BDLN and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Migration) - [2025] ARTA 311

BDLN and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Migration) [2025] ARTA 311 (3 April 2025)
Applicant/s:  BDLN
Respondent:  Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs
Tribunal Number:                2025/0373

Tribunal:Senior Member K Raif
Place:Sydney
Date:3 April 2025

Decision:The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

Statement made on 02 April 2025 at 12:51pm
………….{SGD}…………….
Senior Member K Raif
Catchwords
MIGRATION – non-revocation of Class BS Partner (Migrant) visa – where Applicant does not pass the character test – whether there is another reason to revoke the mandatory cancellation – where Applicant has a real risk of reoffending – protection of the Australian community – decision under review affirmed.
Legislation
Migration Act 1958 (Cth)
Cases
FYBR v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCAFC 185
R v Way (2004) 60 NSWLR 168
Uelese v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCA 348; Afu v Minister for Home Affairs [2018] FCA 1311
YNQY v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCA 1466 and FYBR v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCA 500
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
BACKGROUND

This is an application for review of a decision of the delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (‘the Respondent’) not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of a Class BS Partner (Migrant) visa previously held by the Applicant.
The Applicant is a national of Lebanon, born in January 1965. The Applicant travelled to Australia in 1995 on a temporary visa and was subsequently granted a Partner visa.
In March 2022 the Applicant was convicted of an offence and was sentenced to a term of imprisonment exceeding 12 months. On 19 April 2023 the Applicant’s visa was mandatorily cancelled under s. 501(3A). In May 2023 the Applicant made representations about revocation of the cancellation decision and on 15 January 2025 a decision was made under subsection 501CA(4) not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the visa. The Applicant seeks review of that decision.
The Applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 24 and 25 March 2025. The Tribunal received oral evidence from the Applicant’s partner, daughter and brother. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision dated 15 January 2025 not to revoke the cancellation of the Applicant’s Class BS Partner visa should be affirmed.
RELEVANT LAW
Subsection 501(3A) of the Act relevantly states:
The Minister must cancel a visa that has been granted to a person if:
(i)the Minister is satisfied that the person does not pass the character test because of the operation of:
(i) paragraph (6)(a) (substantial criminal record), on the basis of paragraph (7)(a), (b) or (c); or
Subsection 501CA(3) provides that as soon as practicable after making a decision under subsection 501(3A) the Minister must, among other things, notify the person of the decision, provide particulars of relevant information and invite the person to make representations to the Respondent, ‘within the period and in the manner ascertained in accordance with the regulations, about revocation of the original decision’.
Subsection 501CA(4) allows for a revocation of a decision under subsection 501(3A) and relevantly states as follows:
(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.
Subparagraph 501CA(4)(b)(ii) of the Act requires the Tribunal to examine the factors for and against revoking a mandatory cancellation decision. If the Tribunal is satisfied that the cancellation should be revoked following that evaluative exercise, the Tribunal must revoke the original visa cancellation decision.
The ‘character test’ is defined in subsection 501(6) of the Act. Relevantly, paragraph 501(6)(a) provides in part:
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))…
Paragraph 501(7)(c) relevantly provides that a person has a ‘substantial criminal record’ if the person has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more.
On 7 June 2024, Direction No. 110 Visa refusal and Cancellation under s. 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under s. 501CA (‘Direction 110’) was signed, coming into effect on 21 June 2024. Direction 110 is binding on the Tribunal in performing its functions or exercising powers under section 501 of the Act.
Direction 110 sets out the principles that provide a framework within which decision-makers should approach their task of deciding whether to exercise the discretion to refuse to grant a visa or revoke mandatory cancellation decisions. The principles set out at paragraph 5.2 of Direction 110 states that Australia has a sovereign right to determine whether non-citizens who are of character concern are allowed to enter and/or remain in Australia.
At Paragraph 5.2(2), the Direction provides that the safety of the Australian community is the highest priority of the Australian government. Further, at Paragraph 5.3(3) the Direction provides that:
Non-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.’
The primary considerations which are set out in clause 8 of Direction 110 are:
(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; and
(5)expectations of the Australian community.
The other considerations, which are not exhaustive, are set out of clause 9 of Direction 110:
(1)Legal consequences of the decision;
(2)extent of impediments if removed;
(3)impact on Australian business interests.
Paragraph 7(2) of Direction 110 states that the primary consideration of the 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.
In this case, it is not in dispute that the Applicant had made representations about the revocation of the cancellation of his visa. The requirements of paragraph 501CA(4)(a) are met. The issues before the Tribunal are:
(a) does the Applicant pass the character test, as defined by section 501 and, if not;
(b) is there another reason why the original decision should be revoked.
DOES THE APPLICANT PASS THE CHARACTER TEST?
The character test is defined in subsection 501(6) of the Act. Relevantly, paragraph 501(6)(a) states that a person does not pass the character test if the person has a substantial criminal record, as defined in subsection 501(7). Paragraph 501(7)(c) provides that a person has a substantial criminal record if the person has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more.
The Tribunal has been provided with the Criminal Intelligence Commission Check Results Report. Information before the Tribunal indicates that the Applicant had been convicted of the following offences.

11/03/22

Take / detain in company with intent to get advantage occasioning actual bodily harm

Imprisonment 5 years and 3 months

Appeal dismissed in December 2022

15/01/19

·     Destroy damage property <= $2000 (2 counts)

·     Armed with intent to commit indictable offence

·     Stalk / intimidate intend fear physical etc harm (domestic)

·     Goods in personal custody suspected of being stolen

·     Imprisonment 12 months

Community corrections order

24/10/17

(call up)

·     Armed with intent to commit indictable offence

·     Fail to appear in accordance with bail acknowledgement

·     Common assault

·     Reckless wounding

Intensive correction order 8 months

24/05/16

·   Possess / attempt to, prescribed restricted substance

Fine

25/02/15

Destroy or damage property

Fine

29/01/15

·     Contravene prohibition / restriction in AVO

·     Resist or hinder police officer in execution of duty

·     Common assault (DV)

Fines

14/08/06

Drive while disqualified from holding a license

Conviction confirmed 9/06. Fine

10/05/06

Driver state false name / address

Fine

06/06/05

Drive with middle range PCA

Fine

The Tribunal finds that in March 2022 the Applicant has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment exceeding 12 months. The Tribunal finds that the Applicant has a substantial criminal record as defined in paragraph 501(7)(c) of the Act. As the Applicant has a substantial criminal record, he does not pass the character test. The Applicant concedes that he does not pass the character test.
The requirements of subparagraph 501CA(4)(b)(i) are not met.
IS THERE ANOTHER REASON WHY THE ORIGINAL DECISION SHOULD BE REVOKED?
The Applicant concedes that his offending was serious but submits that other considerations such as the best interest of the child, extent of impediment if removed and other considerations should be given greater weight. The Respondent submits that the protection of the community and the expectations of the community should be given greater weight than the considerations that weigh in favour of revocation. The Respondent notes that offending involved family violence and the Applicant poses an unacceptable risk to the community.
The Tribunal’s considerations are set out below with regard to Direction 110.
Primary considerations
Protection of the Australian Community
Paragraph 8.1 of Direction 110 provides in part as follows:
8.1 Protection of the Australian community
(1)When considering protection of the Australian community, decision-makers should keep in mind that the safety of the Australian community is the highest priority of the Australian government… Decision makers should have particular regard to the principle that entering or remaining in Australia is a privilege that Australia confers on non-citizens in the expectation that they are, and have been, law abiding, will respect important institutions and will not cause or threaten harm to individuals or the Australian community.
(2)Decision-makers should also give consideration to:
a)the nature and seriousness of the non-citizen’s conduct to date; and
b)the risk to the Australian community, should the non-citizen commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct.
The nature and seriousness of the Applicant’s conduct to date
The Direction provides that violent and/or sexual crimes, crimes of a violent and/or sexual nature against women or children (regardless of the sentence imposed) are viewed very seriously by the Australian Government and the Australian community.
Sub-paragraph (c) of paragraph 8.1.1(1) of the Direction requires a decision-maker (with the exception of certain crimes or conduct) to have regard to the sentence(s) imposed by the Courts for a crime or crimes of a non-citizen. Subparagraph (e) requires the decision maker to have regard to the frequency of the non-citizen’s offending and/or whether there is any trend of increasing seriousness.
The imposition of a custodial term is regarded as the last resort in any reasonably and correctly applied sentencing process. Custodial terms are viewed as a reflection of the objective seriousness of an Applicant’s offending.[1]
[1] See R v Way (2004) 60 NSWLR 168 at [115].
In considering the nature and seriousness of the Applicant’s criminal offending and other conduct to date, the Tribunal has had regard to the available police facts sheets and the sentencing remarks.
There are before the Tribunal sentencing remarks in relation of the most recent offending that took place in, delivered by Judge Craigie on 11 March 2022. (The Tribunal has also been provided with an Agreed Statement of Facts in relation to that offence.) His Honour states that in early 2020 the victim determined that the Applicant’s co-accused attempted to sell drugs to the victim’s minor son. In retribution, the victim stole drugs from the co-accused and was lured by the co-accused to another location and assaulted. It is stated that the Applicant was not present at that time but arrived later and joined in the agreement to detain the victim and, the judge found, the Applicant was fully engaged in a joint criminal enterprise. It is stated that at some point when the victim was being transported in a car to another address, he attempted to escape from the car. The Applicant’s co-accused chased after the victim while the Applicant drove after the victim in the car and, when close, pursued the victim on foot. The Applicant seized the victim and attempted to restrain him. It is stated that although the Applicant did not strike any blows, he was actively assisting and standing ready to intervene. His Honour noted that while there was no clear evidence that the Applicant had struck the victim, his intervention in the incident was significant as it was he who was instrumental in frustrating the victim’s flight by catching him. It is noted that the victim sustained a number of injuries.
His Honour referred to the Applicant’s ‘reasonably extensive’ criminal record, gambling addiction and drug use. His Honour referred to a report by Mr Awit and had formed the view that it is more probable than not that the Applicant’s judgment was impaired when he made the decision to assist others to place the victim the van but his further actions of being in the van with the victim, chasing and recapturing him and further participation in extended detention involved deliberation of a considerable order. His Honour noted that Mr Awit’s report was based on self-reporting and offered no more than a speculative link between the Applicant’s disorders and the offending conduct.
His Honour noted that the Applicant has a record that includes violence and found the Applicant‘s prospects of offending to be ‘fair at best’, noting, however, that these may be improved by supervision and addressing his association and issues relating to mental health.
There is also before the Tribunal the judgment in the case that considered, and dismissed, the Applicant’s appeal against sentence.
In oral evidence, the Applicant explained, when describing that offence, that he was planning to have dinner with a neighbour and when he visited the neighbour, he saw a man tied up, asking for help. Others told him that this man stole money and drugs and wanted to bash him but the Applicant told them not to hurt this man and he offered his car as repayment. The Applicant stated that he wanted to leave but others offered for him to get into the car so they could go to dinner together later. They were all in the car and as the car was trying to park, the Applicant states that he saw the men running. The Applicant parked the car and one of the men tripped and fell. The Applicant states that he helped the man get up and when the man called ‘the police’, the Applicant did not understand him to call for help. The Applicant states that when he saw others jumped on top of the man and starting to hurt him, he ran away.
The Tribunal considers the Applicant’s description of these events to be quite implausible, particularly the Applicant’s repeated claims that he was merely trying to be helpful to everyone and that he did not attempt to recapture and detain the victim but simply helped a man who had tripped and fell. The Tribunal also notes that the Applicant’s description of these events differs markedly from what the sentencing judge determined had occurred and from what was described in the sentencing remarks. The Applicant also admitted in his evidence to the Tribunal that when he first attended the house, he saw that the victim’s hands were tied, and the Applicant concedes that he did realise that the man was being detained.
The Tribunal has had regard to the remarks of Magistrate Keady made in January 2019 in relation to the offences of destroy or damage property, stalk/intimidate, common assault, armed with intent to commit an offence and goods in custody suspected of being stolen. His Honor stated that two of the offences occurred in relation to the Applicant’s wife. The offence of assault while armed with intent involved the presentation by the Applicant, in a threatening manner, of a knife towards his wife in the presence of their daughter. This offence occurred five days after the expiry of a sentence of imprisonment imposed for similar offending and there were earlier domestic violence offending in 2015. His Honour refers to exacerbating features, such as the offending occurring in the victim’s home and in the presence of a young child.
The Tribunal considered the comments of Magistrate Still made in January 2017. His Honour described the domestic violence offending as ‘quite a vicious attack’, stating the Applicant had hit the victim with an umbrella and punched her on numerous occasions. The police facts sheet records that on 6 January 2017 the Applicant was playing with his daughter and at the same time became engaged in an argument with his daughter and began to yell at her. The Applicant then armed himself with an umbrella and approached his wife and engaged in a verbal argument. The Applicant hit his wife with the umbrella on the shoulder and head and hit her multiple times with the umbrella. He then clenched his fist and punched the victim several times. The victim and the child ran away and locked the door. The Applicant broke the lock, approached the victim and continued to assault her. The victim sustained multiple punches to the body and face.
In oral evidence the Applicant stated that it was not his intention to hurt his wife. He stated that he had an umbrella in his hands and when he had an argument with his wife, he was using his hands, and he did not intend to hit his wife with the umbrella. The Applicant concedes that he did punch his wife on her face but told the Tribunal that it was not a hard punch but a slap. The Applicant repeatedly told the Tribunal that it was never his intention to harm his wife.
The Tribunal has had regard to the police facts sheet in relation to the February 2017 offending. It is stated that the Applicant and the victim have known each other for a number of years. On the occasion in question the victim was inside the premises when the Applicant entered the premises and, the victim believed he was smoking illicit substances on a balcony. An argument ensued and the victim struck the Applicant who pulled a knife and struck the victim before fleeing the premises. In oral evidence the Applicant stated that the victim hit him several times and he used the knife to scare him away. The Applicant stated that while the victim was kicking him, he cut his calf on the knife that was held by the Applicant. The Applicant states that he was acquitted in the Local Court because the victim had hit him first. (The Applicant’s explanation is not consistent with the Police Facts Sheet and the fact that the Applicant was convicted for reckless wounding.)
In relation to the January 2017 offending, the Police Facts Sheet indicates that the Applicant and his daughter were playing in the background, the Applicant became frustrated and began to argue and scream at his daughter. The Applicant took an umbrella and approached his wife inside the house, threatened his wife and executed a stabbing motion with the umbrella towards his wife, threatening to stab her in the stomach.

The Tribunal has considered the Police Facts Sheet in relation to the April 2014 offending. It refers to the reporting by the Applicant’s partner that the Applicant’s behaviour had become more aggressive and controlling and she referred to minor assaults, which she blamed on an ongoing drug habit. The Facts Sheet refers to an argument between the Applicant and his wife, the victim. It is stated that the Applicant had picked up and threw a frying pan and other items on the floor while yelling and abusing his wife. He later approached his wife and punched her numerous times. When the police arrived, the Applicant was invited to come to the police station but stated that he ‘was not going anywhere’ and struggled when the police officers attempted to put handcuffs on him.
In oral evidence the Applicant confirmed that he hit his wife, threw a frying pan at her and threatened to bash her. The Applicant stated that ‘things happen between a man and his wife’. The Applicant denied ‘punching’ his wife but said he had pushed her and he also said that ‘he never hit her hard’. In relation to other incidents, the Applicant states that they did have arguments and admits to being angry with his wife. The Applicant told the Tribunal he would tell his wife to ‘shut up’ and he also admits threatening to bash or kill his wife. The Applicant denied having ever harmed his wife and stated that he may have pushed her but had never harmed her. The Applicant appears to believe that pushing and verbal abuse and threats do not amount to harm.
In relation to the December 2012 offending, the police facts sheet records that police were called by members of the public due to the domestic disturbance at the Applicant’s home. The Applicant’s wife, identified as the victim, reported that the Applicant grabbed her mobile phone and smashed it on the ground. The Applicant’s wife reported that the argument started once she refused to give him money and the Applicant made threats to burn the house.
The Tribunal has had regard to the police facts sheet in relation to the March 2006 offending where the Applicant was observed by the police driving and it was determined that the Applicant was disqualified from driving as a result of an earlier conviction in June 2005. It is also recorded that the Applicant was to attend court in May 2006 but failed to attend and a warrant was issued.
The Tribunal has been provided with police facts sheets and police records in relation to some other offences.
In his submission to the Tribunal prepared in February 2025, the Applicant refers to the lengthy period of his offending, the escalating nature of seriousness, the significant harm his offending caused to the victims, including his wife and child, and a ‘sustained pattern of domestic violence’. The Applicant refers to his repeated disregard for legal sanctions, noting that some of his offending occurred while he was on conditional bail. The Applicant states that these matters establish that his criminal history is ‘of the utmost seriousness’.
In his SOFIC the Applicant acknowledges the seriousness of his conduct and the cumulative effect of his repeated offences. The Applicant acknowledges that his criminal offending took place for more than a decade and that the repeated nature of his offences, particularly involving violence, demonstrates an escalating pattern of offending behaviour. The Applicant concedes that his offences have caused significant harm, particularly to his wife and child, who were subjected to physical and psychological abuse, as well as to the victim of the 2020 kidnapping offence.
In oral submission to the Tribunal, the Applicant concedes the ‘extreme criminality’ of his conduct, particularly in the context of ‘shocking’ multiple family violence offending, other offending and general conduct such as false or misleading information on the IPC (which the Applicant claims was unintentional), stay and employment as an unlawful non-citizen. The Applicant states that if he was to reoffend, this could lead to physical, psychological, financial harm and generally serious harm to a member of the community if the Applicant was to engage in kidnaping or family violence offending.
The Tribunal finds that the Applicant had engaged in multiple offences over a number of years. Some of his offending involved violence towards others and the most recent offences involved deprivation of liberty of another person, and although the Tribunal accepts that the Applicant did not play a key role in that offence, his role was nevertheless significant, as reflected in the severity of the sentence. The Applicant also committed several family violence offending towards his partner and some of such offending occurred in the presence of their child. The Direction provides that violent offending and violent offences against women are viewed seriously.
The Tribunal finds that the offending in which Applicant had engaged was very serious.
The risk to the Australian community, should the non-citizen commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct
The Tribunal has considered the risk to the community, should the Applicant reoffend. Paragraph 8.1.2(1) provides that in considering the need to protect the Australian community (including individuals, groups or institutions) from harm, decision-makers should have regard to the Government’s view that the Australian community’s tolerance for any risk of future harm becomes lower as the seriousness of the potential harm increases. Some of the conduct and the harm that would be caused, if it were to be repeated, is so serious that any risk that it may be repeated may be unacceptable.
Paragraph 8.1.2(2) provides that in assessing the risk that may be posed by the non-citizen to the Australian community, decision-makers must have regard to, cumulatively:
a)the nature of the harm to individuals or the Australian community should the non-citizen engage in further criminal or other serious conduct;
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
Assessing the nature of the harm to individuals or the Australian community that may occur if the Applicant were to engage in further criminal or other serious conduct, is informed by the nature of his offending to date, including any escalation in the offending. This assessment also notes that the Direction provides that the Australian community’s tolerance for harm becomes lower as the seriousness of the potential harm increases. Some conduct and the harm that would be caused, is so serious that any risk that it may be repeated may be unacceptable.
The Tribunal has considered the likelihood of the Applicant engaging in further criminal or other serious conduct.
In oral evidence the Applicant stated that when he was under the influence, he met young men who influenced his behaviour and he ‘did not know what he was doing’. The Applicant expressed his remorse. However, the Applicant also told the Tribunal that he did not consider himself to be a drug user, he stated that he used drugs on ‘two occasions’ and others got him into trouble. The Applicant states that his ‘body is now clear’ and he has not used drugs since his imprisonment and would rather be killed than use drugs again.
In the revocation request dated 29 April 2023 the Applicant stated that he came to Australia in 1995, later married and had a daughter born in 2008. The Applicant states that he had settled in Australia, worked hard and built a business with his brother. The Applicant states that he has now realised the impact and hardship that were caused to his family by missing out on special moments. The Applicant states that his only goal now is to establish a business and provide for his family, cutting ties with people who would put him in the position he had been put into and he would only focus on his family. The Applicant submits that his main concern and priority is to leave prison, find a job and help his wife to raise their daughter.
The Applicant provided a statement to the Tribunal dated 14 February 2025. The Applicant describes his involvement in past offending and states that he now fully understands the severity of his actions and the trauma caused on the victims. He states that he had initially struggled to come to terms with his actions (noting the delegate’s concern about his minimisation of his role in the offence) and he may have appeared to downplay his responsibility which was not his intent. The Applicant claims that the sentencing judge’s remarks have since made him realise the extent of his participation and he has reflected on how he should have acted differently. (The Tribunal considers that claim problematic, given the Applicant’s oral evidence to the Tribunal in which he repeated his claims that he was not involved in the commission of offence but was simply trying to be helpful.) The Applicant refers to his sincere commitment to rehabilitation and the steps he has taken to avoid similar situations in the future.
The Applicant expressed regret for domestic violence offending, stating that he had previously failed to recognise the impact of his actions. The Applicant recognises that he has not completed specific family violence rehabilitation programs but states that he is fully committed to participating in such programs upon his release.
The Tribunal does not accept the Applicant’s evidence. In oral evidence, when describing the incidents, the Applicant told the Tribunal that he did not intend to hit his wife with the umbrella but was simply using his arms during the argument. He also denied punching his wife in the face, stating that it was not a hard slap, seemingly believing that a light slap was acceptable. The Applicant repeatedly stated that arguments between man and wife are common and normal and he seems to believe that some degree of threats of violence – as long as there is no hard punching – is acceptable. The Applicant also told the Tribunal the police had at times exaggerated the level of his aggression towards his wife. The Applicant’s oral evidence does not support a claim that he has gained insight into his offending and the effect of the family violence offending on the victim.
Ms SK told the Tribunal in oral evidence that there is an easy access to drugs in prison and her husband made a promise not to take drugs and has kept that promise. Ms SK states that her husband’s intention was not to hurt her and their daughter but to get money. She states that she is not fearful for her safety in the future as she has witnessed a change in him. She refers to the Applicant being calm and supportive, refusing drugs while in Villawood IDC and being concerned about their daughter and the family finances. Ms SK stated that there were no other incidents of family violence that were not reported to the police.
In his written evidence, the Applicant acknowledged the impact of his other offending. He refers to the completion of rehabilitation programs, his engagement with the prison chaplain and psychological counselling. The Applicant states that he is determined not to reoffend and has been described as a model detainee. (The Tribunal has been provided with SERCO records relating to the Applicant’s immigration detention). The Applicant does not suggest he had completed domestic violence courses but he states he has done courses to manage his anger and he repeatedly stated that God has been helping him and he has also stopped taking drugs and his priority now is to support his wife.
The Applicant also prepared a statement dated 6 December 2023, in which he outlined his life in Lebanon and in Australia, and addressed the discretionary considerations. The Applicant states that he will never again commit violence against his wife and that what he did was wrong. The Applicant refers to being unable to provide for his family and the mental toll, resulting in him taking drugs. The Applicant states that he got angry easily when on drugs.
The Applicant refers to the rehabilitation courses he had completed while in prison and makes an undertaking not to use drugs again. There is before the Tribunal evidence that the Applicant had completed courses on Emotional Wellbeing, Cannabis and Drug awareness, Kairos Inside course program, EQUIPS addiction program. The Applicant states that he will see a psychologist and there is evidence that he had been placed on a waiting list at Odyssey Multicultural Program. The Applicant states that he is regularly seeing a pastor and prays. He refers to his employment in jail, stating his managers are happy with his progress. There is before the Tribunal evidence indicating the Applicant had been granted parole in March 2024.
In his submission to the delegate dated 8 December 2023 the Applicant states that he has shown remorse for his past offending and accepted responsibility for his actions and he is committed to address and mitigate the risk of reoffending by addressing the drug and mental health concerns which had impacted his decision making. The Applicant refers to the support from the community attesting to the changed character and he states that he is committed to obtaining meaningful mental health intervention to prevent reoffending. The Applicant told the Tribunal that while in prison, he became closer to God and stopped using drugs which were causing problems in the past and the Applicant claims he would not reoffend. The Applicant referred to the courses he completed while in prison and states that he still loves his wife who supports him and visited him regularly in prison.
The Applicant states in his revocation request that he will not reoffend as he values his family and his daughter and wants to raise his daughter. The Applicant refers to his age and states that he wants to spend time with his family. The Tribunal finds that submission unpersuasive, noting that the presence of his family and his daughter did not prevent the repeated offending in the past.
The Respondent submits that the Applicant’s expressions of remorse are ‘hollow’ as the Applicant does not have meaningful insight in some respects. He has tried to downplay aspects of his offending (for example claiming he has not harmed his wife and had not intended to hurt her, denied punching her and, in relation to the 2014 incident, he expressed remorse for raising his voice but not for the more egregious type of conduct). The Respondent notes that, in relation to the kidnapping offence, the Applicant had presented a narrative that sought to undermine his significant involvement in what had happened.
The Applicant provided a number of character references. There are multiple references before the Tribunal from family members, community and religious leaders. The Tribunal accepts that those who provided references believe that the Applicant has reformed and that he is now of good character.
The Tribunal has been provided with the Applicant’s prison records which refer to the Applicant as being helpful, hard-working, respectful. The information also indicates that in October 2022 the Applicant was found to be in possession of prohibited goods. It is stated that he was found ineligible for criminogenic programs and had not participated in any group-based programs but had completed skills courses and had been employed in prison and he also voluntarily engaged in some programs. His urinalysis was clear on each occasion. It is stated that the Applicant had regular visits from his wife and daughter and from extended family members. He had not had referrals for psychological services.
The Tribunal has also considered the pre-release report prepared by Jesica Bassili in December 2023. The report indicates that throughout discussions, the Applicant minimised his involvement in the index offence claiming he was ‘in the wrong place at the wrong time’ and he only accepted responsibility for driving the victim in the vehicle, claiming his intention was to help the victim. The Applicant claimed to be a bystander to the offence although his criminal history indicates an escalating pattern of violence. He continually denied substance use and any mental health diagnosis. It is stated that the Applicant was able to demonstrate insight into the impacts of his co-offender’s action on the victim and claims to have cut ties with the co-offenders. It is reported that the Applicant has had one offence in custody for disposing of contraband (tobacco) in October 2022 and since that time he has not incurred any misconduct charges or adverse case notes. He has been described as a hardworking and respectful inmate and he had on four occasions a negative uranalysis result. The report refers to the Applicant completing a drug awareness program, his engagement in the EQUIPS program and it is stated that he has had minimal contacts with the psychologist. It is stated that the Applicant has been assessed at a medium risk of reoffending. The report recommends that conditional parole be granted. A note made by Julianne Kaye-Smith in December 2024 states that while in custody, the Applicant had engaged in offence specific programs and has demonstrated insight and acknowledge the impact the offence may have had upon the victim and the community.
The September 2017 report also identifies the risk of reoffending as medium.
The Tribunal finds much of the Applicant’s evidence concerning his past offending problematic. For example, in his revocation request the Applicant stated, with respect to his criminal history and the risk of reoffending, that he was ‘in the wrong place at the wrong time’ and there were no malicious or bad intentions. The Applicant states that he went out of his way to help both parties and ended up in trouble. The Applicant states that he regrets getting into the car and that he is a good person and will never seek out to hurt anyone. Similarly, in his oral evidence to the Tribunal the Applicant stated that he had no desire to harm the victim and was there to help him and to protect him. The Applicant’s description of the events is that he offered to repay $20,000 on behalf of the victim, that he got into the car in order to drive to dinner with the others and that when everyone ran, he helped the victim, who had tripped, to stand up, rather than tried to detain the victim. He claims he had misunderstood the victim’s calls for police.
In the Tribunal’s view, the Applicant’s evidence to the Tribunal shows his complete lack of insight into his offending and his wrong-doing. The Applicant’s suggestion that he was merely “in the wrong place at the wrong time” or that he was trying to be helpful to everyone and got into the car only because he wanted to have dinner, misrepresents what the sentencing judge found to have been the Applicant’s involvement in the incident and, in particular, his central role in re-capturing the victim which led to further assaults upon the victim. It is also not correct to state that the Applicant had tried to help both parties. It can hardly be viewed as helpful to the victim when the Applicant, who would have been aware of what his co-accused had done to the victim (the Applicant told the Tribunal that he saw the man was tied up and he pleaded with others not to hurt him, indicating that he was aware the victim could be hurt), helped them to re-capture the victim. The Applicant’s claims, made as recently as in April 2023 and repeated in oral evidence, seek to minimise his role in the incident and, in the Tribunal’s view, shows his complete lack of insight into his own conduct.
In his written statement prepared in February 2025 the Applicant claims that his earlier statement was made “out of confusion and denial” and he now fully accepts that his actions were inexcusable. However, this claimed newfound insight is not consistent, in the Tribunal’s view, with the Applicant’s oral evidence to the Tribunal (which is summarised above) as the Applicant continues to claim that he was trying to be helpful to everyone and to prevent the victim from being hurt. The Tribunal gives preference to the Applicant’s oral evidence, rather than his written submissions that may have been prepared by others (noting the Applicant’s claimed illiteracy). The Tribunal is not satisfied the Applicant has gained insight into his own conduct. In the Tribunal’s view, the Applicant’s written expression of remorse is an attempt by the Applicant to retain his visa.

The Applicant also claims that he is a good person and “will never seek out to hurt anyone”. The Applicant seems to have overlooked the family violence offences, which had involved physical violence towards his partner. As noted above, the
Applicant’s oral evidence to the Tribunal suggests that the Applicant seems to view some form of harm towards his partner (such as threats and pushing or slapping) to be insignificant and therefore acceptable.
The Tribunal has had regard to a statement by Sue Price, area manager who wrote in support of the Applicant’s request for review of his classification. It is reported that the Applicant regrets his crime and the effect it has had on his family, and the events in October 2022 when he had tried to smuggle contraband (tobacco) inside. Ms Price states that the Applicant speaks proudly of his daughter and believes he has let his family down and was selfish in his actions. Ms Price refers to the Applicant’s sincerity with work ethic, respectfulness, and his behaviour and supports the reclassification request. There are also several letters of support, including from the chaplain at Parklea Correctional Centre, from Al Jabal Karm El Mohn Charity association, from family members. There is an offer of employment from the Applicant’s brother although Mr SEK told the Tribunal he had not worked regularly since 2000 and no longer has a license and has not operated a business since 2000 (contradicting the evidence in his February 2025 written statement which refers to SEK’s business). While in his written statement Mr SEK refers to the ongoing operations of his business and a job offer, the Tribunal does not consider that the Applicant’s brother is able to offer employment to the Applicant as his business has not been operational for over 20 years. Mr SEK told the Tribunal he could help his brother find construction work through his connections rather than through his own business. The Tribunal is mindful of the Applicant’s own evidence that he cannot do much of construction work due to his own health issues and the Tribunal does not consider that offer of employment to be meaningful or realistic.
There is an offer of employment from Byblos Sky Bar dated 17 February 2025. (Noting the fact that the Applicant remains in detention, an offer of employment made in February 2025 shortly before the Tribunal hearing seems to have been arranged for the benefit of the Applicant’s visa process). The Tribunal accepts the Applicant may have employment available to him if he is released into the community although in oral evidence the Applicant appeared unaware of the specific employment offer and referred to his general employment prospects.
The Tribunal has had regard to the psychological report by Mr Chafic Awit dated 14 September 2022 who refers to the diagnoses of major depressive disorder with anxious distress, substance use disorder and gambling disorder. Mr Awit states that to reduce the risk of reoffending, the Applicant requires intensive psychological intervention, to which he had agreed. Mr Awit states that if released from prison, the Applicant would come under the care of Mr Awit over 12 months for individual psychological sessions which will be conducted initially fortnightly, and he will receive cognitive behaviour therapy, drug and gambling counselling and therapy. He will also receive skills to cope with stress and problem solving skills. Mr Awit states that he would report any non-compliance in relation to the treatment plan. It is not entirely clear that there are, in the Applicant’s circumstances (for example, in the absence of a guardianship order or a CTO) effective mechanisms that could enforce compliance with treatment.
The Tribunal has also been provided with a report prepared by Chafic Awit in November 2021 which also refers to the diagnoses of generalised anxiety disorder and major depressive disorder, substance use disorder and gambling disorder.
The Tribunal has had regard to the report by Ms Jennifer Wood, community corrections officer, dated September 2017, who had assessed the risk of reoffending as medium, identifying criminogenic needs as education/employment, financial, leisure/recreation and attitude/orientation.
The Tribunal has considered the sentencing report prepared on 22 October 2021 by Kevin Howell, which suggest that the Applicant had minimised his involvement in the offence and claimed he did not do anything wrong and claimed he attempted to assist the victim. It is stated that the Applicant described himself as not an aggressive person, despite his offending history showing aggression and violence. The report indicates that the Applicant has been assessed at medium risk of reoffending.
The Respondent submits that there are credibility concerns in relation to the Applicant’s evidence and his expressions of remorse. The Respondent submits that the expression of remorse are ‘hollow’ as the Applicant does not have meaningful insight in some respects. He has tried to downplay aspects of his offending (for example claiming he has not harmed his wife and has not intended to hurt her, denied punching her and in relation to 2014 incident he expressed remorse for raising his voice but for the more egregious type of conduct). In relation to the kidnapping offence the Applicant had presented a narrative that sought to undermine his significant involvement in what had happened.
The Respondent notes that the Applicant presented evidence that is contradictory which raises concerns about his credibility. For example,
(a)the Applicant refers to past employment but his past employment has been ‘patchy’, he has not had an ongoing job since 2000 and he had never filed a tax return.
(b)The Minister notes that the Applicant’s brother made an offer of employment in his business in the written statement but his oral evidence is that he has not been operating a business since 2000.
(c)The Applicant presented evidence of his fear of being targeted due to his past involvement in the Lebanese army is not plausible and inconsistent with his claim of fearing harm from Lebanese militia or the Syrians
(d)The Applicant initially claimed he had nowhere to live in Lebanon but in oral evidence he confirmed he could live with his mother.
(e)The Applicant denied the information in the various fact sheets and his claim that he did not appreciate during the kidnapping offence that the victim was being harmed is implausible.
The Tribunal accepts that there have been inconsistencies in the Applicant’s evidence which raise concerns about his general credibility. The Tribunal is mindful that the Applicant’s credibility is unlikely to affect the extent of his rehabilitation or the prospects of reoffending, although it may be more relevant to other considerations
The Tribunal acknowledges that in his multiple written submissions to the delegate and the Tribunal, as well as in his oral evidence, the Applicant has expressed regret and remorse for his past actions. However, in the Tribunal’s view, the Applicant’s expression of remorse would be more persuasive if the Applicant’s criminal record, which includes prior incarcerations, was not as extensive as it is. It can hardly be said that the 2022 conviction was the first for the Applicant – or that his latest term of imprisonment was his first – and that it was only the judge’s sentencing remarks that could have led the Applicant to appreciate the error of his ways. The Applicant had been convicted of multiple offences before and had served a prison sentence before. The Applicant told the Tribunal that he did learn from the past imprisonment but despite that, he continued to reoffend and it appears the most recent offending occurred not long after the Applicant was released from prison for the earlier offending. By reference to the severity of the sentence, the most recent offending also appears to be most serious. It is unclear why the Applicant would have failed to recognise the impact of his offending on those around him in the past and he had only learned the error of his ways at present. The Tribunal is concerned that the Applicant’s expression of contrition and undertaking to change is merely a self-serving attempt to have his visa reinstated.
In his SOFIC the Applicant states that, given the persistent and escalating pattern of criminality, the risk, of harm to individuals and the Australian community is substantial. The Applicant states that the nature of past offences, particularly domestic violence, violent crimes, serious property offences and defiance of legal authority, strongly indicate that future offending is likely to involve significant physical, psychological and financial harm to victims. The Tribunal considers this evidence to be an accurate assessment.
The Applicant claims that he has consistently demonstrated deep remorse for his past actions and has taken full responsibility for his conduct. The Applicant notes that his personal statements and supporting letters affirm his genuine understanding of harm caused and commitment to reform and his acknowledgement of his past mistakes indicates an “extremely low likelihood of offending. As noted elsewhere, the Tribunal does not accept that evidence, noting that in oral evidence the Applicant had persistently sought to minimise the seriousness of his conduct. The Applicant’s oral evidence does not suggest to the Tribunal deep remorse and acceptance of full responsibility, nor does it demonstrate insight into past misconduct. The Tribunal has formed the view that the Applicant’s expression of remorse may have been opportunistic and self-serving.
The Applicant refers to his commitment to, and engagement in rehabilitation, including completion of several courses and his willingness to continue with structured psychological interaction post-release, supporting the low risk of recidivism. The Applicant states that psychological evaluations indicated that past substance abuse and financial stressors influenced prior offending and he is addressing these issues effectively, mitigating the risk of reoffending. The Applicant states that he has extensive support, including his immediate and extended family and community leaders and such protective factors will lower any residual risk. The Tribunal does not accept that this is necessarily so, noting that much of the past offending occurred when the same protective factors (immediate and extensive family and community support) would have been available to the Applicant in the past and did not prevent re-offending. Further, to the extent that financial stressors caused the Applicant to turn to drugs, the Tribunal notes the evidence of the Applicant’s brother Mr SEK who stated that if the Applicant had asked him for help, he would have offered such help as they always look after each other. That is, there may have been alternative ways of dealing with financial stress which the Applicant chose not to engage in. As such, the present offers of employment may not significantly reduce the risk of the Applicant reoffending.
The Applicant states in his written evidence that he has secured employment opportunities with his brother, ensuring his economic independence and reducing triggers associated with financial distress. The Tribunal does not accept that evidence. Firstly, the evidence of Mr SEK is that he himself is unemployed and reliant on Centrelink and has not operated a business since 2000. Secondly, to the extent that SEK could arrange for the Applicant to be employed elsewhere, the Tribunal notes the Applicant’s claim that his past inability to provide financial support for his family (i.e. ‘financial distress’) was one of the factors that led to drug use and offending. It appears that the Applicant chose not to engage in employment, either with his brother or elsewhere, at that time, instead relying on illicit substances to cope with the stress. The Tribunal is mindful that the present offer of employment does not necessarily mean stable and enduring (or necessarily well-paid) employment forever in the future. It may be that the Applicant will be able to work in construction or at the bar, but it is also possible that for any number of factors, such employment may not be available in the future. The Tribunal is also mindful that there may be a number of other stressors for the Applicant in the future and such stressors will not be limited to financial security. Thus, the presence of employment does not, in the Tribunal’s view, necessarily reduce the risk of reoffending.
The Applicant states that throughout his incarceration he had severed ties with negative influences that had previously contributed to his offences and had engaged with religious and community groups, reinforcing his commitment to reformed and law-abiding lifestyle. The Applicant refers to various positive reports about his conduct. The Tribunal is prepared to accept that the Applicant had severed ties with negative influences while in detention. It remains to be seen whether the Applicant will continue to do that once he is free in the community and free to choose his associates.
The Applicant states that his past drug use was a significant contributing factor for his offences and he sustained abstinence from drugs, with his multiple urine analyses since incarceration showing negative results. The Tribunal accepts that evidence but notes that the Applicant’s resolve to avoid these temptations is yet to be tested in the community. The Tribunal also acknowledges the Respondent’s claim that while drugs may have been a significant contributing factor for past offending, it would not have been a sole factor that led to the offending. Mr Awit in his report refers to the diagnoses of major depressive disorder with anxious distress, substance use disorder and gambling disorder and it is not apparent that all of these have been effectively addressed. The Applicant refers to family violence rehabilitation in the form of anger management and cessation of drug use. The Tribunal notes that Mr Awit recommends a 12 month psychological treatment and there is no evidence that such treatment has been completed.
In oral evidence to the Tribunal the Applicant notes that he has expressed remorse and his understanding of past conduct. He claimed to have received support from religion and others. He had engaged in employment while in prison and abstained from drugs. He reflected on his conduct. He was well considered by prison staff. The evidence of the Applicant’s wife is that the Applicant had access to drugs while in prison but refused to take drugs and she subjectively believes the Applicant is no longer a risk to her. The Applicant refers to the possibility of employment at a friend’s restaurant and there is a possibility of employment in the construction industry and the Applicant submits that the prospect of employment may be a protective factor.
The Applicant notes that he is on parole until the end of 2025 and is subject to extensive parole conditions and supervision requirements. The Respondent notes that the protection of parole is only available until the end of 2025 and not beyond that date.
The Applicant claims there is a low risk of reoffending based on the ‘overwhelming’ evidence of his rehabilitation, remorse, family and community ties, stable employment prospects and absence of criminal associations. For the reasons set out above, the Tribunal does not consider the Applicant’s expression of remorse to be genuine and the Tribunal is not satisfied the Applicant has gained insight into his conduct. The Tribunal accepts that the Applicant has engaged in rehabilitation but is not satisfied this was at the extent, and of duration that is recommended by others. The Tribunal acknowledges the presence of protective factors, and accepts that these may somewhat reduce the risk of reoffending, but the Tribunal is also mindful that some of the protective factors, including the presence of family, the possibility of employment and community/religious support, would have been available to the Applicant in the past and had been ineffective in preventing offending conduct. The fact that despite the claimed rehabilitation and supports, the Applicant continues to minimise the nature of his offending (as discussed above) does not support the claim that the claimed rehabilitation will in fact minimise the risk of future reoffending.
The Tribunal accepts that, for the number of reasons including those put forward by the Applicant, the risk of reoffending has been reduced. This is primarily the result of the Applicant’s abstinence from drug use and, to some extent, his engagement in rehabilitation programs, family, religious and community support and the risk of losing his visa. However, the Tribunal has formed the view that the Applicant continues to lack insight into his conduct and believes that some of the offending conduct (such as threatening and slapping rather than punching his wife) was acceptable. The Tribunal is not convinced the risk has reduced to the level of being ‘low’ as the Applicant suggests.
The Tribunal is mindful that the December 2023 pre-release report (prepared after the Applicant had completed a number of courses and claims to have accepted his wrong-doing and ceased drug use) refers to the risk of offending being medium. The Applicant claims that the report should be given limited weight due to it being prepared a long time ago but the Tribunal considers that assessment to be probative, noting that it was prepared after the Applicant had spent considerable time in jail where he attended courses, received support and counselling and where he claims much of his rehabilitation took place. The Applicant has not presented a more recent report that would offer a different assessment of risk. The Tribunal gives some weight to the December 2023 report.
The Respondent submits that the various incidents suggest the Applicant is capable of being violent and if the Applicant was to reoffend, there could be physical and psychological harm to others. The Respondent submits that the Applicant still poses an unacceptable risk of reoffending, and that risk is not low but is ‘tangible and real’ and may be a ‘medium’ risk as assessed by the Corrections Services. This is because, the Minister submits, the Applicant is not fully remorseful for, and not insightful of, his conduct and tried to minimise his offending and deny some of the family violence offending. The Respondent notes that there is no psychological or other evaluation assessing the risk of reoffending as low and there has been no evaluation of the ap’s criminogenic needs (the Applicant refers to the pre-release report, which recommends various supports) or the form of rehabilitation required, so there is no assessment of whether the courses completed by the Applicant have had any material impact on assessing those criminogenic needs.
The Respondent submits that past conduct may be a useful indicator of future conduct. The Applicant committed multiple and serious family violence offending against his wife despite the opportunities given to him by the court. The Respondent notes there is no evidence that the Applicant had engaged in any courses to address this type of conduct and it is unclear whether the general courses such as anger management course had been effective in addressing this issue. The Respondent acknowledges that there is no evidence of recent drug use but states that there is no evidence that this will continue to be the case if the Applicant is released into the community. It is further submitted that drug use was not the sole contributing factor to the offending so that abstinence from drugs may not be a ‘global solution’. The Respondent acknowledges that the Applicant has been a ‘model prisoner’ with no reported incidents during detention but submits that the main concern here is the family violence, which could arise in the family context and not in the context of prison. The Respondent submits that there remains an unacceptable risk of reoffending.

The Tribunal accepts that there are, presently, some protective factors, that are outlined above but for the reasons set out above, the Tribunal does not consider these to be necessarily effective in removing or significantly reducing the risk of reoffending. The Tribunal gives significant weight to the fact that the Applicant had abstained from drugs and alcohol use while in prison and immigration detention and that will be a significant factor in reducing the risk of reoffending. However, the Tribunal accepts the Respondent’s submission that drug use was not the sole contributing factor for the past offending. There is insufficient evidence before the Tribunal to indicate that the Applicant had engaged in formal rehabilitation in relation to family violence or that he had completed the treatment recommended by Mr Awit.
For the reasons set out above, the Tribunal has formed the view that the Applicant lacks insight into his offending conduct and that he genuinely believes some of his conduct was acceptable. The Tribunal is of the view that there remains a real risk that the Applicant will engage in family violence offending in the future and that risk is greater than the low risk, it is not remote or insignificant. The Tribunal accepts that the risk of other type of offending is minimised as long as the Applicant abstains from the use of illicit substances.
Should the Applicant engage in further offending, there could be significant harm to the victims, including physical and psychological harm resulting from any family violence offending or violent offending towards others.
Having regard to the nature of the Applicant’s past convictions involving violence and threats of violence towards his partner, his serious role in the kidnapping offence and other violent offending that would have been harmful to victims, and the Tribunal’s view that there remains at risk of reoffending that is greater than the low risk, the Tribunal has formed the view that the protection of the Australian community weighs very heavily against the revocation.
The Applicant concedes this factor weighs against the revocation.
Whether the conduct engaged in constituted family violence
Paragraph 8.2 of the Direction provides:
(1)The Government has 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
At Paragraph 5.2(8) the Direction states that
The 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 measurable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community.
The Applicant had been convicted of family violence offences and the information in the police reports cited above indicates that on several occasions the Applicant had perpetrated physical violence against his partner, sometimes in the presence of their child.
In his submission to the Tribunal the Applicant refers to contraventions of the AVOs, suggestive of his disregard for the Australian law. The Applicant confirms that he has a documented history of family violence, including convictions of assault against a family member, breaches of AVOs, common assault, and intimidation with intend to cause fear or physical harm and these included incidents that occurred in the presence of a child. The Applicant states that his conduct was repeated, systemic and increased in severity over time, indicating a pattern of disregard for legal restrictions.
In his submission to the delegate the Applicant states that he and his partner have since reconciled and his wife has shown ‘unwavering’ support for the Applicant’s return as she understands his mental health concerns influenced the domestic violence. The Applicant states that his wife has been a ‘fierce advocate’ for him during his offending history, has shown her commitment to see him return home and his wife relies on him, due to her health concerns, to care for their daughter and be the breadwinner.
In oral evidence the Applicant also told the Tribunal that his wife ‘stood by him’ and visited him regularly in prison and the Applicant states they have reconciled. In oral evidence and written statements, the Applicant’s partner, Ms SK was also supportive of the Applicant and expressed her desire for the family to be reunited.
The circumstances of the family violence are addressed elsewhere but, for the purpose of this consideration, it is not in dispute that the Applicant had committed family violence offences. The fact that the Applicant and his wife have reconciled does not detract from the seriousness of such offending.
The Applicant refers to his rehabilitation, stating he has consistently demonstrated deep remorse and taken full responsibility for his actions. The Applicant refers to the support he has from his family, religious leaders, and community figures, attesting to his genuine regret and changed mindset. For the reasons set out above, the Tribunal does not accept that this is so. The Tribunal has significant concerns about the distinctions the Applicant sought to make in oral evidence between punching and slapping and pushing, apparently believing that some of such conduct was acceptable.
Nevertheless, whatever the Applicant’s views are about family violence, it is not in dispute that the Applicant committed family violence offences. The Applicant concedes that, given multiple family violence offences, this consideration weighs against the revocation.
The Tribunal finds that the Applicant had engaged in conduct that constituted family violence. Given the multiple offending and the serious nature of such offending, the Tribunal finds that this consideration weighs heavily against revocation.
The strength, nature, and duration of ties to Australia
Paragraph 8.3 of the Direction provides:
(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 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.
The Applicant has been living in Australia since 1995 and has extensive family in Australia, including his minor daughter, siblings, aunts and uncles, cousins, nieces and nephews. These relatives are Australian citizens or permanent residents.
The Applicant’s wife Ms SK provided a declaration, sworn on 7 December 2023 and a statement dated 14 February 2025 and the Tribunal has had regard to the information in these documents. The Tribunal accepts the oral evidence of the Applicant and Ms SK who claim they have reconciled, provide each other with emotional support and want to continue living together in Australia. The Tribunal accepts Ms SK’s evidence that she would not be able to accompany the Applicant to live in Lebanon if he was required to leave the country.
The Tribunal also accepts the medical evidence in relation to Ms SK. The Tribunal acknowledges the statements by Counsellor Joseph Rahmi who refers to the support he had provided to SK and her daughter. In his February 2025 statement Mr Rahmi states that the Applicant’s spouse SK struggles without her husband and sought support and ‘it is logical to assume’ that both the Applicant’s spouse and his daughter need the Applicant to remain in Australia. The Tribunal accepts that evidence.
The Tribunal accepts that the Applicant has been residing in Australia for a period close to 30 years and that he has extensive family ties in Australia. The Applicant did not begin offending soon after arriving in Australia. He refers to his past employment and business operations and the Tribunal is prepared to accept that he has made some positive contribution to the community in the past (although the Applicant’s evidence is that he had never filed a tax return in Australia and his work was irregular).
In addressing the impact of the decision on the Applicant’s immediate family, the Applicant stated in his revocation request that his wife had struggled in his absence financially and due to her physical health and she feels loneliness as he is the ‘missing puzzle’ in her life. The Applicant refers to a close bond with his partner, stating they cannot live without each other. In his written submission to the Tribunal the Applicant also refers to the long-term marriage to his wife SK. He states that his wife relies on him for financial and emotional support.
There is no evidence of financial reliance by Ms SK upon the Applicant. The evidence before the Tribunal is that Ms SK has had regular employment while the Applicant’s employment prior to imprisonment was irregular. Even if the Applicant did provide all of his income towards the family budget prior to incarceration, as he claims, the evidence before the Tribunal is that his employment was irregular and the Applicant had been reliant on Centrelink payments.
The Tribunal is also mindful that the Applicant’s income during his lengthy incarceration would have been very limited. He told the Tribunal he worked in prison for about two years and was paid $45-$50 a week which he used to pay for phone calls and his wife would also deposited $100 into his account for food. That suggests that at least in recent years, the Applicant has been financially reliant on his wife, rather than Ms SK being reliant on him financially.
There is no documentary evidence before the Tribunal concerning the financial hardship that the Applicant‘s spouse may have experienced as a result of the Applicant’s absence from the family, particularly noting his lengthy incarceration and detention. The Tribunal has been provided with a copy of a home loan statement addressed to Ms SK and her evidence is that she had purchased the home before the marriage. Ms SK told the Tribunal that in the past, her income would be used to pay the mortgage while the Applicant’s income was used for family expenses but she also told the Tribunal that the Applicant began using drugs from around 2012 and would threaten her in order to get money. That does not suggest that at least in recent years, Ms SK relied on the financially.
The Tribunal is also mindful that the offer of employment that the Applicant presented to the Tribunal does not refer to full-time employment (at the bar) and the Tribunal does not accept as genuine the offer of employment at the brother’s business. The Applicant’s own evidence is that his future employment would need to take into account his medical condition. It would appear that the Applicant’s capacity to significantly contribute to the family budget may be limited.
The Tribunal acknowledges the evidence that the Applicant’s wife is in receipt of a Centrelink Carer payments, evidence of which has been presented to the Tribunal. The Tribunal has also been provided with a copy of the death certificate for Mr CK. The presented evidence does not establish the financial reliance by the Applicant’s wife on the Applicant.
On the evidence before it, the Tribunal does not accept that the Applicant’s departure from Australia would cause his family in Australia financial hardship.
In oral evidence Ms SK referred to the Applicant’s difficult background, his nightmares and ‘reliving’ it during his life in Australia. Ms SK states she and the Applicant have ‘reconnected’ and he had supported her. She states that his past actions were due to his drug addiction but he has now ‘opened up’ and sought help. Ms SK stated that unlike other women who end up in hospitals or on the streets due to family violence, the harm caused by the Applicant was mainly emotional . The Tribunal does not accept that evidence, noting the description of significant physical violence set out above, and the Tribunal has formed the view that Ms SK has deliberately sought to minimise the nature of the Applicant’s misconduct towards her.
Ms SK states that she cannot live in Lebanon and does not want her family to be broken up. Ms SK states that the Applicant’s imprisonment has affected the whole family including her daughter. She referred to the close relationship between their daughter AK and the Applicant. She refers to the emotional and other reliance upon the Applicant and the effect that the separation would have on their daughter.
Ms SK referred to her health issues and the Tribunal accepts that evidence and also accepts that the Applicant wishes to support his partner in her various needs.
In his submission to the delegate dated 8 December 2023 the Applicant refers to his immediate and extended family in Australia and states that his wife and daughter strongly support the revocation.
In his SOFIC prepared in February 2025 the Applicant states that he has lived in Australia for 29 years and during this period he has established a strong familiar connection to Australia. The Applicant refers to the presence of his wife, daughter and three siblings and he refers to the potential impact of removal on these family members. In his February 2025 statement the Applicant also refers to his involvement in a charity since 1995 and states he had participated in fundraising efforts.
The Applicant states that his wife has chronic medical conditions (these include vascular condition requiring surgery, diabetes and asthma) that require ongoing attention and surgery with extended recovery period. This is consistent with Ms SK’s oral evidence and the Tribunal has been provided with Ms SK’s medical records. The Applicant claims that his wife’s health is strained by her caregiving responsibilities for her elderly parents (Ms SK’s father has recently passed away) and her ability to provide care for her daughter and parents would be ‘severely impacted’ by the Applicant’s removal from Australia. In oral evidence Ms SK spoke about her mother’s health needs and the Tribunal accepts that evidence. The Tribunal is mindful that the Applicant would not have been able to support his partner with her caring responsibilities or her own health during the lengthy period of his incarceration. Nevertheless, the Tribunal is prepared to accept that if the Applicant is to reside in the community, he might support his wife and such support will not be available if the Applicant is removed from Australia. The Tribunal accepts that the removal of the Applicant may have significantly adverse impact on his family in Australia.
The Applicant states that his daughter is a vulnerable individual and the emotional toll of her father’s absence has been significant. The Applicant states that his daughter’s academic performance and mental well-being have been negatively affected by the distress caused by the Applicant’s removal. The Tribunal is prepared to accept that evidence, although the Applicant chose not to meaningfully address the issue of any distress that may have been caused to his daughter by the multiple instances of family violence perpetrated by the child’s father against the child’s mother, in the presence of the child. The Tribunal is mindful that if that violence is to be repeated, it is also likely to have a significant negative impact on the child’s well-being.
The Applicant claims that his wife and daughter would not be able to relocate to Lebanon due to a variety of issues. That is also the evidence of Ms SK who spoke about her caring responsibilities for her mother. The Tribunal accepts that if the Applicant was removed from Australia, it is likely to result in separation from his immediate family and the Tribunal accepts that this will likely cause significant hardship to the Applicant and his family.
In oral evidence the Applicant spoke about his wife’s medical condition and her need for support. The Applicant refers to his daughter’s needs and his desire to support his daughter. The Applicant states that if he is removed to Lebanon, it would affect his daughter psychologically. The Tribunal is mindful that due to the lengthy period of his incarceration, the Applicant would not been able to provide meaningful practical and physical support to his family in Australia, although the Tribunal accepts that he desires to provide such support in the future. This would not be possible if the Applicant is removed from Australia.
The Applicant refers to the presence of his extensive family and social connections, including his uncles, aunts, nieces, nephews and cousins. The Tribunal acknowledges the multiple statements from family members in support of the Applicant and oral evidence to the Tribunal. The Applicant’s brother SEK gave oral evidence about his close relationship and supportive relationship with his brother and the close relationship between the Applicant and his minor children. The Tribunal accepts the evidence of Mr SEK that he and his children have a close connection with the Applicant.
The Applicant refers to the statements from religious and community leaders who attest to his rehabilitative efforts and contribution. The Applicant states that he is viewed as a valued member of the community. There are before the Tribunal statements from Father Isaac and Mr Moussa, a president of a charity association.
The Tribunal accepts that, given the length of the Applicant’s stay in Australia and the presence of his extensive family here, the Applicant has significant family ties, social, community and other ties in this country. The Tribunal accepts that his family members have an indefinite right to remain in Australia. The Tribunal accepts that the Applicant’s wife and daughter are unlikely to accompany him overseas if the Applicant was required to leave Australia and the cancellation of the visa may cause the breakup of the family unit. The Tribunal also accepts that in addition to the Applicant’s immediate family such as his partner and daughter, his extended family, including his siblings, nieces and nephews could be adversely impacted by the Applicant’s departure from Australia.
The Tribunal accepts that considerable hardship would be caused to the Applicant and his family if the Applicant was required to leave Australia. The Tribunal finds that this consideration weighs heavily in favour of the revocation.
The best interests of minor children in Australia
Paragraph 8.4(1) of the Direction requires a decision-maker to make a determination about whether cancellation or refusal under section 501, or non-revocation under section 501CA is in the best interests of a child affected by the decision.
Paragraphs 8.4(2) and 8.4(3) respectively contain further considerations. The former provides that for their interests to be considered, the relevant child (or children) must be under 18 years of age at the time when a decision about whether or not to refuse or cancel the visa or not to revoke the mandatory cancellation decision is being made. The latter provides that if there are two or more relevant children, the best interests of each child should be given individual consideration to the extent that their interests may differ.

The Applicant’s daughter was born in 2008 and is a minor. In his revocation request the Applicant states that he speaks to his daughter daily and she visits him in jail and he refers to having a close relationship with his daughter and his support for her. In his submission to the Tribunal the Applicant states that his daughter would suffer emotionally and academically without his presence.
The Applicant’s daughter AK provided a declaration sworn on 4 December 2023 and an undated statement to the Tribunal. She also gave oral evidence to the Tribunal. AK refers to the strong relationship she has with her father and the impact of the visa decision on her and the family. (In her written statements AK makes no reference to the past family violence incidents, rather, portraying a picture of the happy family.) AK states that her mother is limited in the support she provides and therefore she is more restricted than others to do things. AK refers to the ‘devastating toll’ her father’s absence has had on her and her mother. AK refers to the impact on her and the family if the Applicant is deported. There are before the Tribunal a number of family photographs and evidence of the family’s contact during the Applicant’s incarceration.
In oral evidence AK also spoke about the close relationship with her father and her view of her father as being a good person who was always helpful towards others. AK states that she feels stressed and anxious about the prospect of being separated with her father and she states that she has developed anxiety and panic attacks.
In his SOFIC and his statement to the Tribunal prepared in February 2025 the Applicant claims that he has maintained a significant relationship with his daughter and they have a strong emotional bond. The Applicant states that before his incarceration the Applicant played a crucial role in his daughter’s upbringing. The Applicant states that his daughter expressed a deep emotional connection and the adverse impact of his absence. The Applicant states that he has committed to rehabilitation and wants to integrate positively into his family’s life. The Applicant states that given his daughter’s age and continued dependence on him for emotional and financial support, he can play a constructive parental role in the future. The Applicant refers to his daughter’s ‘critical time’ in her education and states that she needs stability and parental support to achieve her goals. The Applicant acknowledges that past offending violence that occurred in the presence of his daughter but states that this was linked to substance abuse which has since taken steps to address through rehabilitation and counselling. In oral evidence, the Applicant concedes that he may have harmed his daughter by harming his wife in front of the child. The Applicant also admits using drug Ice in front of his daughter and he admits being a bad influence on his daughter in the past. The Applicant made a promise to be a good father if given another chance.
The Applicant refers to his wife’s limited ability to fulfil the role of primary caregiver for their child given her own health issues and other responsibilities.
The Respondents concedes that it is in the best interest of AK that the Applicant remains in Australia but submits that the weight of that consideration should be mitigated by the impact of family violence that AK would have witnessed in the past.
As noted above, the Tribunal accepts that the Applicant has a strong relationship with his daughter and that that his daughter may rely on him emotionally and financially (at least in the future if the Applicant secures employment). The Tribunal accepts the evidence about the effects of separation of the Applicant and his family in Australia. The Tribunal accepts that the ongoing presence of the Applicant in his daughter’s life would be of benefit to the child and in her best interests, although that would only be the case if the Applicant abstains from further domestic violence offending and for the reasons set out above, the Tribunal does not accept the Applicant’s risk of reoffending is ‘low’, as he claims. While the Tribunal acknowledges the evidence of the wife and daughter that they do not perceive the Applicant as a threat, the Tribunal is of the view that their perceptions of the Applicant’s future behaviour are likely to have very limited, if any, impact on the Applicant’s future conduct.
The Applicant also refers to the best interests of his nieces and nephews. His brother Mr SEK spoke about the good relationship between his minor children and the Applicant and he states that the Applicant is ‘the second father figure’ to his children and a God-father for his eldest daughter. Mr SEK said there was no personal contact between his children and the visa Applicant while he was in jail but they have had phone contact with the Applicant in jail, which he believes was not sufficient, and since the Applicant was moved to VIDC, they have visited the Applicant and have more frequent contact.
The Tribunal accepts that the Applicant has a good relationship with his nephews and nieces and the Tribunal is prepared to accept that it might be in their best interest to retain that personal relationship with the Applicant. The Tribunal is mindful that there is no suggestion the Applicant has any parental responsibilities in relation to these children. There is no suggestion that the children’s parents do not meet such parental obligations. The evidence indicates that the children had been able to maintain a relationship through telephone contact while the visa Applicant had spent time in jail, even if SEK claims that was not adequate. Such contact can be maintained irrespective of the Applicant’s country of residence. In all the circumstances, the Tribunal gives some, but limited weigh to the best interests of these children in favour of the revocation.
As the Tribunal has formed the view that the best interests of the Applicant’s daughter require his presence in Australia, the Tribunal gives this consideration significant weight in favour of the revocation.
Expectation of the Australian Community
Sub-clause 8.5 of Direction 110 provides that the Australian community expects non-citizens to obey Australian laws while in Australia. Paragraph 8.5(1) of the Direction sets out the government’s view in relation to community expectations:
The 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.
Paragraph 8.5(3) of the Direction provides that the above expectations of the Australian community apply regardless of whether the non-citizen poses a measurable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community.
Paragraph 8.5(4) of the Direction provides guidance on how the expectations of the Australian community are to be determined. This paragraph states:
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.
Paragraph 8.5(4) is consistent with the decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court in FYBR v Minister for Home Affairs,[2] which affirmed the approach established in previous authorities that it is not for the Tribunal to determine for itself the expectations of the Australian community by reference to an Applicant’s circumstances or evidence about those expectations. Instead, the Tribunal is to be guided by the Government’s views as to the expectations of the Australian community, which are to be found in the Direction.[3]
[2] [2019] FCAFC 185 (‘FYBR’).
[3] See Uelese v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCA 348; Afu v Minister for Home Affairs [2018] FCA 1311; YNQY v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCA 1466 and FYBR v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCA 500.
The Applicant submits in his submission to the delegate that the community expects that we provide ‘a fair go’ and believes in second chances and the community does not abandon individuals and separate families. The Applicant submits that the community would expect offenders to be supported with rehabilitation rather than inflict further punishment after completing their sentence and that it would be inconsistent with Australian values to refuse the revocation. The basis for such broad statements is unclear and unidentified. Paragraph 8.5(2) contains a statement of the Government’s views as to the expectations of the Australian community, which operates to ascribe to the whole of the Australian community an expectation aligning with that of the executive government which the decision maker must have regard to. The Direction provides that the community expects the non-citizens to obey the Australian laws.
In his submission to the Tribunal the Applicant refers to his past offending stating that his past offences such as family violence and violent crimes fall within the list of types of criminal conduct at Paragraph 8.5 of the Direction that are considered to be of significant concern to the Community. The Applicant submits that given the breadth and gravity of his criminal history and his involvement in violent offences and domestic violence, the expectation of the community that individuals with such records should not be allowed to remain in the country is ‘clear and unequivocal’. The Tribunal agrees with that proposition. The Tribunal has formed the view that, given the seriousness and repeated and at times violent nature of the Applicant’s offending, the community expectations would weigh against the revocation.
The Tribunal finds that this consideration weighs heavily against the revocation. The Applicant concedes that this consideration weighs against the revocation.
Other considerations
Legal consequences of the decision
Paragraph 9.1 of the Direction directs a decision-maker to take into account the following:
(1) Decision-makers should be mindful that unlawful non-citizens are, in accordance with section 198, liable to removal from Australia as soon as reasonably practicable in the circumstances specified in that section, and in the meantime, detention under section 189, noting also that section 197C(1) of the Act provides that for the purposes of section 198, it is irrelevant whether Australia has non-refoulement obligations in respect of an unlawful noncitizen…
The Applicant is not a person who is covered by a protection finding.
In his revocation request the Applicant refers to the hardships he had escaped in Lebanon and claims he found freedom and stability in Australia. The Applicant states that he escaped Lebanon and its cruelties and the militia groups. The Applicant claims in his written evidence that the militia groups still want to kill him if he is found. In oral evidence the Applicant referred to the multiple militia groups operating in Lebanon stating that the situation is not safe but he claims he would not be specifically targeted. The Applicant also told the Tribunal that he would be targeted by the Syrians because of his past army involvement and he also claims that he could be targeted by members of the Hezbollah if he is recognised.
The Tribunal finds the Applicant’s claims to be extremely vague and inconsistent. There is no evidence as to why he was of any interests to the militia groups in the past and, importantly, no evidence as to why he would be of any interest to the militia groups in the future after 30 years of his residence in Australia and after at least 30 years since the Applicant left the Lebanese army. There is no suggestion that any Lebanese militia group or any Syrian group, or indeed, anyone else, had made any inquiries about the Applicant or approached him or his family in the past. There is nothing to support the Applicant’s claim that he is, or will be, of any adverse interest to anyone in Lebanon.
The Tribunal has been provided with a copy of the RRT decision made in April 1999. In that decision, the RRT noted that the Applicant arrived in Australia in 1995 but did not apply for a visa until May 1998 and, despite being invited to attend a hearing, had failed to do so (he told the Tribunal he was unaware of the hearing but he was sufficiently aware of the Tribunal decision to lodge an appeal). In the Tribunal’s view, if the Applicant did genuinely have a fear of persecution, he would not delay the application for protection by some three years and he would take more interest in the process so as to take up the opportunity to present oral evidence to the RRT. The fact that he did not is suggestive that the Applicant did not have a subjective fear of persecution.
The Tribunal also notes that the claims made presently (that the Applicant would be targeted by various militia groups) do not appear to be consistent with the claim he had made in his protection visa application in 1998 as he claimed he was encouraged to be a spy by the Syrians. The Applicant confirmed in his oral evidence to the present Tribunal that such claims were untrue. The inconsistencies in the Applicant’s claims support the Tribunal’s view that the Applicant has not been truthful in his claims concerning the harm he fears upon return to Lebanon.
The Applicant’s evidence is that he and his family had travelled to Lebanon around 2011 to visit his father who was not well and the family had spent one or two months in Lebanon. There is no evidence that the Applicant had been harmed, or targeted in any way during his visit to his home country and he told the Tribunal that nothing happened to him during that visit. The Applicant states that there was no war in Lebanon at that time but his claims of fear of harm seem to stem from his past military service, rather than the existing war.
The Applicant then told the Tribunal that during that trip he was fearful for his safety but he had to travel because his father was unwell and he did not travel around the country but stayed in his village. The Applicant told the Tribunal that if he was to stay in his village, he would be safe but the danger might be if he was to travel to a bigger city, which he might have to do. The Applicant also told the Tribunal that during his trip in 2011 he visited the bigger cities twice and there is no suggestion that he had experienced any harm.
The Applicant’s evidence is that he travelled with his wife and daughter. The Tribunal does not accept that he would have put his family at risk of harm if he was genuinely fearful of harm in Lebanon. The Applicant’s written evidence also refers to a relative suggesting the Applicant stay longer for the hunting season. Again, the Tribunal does not consider that the family would invite the Applicant to extend his stay in order to go hunting if there was any chance of harm.
The Applicant also claims he could be called up to fight if he was in Lebanon. There is no probative evidence to indicate that either specifically the Applicant (e.g. due to his past military service) or others with similar characteristics (e.g. men of his age) are being called up for military service. In the Tribunal’s view, if there is presently a policy to call up men of a particular age to fight in the armed services, evidence of such policy would be available. On the limited evidence before it, the Tribunal does not accept the Applicant’s claim that he would be called up to do military services.
The combination of these factors – the paucity and inconsistency of the Applicant’s claims, the circumstances of his earlier protection visa application and of his trip to Lebanon in 2011 – cause the Tribunal to reject the Applicant’s claim that he has a genuine fear of harm in Lebanon for any reason. The Tribunal has formed the view that these claims have been fabricated to support the present application. The Tribunal is satisfied that Australia’s non-refoulement obligations do not arise in this case.
In his submission of 10 March 2025, the Applicant confirms that his claims do not give rise to Australia’s non-refoulement obligations and are made expressly outside the invocation of Australia’s non-refoulement obligations. In oral evidence the Applicant’s representative confirmed that there is insufficient evidence to make claims with respect to protection obligations or non-refoulement obligations and such claims are not being advanced in this case. Rather, the Applicant submits that these claims are being raised in relation to impediment to removal. These have been addressed elsewhere in the context of the other consideration.
In considering other legal consequences of the decision, the Tribunal accepts that the cancellation of the visa under s. 501 means that the Applicant will not be entitled to be granted another visa and will not be able to return to Australia to be with his family or for any other reason. He would be subject to removal and will remain in detention until his removal can be effected and the Applicant submits such detention could be lengthy, given the practical barriers such as obtaining travel documents, flight availability and other considerations. The Applicant states that if he remains in immigration detention his personal liberty will be infringed.
The Tribunal accepts that if the Applicant’s visa remains cancelled, there may be a lengthy period of detention before his removal. The Tribunal accepts this could cause hardship to the Applicant. The Tribunal also accepts that cancellation will lead to the Applicant’s removal from Australia and separation (possibly permanent) from his Australian family.
The Tribunal is of the view that consideration weighs heavily in favour of the revocation.
Extent of impediments if removed
Paragraph 9.2 of the Direction directs a decision-maker to take into account 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 any substantial language or cultural barriers; and
c)any social, medical and/or economic support available to that non-citizen in that country.
The Applicant is 60 years of age. He refers to his mental illness, PTSD and depression and there is some medical evidence in support of these claims, as well as the Applicant’s IHMS records. In his submission to the Tribunal, the Applicant refers to substance abuse and gambling disorder. He told the Tribunal he has high cholesterol, issues with his back and shoulder pain and an issue with his lungs. The Applicant states that he had previously sustained a back and shoulder injury which, he claims, affected his ability to engage in employment.
The Applicant refers to the situation in Lebanon, by reference to the DFAT country report, stating that there is instability, economic and political crisis and lack of adequate medical care. The Applicant submits that, given his mental and physical health conditions, he would face ‘substantial challenges’ in accessing appropriate medical and psychological care in Lebanon where the healthcare system is ‘reportedly’ on the brink of collapse due to economic crisis. He states that lack of adequate and affordable mental health services in Lebanon, combined with shortages of essential medication, would pose a serious risk to his well-being.
The Applicant also states that there is no proper government structure in Lebanon, no way of living or working. The Applicant states that he will not be able to survive while his wife and daughter – who were born in Australia – could not ‘handle a holiday’ there. The Applicant provided a copy of the Smart Traveller advice on Lebanon and the DFAT report concerning the situation in Lebanon. In his submission to the Tribunal the Applicant also refers to volatile security situation in Lebanon, ongoing armed conflict and widespread instability, indiscriminate attacks and civil unrest posting threats to personal safety. The Applicant refers to increased crime, terrorism and targeted attacks and lack of stable law enforcement presence. The Applicant submits that his personal circumstances place him at heightened risk due to his inability to secure safe passage, the absence of reliable state protection and exposure to indiscriminate violence. The Applicant states that he would be exposed to a substantial and ongoing risk of harm.

The Applicant’s brother SEK spoke about the generally unsafe situation in Lebanon and in the local village, the murders, thefts, rapes etc.
In oral evidence the Applicant told the Tribunal that he has nothing in Lebanon and that there are no medications available and no banks. The Applicant states that he could be called to do military service and he refers to the generally unsafe situation in Lebanon and the ongoing war.
The Tribunal is prepared to accept that the Applicant may have limited (if any) economic and medical support in Lebanon and that the extent of such support is unlikely to be what the Applicant has experienced in Australia. The Tribunal accepts the Applicant’s evidence about the present situation in Lebanon and accepts that the Applicant may have limited employment opportunities, limited capacity to support himself, limited access to health services and other supports.
There are no apparent language or cultural barriers as the Applicant has spent the first 29 years of his life in Lebanon.
The Applicant refers to the length of his residence in Australia, stating that he is now unfamiliar with its socio-economic conditions, government structures and is detached from Lebanese cultural, economic and social framework, making reintegration difficult. The Tribunal accepts that evidence.
The Applicant states in his written submission that his mother and two sisters remain in Lebanon but have not been identified as being in a position to provide him with emotional or financial support. He told the Tribunal in oral evidence that he could live with his mother and sister in Lebanon. It is not entirely clear to the Tribunal why the Applicant’s mother or sisters would not be able to provide him with emotional support and the Tribunal notes that the pre-release report prepared in December 2024 refers to the Applicant retaining ongoing support from his family in Lebanon. Nevertheless, the Tribunal accepts that the Applicant may not have access to any financial support from these relatives.
The Applicant refers to the economic crisis in Lebanon and collapse of basic infrastructure. He states that he has been absent from the labour market for 30 years and might not be able to secure stable employment while his work experience would provide limited employment prospects. The Tribunal is prepared to accept that evidence.
The Applicant’s other claims with respect to impediment to removal are summarised elsewhere. The Applicant refers to lack of employment, medical treatment, financial and other support in Lebanon and general lack of safety in Lebanon. The Applicant refers to generalised hardship and lack of safety in the country. The Applicant told the Tribunal that he has cousins and other extended family in Lebanon and that he had spent some time with the family in 2011 but he claims his family is not in the position to help him financially and he would only be able to find a job that would offer very little help.
The Applicant states that he needs specialised treatment for mental health care needs, to support abstinence from drugs and alcohol and to deal with his emotional trauma from family separation and such support would not be available to him in Lebanon.
Given the length of the Applicant’s stay in Australia, his limited links to Lebanon and the likelihood of inadequate supports and medical care, as well as the general safety concerns in Lebanon at present, the Tribunal accepts that the Applicant may experience significant hardship if he is removed from Australia. That is, the Tribunal generally accepts the Applicant’s claims about the extent and nature of hardship he would experience in Lebanon.
The Applicant refers to his wife’s medical and other needs and states that he needs to remain in Australia to support his wife and daughter. Ms SK gave evidence about her health and the need to have support in Australia and the Tribunal also acknowledges and accepts the evidence of the Applicant’s daughter. The Tribunal accepts that separation from his family, and the inability to support the family and meet the family’s needs, would also cause hardship to the Applicant.
The Tribunal accepts that the Applicant may experience significant detriment if removed to Lebanon. The Tribunal finds that this consideration weighs very heavily in favour of the revocation.
Impact on Australian business interests
Paragraph 9.3.1 of Direction 110 directs a decision-maker to take into account the following:
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.’
There is no evidence before the Tribunal to indicate that any Australian business would be impacted if the Applicant is not allowed to remain in Australia. This consideration is neutral.
Other considerations
Evidence before the Tribunal indicates that there may have been non-compliance by the Applicant with immigration laws. (The Applicant had been given a warning in relation to the provision of self-incriminating evidence.) Thus,
(a)in his revocation request the Applicant states that he failed to mention his convictions on the Incoming Passenger Card (IPC) in August 2011. He states that this was because he could not write English and his wife completed the IPC and was unaware of his convictions.
(b)The Applicant told the Tribunal that he initially travelled to Australia on a three months’ visa in 1995 and did not apply for a substantive visa until 1998. The evidence shows that the Applicant had been residing in Australia as an unlawful non-citizen between July 1996 and May 1998 and between June 1999 and April 2004 and the Applicant concedes that he remained in Australia as an unlawful non-citizen.
(c)The Applicant also conceded in his oral evidence to the Tribunal that his protection visa application contained untruthful information and that he sought protection in order to regularise his immigration status. The Applicant claims he remained in Australia unlawfully because he preferred living in Australia and did not wish to return to Lebanon.
(d)The Applicant told the Tribunal that he had been working in Australia while an unlawful non-citizen and also before he was granted permission to work. He states that he sometimes worked on a full-time basis but mostly his work was casual. The Applicant told the Tribunal that he was paid in cash, or his brother would arrange work for him, and he had never filed a tax return while living in Australia.
In the Tribunal’s view, these actions show the Applicant’s general disregard for the Australian immigration laws.
CONCLUSION
The Tribunal has found that the Applicant has a lengthy criminal record and that he does not pass the character test. The Tribunal has considered if there is another reason why the decision to cancel his visa should be revoked.
The Tribunal has found that the Applicant has committed several serious offences, his offending took place over an extended period and involved violence and threats of violence towards others. The offending was of escalating nature, resulting in the significant term if imprisonment for the most recent offending. The Tribunal found the offending to be serious and the nature of harm, if the Applicant were to engage in further offending, to be significant.
The Tribunal has formed the view that despite his claims of rehabilitation, the Applicant continues to lack insight into his offending and minimises his role in past offending. The Tribunal has formed the view that there remains a real risk of the Applicant engaging in further offending. Given the finding that future offending may result in significant harm to others and the fact that there remains a risk of reoffending, the Tribunal finds that the protection of the community consideration weighs very heavily against the revocation.
The Applicant had also engaged in multiple family violence offending. This consideration weighs very heavily against the revocation.
The Tribunal has also determined that the community expectations weigh against revocation and, given the nature and extent of the Applicant’s past offending, the Tribunal gives this consideration significant weight.
The Tribunal accepts that it is in the best interest of the Applicant’s daughter, nieces and nephews that the Applicant remains in Australia and that his visa cancellation is revoked. Given the interests of the Applicant’s daughter, the Tribunal gives this consideration significant weight in favour of the revocation.
The Tribunal accepts that the Applicant will experience significant impediment if removed, given in particular his health condition, personal circumstances (including age and employability), lack of adequate supports in Lebanon and the general safety situation in his home country. The Tribunal gives this consideration significant weight in favour of the revocation.
The Applicant has significant family ties to Australia and has been residing in this country for a very lengthy period of approximately 30 years. The Tribunal found that his family in Australia would be adversely affected by the Applicant’s departure from Australia. The Tribunal places significant weight on the strength, nature and duration of the Applicant’s ties in favour of the revocation.
The Tribunal rejected the Applicant’s claims relating to Australia’s protection or non-refoulement obligations. However, the Tribunal accepts that there are significant legal consequences to the decision, noting in particular that the Applicant will not be able to seek other visas, would be liable to be removed from Australia and separated from his family, and that there may be a period of detention before the Applicant can be removed. The Tribunal has determined that the legal consequences of the decision weigh in favour of the revocation.
Having considered the totality of the circumstances, the Tribunal has decided to give the greatest weight to the primary considerations of the protection of the Australian community, the expectations of the community and the fact that offending involved family violence.
The Tribunal is mindful that paragraph 7(2) of Direction 110 states that the primary consideration of [protection of the Australian community] is generally to be given greater weight than other primary considerations. In the particular circumstances of this case, the Tribunal has decided that this, and the protection of the community considerations outweigh other considerations.
The Tribunal has decided that the decision under review should be affirmed.
DECISION
The Tribunal affirms the decision not to revoke the cancellation of the Applicant’s Class BS Partner (Migrant) visa.

Date(s) of hearing: 24 and 25 March 2025

Counsel for the Applicant: Dr. J. Donnelly

Solicitors for the Applicant: N. Khorami, S.A.M Legal and Migration Consultancy

Solicitors for the Respondent: C. Burke, Sparke Helmore Lawyers

11/03/22	Take / detain in company with intent to get advantage occasioning actual bodily harm	Imprisonment 5 years and 3 months Appeal dismissed in December 2022
15/01/19	· Destroy damage property <= $2000 (2 counts) · Armed with intent to commit indictable offence · Stalk / intimidate intend fear physical etc harm (domestic) · Goods in personal custody suspected of being stolen	· Imprisonment 12 months Community corrections order
24/10/17	(call up) · Armed with intent to commit indictable offence · Fail to appear in accordance with bail acknowledgement · Common assault · Reckless wounding	Intensive correction order 8 months
24/05/16	· Possess / attempt to, prescribed restricted substance	Fine
25/02/15	Destroy or damage property	Fine
29/01/15	· Contravene prohibition / restriction in AVO · Resist or hinder police officer in execution of duty · Common assault (DV)	Fines
14/08/06	Drive while disqualified from holding a license	Conviction confirmed 9/06. Fine
10/05/06	Driver state false name / address	Fine
06/06/05	Drive with middle range PCA	Fine

Date(s) of hearing:	24 and 25 March 2025
Counsel for the Applicant:	Dr. J. Donnelly
Solicitors for the Applicant:	N. Khorami, S.A.M Legal and Migration Consultancy
Solicitors for the Respondent:	C. Burke, Sparke Helmore Lawyers