Arama and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (Migration) - [2025] ARTA 2268

Arama and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (Migration) [2025] ARTA 2268 (3 October 2025)
Applicant/s:  Orlando Bernado Charlie Arama
Respondent:  Minister for Immigration and Citizenship
Tribunal Number:                2025/4348

Tribunal:Senior Member S Webb
Place:Canberra
Date:3 October 2025

Decision:The 11 July 2025 decision not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of Mr Arama’s Class TY Subclass 444 Special Category (Temporary) visa under s 501CA(4) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) is affirmed.

Statement made on 03 October 2025 at 11:47am
Catchwords
MIGRATION – mandatory visa cancellation – birth in Australia – facts necessary to establish automatic acquisition of Australian citizenship not established by available evidence – criminal convictions – failure to pass character test – substantial criminal record – review of decision not to revoke visa cancellation – Ministerial Direction No. 110 – primary and other relevant considerations – protection of Australian community – seriousness of conduct – escalation – risk of reoffending – potential harms – protective factors – strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia – best interests of minor children – expectations of the Australian community – legal consequences of non-revocation – extent of impediments if removed from Australia – balance of considerations – decision affirmed
Legislation
Australian Citizenship Act 2007, ss 5, 12
Australian Citizenship Act 1948 s 10
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 198, 499, 500, 501, 501CA
Cases
Ali v Minister for Home Affairs [2020] FCAFC 109
Assistant Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v Splendido [2019] FCAFC 132
Au v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2022] FCAFC 125
Bettencourt v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services & Multicultural Affairs [2021] FCAFC 172
DKN20 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2021] FCAFC 97
EPU19 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (No. 2) [2021] FCA 1536
FYBR v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCAFC 185
Stoneley v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2025] FCA 143
Tanielu v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2014] FCA 673
Viane v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2018] FCAFC 116
Secondary Materials
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

Orlando Arama is a New Zealand citizen who has been living in Australia under a Special Category (Class TY) (subclass 444) visa (Visa). He engaged in criminal conduct and was sentenced to a term of imprisonment greater than 12 months. This resulted in mandatory cancellation of his Visa under s 501(3A) of the Migration Act 1958 (Act).
Mr Arama made representations seeking revocation of the mandatory Visa cancellation decision. A delegate of the Minister decided not to revoke the decision to cancel Mr Arama’s Visa. He applied for review of this decision by the Tribunal.
The review is regulated by legislative procedures set out in s 500(6) to (6L) of the Act.
Facts
The following facts are established by the documentary and oral evidence before the Tribunal.
Mr Arama’s parents are New Zealand passport holders residing in Australia. Departmental records suggest his mother first arrived in Australia on 8 May 1987 without a visa and his father first arrived in Australia on 3 December 1988 without a visa.[1]
[1] Exhibit 1, 146.
In October 1989, Mr Arama was born in Brisbane.
On 25 December 1989, he departed from Australia as a non-visaed New Zealand passport holder.[2]
[2] Ibid, 253.
Thereafter, Mr Arama returned to Australia on 8 occasions for short periods:
(a)13 January 1990 to 13 April 1990;
(b)23 September 1995 to 11 October 1995 (from 1995, he travelled to Australia using a Visa);
(c)16 April 1996 to 26 April 1998;
(d)10 April 1999 to 26 April 1999;
(e)19 April 2000 to 9 May 2000;
(f)25 October 2000 to 19 November 2000;
(g)7 August 2002 to 27 December 2002; and
(h)21 January 2003 to 26 May 2003.[3]
[3] Ibid, 252-253.
On 21 May 2004, Mr Arama returned to Australia. He was 14 years old. As his movement records demonstrate, he subsequently departed from Australia only for short periods.[4]
[4] Ibid, G16.
Mr Arama has immediate and extended family members residing in Australia.[5]
[5] Ibid, 205.
On 4 June 2022, Mr Arama married Kay Heta, a New Zealand citizen permanently residing in Australia.[6]
[6] Ibid, 13, 198.
Mr Arama has a history of criminal convictions:[7]
[7] Ibid, G3.
(a)On 17 May 2010, he was convicted of ‘receiving tainted property’ and ‘fraud – dishonestly obtain property from another’. He was sentenced to 12 months’ probation and ordered to pay $250 in restitution.
(b)On 12 September 2011, he was convicted of breaching the probation order and given a $350 fine.
(c)On 27 February 2012, he was convicted of stealing. He was sentenced to a $300 fine and ordered to pay $80.04 in restitution.
(d)On 18 July 2012, he was convicted of wilful damage and was fined $500.
(e)On 6 February 2019, he was convicted of ‘destroy or damage property<=$2000 (DV)’. He was sentenced to a $750 fine.
(f)On 7 July 2020, he was convicted of driving a motor vehicle while his driver’s licence was suspended. He was disqualified from driving for 3 months and fined $400.
(g)On 22 April 2021, Mr Arama was convicted of ‘stalk police officer in execution of duty without actual bodily harm’. He was fined $1,800.
(h)On 1 March 2023, he was convicted of:
(i)two counts of ‘possess/attempt to, prescribed restricted substance’ for which he was fined $400 on each count; and
(ii)‘stalk/intimidate intend fear physical etc harm (personal)’ for which he was sentenced to an 18 month community correction order; and
(iii)possess or use a prohibited weapon (“knuckledusters”[8]) without permit for which he was sentenced to a 6 month term of imprisonment.
(i)On 11 October 2024, Mr Arama was convicted of:
(i)conspiracy to take a detained person in company with intent to obtain advantage and intending to pervert the course of justice, for which he was sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment of 2 years and 10 months; and
(ii)a tax fraud conspiracy against the Commonwealth and attempting to pervert the course of justice, for which he was sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment of 3 years and 2 months.[9]
[8] Ibid, 302-303.
[9] Ibid, 133-134.
On 25 October 2024, Mr Arama’s visa was cancelled under s 501(3A) of the Act.[10] He was invited to make representations which he did,[11] seeking revocation of the mandatory Visa cancellation decision on 15 November 2024.[12]
[10] Ibid, 241-247.
[11] Ibid, G15.
[12] Ibid, G10.
On 11 July 2025, a delegate of the Minister decided not to revoke the Visa cancellation.[13]
[13] Ibid, 56-76.
On 18 July 2025, Mr Arama lodged an application for review of this decision by the Tribunal.
Issues
The key issue is whether the mandatory Visa cancellation decision should be revoked. This is to be determined under s 501CA(4) of the Act which provides:
(4) The Minister may revoke the original decision if:
(a) the person makes representations in accordance with the invitation; and
(b) the Minister is satisfied:
(i) that the person passes the character test (as defined by section 501); or
(ii) that there is another reason why the original decision should be revoked.
Paragraph 501CA(4)(a) is met. Mr Arama made representations in accordance with the invitation to do so. The issue then is whether the Tribunal, standing in the Minister’s shoes, is satisfied:
(a)Mr Arama passes the ‘character test’ set out in s 501 of the Act; and, if not,
(b)whether there is another reason to revoke the Visa cancellation.
The parties did not raise or address the possibility that the use of the word ‘may in s 501CA(4) confers a residual discretion on a decision-maker. I note there are divergent authorities addressing the point.[14] On a plain reading of the text, any residual discretion would be essentially preconditioned by satisfaction of the matters set out in either s 501CA(4)(b)(i) or (ii). I will proceed on the basis that where such a state of satisfaction is achieved, exercise of the power is mandated.
[14] See, for example; Viane v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2018] FCAFC 116; Ali v Minister for Home Affairs [2020] FCAFC 109; Bettencourt v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services & Multicultural Affairs [2021] FCAFC 172; Au v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2022] FCAFC 125.
Mr Arama raised a threshold issue in representations, which he repeated in these proceedings, namely that he is or should be taken to be an Australian citizen.
Australian citizenship
Mr Arama asserts because he was born in Brisbane to parents who were treated as permanent residents at the time, he obtained Australian citizenship by birth.
The Minister asserts this is not correct and submits there is no evidence Mr Arama applied for Australian citizenship. Furthermore, in the Minister’s submission, an assessment of Mr Arama’s Australian citizenship status concluded he was not an Australian citizen and a further process has commenced to determine his Australian citizenship status, but this has not yet been completed.
I make three observations about these matters.
Firstly, the question whether Mr Arama acquired Australian citizenship by operation of law on the fact of his birth in Australia is to be answered under s 12 of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (2007 Act) or s 10 of the Australian Citizenship Act 1948 (1948 Act). By operation of s 5(3) of the 2007 Act the ‘permanent resident’ status of his parents is to be determined under s 10 of the 1948 Act, which excludes an ‘exempt non-citizen’. The Tribunal is authorised only to make factual findings about such matters which are relevant to exercise of the jurisdiction conferred upon it under s 500 of the Act.
Secondly, there is no dispute Mr Arama was the holder of the Visa which was cancelled under s 501(3A) of the Act. It is the Visa cancellation which is the subject of revocation considerations in this review. The Tribunal’s jurisdiction is confined to s 501CA(4) of the Act.
Thirdly, if it is established Mr Arama is, in fact, an Australian citizen by operation of law, he would not be a ‘non-citizen’ for the purposes of the Act and he could not be taken into immigration detention or removed from Australia following his release from prison.
The available materials are not sufficient to positively satisfy me Mr Arama is an Australian citizen. In the limited time available under s 500(6L) of the Act, it is not feasible to engage in further enquiries to obtain additional relevant materials and submissions or to await the outcome of the Departmental process.
That being so, for the purposes of s 501CA(4) of the Act, I will proceed to determine if there is another reason to revoke the mandatory Visa cancellation decision.
Directions
By operation of s 499 of the Act, directions issued by the minister must be complied with: presently, the Minister’s ‘Direction No. 110 — Visa refusal and cancellation under section 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under section 501CA' (Direction).
Part 1 of the Direction sets out Objectives which include whether there is another reason to revoke the cancellation given the specific circumstances of the case. The Direction does not direct the result in the circumstances of any case, and it does not limit the matters of relevance a decision-maker is able to consider.
The principles set out in paragraph 5.2 provide a framework in which decisions are to be made:
1Australia has a sovereign right to determine whether non-citizens who are of character concern are allowed to enter and/or remain in Australia. Being able to come to or remain in Australia is a privilege Australia confers on non-citizens in the expectation that they are, and have been, law-abiding, will respect important institutions, such as Australia’s law enforcement framework, and will not cause or threaten harm to individuals or the Australian community.
2The safety of the Australian Community is the highest priority of the Australian Government.
3Non-citizens who engage or have engaged in criminal or other serious conduct should expect to be denied the privilege of coming to, or to forfeit the privilege of staying in, Australia.
4The Australian community expects that the Australian Government can and should refuse entry to non-citizens, or cancel their visas, if they engaged in conduct, in Australia or elsewhere, that raises serious character concerns. This expectation of the Australian community applies regardless of whether the non-citizen poses a measureable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community.
5Australia has a low tolerance of any criminal or other serious conduct by visa applicants or those holding a limited stay visa, or by other non-citizens who have been participating in, and contributing to, the Australian community only for a short period of time.
6With respect to decisions to refuse, cancel, and revoke cancellation of a visa, Australia may afford a higher level of tolerance of criminal or other serious conduct by non-citizens who have lived in the Australian community for most of their life, or from a very young age.
7Decision-makers must take into account the primary and other considerations relevant to the individual case. In some circumstances, the nature of the non-citizen's conduct, or the harm that would be caused if the conduct were to be repeated, may be so serious that even strong countervailing considerations may be insufficient to justify not cancelling or refusing the visa, or revoking a mandatory cancellation.
8The inherent nature of certain conduct such as family violence is so serious that even strong countervailing considerations may be insufficient to justify not cancelling or refusing the visa, or revoking a mandatory cancellation, even if the information available at the time of consideration suggests that the non-citizen does not pose a measureable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community.
Part 2 of the Directions sets out factors that must be considered to the extent relevant in any case. The following instructions and guidance are given:
6Making a decision
Informed by the principles in paragraph 5.2, a decision-maker must take into account the considerations identified in sections 8 and 9, where relevant to the decision.
7Taking the relevant considerations into account
(1) In applying the considerations (both primary and other), information and evidence from independent and authoritative sources should be given appropriate weight.
(2) The primary consideration at 8.1 below (protection of the Australian community) is generally to be given greater weight than other primary considerations. Otherwise, primary considerations should generally be given greater weight than the other considerations.
(3) One or more primary considerations may outweigh other primary considerations.
8Primary considerations In making a decision under section 501(1), 501(2) or 501CA(4), the following are primary considerations:
(1) protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct;
(2) whether the conduct engaged in constituted family violence;
(3) the strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia;
(4) the best interests of minor children in Australia;
(5) expectations of the Australian community.
…
9Other considerations
(1) In making a decision under section 501(1), 501(2) or 501CA(4), the considerations below must also be taken into account, where relevant, in accordance with the following provisions. These considerations include (but are not limited to):
(a)legal consequences of the decision;
(b)extent of impediments if removed;
(c)impact on Australian business interest
Character test
There is no dispute, correctly, that Mr Arama fails the ‘character test’ set out in s 501(6):
6 For the purposes of this section, a person does not pass the character test if:
(a)the person has a substantial criminal record (as defined by subsection (7)); or
…
7For the purposes of the character test, a person has a substantial criminal record if:
(a) …
…; or
(3) the person has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more.
Mr Arama is serving an aggregate term of imprisonment of 3 years 2 months which will likely be completed on 29 March 2026.[15]
[15] Exhibit 1, 134.
Another reason
The sole remaining issue is whether there is another reason to revoke the Visa cancellation.
Mr Arama contends his long connection with Australia weighs very heavily in the framework of considerations in the Direction. He asserts he has always believed he is an Australian with Maori heritage. He contends he has always viewed Australia as home and he has deep familial and cultural ties to Australia.
In Mr Arama’s submission, he has not physically harmed anyone and his conduct has been misconstrued. Mr Arama asserts he has engaged in rehabilitative programs and he expresses remorse for his previous offending. He alleges he has learned his lesson and imprisonment has made him re-evaluate what is important in his life. He alleges he will never again engage in criminal conduct as his conduct has adversely affected his wife, children, family and community and he does not want to hurt them further. He argues he has completed courses which assist him to comprehend where he went wrong and how to live better in future.[16] Mr Arama explained he takes his Christian beliefs seriously and before going to prison he and family members would attend church regularly. He alleges he has engaged in church activities, feeding the homeless, and assisting with his children’s sporting events.[17]
[16] Ibid, 228.
[17] Ibid, 231.
Mr Arama explained he joined the ‘Mongrel Mob’ out of ‘cultural affinity’ when he was 18 years old and this “provided me with an opportunity to bond with my Maori brethren”.[18] He explained he became a full member 2 or 3 years later. He alleges he “left that life about 6 years ago”.[19] He explained he has “disassociated from nefarious people” and he will “not be easily led in the future”.[20]
[18] Ibid, 3.
[19] Ibid.
[20] Ibid, 228.
Mr Arama explained he has a close bond and involvement with his biological and step-children. He argues the strong positive role model he has attempted to provide will be placed at risk if his Visa is not reinstated. In Mr Arama’s submission, his children’s best interests will be adversely affected if he is forced to depart from Australia. He asserts, if his wife follows him to New Zealand the children will be separated from their friends, family members and activities in Australia while facing the challenges of adapting to a new life in New Zealand. The alternative is for them to remain in Australia, effectively reducing the opportunity for them to benefit from direct physical contact with him as an active parent and role model in their lives. These alternatives, he asserts, are not in their best interests.
Mr Arama contends “the Australian community would suffer if I was not in Australia as I am a hardworking “ANZAC” man who is aware of my responsibilities as an Australian and to my country of birth where I have grown up and raised my family”.[21] Mr Arama explained he has worked in construction and mining since leaving school and he has contributed to the Australian community over many years.[22]
[21] Ibid, 231.
[22] Ibid, 210-211.

The Minister asserts the balance of primary and other considerations weighs against revocation of the decision to cancel Mr Arama’s Visa. The Minister alleges Mr Arama engaged in very serious conduct and there is a pattern of increasing seriousness in his offending. The Minister submits Mr Arama’s offending demonstrates a significant disregard for Australian law and the Australian community. The seriousness of his conduct is reinforced, the Minister argues, by his efforts to undermine the Australian legal system and the 3 year 2 month term of imprisonment to which he was sentenced. In the Minister’s submission, Mr Arama played an important role in the tax fraud conspiracy, in which he enlisted his wife and another participant for his own financial gain and then sought to blame a co-offender and to kidnap a co-offender to make more money.
Mr Arama’s history of threats of violence is of particular concern, the Minister asserts, when this is viewed in the context of his involvement in the outlawed ‘Mongrel Mob’ motorcycle gang. The Minister contends Mr Arama’s assertion of ceasing involvement in the gang 6 years ago is not consistent with the evidence and it should be rejected. The Minister argues Mr Arama involvement with the gang and engaging in a pattern of criminal activity with a member of the ‘Finks’ motorcycle gang (another prescribed criminal organisation in NSW) through fraud, perverting the course of justice and planning to kidnap a co-offender should be viewed very seriously.
The Minister alleges serious financial harm to the Australian community would result should Mr Arama reoffend. Furthermore, if Mr Arama’s offenses involving illegal weaponry, intimidation and attempt to kidnap another person were to be repeated, serious physical and/or psychological harm would be caused to members of the Australian community. In the Minister’s submission, there is a medium to low risk Mr Arama is likely to engage in further serious conduct. The level of risk, the Minister alleges, is informed by Mr Arama’s record of dishonesty, including his efforts to pervert the course of justice and his continuing disavowal of responsibility for and knowledge of the tax fraud, laying blame on a co-offender. The risk is increased by Mr Arama’s disavowal of involvement with outlaw motorcycle gangs when the evidence points to him being involved with gang members in the commission of crimes for which he has been convicted within the last 6 years.
The Minister contends the weight which should be given to these considerations is increased by the expectations of the Australian community.
Against this, the Minister accepts Mr Arama has ties to Australia which weigh in favour of revoking the Visa cancellation, although the counter-weight is not great. The Minister alleges the impact on Mr Arama’s family members would not be great: Mr Arama has been incarcerated for almost 3 years; two of his children have returned to New Zealand to reside with their mother; and his eldest child is an adult living independently in Brisbane. Ms Heta has, in effect, been a single parent to Mr Arama’s 2 step-children and his youngest child, although the Minister accepts Ms Heta and the children would be denied practical and emotional support should he be removed from Australia. The Minister considers there is very scant evidence of adverse impacts on Mr Arama’s parents, grand-parents and other family members.
The Minister accepts that Mr Arama has resided in Australian from the age of 14 years old, and some greater tolerance can be given, although most of his formative years were spent in New Zealand and Mr Arama has repeatedly pointed to his Maori cultural heritage. The Minister asserts Mr Arama’s ties to Australia should also be considered in the context of Mr Arama’s gang involvement, which likely commenced in New Zealand, and related inconsistencies in his evidence. Nonetheless, the Minister accepts Mr Arama has worked in the scaffolding industry and he has an extensive network of family members and associates in the Australian community. The Minister notes Mr Arama’s self-identification as an Australian reflects the strength of his ties to Australia and it informs his alleged belief he is an Australian citizen. The Minister contends these considerations weigh in favour of revoking the cancellation of Mr Arama’s Visa.
In the Minister’s submission, the only children whose best interests might be affected are Mr Arama’s 2 step-children and his youngest child. The Minister accepts these children might experience emotional, practical and financial hardship should Mr Arama’s Visa not be reinstated and he is removed from Australia. The Minister accepts this weighs for revocation of the Visa cancellation, but not heavily as the older children are approaching adulthood and the time in which Mr Arama might play a positive parental role on his release from prison is limited.
In the Minister’s submission, the legal consequences of a non-revocation decision should be given neutral weight as Mr Arama has not made representations about such matters and it is not necessary to revisit matters already considered.[23]
[23] Stoneley v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2025] FCA 143, [36]-[38] citing DKN20 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2021] FCAFC 97, [40]–[41].
The Minister contends Mr Arama could face some impediments if he is removed from Australia but notes he is 35 years old and familiar with New Zealand culture and society, having visited many times. The Minister asserts Mr Arama might have limited familial and social supports in New Zealand, but he would be able to access appropriate medical and welfare service as a New Zealand citizen and, with his employment history, he would be unlikely to face practical difficulty re-establishing himself in New Zealand.
The Minister asserts there are no business considerations and, overall, the consideration weighing against revocation outweigh those weighing in favour of revocation of the decision to cancel Mr Arama’s Visa.
Consideration
When considering whether there is another reason to revoke mandatory cancellation of a non-citizen’s visa, under the principle in s 5.1(3), the specific circumstances of the case must be considered.
Protection of the Australian community
The principles set out in s 5.2(2) and (3) of the Direction state that the safety of the Australian community is the highest priority of the Australian Government.
The Direction states in s 8.1.(1), to that end, the Government is committed to protecting the community from harm resulting from criminal conduct or other serious conduct by non-citizens, and non-citizens who engage in criminal or other serious conduct should expect to be denied the privilege of remaining in Australia. Entering or remaining in Australia is a privilege conferred on non-citizens in the expectation that they are law abiding and do not cause or threaten harm to individuals or the Australian community. These matters should be kept squarely in mind when considering protection of the Australian community.
The the nature and seriousness of Mr Arama’s conduct to date is to be considered under s 8.1.1 of the Direction and the risk of harm to the Australian community should he engage in further serious conduct is to be considered under s 8.1.2.
Nature and seriousness of conduct
The following matters are set out in s 8.1.1:
1In considering the nature and seriousness of the non-citizen’s criminal offending or other conduct to date, decision-makers must have regard to the following:
(a)without limiting the range of conduct that may be considered very serious, the types of crimes or conduct described below are viewed very seriously by the Australian Government and the Australian community:
(i)     violent and/or sexual crimes;
(ii)    crimes of a violent nature against women or children, regardless of the sentence imposed;
(iii)   acts of family violence, regardless of whether there is a conviction for an offence or a sentence imposed;
(b)without limiting the range of conduct that may be considered serious, the types of crimes or conduct described below are considered by the Australian Government and the Australian community to be serious:
(i)     causing a person to enter into or being party to a forced marriage (other than being a victim), regardless of whether there is a conviction for an offence or a sentence imposed;
(ii)    crimes committed against vulnerable members of the community (such as the elderly and the disabled), or government representatives or officials due to the position they hold, or in the performance of their duties;
(iii)   any conduct that forms the basis for a finding that a non-citizen does not pass an aspect of the character test that is dependent upon the decision-maker’s opinion (for example, section 501(6)(c));
(iv)   where the non-citizen is in Australia, a crime committed while the non-citizen was in immigration detention, during an escape from immigration detention, or after the non-citizen escaped from immigration detention, but before the non-citizen was taken into immigration detention again,, or an offence against section 197A of the Act, which prohibits escape from immigration detention;
(c)with the exception of the crimes or conduct mentioned in subparagraph (a)(ii), (a)(iii) or (b)(i) above, the sentence imposed by the courts for a crime or crimes;
(d)the frequency of the non-citizen’s offending and/or whether there is any trend of increasing seriousness;
(e)the cumulative effect of repeated offending;
(f)whether the non-citizen has provided false or misleading information to the Department, including by not disclosing prior criminal offending;
(g)whether the non-citizen has re-offended since being formally warned, or since otherwise being made aware, in writing, about the consequences of further offending in terms of the non-citizen’s migration status (noting that the absence of a warning should not be considered to be in the non-citizen’s favour).
(h)where the offence or conduct was committed in another country, whether that offence or conduct is classified as an offence in Australia.
Mr Arama’s criminal conduct involves conspiracy, dishonesty, intimidation, threatened violence (intimidating a police officer and planning to kidnap a co-offender to obtain money), an act of domestic violence, driving while suspended, possession of an unlawful weapon, possession of restricted substances, theft, property damage and breach of orders. Conduct of this kind is inherently serious.
From December 2021 to Mr Arama’s arrest on 1 September 2022, on the Agreed Statement of Facts placed before the District Court clearly reveal Mr Arama conspired with others in a pattern of criminal activity involving intimidation, fraud, attempting to pervert the course of justice and intent to kidnap a co-offender to obtain money. Mr Arama asserts he associated with friends and family members, not with outlaw motorcycle gangs. The nature and duration of this offending and the important role Mr Arama played, albeit not as an initiator, increases the seriousness of his conduct.
In sentencing Mr Arama to an aggregate 2-year 10-month term of imprisonment, Judge David found Mr Arama’s role in the conspiracy to kidnap offence was “below the mid-range for offences of this type” and his intention to pervert the course of justice (NSW offence) was at the “bottom of the mid-range”.[24]
[24] Ibid, 109.
With regard to Mr Arama’s Commonwealth offences, Judge David determined the tax fraud conspiracy was “just below the mid range for offences of this type”[25] and the attempt to pervert the course of justice was “at the lower end” of the range of objective seriousness[26]. The offending took place over a period of 15 months[27] and it involved substantial amounts of money.
[25] Ibid, 102.
[26] Ibid, 104.
[27] Ibid, 102.
Her Honour noted that Mr Arama’s criminal history was relatively minor and he had not previously served a custodial sentence. These considerations were taken into account in determination of the aggregate 3-year 2-month sentence imposed. The length of the sentence for these offences reflects the serious nature of this conduct.
Mr Arama has a conviction involving property damage in a domestic violence context. He entered a guilty plea, but contests the facts alleged by police.[28] Nevertheless, Mr Arama accepts he and Ms Heta engaged in a domestic argument and he punched and damaged his wife’s car as she was attempting to leave. This is an act of family violence. Violence against women and family violence are treated very seriously.
[28] Ibid, 479-484; 490-495.
I am satisfied there is a trend of increasing seriousness in Mr Arama’s offending conduct. In May 2010, he was convicted of receiving tainted property and fraud. He was subsequently convicted of breaching probation orders, stealing and wilful damage. There is no record of Mr Arama engaging in criminal conduct from 2012 to 2018. Thereafter, he was convicted of a property damage offence in a domestic violence incident, two possession of restricted substances offences, two stalk a police officer offences, possession of a prohibited weapon, two offences involving a Commonwealth tax fraud conspiracy and an attempt to pervert the course of justice, an offence involving a conspiracy to take a detained person in company with intent to obtain advantage and an offence of doing an act intending to pervert the course of justice.
The cumulative effect of Mr Arama’s offending can be gauged by the harm caused to victims of his offending and by the amount of public and community resources diverted to address his conduct. There is no direct evidence of these matters, however.
On 21 November 2010 and 17 August 2015, Mr Arama declared he had no criminal convictions on Incoming passenger card forms he completed.[29] This information was false.
[29] Ibid, 239 and 240.
Overall, I am satisfied Mr Arama’s offending conduct is very serious for the purposes of s 8.1.1 of the Direction.
Risk to the Australian community
In considering the need to protect the Australian community from harm, regard is to be had to the Government’s view is that the Australian community’s tolerance for any risk of future harm becomes lower as the seriousness of the potential harm increases. Some conduct and the potential harm repetition would cause is so serious that any risk it may be repeated may be unacceptable.
Regard is also to be had, cumulatively, to the matters set out in 8.1.2.(2):
(a)the nature of the harm to individuals or the Australian community should the non-citizen engage in further criminal or other serious conduct; and
(b)the likelihood of the non-citizen engaging in further criminal or other serious conduct, taking into account:
(i) information and evidence on the risk of the non-citizen re-offending; and
(ii) evidence of rehabilitation achieved by the time of the decision, giving weight to time spent in the community since their most recent offence (noting that decisions should not be delayed in order for rehabilitative courses to be undertaken).
(c)where consideration is being given to whether to refuse to grant a visa to the non-citizen — whether the risk of harm may be affected by the duration and purpose of the non-citizen’s intended stay, the type of visa being applied for, and whether there are strong or compassionate reasons for granting a short stay visa.
The nature of harm to individuals or the Australian community should Mr Arama engage in further criminal or serious conduct stems from his conspiracy, fraud, intimidation, domestic violence and property offences. Further similar conduct would be likely to cause financial harm to the Australian community and physical, financial and psychological harm to individuals. The adverse effects of conspiracies to defraud the Commonwealth and to pervert the course of justice are likely to harm the integrity of the Australian tax system and justice system as a whole; these are not victimless crimes. Tax fraud is theft from taxpayers. Conspiracy to kidnap a person and conduct involving domestic violence, intimidation, stalking and stealing are likely to harm individual members of the Australian community.
Risk has a chameleon-like quality. It is affected by prevailing circumstances from time to time. Assessment of risk requires the circumstances of Mr Arama’s past offending to be considered with other relevant factors in his present circumstances. The legal conception of ‘unacceptable risk’ was discussed in Tanielu v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection[30]at [102]:
102. It is well established that, where the harm which might be caused by future conduct is particularly serious, a lesser likelihood of the conduct occurring may be required for the risk to be identified at a level requiring a particular decision to be made. It is also well established that the likelihood of a person engaging in conduct in the future is affected by both static and dynamic factors: that is, factors which can be assessed objectively against statistical models to predict the risk category a person falls into, and dynamic factors personal to an individual which may moderate or exacerbate the risk the person otherwise could be said to pose. Those factors might include family support, alcohol and drug abuse patterns, employment and the like.
[30] [2014] FCA 673.
This involves consideration of a range of inputs which ‘fall short of criminality but may still rationally bear upon the assessment of whether a person “might” engage in criminal conduct in the future’.[31]
[31] EPU19 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (No. 2) [2021] FCA 1536 at [182].
Mr Arama asserts there is no risk of him re-offending as this is his first time in jail, he has learned his lesson[32] and he has “a very different outlook on life”[33]. He explained that he has hurt his family and does not want to do so again, and he wants to be a positive role model for his children.
[32] Exhibit 1, 4.
[33] Ibid, 346.
On the evidence of Dr Xia and the Sentencing assessment report placed before the District Court, there is a risk Mr Arama might engage in further serious conduct. Dr Xia formulated this risk in the following way:
Mr Arama has a moderate loading of historical and current risk factors associated with violence and recidivism. However, he also has multiple positive and protective factors including his supportive family, reported stable accommodation should he be released from custody, lack of mental illness, and the capacity to engaging [sic] in occupation should he be released.[34]
[34] Ibid, 333.
In order to assess this risk for the purposes of sentencing, the Level of Service Inventory – Revised was applied. This was reported to result in a “Medium to low risk of reoffending”.[35]
[35] Ibid, 283.
I accept Dr Xia’s evidence there are protective factors, including Mr Arama’s supportive family, which reduce the risk of Mr Arama re-offending. It is likely his religious background might also be a protective factor as his step-father,[36] father and step-mother assert.[37] Dr Xia reported Mr Arama had experienced trauma as a child which probably resulted in symptoms which subsequently remitted. It was on this basis the doctor considered “Mr Arama may fulfil criteria for a diagnosis of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder, in remission” as he had not experienced symptoms for more than 5 years.[38] Mr Arama asserts he did not fully disclose his personal issues to Dr Xia and he has recently been assessed by a psychologist for the purposes of civil action for compensation relating to historical abuse.[39] Mr Arama alleges he fully disclosed all relevant matters to the psychologist who considers the effects of past trauma are ongoing. No substantive material has been given to the Tribunal in support of this assertion.
[36] Ibid, 340-341; 489.
[37] Ibid, 342.
[38] Ibid, 328; 333.
[39] Ibid, 116 refers.

Nevertheless, these protective factors were present in the past when he engaged in serious criminal conduct in the past and committed the offences for which he was sentenced to terms of imprisonment.
There is evidence Mr Arama has engaged in rehabilitation courses. He has undertaken courses in the Salvation Army Positive Lifestyle Program,[40] the Intervention Hub Thinking Skills[41] and the MTC Broad Spectrum Free Your Mind Orientation Rolling Program.[42] Mr Arama gave evidence of completing a 9-week EQUIPS course, as recommended by Dr Xia.[43]
[40] Ibid, 237.
[41] Ibid, 238.
[42] Ibid, 236.
[43] Ibid, 335.
Throughout his incarceration, Mr Arama has engaged in employment. In this context, despite multiple failures to attend work, he was regarded as a hard and willing worker. He has connected with a chaplain and he was referred to the NEXUS program, but he did not attend. He connected with a social work service associated with a national redress scheme, which he has expressed a desire to work with, providing support and advocacy for inmates on release.[44]
[44] Ibid, 587-588.
Mr Arama has expressed remorse for his offending and is reported to have shown empathy for victims.[45] Judge David considered this was reflected in Mr Arama’s early guilty plea.[46]
[45] Ibid, 618 for example.
[46] Ibid, 111-112.
Judge David observed that Mr Arama had demonstrated an ability to live a pro-social life and he has engaged constructively in prison life and conducted himself as a model prisoner. Her Honour found Mr Arama has good prospects of rehabilitation.[47]
[47] Ibid, 119-120.
Nevertheless, there are questions about the extent of Mr Arama’s insight into his offending conduct. Dr Xia reported:
Mr Arama demonstrates some antisocial personality traits. This includes deceitfulness, and impulsivity. Mr Arama’s previous cheating, his engagement with substance use, and his previous charges are also antisocial personality traits. Additionally, though Mr Arama expresses responsibility for his actions leading to a charge of conspiracy to kidnap, Mr Arama maintains his account of reduced culpability in the context of the fraudulent ATO submissions.[48]
[48] Ibid, 328-329.
When this was put to Mr Arama, he explained he had not been forthright with Dr Xia. He considered the doctor was arrogant and she rushed things, which did not go well with him. He contests factual elements of Dr Xia’s report which are attributed to him. He asserts he did not lie to Dr Xia, but he did not fully disclose all personal issues to her in respect of symptoms of past trauma he experienced as a child in the juvenile justice system. Dr Xia is an experienced forensic psychiatrist working in the criminal justice system and in private practice. I do not consider Mr Arama’s failure to fully disclose aspects of his personal issues undermines the reliability of Dr Xia’s report.
The proposition Mr Arama has dissociated from “nefarious people”[49] must be approached with caution. Although Mr Arama alleges he is no longer a member of an outlaw motorcycle gang, by his own account, he associates with friends and family members who are associated with such groups. He asserts his associations are simply in social and family settings, where most of his friends and associates are pro-social. In this context, Mr Arama’s assertion “I will not be easily led in the future” is optimistic. This is reinforced by Dr Xia’s report “Mr Arama disclosed he maintains a non-active member status of an Outlaw Motorcycle Gang, which he claims is not related to his current offence”.[50] Mr Arama cavilled with Dr Xia’s account. Whether or not Mr Arama continues to associate with an outlaw motorcycle gang, the important point in assessing the risk of him re-offending is his continued social and family associations with people who might have such connections and the antisocial personality traits Dr Xia identified.
[49] Ibid, 228.
[50] Ibid, 283.
Dr Xia’s observation that “Mr Arama initially minimised his participation in the offences”[51] is amplified by the representations Mr Arama made to the Minister:
[52]
[51] Ibid, 282.
[52] Ibid, 228.
Judge David determined:
1. The offending was not sophisticated. [Mr Arama] was using his own company details (Owe & Kay Industries) in committing the offence, a factor which would have eased the authority's ability to detect not only the offending, but also who the offender was;
2. He was not involved in the initial planning and establishment of the conspiracy like Benjamin and Elgun, and he sits below them in the hierarchy. He commenced later than they did and was not involved for as long as they did. His offending took place over approximately 15 months.
3. The offender's role, whilst lacking in sophistication, he nevertheless performed an important role acting as the primary point of contact between the higher and lower-level members of the conspiracy, and between the co-conspirators to ensure relevant details were exchanged for the lodgement of BAS, the amounts to be claimed, and the distribution.
4. There were, in this case, a large number of co-conspirators.
5. The participation was laden with a considerably high risk of detection.
6. The planning - whilst there was planning, cannot be said to be in excess of what is inherent in such offences.
7. The offending involved a large amount, both in terms of fraudulent lodgements, being $724,785, and refunds, $428,356.
8. Arama received $147,349 in refunds from the ATO to his personal bank account and the account of Owe & Kay Industries, for which he was the account holder and signatory.
On balance, I am satisfied there is a medium to low level of risk of Mr Arama engaging in further serious or criminal conduct.
Generally, the protection of the Australian community is to be given greater weight than other primary considerations, noting that the safety of the Australian community is the Government’s highest priority. Mr Arama’s previous serious conduct and the harm to individuals and the Australian community should he engage in further similar conduct, cumulatively, test the tolerance of the Australian community.
On balance, I am satisfied this consideration weighs heavily against revocation of the cancellation of Mr Arama’s Visa.
Family Violence
The Government has expressed serious concerns about conferring on non-citizens who engage in family violence the privilege of entering or remaining in Australia. The Government's concerns in this regard are proportionate to the seriousness of the family violence engaged in by the non-citizen.
In considering the seriousness of the family violence engaged in, the factors set out in s 8.2.(3) of the Direction must be considered where relevant:
a) the frequency of the non-citizen's conduct and/or whether there is any trend of increasing seriousness;
b) the cumulative effect of repeated acts of family violence;
c) rehabilitation achieved at time of decision since the person's last known act of family violence, including:
i. the extent to which the person accepts responsibility for their family violence related conduct;
ii. the extent to which the non-citizen understands the impact of their behaviour on the abused and witness of that abuse (particularly children);
iii. efforts to address factors which contributed to their conduct; and
d) Whether the non-citizen has re-offended since being formally warned, or since Otherwise being made aware by a Court, law enforcement or other authority, about the consequences of further acts of family violence, noting that the absence of a warning should not be considered to be in the noncitizen's favour. This includes warnings about the non-citizen's migration status, should the non-citizen engage in further acts of family violence.
Mr Arama has a single conviction relevant to this consideration. The offence involved damage to Ms Heta’s car during a domestic argument. It is not clear if any children were present during this incident. There is no evidence it has been repeated.
While Mr Arama entered a guilty plea,[53] he contests the facts alleged by police and Ms Heta.
[53] Ibid, 477.
On the NSW police alleged facts which were placed before the Sutherland Local Court, Mr Arama and Ms Heta gave differing versions of what occurred. Mr Arama alleged he punched the passenger window of Mr Heta’s vehicle as she attempted to leave and grazed the back of his hand. He did not consider this to be family violence and suggested it only came to notice because a neighbour reported it. Mr Arama alleges the vehicle damage reported by Ms Heta and photographed by police was pre-existing.[54]
[54] Ibid, 490-495.
In oral evidence Ms Heta explained she contacted police as she “got a fright” when Mr Arama lost his temper and violently damaged the vehicle she was driving. The police facts sheet includes the following account of Ms Heta showing police the damage to her vehicle (which was photographed):
The victim [Ms Heta] pointed out the left side wiper blade snapped and ripped off, two small puncture holes on the bonnet believed to be made from the snapped wiper blade, nearside headlight cover and bulbs smashed and nearside mirror shattered. The victim also pointed out blood on the vehicle bonnet, driver side door, driver side window and front window. The victim stated the blood was from the accused [Mr Arama] as he injured himself while damaging the vehicle. Police did not see any damage to the passenger side window, which the accused stated he had punched and cracked.[55]
[55] Ibid, 484.
The implication arising from Mr Arama’s account is that Ms Heta lied to police. Mr Arama did not put this squarely to Ms Heta, although he attempted to lead her into changing her evidence. Ms Heta struck me as a forthright witness. Even though Ms Heta gave evidence she was not fearful of Mr Arama, she adhered to her account of getting a fright. I prefer her evidence. Mr Arama’s evidence he grazed the back of his hand is not consistent with the police account of observing “a laceration on the bottom of his palm”.[56] In all likelihood, it is an attempt to downplay the level of violence involved in the incident and the impact it had on Ms Heta. Mr Arama’s account is implausible and self-serving.
[56] Ibid, 480.
Mr Arama failed to acknowledge the likely extent and impact of his conduct and he attempted to diminish the impact of his conduct on Ms Heta. He rejected the characterisation of his conduct as family violence. His assertion this incident is not domestic or family violence displays a lack of insight into his conduct. This increases the level of concern.
Ms Heta explained Mr Arama has not repeated conduct of this kind and it was a “one-off” incident.
Overall, Mr Arama’s family violence conduct is at the lower end of seriousness. Nevertheless, family violence in any form is abhorrent and of serious concern.
This consideration weighs against revoking the cancellation of Mr Arama’s Visa.
Strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia
This consideration is explained in s 8.3 of the Direction:
(1) Decision-makers must consider any impact of the decision on the non-citizen's immediate family members in Australia, where those family members are Australian citizens, Australian permanent residents, or people who have a right to remain in Australia indefinitely.
(2) Where consideration is being given to whether to cancel a non-citizen's visa or whether to revoke the mandatory cancellation of their visa, the decision-maker must also consider the strength, nature and duration of any other ties that the non-citizen has to the Australian community. In doing so, decision-makers must have regard to:
a. how long the non-citizen has resided in Australia, including whether the non-citizen arrived as a young child, noting that:
i. less weight should be given where the non-citizen began offending soon after arriving in Australia; and
ii.more weight should be given to time the non-citizen has spent contributing positively to the Australian community
b. the strength, duration and nature of any family or social links with Australian citizens, Australian permanent residents and/or people who have an indefinite right to remain in Australia.
In the Personal Circumstances Form Mr Arama lodged on 19 November 2024,[57] he identified the following family members in Australia:
[57] Ibid, G11.
(a)Ms Heta;
(b)5 minor children (3 biological children and 2 step-children);[58]
(c)1 adult son;
(d)his father and step-mother;
(e)his mother and step-father;
(f)2 brothers;
(g)1 sister;
(h)3 grand parents;
(i)4 aunts and uncles; and
(j)“a lot” of cousins, nieces and nephews.[59]
[58] Ibid, 199.
[59] Ibid, 205-206.
There is insufficient relevant material on which to make findings about members of Mr Arama’s immediate family, including whether they are Australian citizens, permanent residents or have an entitlement to remain in Australia. Even though that is possible, even likely, speculation about such matters is not of assistance.
Although Mr Arama’s grandparents and his aunts, uncles, cousins, nieces and nephews might not be considered to be Mr Arama’s ‘immediate family members’, by his own account, “the only negative impact” of the Visa cancellation decision “will be on my grandparents as my grandfather is buried in Brisbane … and my grandparents whom I am very close with and helped raise me cannot travel as they are very old and my living grandfather (mother’s father) is getting old and sick”.[60]
[60] Ibid, 225.
By his own account, 2 of Mr Arama’s biological children are presently residing in New Zealand with their mother. I understand these children previously resided with Mr Arama and Ms Heta and returned to New Zealand after Mr Arama’s incarceration. Contrary to Mr Arama’s assertions, Ms Heta explained these children came to live with her and Mr Arama in or about 2022 and they returned to New Zealand to reside with their mother in or about 2023. On Ms Heta’s evidence, there is a plan for the children to return to Australia to live with her and Mr Arama should he be released into the community. She explained this is somewhat uncertain in the present circumstances. As these members of Mr Arama’s family are not ‘in Australia’, any impact on them of the Visa cancellation decision is not relevant when considering Mr Arama’s ties to Australia. Nevertheless, it can be expected he would have direct contact with these children should his Visa not be reinstated and he is forced to return to New Zealand.
Mr Arama asserts removing him from Australia will have a “devastating effect on my family” as it would split the family and separate him from his children who are in school in Australia.[61] This, he alleges, would be very unfair on them and it would place an “intolerable burden” on Ms Heta.
[61] Ibid, 2.
Mr Arama has been incarcerated since 2022 and this has removed him from family life. During the period of his imprisonment, Ms Heta has been engaged in full time employment while caring and providing for her family without Mr Arama’s financial or practical support. I understand she has been assisted by her mother.
Ms Heta explained she and Mr Arama have managed long-distance separations in the past, since he has been in prison and previously when he worked on a “FIFO” basis. On Ms Heta’s evidence, she and the 3 children are residing with her mother. The 2 younger children are doing well at school. The eldest child is 17 and in full-time employment. Mr Arama’s inability to contribute financially is difficult as he was the primary breadwinner, but Ms Heta is coping.
Ms Heta gave evidence of the impact on her and the children if Mr Arama is forced to depart from Australia once his custodial sentence has been completed. She explained they have experienced the effects of separation and loss of income for 3 years and this would continue should he return to New Zealand. She stated this would be “inconvenient” but they would cope. Ms Heta explained if Mr Arama is removed from Australia, she would not follow him to New Zealand. She stated she loves Australia and she does not intend to interrupt her children’s schooling. She accepted she and the children could visit Mr Arama in New Zealand if there is time and money to do so.
I accept a non-revocation decision will likely have an adverse impact on Ms Heta’s practical, emotional and psychological circumstances. In all likelihood, Ms Heta’s financial circumstances would continue to be affected as they have been since Mr Arama was taken into custody in September 2022. Mr Arama’s previous record of employment in the construction and mining industries may well lead to him having good prospects of employment in New Zealand. If this is correct and Mr Arama obtained employment in New Zealand, the adverse financial impact on Ms Heta’s finances could be expected to remit somewhat.
A non-revocation decision will likely have an adverse impact on the paternal relationship Mr Arama has with the three children presently residing with Ms Heta. While contact could be maintained using telephone and electronic media, as has been occurring during the period of Mr Arama’s incarceration, opportunities for physical contact with these children would be substantially reduced.
Mr Arama’s eldest son resides independently in Brisbane. There is no evidence from this person. In all likelihood, if Mr Arama’s Visa is not reinstated and he returns to New Zealand, the impact on his eldest son will not be great: communication can be maintained by telephone and social media, although opportunities for physical contact would be reduced.
There is no evidence from Mr Arama’s siblings. The materials provided by his biological and step-parents do not squarely address the impact on each of these members of Mr Arama’s family should his Visa not be reinstated and he is forced to return to New Zealand.
The weight of the adverse impacts of the Visa cancellation decision on Mr Arama’s immediate family members is buttressed by the duration of his residence in Australia. On Mr Arama’s movement records it is probable he has resided in Australia from 21 May 2004, when he was 14 years old. He has spent most of his life in Australia, including part of his formative years as a child. He gave evidence he has always considered Australia as home and he considers himself to be Australian.
There is evidence Mr Arama engaged in antisocial conduct as a child. Judge David stated Mr Arama “began engaging in truancy in New Zealand in Year 7 or 8, for which he received detentions and a suspension for physical altercations at school” and he left school at the beginning of year 10.[62] Dr Xia reported Mr Arama experienced abuse and trauma at the age of 15 or 16 years old in the juvenile justice system in Queensland.[63]
[62] Ibid, 114.
[63] Ibid, 313.
Mr Arama described his extensive employment history, working on construction sites from 2007 and subsequently engaging in scaffolding and rigging employment up to his incarceration in 2022.[64] I am satisfied Mr Arama contributed positively to the Australian community when he was not engaged in criminal conduct, particularly from 2012 to 2018.
[64] Ibid, 209-211.
There is evidence in 2021 Mr Arama conducted a transport business which employed 3 staff.[65] Curiously, Mr Arama did not refer to this in the information he provided the Minister on 15 November 2024. I understand the business is no longer in operation.
[65] Ibid, 527.
It can be accepted Mr Arama has an extensive family and social network in Australia. He gave evidence of two generations of family members being born in Australia and attending barbeques and family or social gatherings. It is possible many of his extended family members might have a right to remain in Australia or are permanent residents or Australian citizens. Such matters are not presently established by relevant material of probative value. Nevertheless, I am satisfied Mr Arama has ongoing links with his extended family and social networks within the Pacific Islander and Maori communities, and through the Seventh Day Adventist church his parents and grandparents participate in, which are of long standing. The strength and nature of such links are less clear, although I accept the evidence of his step-mother that Mr Arama “is surrounded with faith, love from his families, and we all continue to mentor, pray and coach him”.[66]
[66] Ibid, 342.

I am satisfied this consideration weighs in favour of revoking the Visa cancellation decision.
Best interests of minor children
Under s 8.4 of the Direction, the Tribunal is required to determine if cancellation of Mr Arama’s Visa is, or is not, in the best interests of minor children under 18 years old who are affected by the decision. The best interests and circumstances of each minor child must be considered individually. The factors set out in s 8.4(4) must be considered where relevant:
(4) In considering the best interests of the child, the following factors must be considered where relevant:
a) the nature and duration of the relationship between the child and the non-citizen. Less weight should generally be given where the relationship is non-parental, and/or there is no existing relationship and/or there have been long periods of absence, or limited meaningful contact (including whether an existing Court order restricts contact);
b) the extent to which the non-citizen is likely to play a positive parental role in the future, taking into account the length of time until the child turns 18, and including any Court orders relating to parental access and care arrangements;
c) the impact of the non-citizen's prior conduct, and any likely future conduct, and whether that conduct has, or will have a negative impact on the child;
d) the likely effect that any separation from the non-citizen would have on the child, taking into account the child's or non-citizen's ability to maintain contact in other ways;
e) whether there are other persons who already fulfil a parental role in relation to the child;
f) any known views of the child (with those views being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child);
g) evidence that the child has been, or is at risk of being, subject to, or exposed to, family violence perpetrated by the non-citizen, or has otherwise been abused or neglected by the non-citizen in any way, whether physically, sexually or mentally;
h) evidence that the child has suffered or experienced any physical or emotional trauma arising from the non-citizen's conduct.
Mr Arama identified five minor children whose best interests should be considered and “a lot” of nieces and nephews. The 5 minor children are ‘T’, ‘P’, ‘M’, ‘Ho’ and ‘Ha’.
There is scant evidence to go on.
As there is no relevant evidence in respect of any of Mr Arama’s nieces and nephews specifically, it is not possible to make meaningful findings in consideration of the factors set out in s 8.4(4).
Mr Arama has a parental role with each of the 5 children. Prior to being taken into custody, with Ms Heta, he was a primary carer for each of the children. Mr Arama asserts he has maintained meaningful and regular contact with the children during the period of his incarceration. He stated he provided a positive, nurturing role model for the children and he was “very hands on”.[67]
[67] Ibid, 221.
On Mr Arama’s evidence, even though he has been physically separated from the children since September 2022, meaningful contact is maintained using telephone and other media, as well as regular visits. On Ms Heta’s evidence, she and Mr Arama have managed long-distance separations in the past, when he was working as a FIFO basis. This would have meant Mr Arama was physically separated from his children during such employment. I am satisfied meaningful contact between Mr Arama and each of the children could continue in the future, if Mr Arama relocates to New Zealand and he and Ms Heta have the time and financial resources to arrange in-person visits.
Mr Arama’s assertion the children experience symptoms of “adjustment anxiety disorder” is not supported by relevant material and it is not consistent with Ms Heta’s evidence the children are doing very well.
There is evidence Mr Arama suffers from substance abuse issues. By his own account, in the past, he used alcohol to manage stress.[68] There is evidence he used Buprenophine in custody as “he relapsed after being stressed from being in custody”.[69] I understand Mr Arama is presently prescribed Buvidal to “support his abstinence”.[70]
[68] Ibid, 346.
[69] Ibid, 586.
[70] Ibid.
On 17 April 2025, illicit items were found in a search of Mr Arama’s cell which resulted in him being placed in segregation, pending a review of his classification:
On the 17^th April 2025, inmate ARAMA was placed on a Segregation Custody Direction. This was a result of being found in possession of a mobile telephone, 31.1 grams of crystalline substance and 219 grams of brown vegetable matter. The phone was found under the shelving unit in his cell where ARAMA is the sole occupant.[71]
[71] Ibid, 559.
Mr Arama denied knowledge or possession of the illicit materials. He was interviewed by police and a decision was made to take no further action.[72]
[72] Ibid, 569.
Ms Heta gave evidence that Mr Arama “has always been an outstanding father to his children” and “he has loved, supported and provided” for his step-children as his own.[73] This is supported by the evidence of Mr Arama’s step-mother and father.[74]
[73] Ibid, 13.
[74] Ibid, 342.
Ms Heta has an ongoing parental role with each of the children, although child Ho and child Ha are residing with their biological mother in New Zealand. Ms Heta’s mother also has a significant role with child T, child P and child M, caring for them after school while Ms Heta (and previously Mr Arama) is at work.
There is no direct evidence of the views of each child. Nevertheless, if the desire of each child is to engage in a full relationship with Mr Arama, this is a very weighty matter in which rights of each child to such a paternal relationship intersect with the child’s best interests, which are affected by Mr Arama’s behaviour and conduct and the legal consequences of his past crimes, including his incarceration from 1 September 2022.
It is not clear if any of the children have been negatively impacted by Mr Arama’s serious conduct in the past. The facts alleged by police in respect of Mr Arama’s domestic violence offence suggests that child T was being cared for during the week by Ms Heta’s mother. Mr Arama and Ms Heta denied this. Ms Heta explained that her mother cared for child T while she and Mr Arama were at work. The offence is stated to have occurred at 7.30pm on 27 November 2018, a Tuesday. It is not clear if child T and the other children were in attendance during this incident. There is a risk each child might be exposed to domestic violence should Mr Arama engage in further similar conduct.
Child T is 8 years old. I accept it is probable Mr Arama is likely to play a positive parental role for child T in the future so long as he does not engage in further serious conduct or substance abuse. It is probable his previous serious conduct has impacted child T, at least as a result of his incarceration from September 2022 when child T was 5 years old. The extent of any negative impact is not clear. Ms Heta’s evidence child T is doing well suggests any negative impact is minimal. Nevertheless, I am satisfied non-revocation of Mr Arama’s Visa is not in child T’s best interest.
Child Ho is 13 years old. Mr Arama is the biological father of child Ho who, on Ms Heta’s evidence, resided with the child’s biological mother in New Zealand until in or about 2022 and returned to New Zealand in or about 2023. On her evidence, child Ho resided with her and Mr Arama in Australia from 2022 to 2023. If this is correct, child Ho would have resided with Mr Arama in 2022 until he was taken into custody in September of that year. Child Ho was 10 years old at that time. I accept that Mr Arama has maintained contact with child Ho while he has been incarcerated and while the child has been residing in New Zealand. To that extent I accept he has played a positive parental role with child Ho and his is likely to continue to do so, so long as he does not engage in further serious conduct or substance abuse. As child Ho is presently residing in New Zealand, if Mr Arama’s Visa is not reinstated, it is likely child Ho would have more opportunity for physical contact with him without further disruption of the child’s life. This may well be in the child’s best interests. Beyond this it is not possible to go on the available materials. Child Ho’s circumstances in New Zealand are not known other than the child is residing with the biological mother. Consequently, even though Ms Heta explained there is a tentative plan for child Ho to return to Australia should Mr Arama be released back into the Australian community, I am not positively satisfied a decision to revoke the Visa cancellation would be in child Ho’s best interests.
Child Ha is 14 years old. Mr Arama is child Ha’s biological father. As with child Ho, child Ha resided with the child’s biological mother in New Zealand and, in or about 2022, when child Ha was 12 years old, the child came to reside with Ms Heta and Mr Arama. Child Ha returned to New Zealand in or about 2023. Child Ha would have been 12 years old when Mr Arama was taken into custody. Beyond the child residing with the biological mother, the circumstances of child Ha’s life in New Zealand are not evident. As child Ha is presently residing in New Zealand, it is conceivable the child would have more opportunity for physical contact with Mr Arama should the Visa cancellation decision be affirmed. This may well be in the child’s best interest even though it is likely there is a tentative plan for child Ha to return to Australia should Mr Arama be released into the Australian community on completion of his term of imprisonment on 29 March 2026. Should that occur, child Ha will be 15 years old. I accept, in that eventuality, Mr Arama is likely to play a positive parental role with child Ha during the 3 years until the child turns 18, so long as Mr Arama does not engage in further serious conduct or substance abuse. It is possible this might be in child Ha’s best interests, but without more relevant information of the child’s circumstances it is not possible to make such a positive determination.
Child M is almost 15 years old. There is no evidence of the role played by this child’s biological father, if any. On Ms Heta’s evidence, she and Mr Arama have been in a relationship for 8.5 years, in all likelihood from in or about 2016, when child M was 6 years old. On Mr Arama’s evidence he was employed in Western Australia on a fly in fly out basis during 2017 and 2018 and then worked in Sydney from 2019 to 2022, when he was taken into custody.[75] On this basis, it is probable Mr Arama had a parental role with child M from the age of 6 years old – child M was 12 when Mr Arama was taken into custody and will be 15 years and 5 months old should he be released on 29 March 2026. I accept Mr Arama, is likely to play a positive parental role for child M in future so long as he does not engage in further serious conduct or substance abuse. The extent of any negative impact Mr Arama’s previous serious conduct might have had on child M, if any, is difficult to gauge. Ms Heta did not refer to any negative impacts and it is likely child M is doing well, despite Mr Arama’s incarceration for the past 3 years. Nevertheless, I accept it is in child M’s best interests for Mr Arama’s Visa to be reinstated.
[75] Ibid, 210.
Child P is 17 years old and in full time employment in the construction industry. There is no evidence of the parental role played by child P’s biological father, if any. On Ms Heta’s evidence, it is probable Mr Arama play a parental role with child P from the age of 9 years old – child P was 14 years old when Mr Arama was taken into custody. There is no reliable evidence child P suffered any negative impact attributable to Mr Arama’s previous serious conduct. Child P will turn 18 in June 2026, 3 months after the term of Mr Arama’s imprisonment ends on 29 March 2026. There is no direct evidence from child P. Nonetheless, I accept Mr Arama is likely to play a positive parental role with child P so long as he refrains from further serious conduct or substance abuse. I am satisfied it is in child P’s best interests for Mr Arama’s Visa to be reinstated.
In consideration of these matters, I am positively satisfied it is in the best interests of child T, child M and child P for the decision to cancel Mr Arama’s Visa to be revoked.
That being so, this consideration weighs in favour of revocation of the Visa cancellation decision.
Expectations of the Australian community
Consideration of the expectations of the Australian community is required under s 8.5 of the Direction:
1The Australian community expects non-citizens to obey Australian laws while in Australia. Where a non-citizen has engaged in serious conduct in breach of this expectation, or where there is an unacceptable risk that they may do so, the Australian community, as a norm, expects the Government to not allow such a non-citizen to enter or remain in Australia.
2In addition, visa cancellation or refusal, or non-revocation of the mandatory cancellation of a visa, may be appropriate simply because the nature of the character concerns or offences is such that the Australian community would expect that the person should not be granted or continue to hold a visa. In particular, the Australian community expects that the Australian Government can and should refuse entry to non-citizens, or cancel their visas, if they raise serious character concerns through conduct, in Australia or elsewhere, of the following kind:
(a)acts of family violence; or
(b)causing a person to enter into, or being party to (other than being a victim of), a forced marriage;
(c)commission of serious crimes against women, children or other vulnerable members of the community such as the elderly or disabled; in this context, 'serious crimes' include crimes of a violent or sexual nature, as well as other serious crimes against the elderly or other vulnerable persons in the form of fraud, extortion, financial abuse/material exploitation or neglect;
(d)commission of crimes against government representatives or officials due to the position they hold, or in the performance of their duties; or
(e)involvement or reasonably suspected involvement in human trafficking or people smuggling, or in crimes that are of serious international concern including, but not limited to, war crimes, crimes against humanity and slavery; or
(f)worker exploitation.
(3) The above expectations of the Australian community apply regardless of whether the non-citizen poses a measureable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community.
(4) This consideration is about the expectations of the Australian community as a whole, and in this respect, decision-makers should proceed on the basis of the Government's views as articulated above, without independently assessing the community's expectations in the particular case.
The ‘norm’ expressed is generally adverse to any non-citizen who has engaged in serious conduct giving rise to character concerns in breach of the expectation the non-citizen will be law-abiding while in Australia.[76] Nevertheless, this should not be construed as directing the outcome in any case or as inimical to the consideration of relevant facts and circumstances. The consideration involves evaluation of what is appropriate in the particular circumstances of the non-citizen and attribution of weight to an adverse character assessment.[77]
[76] FYBR v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCAFC 185, per Charlesworth J at [75] and Stewart at [89].
[77] Ibid, per Stewart J at [102].
There are two main considerations: the character concern stemming from Mr Arama’s serious conduct; and the weight the character concern should be given in the particular circumstances.
Mr Arama’s serious conduct, committing offences involving conspiracy, fraud, dishonesty, intimidation, family violence, threatened violence, stealing and property damage, inform the character concern. This is reinforced by Mr Arama’s previous membership of an outlaw motorcycle gang and likely continuing association with persons involved in or associated with such groups. It is buttressed by Dr Xia’s report of Mr Arama’s antisocial personality traits of deceitfulness and impulsivity.
Despite the positive character references in evidence,[78] there are threads of dishonesty and disregard for Australian law running through Mr Arama’s offending conduct. Accounts he has given for his offending conduct are tainted by inconsistency. There are serious questions about the reliability of aspects of his evidence.
[78] Ibid, 340-341, 342
The Minister asserts considerable weight should be given to these concerns.
Against this, Mr Arama’s long residence in Australia since childhood, the contribution he has made to his immediate family in Australia, particularly his wife and children, and the contribution he has made to the Australian community through employment and in business bear upon concerns about his character and lighten the weight which should be given.
Considering these matters, I am satisfied the character concerns arising from Mr Arama’s serious conduct weigh against revoking the Visa cancellation decision.
Legal consequences of the decision
Under s 7.(2) of the Direction, ‘other considerations’ are generally to be given less weight than ‘primary considerations’.
No protection issues have been raised or arise in this case.
The legal consequence of non-revocation of the Visa cancellation decision is that Mr Arama will become an unlawful non-citizen. Once he is released from prison, he will be liable to be held in immigration detention, pending removal from Australia under s 198 of the Act. Once removed from Australia, it is very unlikely he will be permitted to return.
These are the legal consequences of the policy underlying the character provisions of the Act which apply in all cases of this kind where the decision-maker is not satisfied of the matters set out in s 501CA(4)(b) of the Act.
It is Mr Arama’s contention he is an Australian. This has not yet been tested. The facts necessary to trigger automatic acquisition of Australian citizenship under s 12 of the 2007 Act are not presently made out. I understand the Minister’s Department is undertaking an assessment process to determine if there are grounds on which Mr Arama can be taken to have acquired Australian citizenship by operation of law. As this matter is subject to the time limit set out in s 500(6L) of the Act, it is not possible to await the outcome of this assessment process.
All this notwithstanding, I am satisfied the legal consequences of a decision not to revoke the cancellation of Mr Arama’s Visa weigh against in favour of doing so, but not heavily.
Extend of impediments if removed
Consideration of the impediments a non-citizen would face should they be removed from Australia to their home country is required under s 9.2 of the Direction:
(1) Decision-makers must consider the extent of any impediments that the non-citizen may face if removed from Australia to their home country, in establishing themselves and maintaining basic living standards (in the context of what is generally available to other citizens of that country), taking into account:
a) the non-citizen's age and health;
b) whether there are substantial language or cultural barriers; and
c) any social, medical and/or economic support available to them in that country.
Mr Arama contends Ms Heta and their children might face mental health issues if the family is forced to separate. I treat this submission as applying to Mr Arama as well. He asserts he has no close family or social supports in New Zealand. Mr Arama submits it is unfair to force the family to separate.
I am satisfied, as a New Zealand citizen, it is likely Mr Arama will be able to access community, medical and welfare supports in New Zealand if he requires them. He has two children residing in New Zealand and, by his own account, he knows people residing in New Zealand, including Ms Heta’s parents and members of his extended family related to his biological and step-parents.

I accept in the event Mr Arama’s Visa is not reinstated and he returns to New Zealand, it is probable he may experience a period of adjustment which might be difficult. Nonetheless, Mr Arama spent most of the first 14 years of his life in New Zealand. He attended kindergarten and primary school in New Zealand.
On 6 December 2024, a community corrections officer produced a Pre-release report in which it is stated:
Mr Arama was born in Queensland, Australia and has dual citizenship with New Zealand and a property in New Zealand and would often travel there throughout the year. He indicated that the frequency in which he would travel to New Zealand would be anywhere from twice per week to once per month but averaged it to approximately 7 times per year.[79]
[79] Ibid, 582-583.
Mr Arama contests this account and he denies owning property in New Zealand. The truth or otherwise of this evidence I am unable to determine. The Departmental records of Mr Arama’s movements reveal that from 30 August 2019 to 13 June 2022, he departed from Australia on 6 occasions, 3 of which occurred in the period from 24 March 2022 to 13 June 2022.[80] There is evidence Mr Arama owned a tattoo business in Bali. It is conceivable some if not all of his overseas travel was in respect of that business.
[80] Ibid, 250-251.
Nevertheless, I am satisfied Mr Arama has travelled to New Zealand on many occasions and he is familiar with New Zealand society and culture.
Mr Arama has skills and experience in the construction, mining and transport business industries which are transferable to New Zealand. He has extended family members in New Zealand, albeit he is not close or in contact with them.
There is conflicting evidence addressing Mr Arama’s mental health. Dr Xia reported Mr Arama is likely to meet the diagnostic criteria for Post-traumatic Stress Disorder in remission, as Mr Arama has not experienced symptoms within the past 5 years. Mr Arama contends he continues to suffer the effects of childhood trauma, albeit that psychological evidence in support of this has not been finalised or given to the Tribunal. As I understand Mr Arama’s point, a psychological report has been commissioned for the purposes of a civil compensation action. There is no direct evidence of Mr Arama obtaining treatment for symptoms of a mental illness prior to being taken into custody on 1 September 2022. I understand he has obtained some psychological counselling during the period of his imprisonment, although the nature and extent of such treatment is not established by relevant material of probative value. Even if Mr Arama requires treatment for mental health issues, it is probable he would be able to access these in New Zealand. If there is a compensation claim in respect of childhood trauma in the Queensland juvenile justice system, this could be pressed even if Mr Arama’s Visa is not reinstated and he relocates to New Zealand.
Considering these matters, it is likely Mr Arama might experience some impediments if his Visa is not reinstated. I am satisfied the weight of these is partially offset by Mr Arama’s previous life and experiences in New Zealand and his familiarity with New Zealand culture and society.
I am satisfied this consideration weighs in favour of revoking the decision to cancel Mr Arama’s Visa, but only slightly.
Impact on Australian business interests
This consideration is directed to Australian business interests:
(1) Decision-makers must consider any impact on Australian business interests if the non-citizen is not allowed to enter or remain in Australia, noting that an employment link would generally only be given weight where the decision under section 501 or 501CA would significantly compromise the delivery of a major project, or delivery of an important service in Australia.
Mr Arama did not squarely address this consideration.
I understand his previous transport business is no longer operating in consequence of his incarceration. There is no evidence of any other business interest which might be impacted if Mr Arama is no allowed to remain in Australia.
This consideration does not weigh for or against revocation of the Visa cancellation decision.
Conclusion
It must be kept squarely in mind that the safety of the Australian community is the Government’s highest priority and protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct is generally to be given more weight than other considerations.
The criminal conduct in which Mr Arama engaged is serious and some of his conduct is very serious. There is a trend of increasing seriousness in Mr Arama’s offending. This demonstrates repeated disregard for Australian law and the impact of his offending on victims. In all likelihood, this might be explained by Mr Arama’s previous involvement with outlaw motorcycles gangs and the personality traits Dr Xia identified of deceitfulness and impulsivity. This increases the weight of the protection consideration.
Mr Arama’s previous conduct demonstrates a propensity for dishonesty and a willingness to engage in criminal conspiracy and intimidation for personal gain. Mr Arama’s propensity for dishonesty is a matter of continuing concern. By his own account, he was not forthright with Dr Xia. He alleges he did not lie to the doctor but he contests information the doctor attributes to him. He has given inconsistent accounts of the length of his relationship with Ms Heta and his involvement in outlaw motorcycle gangs. He has attempted to diminish his role in the criminal conspiracies for which he was convicted. He gave evidence under affirmation, having promised to be truthful, but there are real questions about the veracity and reliability of aspects of his evidence, particularly in respect of the domestic violence offence for example.
Physical, psychological and financial harm will likely be caused to individuals and the Australian community should he engage in further similar serious conduct.
The rehabilitative programs Mr Arama has engaged in, which probably includes some psychological counselling, combine with the protective factors Dr Xia and community corrections officer identified to mitigate the risk of Mr Arama re-offending somewhat. This reduces the weight of the protection consideration, but not greatly. There is a medium to low level of risk he might re-offend. The risk is real. It cannot be dismissed as Mr Arama contends. Mr Arama has substance abuse issues which are presently being treated. How he will adjust to life in the community and the stresses which will inevitably arise following completion of his prison sentence, should his Visa be reinstated, is not known and his avowed resolve not to re-offend has not been tested. Mr Arama’s continuing association with people he knows to be associated with outlaw motorcycle gangs, albeit in a familial or social context, reinforces the risk he might re-offend and engage in further criminal or other serious conduct.
I am satisfied the protection consideration weighs heavily against revoking the decision to cancel Mr Arama’s Visa.
Mr Arama’s family violence offence adds weight against revocation of the Visa cancellation decision. Even though this is a singular event, Mr Arama’s lack of insight into his conduct and its effect on Ms Heta, and his passionate assertion his actions did not involve family or domestic violence, raise the level of concern and the weight that should be given.
The consideration of Australian community expectations adds further weight against revoking the Visa cancellation decision. The character concern attributable to the criminal and other serious conduct in which Mr Arama engaged is given weight by the nature of the criminal conspiracies in which he participated to defraud taxpayers, to kidnap a person for financial gain, to pervert the course of justice, as well as by the acts of intimidation and threatened violence he committed.
These primary considerations weigh heavily against revoking the mandatory cancellation of Mr Arama’s Visa.
Conversely, the strength, nature and duration of Mr Arama’s ties to Australia weigh in favour of revoking the Visa cancellation decision. The length of time Mr Arama has resided in Australia from the age of 14 and his extensive family ties to Australia are significant factors. The weight that can be given is coloured somewhat by the paucity of relevant evidence of the nature and strength of his relationships with his adult son, his siblings and members of his extended family. Without sufficient relevant evidence, it is not possible to assess or give weight to any adverse impact cancellation of Mr Arama’s Visa might have on these people if they are Australian citizens or permanent residents. That said, I accept Mr Arama’s grand-parents are likely to be adversely impacted should Mr Arama be required to depart from Australia. The strength of Mr Arama’s immediate family ties and the weight which should be given are supported by the evidence of Ms Heta and Mr Arama’s parents. Ms Heta and his children in Australia are likely to be adversely impacted should the Visa cancellation decision not be revoked. They are likely to be affected practically, emotionally and financially. The adverse impact on Mr Arama’s immediate family members weighs strongly in favour of revoking the Visa cancellation decision.
The positive contribution Mr Arama made to the Australian community through employment and business adds heft and weight to this consideration.
I am satisfied the duration, nature and strength of Mr Arama’s ties to Australia weighs in favour of revoking the decision to cancel his Visa.
Mr Arama’s assertion the best interests of his 5 minor children weigh heavily in favour of revoking the cancellation of his Visa is only partly made out.
Child Ho and child Ha are not ‘in Australia’ for the purposes of s 8.4 of the Direction. They each reside in New Zealand and there is very scant relevant material on which to consider their circumstances. Even if their best interests are to be considered, there is insufficient relevant material of probative value on which to make factual findings necessary to determine if revoking cancellation of Mr Arama’s Visa is or is not in their best interests. It is possible it is not in their best interests as, on Ms Heta’s evidence, these children resided with Mr Arama for only a short period in 2022, prior to his arrest and they are residing with their biological mother in New Zealand.
I am satisfied the best interests of child T, child M and child P are served by revoking the Visa cancellation decision. The right of these children to enjoy a close physical relationship with their father is a powerful consideration. As child P will turn 18 only 3 months after Mr Arama is due for release from prison, this does not add significant weight to the balance of considerations. Child M will turn 18 approximately 3 years after Mr Arama’s scheduled release from prison. The weight given to child M’s best interest adds to the greater weight which should be given to child T’s best interests. Separately and in combination the consideration of the best interests of the minor children adds substantial weight in favour of revoking the decision to cancel Mr Arama’s Visa.
These primary considerations weigh heavily in favour of revoking the mandatory Visa cancellation decision.
Other relevant considerations are, generally, to be given less weight than primary considerations.
Albeit the legal consequences of not revoking cancellation of Mr Arama’s Visa are the result of policy, this weighs in favour of revoking the Visa cancellation decision. Subject only to determination of Mr Arama’s assertion of Australian citizenship, on completion of his prison sentence, he will be held in immigration detention pending removal to New Zealand. Once removed, it is unlikely he will be allowed to return to Australia. This will bear heavily upon his family connections, particularly his children in Australia and his grandparents. This adds some weight in favour of revoking the Visa cancellation decision.
No issues of non-refoulement and protection have been raised or pressed.
It is possible Mr Arama might experience some impediments if the decision to cancel his Visa is not revoked. This does not weigh heavily in the balance. However, as Mr Arama is familiar with New Zealand, having spent much of his childhood there and having visited many times, and he has family and other connections in New Zealand, albeit perhaps not close connections. These considerations add weight in favour of revoking the cancellation of his Visa, but only slightly.
On balance, weighing all the relevant considerations, I am satisfied the primary considerations weighing against revocation of the mandatory decision to cancel Mr Arama’s Visa outweigh considerations weighing in favour of revoking the decision. Primary considerations relating to protection of the Australian community, family violence and Australian community expectations weigh more heavily in the balance than the primary considerations relating to the strength, nature and duration of Mr Arama’s ties to Australia, and the best interests of the minor children in Australia when combined with the other considerations to which I have referred.
There are no additional considerations arising from the materials or the submissions of the parties.
In conclusion, I am satisfied there is not another reason to revoke the decision to cancel Mr Arama’s Visa for the purposes of s 501CA(4)(b)(ii).
That being so, the decision of the Minister’s delegate on 11 July 2025 must be affirmed.
Decision
The 11 July 2025 decision not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of Mr Arama’s Class TY Subclass 444 Special Category (Temporary) visa under s 501CA(4) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) is affirmed.
Date(s) of hearing:  15 September 2025 and 1 October 2025
Applicant:  Self-Represented
Solicitors for the Respondent:  M. Sheedy, Sparke Helmore Lawyers