancellation), and this is so even if the non-citizen does not pose a measurable risk of causing harm to the Australian community.
Informed by these principles, I am required under Part 2 of the Direction to take into account the considerations identified in sections 8 and 9. I add here that paragraph 7(1) directs me to give appropriate weight to information and evidence from independent and authoritative sources. Paragraph 7(2) also directs me to give greater weight ‘generally’ to the protection of the Australian community over other primary considerations, and it also provides that primary considerations should ‘generally’ be given greater weight over other considerations.
Application of the Direction

I now turn to apply the Direction. I turn first to consider the protection of the Australian community. Subparagraph 8.1(1) provides that decision-makers should keep in mind that the safety of the Australian community is the highest priority of the Australian Government. The Government is said to be committed to protecting the Australian community from harm as a result of criminal activity or other serious conduct by non-citizens. Decision-makers should have particular regard to the principle that entering or remaining in Australia is a privilege that Australia confers on non-citizens in the expectation that they are and have been law-abiding, will respect important institutions, and will not cause or threaten harm to individuals or the Australian community.
This is a particularly important principle to bear in mind. The most serious violence of which Mr Ansah has been found guilty, in company, was the gang violence perpetrated at a private residence against young adults. Serious weapons were deployed and the consequences of the violence included serious injuries. The injuries could have been even more serious: death was in fact a foreseeable consequence.
Paragraph 8.1(2) provides that decision-makers should also give consideration to the nature and seriousness of the non-citizen’s conduct to date and the risk to the Australian community should the non-citizen commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct. Paragraph 8.1.1(1) sets out a range of matters that I must take into account. Violent crimes are to be considered very seriously under the Direction, and crimes of a violent nature against a child are also to be taken very seriously regardless of the sentence imposed. That applies here in the case of Mr Ansah’s first victim, who was 17 years of age.
I am to have regard to the sentences imposed. The aggregate sentence imposed most recently is a long one. It comprised a term of over four years given to a young adult after a 25 per cent discount for a guilty plea. That term marks out the gravity of the offending.
There is some reference in the sentencing remarks to an ongoing impact of the offending on victims.[25] No doubt, many of the victims continue to experience adverse psychological impacts as a result of the attacks.
[25] HB, 185.
There has been some frequency of offending and a trend of increasing seriousness. The offending involving affray occurred just three months after the offending at the party. The offending took place while Mr Ansah was on conditional liberty; and that too is a very serious matter. It seems clear that Mr Ansah had lost control of his life at this point and was engaging in pointless acts of violence. I take into account the cumulative effect on society of repeated offending of this type.
I must take into account the risk to the Australian community should Mr Ansah commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct. Paragraph 8.1.2(1) specifies an important consideration in this regard. I should bear in mind the Government’s view that the Australian community’s tolerance becomes lower as the seriousness of the potential harm increases. Some conduct and the harm that would be caused if it were to be repeated is so serious that any risk of recurrence may be unacceptable. That is a principle I bear steadily in mind given the seriousness and unpredictability of gang-related violence.
Subparagraph (2) requires two matters to be considered ‘cumulatively’ when assessing risk. These matters are, first, the nature of the harm to individuals or the Australian community should the non-citizen engage in further criminal or other serious conduct; and, secondly, the likelihood of the non-citizen so doing taking into account information and evidence on the risk of reoffending and evidence of rehabilitation achieved by the time of the decision giving weight to time spent in the community since the most recent offence.
Turning to the first matter, it is clear that the nature of the harm to individuals or the Australian community could be extreme in this case. I say this because violence is unpredictable when it is engaged in by a group whose members are elevated and who are encouraging one another. It is of great concern that Mr Ansah participated in group violence where scoring was used, with maximum points earned by a stabbing. There were very significant weapons brandished at the party, including a machete. Stabbings occurred. Victims were assaulted repeatedly, and dangerously, and the sentencing remarks refer to victims passing in and out of consciousness while waiting for ambulances.[26]
[26] HB, 183.
It is true that Mr Ansah did not engage in the stabbings, but they would not have occurred but for the presence of the entire group. Mr Ansah’s presence in a group where he knew that members held weapons is a significant fact. He has, in his own way, participated and facilitated significant group violence which had marked consequences for Australian community members in a social setting at a suburban birthday party. Very serious injury can result from the random violence of a group of young delinquents.
I must assess the likelihood of Mr Ansah reoffending in this way. This is a most difficult task. First, I accept that his violence in the community has been linked closely with group violence; i.e., he was acting in concert with others. There is no suggestion that the violence is linked to theft or the obtaining of drugs. It has not been fuelled by an addiction or alcohol misuse. There is no evidence to suggest that Mr Ansah has acted regularly by himself to inflict violence while in the community, although it must also be said that he has not been a passive supporter of his gang but was, to the contrary, an active participant.
It seems to me that the future risk Mr Ansah might pose to the community depends largely upon whether he would choose to resume poor peer associations. There are a number of reasons for believing that he will not do so.
First, I give Mr Ansah credit for his significant contribution to his family. He has suffered greatly from the presence of an abusive father, and then also from the absence of a decent and responsible father from the household. I accept that he has fulfilled the role of a father to his younger brother, who is autistic and has severe self-care limitations, including incontinence. He has shared a bedroom with the brother and engendered a positive relationship. He showers and dresses his brother, for example, which must be a confronting and oftentimes burdensome chore. He had to help out substantially when his mother was in hospital. His circumstances have been difficult and he has risen to the challenges willingly on the evidence before me.
There is, therefore, a substantially positive side to Mr Ansah, one that stands in stark contrast to his pronounced criminality. It is an important matter that Mr Ansah has demonstrated himself to be prosocial in a domestic setting. That lowers his risk of reoffending, or at least points to a capacity and willingness to make prosocial choices and shoulder significant responsibilities.
Secondly, Mr Ansah’s choice to be involved in gang violence was taken at a different stage in his life. There is a substantial difference between Mr Ansah as a 20-year-old with no experience of jail and Mr Ansah today at 25. He entered jail in 2019, and has been in either jail or immigration detention since that time (with the exception of just over two months, when he was released into the community from late December 2022 to early March 2023). A 25-year old who has experienced jail and immigration detention as the precursor to deportation stands in a very different position to a 20-year-old who finds the prospect of engaging in a ‘war’ with other gangs exciting.
Thirdly, and relatedly, Mr Ansah has experienced jail and detention. Jail is a particularly impressive experience for young people. He was also stabbed while in jail. That experience may well have had very salutary effects despite it being a most unfortunate incident in his life. Mr Ansah now understands first-hand, and as a victim, exactly what serious violence means and how close one can come to death as result of the use of weapons. I do not believe the lesson has been lost on him.
Fourthly, Mr Ansah is also genuinely attached both to his mother and to his family. By way of contrast, I accept that he has no contacts in New Zealand. It seems to me that he has a particular desire to re-establish himself in a prosocial way given that attachment and the bleakness of the alternative; namely, an uncertain future life in New Zealand without family. He well understands that, if he were to remain in Australia, further offending could only lead to longer jail sentences, the re-cancellation of his visa, and his almost certain removal to New Zealand. I am satisfied Mr Ansah understands that consequence fully.
Mr Ansah has good contacts in the community. A school-friend, Mr He, who gave evidence before me, was clear that he would offer employment to Mr Ansah. Mr Ansah worked for him before when he was in the community, and he worked hard. The structure of hard work and family life is important in keeping Mr Ansah focussed on prosocial choices. It is true, of course, that Mr Ansah had a job and had the same family structure when he committed his most serious offences. That is a relevant consideration. But it can equally be said that a job and a sound family structure could only aid Mr Ansah if he were to be given the opportunity to reintegrate himself in the community.
There are, however, other factors at play. Mr Ansah has been diagnosed with both post-traumatic stress disorder and depression. I accept that there does need to be one-on-one engagement with a professional to treat the underlying causes of Mr Ansah’s antisocial behaviour. It is a remarkable feature of this matter that Mr Ansah should have, on the one hand, demonstrated such positive qualities in a family setting but, on the other, engaged in such wanton and pointless violence. The root cause of that antisocial tendency has yet to be fully explored and understood. Mr Ansah will need in my opinion one-on-one targeted psychological intervention to address that issue. This has been lacking to date. I accept that Mr Ansah is now willing to engage in this. Mr Tsolis, who gave evidence, is a clinical psychologist who offers a series of Medicare-funded sessions as part of his clinical practice. He would be willing to offer his services to Mr Ansah on this basis.
It does seem to me to be vital for Mr Ansah to engage in therapeutic counselling and psychological treatment. He has not done so to date.
It would also be vital for Mr Ansah to stay away from all antisocial peers. Whether he seeks out those peers is to my mind the critical question. I accept that Mr Ansah did spend some time in the community, albeit a short period of time, and that, on the evidence before me, he did not seek out those peers. That is an aspect of the matter that lowers risk.
I was pressed by Mr Burnham with the various incidents that occurred in jail and in detention. But all in all, the incidents do not, in my opinion, demonstrate a deep-seated antisocial trend of frequent and extreme violence. One violent incident in detention was the subject of an apology by Mr Ansah. I bear in mind, also, that both jail and detention can be an extremely stressful and antisocial environment and that outbreaks of violence do regularly occur. So there is a context to Mr Ansah’s misbehaviour in jail and detention that I need to weigh.
I should also say that I attach no weight to the courses Mr Ansah completed in jail. These were all internet courses.[27] The evidence suggests they were completed over three days in a row. I do not believe that they could have had a particular impact on Mr Ansah’s development.
[27] HB, 79-81.
I have not attached much weight to Mr Tsolis’s report.[28] It seems to me that the report is some years old now, and Mr Tsolis did not re-interview Mr Ansah prior to the hearing. He was not able, therefore, to comment meaningfully on Mr Ansah’s present position. His conclusion is not inconsistent, however, with my own conclusion.
[28] HB, 257ff.
I have also taken into account Mr Ansah’s failure to admit fully to me the offending of which he was found guilty. He sought rather to downplay his role. Applicants often make the mistake of seeking to downplay their offending in the Tribunal in the hope of securing a better outcome. That is understandable at one level; but it is difficult to accept Mr Ansah’s expressions of remorse when he has failed to acknowledge fully his offending.
Nevertheless, all in all, I believe the risk of Mr Ansah re-associating with adverse peers and re-engaging in antisocial gang or group violence is low. That said, I note that a ‘low risk’ is not ‘no risk’, and the risk is to be taken ‘cumulatively’, that is in conjunction with,[29] the nature and seriousness of harm. I have assessed the latter to be very serious indeed.
[29] Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs v LJTZ [2021] FCA 92.
There is no family violence by Mr Ansah to consider.[30]
[30] Paragraph 8.2 of the Direction.
I must consider the strength, nature, and duration of Mr Ansah’s ties to Australia.[31] This is a consideration that weighs considerably in Mr Ansah’s favour. Family members would be greatly affected by Mr Ansah’s removal to New Zealand. Here I mention particularly the impact upon Mr Ansah’s mother and upon his younger autistic brother. I accept that Mr Ansah’s mother has a genuine love for her son and that she would feel greatly burdened by his departure for New Zealand. I accept also that Mr Ansah would make a meaningful contribution to his family’s limited income by resuming work in the community. At the present time Mr Ansah’s mother is unemployed, and in addition faces special difficulties controlling the autistic brother, who lashes out at her frequently. She has been the victim of his violence: he is now a 23-year-old male who can overpower her when he acts out of frustration. Mr Ansah is a calming influence on his younger brother and has assisted in the management of the younger brother’s hygiene and dressing routines. The younger brother no doubt misses Mr Ansah, and on the evidence before me appears not to understand, or to be able to accept, Mr Ansah’s ongoing absence. Those are important contributions that Mr Ansah makes to family life and his absence in New Zealand would be a significant blow to the family in these ways. I do accept, however, that Mr Ansah’s other brother, who also lives in the house, is available to assist although he does not have the same rapport with the brother. He does earn a reasonable income with which he can assist his mother. Nevertheless, I find that Mr Ansah’s absence is a significant burden for the family.
[31] Paragraph 8.3 of the Direction.
The interests of minor children do not arise.[32]
[32] Paragraph 8.4 of the Direction.
I must take into account the expectations of the Australian community. I note paragraph 8.5(1) of the Direction. This provides that ‘as a norm’, the Australian community expects the Government not to allow non-citizens who have engaged in serious criminal conduct to remain in Australia. That is an important consideration to bear in mind. It has particular importance in the context of unacceptable social phenomena such as gang violence.
Paragraph 8.5(2) also applies. There are serious character concerns that arise from gang violence for self-evident reasons. These expectations apply even where an applicant poses no measurable risk of recidivism.[33] Moreover, I am not to assess the expectations of the community in a given case but must proceed on the basis of the expectations as given in the paragraph.[34] I do so.
[33] Paragraph 8.5(3) of the Direction.
[34] Paragraph 8.5(4) of the Direction.
There are ‘other’ considerations to be taken into account under section 9 . These include in this case the legal consequences of the decision and the extent of impediments if removed. I accept the legal consequence of a decision to affirm the decision under review would be the removal of Mr Ansah from Australia without his having a right of return. For all practical purposes, he would be permanently excluded from Australia.
I accept that he would face some impediments on return to New Zealand. I accept his and his mother’s evidence that he has no connections there and has no real familiarity with the country, having left so young. Although I proceed on the basis that New Zealand has an equivalent social-welfare system and, overall, an equivalent standard of living, I accept that Mr Ansah does need – or would benefit substantially from – secure housing, a secure job, and a family environment. This would allow him to better absorb the therapeutic interventions of which he stands in need. I accept Mr Tsolis’s opinion, expressed in his oral evidence to the Tribunal, that it is difficult to treat psychological conditions of PTSD and depression when a patient is suffering additional stresses caused by financial or family insecurity. That is a factor weighing in Mr Ansah’s favour.
Weighing the considerations
I turn now to weighing the various considerations. This is not an easy task. I begin with the very serious gang violence in which Mr Ansah participated actively and which could easily have led to a death. This violence is spoken against very strongly in the Direction at various points. Clearly, it is a violence that threatens the Australian community directly and also undermines the conditions of a safe and well-ordered society. I return also to the setting of the violence; namely, a birthday party at a private suburban home. That innocuous setting became the scene of considerable violence, which led to multiple injuries of a very serious kind. Three months later he was involved in further violence, acting in concert with another.
I must weigh very carefully the violence that has occurred in this case. I have found the risk of recidivism to be low but not nil, and it is a matter that I must in any event assess ‘cumulatively’ with the very serious consequences that could arise from future acts of group violence.
There is, however, the very real impact upon Mr Ansah’s family. I have often said that family members are frequently the victims of the dysfunction brought into the family unit by criminal offending. The mother in this case faces special difficulties in connection with her disabled son, who has been an extreme challenge for her in Mr Ansah’s absence, and that has been true notwithstanding the presence of another son in the household. Mr Ansah has fulfilled a very significant role in his disabled brother’s life. That is an important aspect of the matter. I also weigh that the risk of recidivism is low (although not nil).
Whilst I do not wish to simplify the weighing process, since all factors must be weighed, there are two opposing considerations that starkly arise in this case; namely, the understandable emphasis in the Direction on safeguarding the community on the one hand, and, on the other hand, the impact of the applicant’s absence from a family where there are special needs. I have borne in mind that the weighing process must take account of the ‘specific circumstances’ of the case,[35] which are highly unusual here. The weighing process must not simply devolve into a mechanistic application of the Direction, but must, to the contrary, involve its very considered application consideration in the context of specific facts. I bear in mind that the Direction does not prescribe a consequence that universally applies in the case of any particular offending, although, as I have said, it speaks strongly against the offending in this case. I must bear in mind, and I do so, that the Direction says that ‘generally’ the protection of the Australian community is to be given greater weight than the other considerations, and that the safety of the community is the highest priority of the Australian Government.[36]
[35] Paragraph 5.1(3) of the Direction.
[36] Paragraphs 7(2) and 5.2(2) of the Direction.

That said, I have decided that, on balance, the preferable decision on the evidence before me, after weighing all the considerations required to be addressed, favours revocation of the cancellation decision. That is very much a decision on balance having regard to the unusual factors in this case.
CONCLUSION AND FORMAL ORDER
70.Accordingly, I find that there is ‘another reason’ to revoke the cancellation decision under section 501CA(4)(b)(ii) of the Act. It follows that I should set aside the decision under review and substitute a decision that the cancellation of the applicant’s visa be revoked. This will be the formal decision of the Tribunal.

I certify that the preceding seventy (70) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Senior Member Manetta.

............................[SGND]................................
Associate

Dated: 4 April 2025

Date of hearing: 01 and 02 April 2025

Advocate for the Applicant:

I Ehimudiamen (Lucky Iyare & Associates)

Advocate for the Respondent: M Burnham (Sparke Helmore)

Date of hearing:	01 and 02 April 2025
Advocate for the Applicant:	I Ehimudiamen (Lucky Iyare & Associates)
Advocate for the Respondent:	M Burnham (Sparke Helmore)