Bell and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (Migration)

[2025] ARTA 1409

Bell and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (Migration) [2025] ARTA 1409 (17 August 2025)

Applicant/s:  Bevan Wayne Bell

Respondent:  Minister for Immigration and Citizenship

Tribunal Number:                2025/3867

Tribunal:Senior Member Lyford

Place:Perth

Date:17 August 2025

Decision:The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

……[SGD]…………………………………………

Senior Member

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – decision of delegate of Minister not to revoke mandatory cancellation of visa – character test – Direction no. 110 – primary and other considerations – protection of Australian community – nature and seriousness of criminal offending – domestic violence offence – risk to the Australian community should the Applicant commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct – strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia – expectations of the Australian community – best interests of minor children – Applicant is a 42-year-old citizen of New Zealand – extent of impediments if returned to New Zealand – Non-revocation Decision is affirmed

LEGISLATION

Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth)

Migration Act 1958 (Cth)

Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth)

CASES

Au v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2022] FCAFC 125

Bartlett and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (Migration) [2017] AATA 1561

BNY23 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2025] FCA 608

CRNL v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FCAFC 138

Falzon v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2018) 262 CLR 333.

FYBR v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCAFC 185

Gaspar v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2016) 153 ALD 338

Lasalo v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2025] FCAFC 82.

Lum and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2022] AATA 792

LPDT v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (2024) 98 ALJR 610.

Main v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FCA 446.

Minister for Home Affairs v G (2019) 266 FCR 569;

Minister for Immigration Multicultural Affairs v Ali (2000) 106 FCR 313

Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs v McQueen (2024) 94 ALJR 594.

Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Peralta Montes [2025] FCA 667

Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs v Viane (2021) 274 CLR 398

NBMZ v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2014) 220 FCR 1

Pavey and Minister for Home Affairs [2019] AATA 4198

Plaintiff M1/2021 v Minister for Home Affairs (2022) 275 CLR 582; [2022] HCA 17

PNLB and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (Migration) [2018] AATA 162

Rano v Minister for Home Affairs, Minister for Cyber Security [2024] FCA 1003

Re Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No 2) (1979) 2 ALD 634

Re Harrison and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (2009) 106 ALD 666

Re MBBG and Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2025] ARTA 53

Re RRRB and Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2025] ARTA 471

Shi v Migration Agents Registration Authority (2008) 235 CLR 286

Siale v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2025] FCA 608

Singh v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs (2023) 296 FCR 582

Stoneley and Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2025] FCA 143 at [36]

Tanielu v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2014) 225 FCR 424

Taulahi v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2016) 246 FCR 146

Uelese v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2015) 256 CLR 203

VKTT and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Migration) [2020] AATA 649

SECONDARY MATERIALS

Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs (Cth), Direction No. 110 — Visa refusal and cancellation under section 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under section 501CA (21 June 2024)

Statement of Reasons

INTRODUCTION

1. By application filed on 3 June 2025, the Applicant seeks review of a decision of a delegate of the Respondent, the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (Minister), dated 23 May 2025, not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant's Special Category (Class TY) (subclass 444) visa (Visa), pursuant to s 501CA(4) of the Migration Act 1958 (Migration Act).

2. The decision of the delegate of the Minister (Delegate) not to revoke the cancellation of the Applicant’s Visa was made on the basis that the Delegate was not satisfied that the Applicant passed the ‘character test’ or that there was ‘another reason’ why the cancellation decision should be revoked.

3. For the following reasons, the Tribunal is not satisfied that there is ‘another reason’ why the decision to cancel the Applicant's Visa should be revoked and, therefore, the Tribunal affirms the decision under review.[1]

   [1] The joint Hearing Book, comprising 500 pages, was marked as ‘Exhibit 1’ at the hearing of this application on 4 August 2025 (HB).

   BACKGROUND

4. The Applicant is a 42-year-old (born 13 November 1982) citizen of New Zealand who arrived in Australia on 5 March 1988, aged five, and has not departed Australia since: HB 323.

5. On 6 November 2023, the Applicant's Visa was mandatorily cancelled by the Minister under s 501(3A) of the Act on the basis that the Applicant had a ‘substantial criminal record’, having been convicted in the District Court of Queensland at Brisbane of 'Choking suffocation strangulation domestic relationship – domestic violence offence' and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 2 years and 6 months on 13 September 2023 (Index Offending): HB 38.

6. On 30 November 2023, the Applicant made representations to the Minister to have the cancellation decision revoked pursuant to s 501CA of the Act: HB 89.

7. On 23 May 2025, the Delegate found that the power under s 501CA(4), to revoke the cancellation decision under s 501(3A), was not enlivened (Non-revocation Decision): HB 37. The Applicant was notified of the Non-revocation Decision on 26 May 2025: HB 27.

8. On 3 June 2025, the Applicant applied to the Tribunal seeking review of the Non-revocation Decision: HB 9.

   Criminal History

   Prior criminal convictions

9. The Applicant has an extensive criminal history which spans from 2003 to 2023 (i.e. 20 years) in Victoria and Queensland: HB 56 - 58. The Applicant has been convicted of various offences including theft, dealing with proceeds of crime, breach of family violence intervention orders, intentionally damaging and destroying property, and unlawful assault. A table of the Applicant’s criminal offending is attached as ‘Annexure A.’

   Index Offending

10. The circumstances of the Applicant's Index Offending are as follows:

    ·On the evening of 1 December 2022, the Applicant and the victim (being the Applicant's partner at the time) had been drinking at home when they had an argument;

    ·During the argument, the victim fell onto the ground. The Applicant then sat on the victim with his legs straddled around her pelvic area. The Applicant placed both of his hands around the victim's throat and squeezed for approximately 10 seconds, causing pressure in the victim's head, shortened breath, and pain;

    ·The victim struggled to free herself, said, ‘get the f--- off me’ and managed to get up once the Applicant had removed his hands from her neck. The argument continued and the Applicant pushed the victim around and into the study table, causing a piece of timber on the bottom of the desk to snap and other items around the house to fall. The victim pushed the Applicant back to defend herself;

    ·The victim's mother came into the room and told them to stop yelling. The Applicant went and sat outside the house;

    ·Police arrived after being called by a member of the community and spoke to the victim. The police took photographs of bruises on the victim's neck and body that she had sustained throughout the argument; and

    ·The following day, the victim reported discomfort when she swallowed and that she had pain in her throat and neck: HB 77.

    ISSUES

11. The issues for consideration by the Tribunal are:

    (a)whether the Applicant passes the ‘character test,’ as defined in s 501(6) of the Migration Act; and

    (b)if not, whether there is ‘another reason’ why the Visa Cancellation Decision should be revoked under s 501CA(4) of the Migration Act, having regard to the considerations prescribed by Direction No 110 – Visa refusal and cancellation under section 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under section 501CA (Direction 110).

    LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK

    Revocation of decision to cancel visa 

12. Section 501CA of the Migration Act relevantly provides:

    (1)This section applies if the Minister makes a decision (the original decision) under subsection 501(3A) (person serving sentence of imprisonment) to cancel a visa that has been granted to a person.

    …

    (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.

    ‘Character test’

13. The ‘character test’ is defined in s 501(6) of the Migration Act. Relevantly, a person will not pass the character test if they have a ‘substantial criminal record’: s 501(6)(a) of the Migration Act.

14. The phrase ‘substantial criminal record’ is defined in s 501(7) of the Act and includes circumstances where a person has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more: s 501(7)(c) of the Migration Act.

15. Pursuant to s 501(3A)(a)(i) and (b) of the Migration Act, the Minister must cancel a visa that has been granted to a person if the Minister is satisfied that the person does not pass the ‘character test’, because they have a ‘substantial criminal record’, as defined in s 501(7)(c) of the Migration Act, and is serving a sentence of imprisonment, on a full-time basis in a custodial institution, for an offence against a law of the Commonwealth, a State, or a Territory. That is, failure of the ‘character test,’ in s 501(6) of the Migration Act, arises as a matter of law.[2]

    [2] Re Harrison and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (2009) 106 ALD 666 at [63].

    Power to revoke original decision

16. When a visa is mandatorily cancelled under s 501(3A) of the Migration Act, the Minister must:

    (i)give the person concerned written notice of the decision which sets out the original decision: s 501CA(3)(a)(i) of the Migration Act;

    (ii)give the person concerned particulars of the relevant information: s 501CA(3)(a)(ii) of the Migration Act; and

    (iii)invite the person to make representations to the Minister regarding the revocation of the original decision: s 501CA(3)(b) of the Migration Act.

17. Under s 501CA(4) of the Migration Act, the Minister may revoke the original (visa cancellation) decision if:

    (a)representations have been made by the applicant in accordance with an invitation to make such representations about revocation of the cancellation: s 501CA(4)(a) of the Act; and

    (b)the Minister is satisfied that:

    (i)the person passes the ‘character test’ in s 501(6) of the Migration Act: s 501CA(4)(b)(i) of the Migration Act; or, if not,

    (ii)there is ‘another reason’ why the original decision should be revoked: s 501CA(4)(b)(ii) of the Migration Act.

18. A decision under s 501CA(4) of the Migration Act (i.e. to revoke the original decision) involves an assessment and evaluation of the factors for and against revoking the original decision.[3]

    [3] Gaspar v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2016) 153 ALD 338.

19. The Tribunal is required to undertake a ‘weighing and balancing’ exercise, weighing up the relevant considerations in Direction 110 and the applicant's representations against one another to come to the correct or preferable decision.[4]

    [4] Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (ART Act), s 56(1)(a); Re Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No 2) (1979) 2 ALD 634 (Drake (No 2)) at 636; Shi v Migration Agents Registration Authority (2008) 235 CLR 286 at [140]; CRNL v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FCAFC 138 at [35].

20. The Tribunal (decision-maker) must then ask itself whether it is satisfied that there is ‘another reason’ to revoke the visa cancellation.[5] In Plaintiff M1/2021 v Minister for Home Affairs (2022) 275 CLR 582 (Plaintiff M1/2021) at [22], the High Court described s 501CA(4) of the Migration Act as conferring ‘a wide discretionary power’ to revoke the mandatory cancellation if the decision-maker (here, the Tribunal on review of a delegate’s decision) is satisfied there is ‘another reason’ why the cancellation should be revoked. In Plaintiff M1/2021, the majority held (at [22]) that the assessment of whether there is, in fact, ‘another reason’ is to be undertaken by reference to the representations made by the Applicant.[6]

    [5] Au v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2022] FCAFC 125 at [21]-[26].

    [6] See also Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs v Viane (2021) 274 CLR 398 at [13]-[15]; Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs v McQueen (2024) 94 ALJR 594 at [6].

    Direction 110

21. A decision under s 501CA(4) of the Migration Act, whether there is ‘another reason’ to revoke the mandatory cancellation of a visa, must be made in accordance with any written directions under the Migration Act: s 499(2A) of the Migration Act. Relevantly, the Tribunal (decision-maker) must comply with Direction 110 in considering a request for revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under s 501(3A) of the Migration Act, providing a legislative constraint on the Tribunal’s process of reasoning.[7] However, as stated by the Full Court in Singh v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs (2023) 296 FCR 582 at [23] and [81], the principles enunciated by Brennan J in Drake (No 2), and subsequent cases concerning the Tribunal’s ability to depart from governmental policy, remain applicable.[8]

    [7] See LPDT v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (2024) 98 ALJR 610 at [33].

    [8] See Minister for Home Affairs v G (2019) 266 FCR 569; Lasalo v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2025] FCAFC 82 at [27].

    Principles

22. The eight ‘Principles’ listed in paragraph 5.2 of Direction 110 provide the framework within which decision-makers should approach their task of deciding whether to revoke the mandatory cancellation of a non-citizen’s visa under s 501CA of the Migration Act.

23. The eight ‘Principles’ listed in paragraph 5.2 of Direction 110 are as follows:

    (1)Australia has a sovereign right to determine whether non-citizens who are of character concern are allowed to enter and/or remain in Australia. Being able to come to or remain in Australia is a privilege Australia confers on non­citizens in the expectation that they are, and have been, law-abiding, will respect important institutions, such as Australia's law enforcement framework, and will not cause or threaten harm to individuals or the Australian community.

    (2)The safety of the Australian Community is the highest priority of the Australian Government.

    (3)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.

    (4)The Australian community expects that the Australian Government can and should refuse entry to non-citizens, or cancel their visas, if they engaged in conduct, in Australia or elsewhere, that raises serious character concerns. This expectation of the Australian community applies regardless of whether the non-citizen poses a measurable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community.

    (5)Australia has a low tolerance of any criminal or other serious conduct by visa applicants or those holding a limited stay visa, or by other non-citizens who have been participating in, and contributing to, the Australian community only for a short period of time.

    (6)With respect to decisions to refuse, cancel, and revoke cancellation of a visa, Australia may afford a higher level of tolerance of criminal or other serious conduct by non-citizens who have lived in the Australian community for most of their life, or from a very young age.

    (7)Decision-makers must take into account the primary and other considerations relevant to the individual case. In some circumstances, the nature of the non-citizens’ conduct, or harm that would be caused if the conduct were to be repeated, may be so serious that even strong countervailing considerations may be insufficient to justify not cancelling or refusing the visa, or revoking a mandatory cancellation.

    (8)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 the Australian community.

    (emphasis added)

    Primary considerations

24. Informed by the eight ‘Principles’ in paragraph 5.2 of Direction 110, the Tribunal (decision-maker) must take into account the five ‘primary considerations’ in section 8 of Part 2 of Direction 110, in deciding whether to revoke the mandatory cancellation of a visa under s 501CA(4) of the Act.

25. The five ‘primary considerations,’ in section 8 of Part 2 of Direction 110, are:

    (a)protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct: paragraph 8.1 of Direction 110;

    (b)whether the conduct engaged in constituted family violence: paragraph 8.2 of Direction 110;

    (c)the strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia: paragraph 8.3 of Direction 110;

    (d)the best interests of minor children in Australia: paragraph 8.4 of Direction 110; and

    (e)expectations of the Australian community: paragraph 8.5 of Direction 110.

    Other considerations

26. Informed by the eight ‘Principles’ in paragraph 5.2 of Direction 110, the Tribunal (decision-maker) must also take into account the three ‘other considerations’, in paragraph 9 of Part 2 of Direction 110, insofar as they are relevant.

27. The three ‘other considerations,’ in paragraph 9 of Part 2 of Direction 110, include, but are not limited to, the:

    (a)legal consequences of the decision under s 501 or s 501CA of the Migration Act: paragraph 9.1 of Direction 110;

    (b)extent of impediments if removed: paragraph 9.2 of Direction 110; and

    (c)impact on Australian business interests: paragraph 9.3 of Direction 110.

    Applying the primary and other considerations

28. Section 7 of Part 2 of Direction 110 provides:

    (1)In applying the considerations (both primary and other), information and evidence from independent and authoritative sources should be given appropriate weight.

    (2)The primary consideration at 8.1….(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 other considerations.

    (3)      One or more primary considerations may outweigh other primary considerations.

    (emphasis added)

    CONSIDERATION

    Representations in accordance with invitation

29. As stated above (at [5]), on 6 November 2025, the Applicant was notified of the mandatory cancellation of his Visa, by hand, which is the method prescribed by reg 2.55(3)(a) of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Migration Regulations): HB 27 and 38. The Applicant was taken to have received the notice when it was handed to him: reg 2.55(5) of the Migration Regulations.

1. Regulation 2.52(2)(b) of the Migration Regulations prescribes that any representations seeking revocation of a mandatory visa cancellation must be made to the Minister within 28 days after the person is given notice of the cancellation. As stated above (at [6]), on 30 November 2023, the Applicant made representations seeking revocation of the cancellation decision, being within the prescribed 28-day period: HB 89.

2. Accordingly, the Tribunal is satisfied that the Applicant made representations to the Minister in accordance with the invitation for the purposes of s 501CA(4)(a) of the Migration Act.

   ‘Character test’

3. It is not in dispute, and the Tribunal accepts based on the evidence before it, that the Applicant does not pass the ‘character test’, because of the operation of s 501(6)(a) of the Migration Act, because he has a ‘substantial criminal record’, as defined in s 501(7)(c) of the Migration Act, having been convicted in the District Court of Queensland, on 13 September 2023, for ‘Choking suffocation strangulation domestic relationship – domestic violence offence’ and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of two years and six months (i.e. sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more).

   ‘Another reason’

4. Therefore, the only issue to be decided by the Tribunal is whether there is ‘another reason’ why the decision to cancel the Applicant’s Visa should be revoked: s 501CA(4)(b)(ii) of the Migration Act.

5. For the following reasons, the Tribunal is not satisfied that there is ‘another reason’ why the decision to cancel the Applicant's Visa should be revoked. In reaching its decision, the Tribunal, informed by the eight ‘Principles’ in paragraph 5.2 of Direction 110, has, as set out below, ‘taken into account’:

   (a)the five ‘primary considerations’ (in section 8 of Part 2 to Direction 110); and

   (b)the three ‘’other considerations’ (in section 9 of Part 2 to Direction 110).

   FIRST PRIMARY CONSIDERATION: Protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct (paragraph 8.1 of Direction 110)

   Safety of the Australian community is the highest priority

6. In applying paragraph 8.1 of Direction 110, the Tribunal must be informed by the eight ‘Principles’ set out in paragraph 5.2 of Direction 110 and outlined at [23] above.

7. Paragraph 8.1(1) of Direction 110 states:

   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. To that end, the Government is committed to protecting the Australian community from harm as a result of criminal activity or other serious conduct by non-citizens. In this respect, 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.
   (emphasis added)

8. The safety of the Australian community as being the highest ‘priority’ is also stated as a ‘priority’ in the ‘Principle’ in paragraph 5.2(2) of Direction 110.

9. Direction 110 was made on 7 June 2024 and commenced on 21 June 2024. It replaced Direction 99 which did not contain the principle that ‘the safety of the Australian community is the highest priority of the Australian Government’. The safety of the Australian community as being the highest ‘priority’ of the Australian Government, and in the application of Direction 110 by decision-makers, is reflected in the media release, published on 7 June 2024 by the Minister, Hon Andrew Giles MP (who authored both Directions 99 and 110), announcing Direction 110 as follows:[9]

   [9] See also Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth), s 15AB.

   Today, I have signed Ministerial Direction 110, a new, revised Direction to strengthen the consideration of community safety in Australia’s migration system.

   Since coming to office, the Government has refused and cancelled a large number of visas on character grounds in the interests of community safety.
   However, it is clear the AAT has made a number of decisions independently of Government that do not reflect the Government’s intent or meet community expectations.
   Since the beginning of last week, I have cancelled 40 visas in the national interest.
   Today, we take the next step in strengthening our cancellation system to better reflect community expectations.
   Ministerial Direction 110 is guided by two key principles; the protection of the Australian community and common sense.
   This new revised Direction makes crystal clear that the Government expects the protection of the Australian community be given greater weight in visa decisions.
   ….
   The revised Direction makes it clear that the safety of the Australian community is the Government’s highest priority – and includes this as a key principle of the decision-making framework.
   ….
   Ministerial Direction 110 is an important step in ensuring that our migration system works in our national interest, and visa decisions are in line with common sense and the safety of Australians.

   Community safety is and always will be our Government’s highest priority.
   (emphasis added)

10. Accordingly, the phrase ‘safety of the Australian community,’ in the ‘Principle’ in paragraph 5.2(2) of Direction 110 and the first ‘primary consideration’ in paragraph 8.1(1) of Direction 110 (Protection of the Australian community) is directed at the ‘risk’ posed by a non-citizen to the safety of the Australian nation should they be granted a visa. It is not directed at the potential consequences for a segment of the Australian community (such as the non-citizen’s family members) should the visa not be granted or restored. The Tribunal must assess whether a non-citizen’s continued presence in Australia would ‘be opposed to the safety and welfare of the nation.’[10]

    [10] Falzon v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2018) 262 CLR 333 at [94].

11. Paragraph 8.1(2) of Direction 110 states that, when considering protection of the Australian community, decision-makers must consider the:

    (a)nature and seriousness of the non-citizen’s conduct to date: paragraph 8.1.1 of Direction 110; and

    (b)risk to the Australian community, should the non-citizen commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct: paragraph 8.1.2 of Direction 110.

    Nature and seriousness of the Applicant’s conduct to date (paragraph 8.1.1 of Direction 110)

    Nature and seriousness of the Applicant’s conduct to date

12. Paragraph 8.1.1(1) of Direction 110 states:

    (a)without limiting the range of conduct that may be considered very serious, the types of crimes or conduct described below are viewed very seriously by the Australian Government and the Australian community:

    i.        violent and/or sexual crimes;

    ii.crimes of a violent and/or sexual nature against women or children, regardless of the sentence imposed;

    iii.acts of family violence, regardless of whether there is a conviction for an offence or a sentence imposed;        

13. Therefore, paragraph 8.1.1(1)(a) of Direction 110 makes clear that crimes of a violent nature against women, and any acts of family violence, are considered very serious crimes, regardless of the sentence imposed.

14. As stated above (at [9]), the Applicant has an extensive criminal history which spans from 2003 to 2023 (i.e. 20 years) in Victoria and Queensland: HB 56 - 58. The Applicant has been convicted of various offences including theft, dealing with proceeds of crime, breach of family violence intervention orders, intentionally damaging and destroying property, and unlawful assault: see ‘Annexure A’ attached.

15. The Applicant's Index Offending (described above at [10]), which involved an act of actual violence committed against a woman with whom the Applicant was in a relationship and which caused the victim to be injured, is plainly objectively ‘very serious’ conduct.

16. In her witness statement, the victim describes the Applicant’s Index Offending as follows:

    13.      We’d both been drinking a lot. We were arguing again, and it got out of hand.

    ….

    15.      I think it came to that after we had a verbal argument and I fell on the ground.

    16.He got on top of me. I think he was trying to get me to calm down and stop me from arguing with him. I don’t remember anything that was specially said.

    17.[The Applicant] put both of his hands around my throat. I think they were there for about ten seconds or so. I could feel pressure around my neck. I started to panic as my breath was shortening and it was hurting me. I felt some pressure in my head. I have never been in that sort of situation previously. It was very confronting to me.

    18.I don’t remember too much, but [the Applicant] pinned me down to the ground on the lounge room and strangled me. He was on top of me, straddling me around the pelvic area. He had both of his hands around my neck and was squeezing reasonably tightly. I do recall feeling the pressure and it was hurting me. Out of ten, I would say about a six or seven. I know it wasn’t good: HB 80.

    Sentence imposed by the court for crimes

17. Paragraph 8.1.1(1)(c) of Direction 110 provides that in considering the nature and ‘seriousness’ of the Applicant’s criminal offending to date, the Tribunal must have regard to ‘the sentence imposed by the courts for a crime or crimes’, noting that, when reviewing the Minister’s decision whether there is ‘another reason’ to revoke a mandatory visa cancellation, the Tribunal may not impugn or ‘go behind’ either the conviction or the sentence.[11]

    [11] Minister for Immigration Multicultural Affairs v Ali (2000) 106 FCR 313 at [42]; Uelese v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2015) 256 CLR 203 at [5], [44], [102], and [104].

18. The objective ‘seriousness’ of the Applicant's Index Offending is reflected in the sentencing remarks of Judge Richards, who observed:

    …you have pleaded guilty to an offence of strangulation in a domestic setting. The strangled person was your partner at the time….Strangulation is very serious. It would be terrifying for the victim: HB 60.

    (emphasis added)

19. Her Honour then observed that the Applicant went on to breach the domestic violence order that the police made following the Index Offending (on 1 December 2022), and that he was sentenced to a four-month term of imprisonment consequently: HB 60. Her Honour commented:

    …In my view, given your background, this is serious offending and a sentence of two and a-half years, in my view is appropriate: HB 60.

    (emphasis added)

20. As stated above, Judge Richards sentenced the Applicant to a term of imprisonment of two years and six months for the Index Offending: HB 38 and 57. Sentences involving terms of imprisonment are the last resort in the sentencing hierarchy and where a court has sentenced an offender to a term of custodial imprisonment, this should be viewed as a reflection of the objective ‘seriousness’ of the offending involved.[12]

    [12] PNLB and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (Migration) [2018] AATA 162 at [22]; Pavey and Minister for Home Affairs [2019] AATA 4198 at [44].

21. For the above reasons, the Tribunal considers that the Applicant’s Index Offending should be objectively viewed as ‘very serious.’

    Frequency of offending & cumulative effect of repeated offending

22. Paragraph 8.1.1(1)(e) of Direction 110 requires the Tribunal to have regard to the frequency of the Applicant’s offending and whether there is any trend in increasing seriousness in considering the ‘nature and seriousness’ of the Applicant’s criminal offending or other conduct to date. Further, the Tribunal must have regard to the cumulative effect of repeated offending in considering the ‘nature and seriousness’ of the Applicant’s criminal offending or other conduct to date: paragraph 8.1.1(f) of Direction 110.

23. Prior to the Applicant's conviction and sentencing for the Index Offending on 13 September 2023, the Applicant was convicted of numerous offences between 4 February 2003 and 5 December 2022, which relevantly included multiple convictions for family violence related offending: HB 57 – 58 and Annexure A.

24. The Tribunal considers that the Applicant's criminal history demonstrates a trend of increasing seriousness and that his offending has been frequent: paragraph 8.1.1(1)(e) of Direction 110. This is reflected in the sentencing remarks of Judge Richards, who commented:

    You are a 40-year-old man, so you are mature, and you have quite a long history, now, of domestic violence in Victoria in the main. So, it cannot be said that this is out of character for you. In fact, it seems to be a pattern that you are repeating over a number of years, since about 2009. Obviously, the fact that you keep doing this is a circumstance of aggravation.: HB 60.

    (emphasis added)

25. Further, the Tribunal takes the view that the cumulative effect of the Applicant's repeated offending is ‘very serious’ and, as submitted by the Respondent, must have resulted in significant use of police and court resources: paragraph 8.1.1(1)(f) of Direction 110 and HB 373.

    Conclusion: Nature and seriousness of the conduct (paragraph 8.1.1 of Direction 110)

26. For the above reasons, and as informed by the ‘Principles’ in paragraph 5.2 of Direction 110, the Tribunal considers the ‘nature and seriousness’ of the Applicant’s criminal conduct to date to be ‘very serious’: paragraph 8.1.1 of Direction 110.

27. In reaching this conclusion, the Tribunal notes that a majority of the Full Court recently held that the Tribunal is not bound by the expressed views as to the ‘seriousness’ of certain conduct found within paragraph 8.1.1(a) and (b) of Direction 110 and, instead, the Tribunal is required to assess for itself the ‘nature and seriousness’ of a non-citizen’s conduct to date and the weight that should be attributed to this consideration.[13]

    [13] BNY23 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2025] FCA 608 at [107]; Siale v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2025] FCA 608 at [34]; Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Peralta Montes [2025] FCA 667 at [89]-[90].

28. For the above reasons, the Tribunal considers that the ‘nature and seriousness’ of the Applicant’s criminal offending to date weighs heavily against revocation.

    Risk to the Australian community should the Applicant commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct (paragraph 8.1.2 of Direction 110)

29. The Tribunal must also consider the ‘risk’ to the Australian community should the Applicant commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct: paragraph 8.1.2 of Direction 110. Some conduct, and the harm that would be caused, if repeated, is so serious that any risk it may be repeated may be ‘unacceptable’: paragraph 8.1.2(1) of Direction 110.

30. In assessing the ‘risk’ posed by the non-citizen to the Australian community, the Tribunal must have ‘regard to,’ cumulatively:

    (a)the nature of the harm to individuals or the Australian community should the Applicant engage in further criminal or other serious conduct: paragraph 8.1.2(2)(a) of Direction 110; and

    (b)the likelihood of the Applicant engaging in further criminal or serious conduct, taking into account:

    (i)information and evidence on the risk on the Applicant reoffending; and

    (ii)evidence of rehabilitation achieved by the time of the decision, giving weight to time spent in the community, if any, since his most recent offence: paragraph 8.1.2(2)(b) of Direction 110.

31. The concept of ‘risk’ and whether it is ‘unacceptable,’ for the purpose of paragraph 8.1.2(1) of Direction 110, is not the same thing as the ‘likelihood of the non-citizen engaging in further criminal or other serious conduct’, for the purpose of paragraph 8.1.2(2) of Direction 110.[14]

    [14] See Re RRRB and Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2025] ARTA 471 at [74].

32. Direction 110, directs the Tribunal’s ‘risk’ assessment by expressly stating that, informed by the ‘Principles’ in paragraph 5.2 of Direction 110, the:

    (a)Australian Government is committed to ‘protecting the Australian community from harm as a result of criminal activity or other serious conduct by non-citizens’: paragraph 8.1(1) of Direction 110;

    (b)Australian Government views that certain types of conduct may be considered by it and the Australian community as ‘very serious’ and ‘serious’: paragraph 8.1.1(1) of Direction 110; and

    (c)Australian Government’s view is that ‘the Australian community’s tolerance of any further risk of future harm becomes lower as the seriousness of the potential harm increases’: paragraph 8.1.2(1) of Direction 110.

33. In Tanielu v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2014) 225 FCR 424, Justice Mortimer (as her Honour then was) said (at [103]):

    It is well established that, where the harm which might be caused by future conduct is particularly serious, a lesser likelihood of the conduct occurring may be required for the risk to be identified at a level requiring a particular decision to be made. It is also well established that the likelihood of a person engaging in conduct in the future is affected by both static and dynamic factors: that is, factors which can be assessed objectively against statistical models to predict the risk category a person falls into, and dynamic factors personal to an individual which may moderate or exacerbate the risk the person otherwise could be said to pose. Those factors might include family support, alcohol and drug abuse patterns, employment and the like.

    (emphasis added)

34. Accordingly, the ‘risk’ referred to in the balancing exercise contemplated by Direction 110 is not just ‘any’ risk that a non-citizen may ‘commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct’, but is aimed at the Tribunal’s assessment of the nature and degree of harm said to exist in the particular circumstances of the Applicant’s case.

35. There is no statutory constraint on the way the Tribunal is to assess that risk, other than the requirement for the Tribunal to adopt a rational and probative approach to the assessment.[15]

    [15] Bartlett and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (Migration) [2017] AATA 1561 at [33]-[36].

36. Having regard to the ‘very serious’ nature of the Applicant's offending, the Tribunal considers, as contended by the Respondent, that any future offending by the Applicant, of a similar nature, would expose the Australian community to significant physical and psychological harm: paragraph 8.1.2(2)(a) of Direction 110 and HB 374 at [30].

37. Further, the Tribunal considers, as submitted by the Respondent, that the Applicant’s conduct and the harm that would be caused to the Australian community, if it were to be repeated, is so ‘serious’ that any ‘risk’ that it may be repeated is unacceptable to the Australian community: paragraph 8.1.2(1) of Direction 110 and HB 374 at [30].

38. In his ‘Personal Circumstances Form,’ dated 24 November 2023, in support of his request for revocation the mandatory cancellation of his Visa the Applicant states the following in relation to criminal history and risk of reoffending:

    10.      CRIMINAL HISTORY AND RISK OF REOFFENDING

    Outline any factors you believe help explain your offending, that you want the decision-maker to take into account.

    The biggest factor for any offence I have done is alcohol. When I do not drink I would never say or do almost anything I do when I’m drinking heavily. I was also not taking my medication for depression and stuck in a relationship that was only 3 months old. I wish I could take it all back: HB 138.

39. In ‘Submissions’ prepared by the Applicant’s representative, dated 1 December 2023, the Applicant submitted that at the time of the Index Offending he was 40 years old and was ‘struggling with alcoholism’, he acknowledged that his ‘actions were stupid’ and said that he would ‘attend courses to prevent recidivism associated with alcohol’: HB 98 -99.

1. As stated above, the Applicant pleaded guilty to the Index Offending: HB 60. In this regard, in the sentencing remarks, Judge Richards stated:

   Taking into account your pleas of guilty and the fact that you are well-behaved in jail and you have got a position of responsibility, I will order parole at an earlier time than usual…

2. Further, in a statement by the Applicant, dated 14 March 2023 (Applicant’s Statement), the Applicant expressed some remorse for his conduct, as follows:

   At the time [of the Index Offending] I was drinking heavily, not taking medication for my mental health on a regular basis & homeless. I was also interstate from my family or anyone I knew I could ask for help.

   At no point am I attempting to make any excuse for my actions however I strongly believe this had a very big impact on me making a lot of poor choices.

   In the first few weeks of being in prison I was put into the medical ward to recover from psychosis & detox from alcohol. Over the next few months, I worked on my mental health and started to try to understand & come to terms with what had happened. After being in prison for 6 months I realised I had spent the longest period of my adult life sober. I was trying to understand how to deal with emotions & feelings I had been suppressing for a long time.

   After 12 months with no alcohol I can now understand & appreciate the impact of an extended period of sobriety has had on me. Along with daily medication for mental health it has helped improve both my physical and mental health in a lot of ways.

   ….

   My ultimate goal is to remain in Australia. To rebuild my life & to become a better parent, son and brother to my family: HB 144.

3. The Applicant has given following evidence concerning his intentions to participate in available courses during his detention to support his personal growth and development, with a view to making better choices in the future:

   During my time in detention I intend to utilise the courses available to me to help me grow & gain a better understanding of myself with the hope it will help me make better choices in the future. I know simply not having alcohol is not a quick fix solution. I will have access to alcohol at some point in the future however I know & fully understand that I can not have alcohol as part of my life in any capacity: HB 144.

4. In support of these submissions, the Applicant has provided ‘Certificates of Course Completion’ for the following three short ‘online’ courses that he completed whilst in immigration detention (which required him to read certain information and answer various questions in relation to that information):

   ·'Understanding Drug and Alcohol Abuse' (with a Final Grade of 93%), issued 26 February 2025 (First Online Course): HB 320;

   ·'Stress Management' (with a Final Grade of 92%), issued on 3 March 2025 (Second Online Course): HB 321; and

   ·'Understanding addictions' (with a Final Grade of 79%), issued on 9 March 2025 (Third Online Course): HB 322.

5. In his oral evidence at the hearing, the Applicant described the above courses, and what he personally learned from them, as follows:

   ·First Online Course – The Applicant said that he learned about the ‘triggers’ or reasons why he abused alcohol and that it reinforced what he had learned in the past but failed to put into practice;

   ·Second Online Course – The Applicant described this as an 11-hour course which he completed online over about five days. The Applicant said that this course taught him about the importance of having a routine and strategies to deal with stress, how to deal with things when they affected him, including removing himself from a situation where his stress became ‘heightened;’ and

   ·Third Online Course – The Applicant described this as a 9-hour online course which he completed over a few days. The Applicant said that this course taught him to seek to find alternatives to alcohol when seeking to solve his problems, that there are ‘other ways,’ not involving alcohol, to deal with his problems. When sober, he has a clear head to think calmy about how to address problems and stress.

6. Despite the Applicant’s above evidence in relation to the three short online ‘rehabilitation’ courses whilst he has been in immigration detention, the Tribunal notes that none of what he has ‘learned’ in these short online courses has been tested against the stressors of the unsupervised environment of living in the Australian community, outside detention.

7. In his oral evidence at the hearing, the Applicant said that he has been seeing a psychologist, one-on-one, regularly at Yongah Hill Immigration Detention Centre, at first weekly but, more recently, fortnightly. When asked what is discussed in these sessions, the Applicant’s response was as follows:

   (a)He said they discuss the fact he has suppressed memories with alcohol for the past 30 years and good ways to deal with certain emotions and situations (i.e. coping strategies and mechanisms) and that he should remove himself from ‘triggering’ stressful situations and to think first before acting.

   (b)The psychologist has taught him to think about ‘What happens when, not what happens if?’ and various breathing techniques and meditation to ‘slow his brain down.’

   (c)The Applicant said that if he is released from detention he will not actively seek out a relationship of ‘convenience,’ someone to ‘hold his hand’ and be beside him, as he has done in the past. Rather, he will concentrate solely on himself and his own well-being.

8. Again, what the Applicant has ‘learned’ from his ‘one-on-one’ sessions with the psychologist during his time in immigration detention remains to be tested against the stressors of the unsupervised environment of living in the Australian community, outside detention.

9. Further, in his oral evidence at the hearing, the Applicant said that his entire history of ‘family violence’ has occurred when he has been ‘under the influence of alcohol,’ and that he has an addiction. The Applicant told the Tribunal that he has learned more about himself in the past three years, whilst being forced to abstain from alcohol in prison and detention, than he has in 30 years. He said that alcohol has taken everything away from him. He fears that if the cancellation of his visa is not revoked and he is removed from Australia to New Zealand he will go straight back into drinking, especially without the support of his family and friends. Further, not being allowed to return to Australia and visit his elderly parents and family would be the ‘worst punishment’ imaginable. The Applicant described himself as being a ‘good person without alcohol’ and that he wanted the opportunity to show his family that.

10. In cross-examination, the Respondent’s representative asked the Applicant whether he has completed any family/domestic violence related rehabilitation courses. The Applicant’s response was ‘no’ but that if he can remain in Australia, upon release from detention he will move to the farm where his parents live and draw upon his youngest sister, Ruby Bell’s, knowledge to find suitable rehabilitation programmes.

11. The Applicant's parents, Mrs Linda Bell and Mr Bevan Bell Snr, provided a joint (dated 31 July 2025) letter of support of their son’s application (Parents Letter of Support): HB 145. The Parents Letter of Support is written from the perspective of Mrs Bell. However, Mr Bell confirmed, in is oral evidence at the hearing, that he was actively involved in preparing the Parents Letter of Support and that it is equally his letter.

12. The Applicant’s parents, are the ‘caretakers’ of a small farm, owned by Mrs Debby Pratt and Mr David Pratt, about one and a half hours from Perth. In the Parents Letter of Support, Mrs Bell describes the family support he will have if he comes to live with her and her husband on the farm, including from his two sisters and their four children who live close by, as follows:

    I am hoping if he can return home to us it will be so different to where he has been before, and with the quiet life style will suit him while he has his mental health issues addressed: HB 145.

13. Mrs Pratt provided an (undated) letter in support of the Applicant (Mrs Pratt’s Supporting Letter): HB 152. Mrs Pratt’s Supporting Letter states, in part:

    Bevan has indeed made mistakes in his life, which have had terrible consequences. I know first-hand how deeply Bevan regrets the pain he caused. His Mum and Dad visit the detention centre, and tells them that he is not only regretful but also understands the impact his actions have had on others.

    His time in Prison and detention, as well as counselling and personal reflection, have made Bevan a better person. He is truly a good man, and I am confident that, given the opportunity, he will prove that he can make a positive contribution to society.

    Let me assure you that if Bevan is released from detention he has my support and husband David Pratt as well Bevan’s Dad and mum and his 2 sisters Melissa Bell and Ruby Bell. We will give him all the personal and emotional help he needs to avoid returning to a negative lifestyle: HB 152.

    (emphasis added)

14. In a separate supporting letter provided by the Applicant’s mother, dated 25 July 2025 (Mrs Bell’s Supporting Letter), Mrs Bell states the following in relation to her son’s rehabilitation:

    Over the past two years [Bevan] has had a lot of time to reflect on his life, and has come to the conclusion he has been self medicating with alcohol. He has been battling with mental health problems for many years and has been seen by doctors and is now on medication. He is also hoping to be accessed (sic.) for ADD or ADHA, which I feel should have been done when he was a child. I did try to have him accessed (sic.) when he was younger but was told it was just his behaviour and [he] needed more discipline.

    He is a different person without alcohol, we enjoy going to visit him and sit and talk anything from family to sport to anything that might be on TV at the time. I know he would love to be granted his visa and be able to go to footy training with his nephew and help his brother in law coach the team. He is very proud of his nieces and nephews: HB 363.

15. In her oral evidence at the hearing, Mrs Bell said that she understood that the Applicant’s Visa was cancelled in Brisbane after a domestic dispute. Mrs Bell said that she had witnessed her son verbally abuse people about five times, maybe less, but that she had never seen him physically harm anyone, including her and her husband. She said that he had been intoxicated and very loud around her and her husband on many occasions but that he would generally just ‘go to bed’ or ‘leave the house’ after she threatened to call the police. Mrs Bell said that during her visits with her son in the detention centre they had discussed that 90% of his problems were caused by alcohol and that, if he is released, she would do everything in her power to keep him sober for the rest of his life. She said that if the Applicant is released, he can live with her and her husband on the farm and that there is plenty of work for him on the farm (e.g. looking after the animals, changing the paddocks, cropping, fencing, bob cat work, and tractor work) or locally. Mrs Bell said that she and her husband lived on a bus on the farm owned by Mr and Mrs Pratt and that the Pratts had offered the Applicant a room on their house on the farm if he is released.

16. In his oral evidence at the hearing, Mr Bell (the Applicant’s father) said that he understood that his son’s visa had been cancelled because of an incident with his ex-partner in Brisbane. Mr Bell said that the Applicant raises his voice when he drinks, is ‘mouthy’ and ‘raves and rants’ but that he has never physically hurt him or his wife. Mr Bell said that when the Applicant is verbally abusive, as a result of drinking, he threatens to call the police and ‘nine times out of ten’ the Applicant leaves the house. In cross-examination, the Respondent’s representative asked Mr Bell whether he could recall being ‘shirt fronted’ by the Applicant during an incident in 2008. Mr Bell said that could not remember that happening.

17. In his oral evidence at the hearing, the Applicant told the Tribunal that, if released into the community, he would live on the farm where his parents live (and are the ‘caretakers’) and work on the farm looking after the livestock or the like. In cross examination, the Respondent’s representative asked him whether he had considered returning to working in hospitality (as he had done in the past) and the Applicant’s response was ‘no,’ because the hospitality industry presented too many ‘temptations,’ in terms of him returning to drinking alcohol, and he did ‘not want to do that.’

18. Further, in his oral evidence at the hearing, the Applicant described his pattern of offending as involving drinking and ‘short toxic relationships.’ He said that ‘alcohol’ was a major factor in everything that has happened and that ‘drinking and arguing’ was all that he knew and something his partners knew as well.

19. The Applicant’s sister, Ms Ruby Bell (Ruby), also provided an (undated) letter supporting the Applicant (Ruby Bell’s Supporting Letter), wherein she refers to the Applicant’s risk of reoffending, as follows:

    With my work, I work in the rehabilitation space working with people of different backgrounds previously including injury, dismissal from work, jail release program, Holyoake drug and alcohol programs.

    Over my working career I’ve learnt that not every case is black and white, and as a society we have to believe in rehabilitation as an option.

    My brother has made bad decisions, letting his addiction control his actions and his mindset but he deserves a chance and in my opinion has showed that he is able to recovery (sic.) as he is engaging in rehabilitation.

    ….

    I believe with a plan of rehabilitation Bevan CAN enter into an Australian society and not make the same mistakes and choices he has previously.

    With the support of us as his family, Bevan would NOT take a step back, and would only take steps forward with graduate. And become an active member of society like he once was.

20. In her oral evidence at the hearing, Ruby explained that she never visited the Applicant when he was in prison in Victoria because it was impractical because she lives in York, Western Australia, works full-time, her husband works full-time, and they have two young children. However, she was in frequent contact with through her parents. Since the Applicant has been in detention in Yongah Hill (25 minutes from where she lives) she has visited the Applicant, in person, at least six times and they telephone and message one another frequently. According to Ruby, the Applicant has benefited greatly from being incarcerated and detained and abstaining from alcohol and is a ‘different person’ now. She said that if the Applicant is released into the community, he will have the full support of her and her husband.

21. The Applicant’s brother-in-law, Mr Daniel Skelton (Daniel), also provided an (undated) letter supporting the Applicant (Daniel Skelton’s Supporting Letter). In Daniel Skelton’s Supporting Letter, Mr Skelton describes the Applicant’s rehabilitation, in the last two years since he has been in detention, as follows:

    ….Over the last 2 years we have been able to see the vast improvements in Bevans physical and mental health, with Bevan having time to reflect and work on himself, with his mental health being a priority. We have been able to see the positive results of this work through our visits and conversations with Bevan: HB 366.

    Conclusion: Risk to the Australian community should the Applicant commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct (paragraph 8.1.2 of Direction 110)

22. The Applicant has an extensive criminal history, including the Index Offending, in Australia which spans 20 years: see [9] above. The Applicant also has a very poor history of past-compliance with court-imposed orders: see [98] below.

23. It is clear from the content and tone of the Applicant’s oral evidence at the hearing that he has made some progress towards rehabilitation. Overall, in his oral evidence, the Applicant, took ownership of and responsibility for his offending and openly recognised that alcohol was central to it. Although, in the Applicant’s evidence concerning the seven further incidents of ‘family violence,’ he sought to minimise his involvement in those incidents by attempting to attribute some blame on the victim/his ex-partner: see [100] to [116]. The Tribunal also acknowledges the evidence of the Applicant’s parent, his sister Ruby, his brother-in-law Daniel and Mrs Pratt, in relation to the support they intend to offer him, in terms of rehabilitation, if he can remain in Australia and upon his release from detention. However, the steps the Applicant has taken towards rehabilitation to date, namely three short ‘online’ courses and regular visits with the psychologist in immigration detention, are untested beyond the confines of prison and immigration detention and are, in the Tribunal’s view, insufficient to establish that his ‘risk’ of reoffending is acceptable to the Australian community.

24. For the above reasons, the Tribunal considers that the Applicant’s ‘risk’ of reoffending remains ‘unacceptable’ to the Australian community. Even a low risk of offending is unacceptable if, as is the case here, the gravity of the harm that might eventuate from future similar is sufficiently serious: paragraph 8.1.2 of Direction 110.[16]

    [16] Main v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FCA 446 at [30].

    Conclusion: Protection of the Australian community (paragraph 8.1 of Direction 110)

25. Informed by the ‘Principles’ stated in paragraph 5.2 of Direction 110, and considering: (i) the nature and seriousness of the Applicant’s conduct to date; and (ii) the risk to the Australian community should he commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct, the Tribunal considers that the first ‘primary consideration’ (Protection of the Australian community), in paragraph 8.1. of Direction 110, weighs heavily against revocation, noting that the safety of the ‘Australian community’ is the highest priority of the Australian government: paragraph 5.2(2) of Direction 110.

    SECOND PRIMARY CONSIDERATION: Whether the conduct engaged in constituted family violence (paragraph 8.2 of Direction 110)

26. Paragraph 8.2(1) of Direction 110 provides that the Government has 'serious concerns about conferring on non-citizens who engage in family violence the privilege of… remaining in Australia'. This consideration is relevant both in circumstances where there has been a conviction of a ‘family violence’ offence, and where there is information or evidence from independent and authoritative sources indicating that there has been the perpetration of family violence: paragraph 8.2(2) of Direction 110.[17]

    [17] Re MBBG and Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2025] ARTA 53 at [80]-[86].

27. ‘Family violence’ is defined in paragraph 4(1) of Direction 110 (Interpretation) Direction 110 as follows:

    family violence means violent, threatening or other behaviour by a person that coerces or controls a member of the person's family (the family member), or causes the family member to be fearful: paragraph 4(1) of Direction 110.

28. Paragraph 4(1)(a) to (j) of Direction 110 provides ‘examples’ of ‘behaviour’ that ‘may’ constitute ‘family violence’ for the purpose of paragraph 8.2 of Direction 110.

29. Paragraph 8.2(3) of Direction 110 provides that in considering the ‘seriousness’ of the ‘family violence’ engaged in by the non-citizen, the following factors must be considered, where relevant:

    (a)the frequency of the non-citizen’s conduct and/or whether there is any trend of increasing seriousness;

    (b)the cumulative effect of repeated acts of family violence;

    (c)rehabilitation achieved at time of decision since the person’s last known act of family violence, including:

    (i)the extent to which the person accepts responsibility for their family violence related conduct;

    (ii)the extent to which the non-citizen understands the impact of their behaviour on the abused and witnesses of that abuse (particularly children);

    (iii)efforts to address factors which contributed to their conduct; and

    (d)whether the non-citizen has reoffended since being formally warned, or since otherwise being made aware by a Court, law enforcement or other authority, about the consequences of further acts of family violence, noting that the absence of a warning should not be considered to be in the non-citizen’s favour. This includes warnings about the non-citizen’s migration status should the non-citizen engage in further acts of family violence.

    Applicant’s Index Offending

1. The Applicant is currently 42 years old.

2. There is no evidence before the Tribunal to suggest that the Applicant suffers from any physical health conditions.

3. In relation to the Applicant’s mental health, the Applicant submits that he has been diagnosed with depression and anxiety, for which he is currently prescribed 30mg of Mirtazapine (an anti-depressant). According to the Applicant:

   I believe if I am to avoid reoffending I need to be around family & friends who know the signs of my mental health & can help me stay on track with my sobriety….
   ….
   I have had mental health issues for many years. I don’t believe I have been diagnosed correctly due to my heavy drinking/self medicating or not taking medication at all.
   ….
   If I was returned to NZ I would struggle in every way. I have no family friends or support networks & I would have nothing. My mental health would be out of control and I would consider my life to be pretty much over. All I have ever known is in Australia.
   ….
   Having no family would be my biggest problem, I have no idea what I will do if I could never see them again.
   ….

   At the time of my offence, I had relapsed. I was drinking heavy and not taking medication for mental health. I spent 3 months in a rehab centre for alcohol addiction, When I do not drink I am a completely different person. With the help of my family I have steps in place to receive further help & support from professionals. I deeply regret my offending and what I did. My life will never be the same: HB 134, 140-141.

4. In the Applicant’s Statement, he states:

   If I was removed from Australia the impact it would have…on myself…would be catastrophic: HB 144.

5. In the Parents Letter of Support, Mrs Bell states:

   I am so fearful of [Bevan] being sent back to New Zealand. He has not been back to NZ since we left in 1998, he was only 5 years old. He knows no-one over [there] and more to the point no-one over there knows him so there would be no support to help him settle into a new life. It worries me he would start drinking and using drugs only to be able to cope with the day to day situations: HB 145.

6. In Mrs Bell’s Supporting Letter, she states:

   Bevan is very worried about being sent back to NZ as he knows no one over there, he would have nowhere to live and no income. He has not been back to NZ since he left there at 5 years old: HB 363.

7. In Ruby Bell’s Supporting Letter, she states:

   Bevans life if he can stay in his home country [i.e. Australia] is far greater than any rehabilitation options in New Zealand, a location he has not been back to visit since he was 5 years old. This could be a decision of life and death.

   (emphasis added)

8. In Daniel’s Supporting Letter, he states:

   ….A consequence of his battles with mental health has been self-medicating with alcohol, a habit we all greatly worry will re-establish itself more prominent[ly] (sic.) than ever if he is to be sent to New Zealand, a place where he has not been too (sic.) since he left at 5 years old. We worry deeply that all the positive progress Bevan has worked so hard to achieve will go away with no support network around him and with no way for us to be able to help him or visit him: HB 366.

   (b)      Language or cultural barriers

9. There is no evidence before the Tribunal that the Applicant will experience substantial language or cultural barriers in New Zealand: paragraph 9.2(1)(b) of Direction 110.

   (c)       Social, medical, and/or economic support

10. As a citizen of New Zealand, the Applicant has the same access to social, medical and economic support as other New Zealand citizens.

11. The Minister further contends that the applicant would have access to the same level of medical, social welfare and economic support as what is generally available to other citizens in New Zealand: paragraph 9.2(1)(c) of Direction 110.

12. In this regard, the Minister notes the Tribunal's observation in VKTT and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Migration) [2020] AATA 649 at [428] per Deputy President Sosso that:

    Australians and New Zealanders both speak the English language and are culturally almost indistinguishable. The legal and political structures of both societies are similar as are the medical and social welfare systems.

13. As such, any medical or allied health support which the Applicant may require to treat his depression and anxiety, or to abstain from alcohol use, would be available to him in New Zealand at a substantially similar level as would be available to him in Australia.

14. Whilst the Tribunal readily acknowledges that the Applicant may face some practical, financial and emotional hardship upon his return to New Zealand due to separation from his family and his social ties in Australia, the Tribunal considers that this should be given minimal weight in favour of revocation, especially in circumstances where the cultural, language and social variances between Australia and New Zealand are indistinguishable and where there are comparable standards of health care and social supports.

15. Further, whilst accepting that the Applicant will likely face some practical, financial and emotional hardship re-establishing himself, without his Australian support network, the Applicant has transferable skills and work experience which can lead to employment and a productive life in New Zealand: paragraph 9.2(1)(c) of Direction 110. Direction 110.

16. Accordingly, any practical, economic/financial, and emotional hardship/impediments the Applicant would face, if he is removed from Australia to New Zealand, will be limited in the long term.

    Conclusion: Extent of impediments if removed (paragraph 9.2 of Direction 110)

17. As stated above, the second ‘other consideration’ is directed at whether a person can establish themselves and maintain ‘basic living standards’ if removed from Australia to their home country: paragraph 9.2(1) of Direction 110.

18. For the above reasons, the Tribunal considers that the Applicant would be able to establish himself and maintain ‘basic living standards’ if removed from Australia to New Zealand and, therefore, the second ‘other consideration’ (Extent of impediments if removed), in paragraph 9.2 of Direction 110, carries limited weight in favour of revocation.

    THIRD OTHER CONSIDERATION: Impact on Australian business interests (paragraph 9.3 of Direction 110)

19. Paragraph 9.3(1) of Direction 110 provides that the Tribunal must consider any impact on Australian business interests if the non-citizen is not allowed to remain in Australia, noting that an employment link would generally only be given weight where the decision under s 501 or s 501CA would significantly compromise the delivery of a major project, or delivery of an important service in Australia.

20. The Applicant submits that he has been gainfully employed for the last 20 years, during which time he paid his taxes and was not a burden on Australian taxpayers: HB 101. However, the Tribunal considers that this consideration should be given neutral weight in circumstances where the Applicant's evidence concerns past employment links which do not relate to the delivery of a major project or important services in Australia: paragraph 9.3(1) of Direction 110.

21. Consequently, the Tribunal considers that the third ‘other consideration’ (Impact on Australian business interests), in paragraph 9.3 of Direction 110, carries neutral weight in relation to revocation.

    CONCLUSION: Primary and other considerations

22. For the above reasons, in relation to the five ‘primary considerations’ (in section 8 of Part 2 to Direction 110), the Tribunal concludes:

    (a)Protection of the Australian community (paragraph 8.1 of Direction 110) – weighs heavily against revocation;

    (b)Family violence committed by the non-citizen (paragraph 8.2 of Direction 110) – weighs heavily against revocation;

    (c)The strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia (paragraph 8.3 of Direction 110) – weighs heavily in favour of revocation;

    (d)Best interests of minor children in Australia affected by the decision (paragraph 8.4 of Direction 110) – weighs moderately in favour of revocation; and

    (e)expectations of the Australian community (paragraph 8.5 of Direction 110) – weighs heavily against revocation.

23. For the above reasons, in relation to the three ‘other considerations’ (in section 9 of Part 2 to Direction 110), the Tribunal concludes:

    (a)Legal consequences of the decision (paragraph 9.1 of Direction 110) – carries neutral weight in relation to revocation;

    (b)Extent of impediments if removed (paragraph 9.2 of Direction 110) – carries limited weight in favour of revocation; and

    (c)Impact on Australian business interests (paragraph 9.3 of Direction 110) – carries neutral weight in relation to revocation.

24. Informed by the “Principles” in paragraph 5.2 of Direction 110, and having weighed the considerations in favour of revocation and the considerations against revocation, the Tribunal concludes that, on balance, in this case, the first ‘primary consideration’ (Protection of the Australian community), in paragraph 8.1 of Direction 110, the second ‘primary consideration’ (Family violence committed by the non-citizen), in paragraph 8.2 of Direction 110), and the fifth ‘primary consideration’ (Expectations of the Australian community), in paragraph 8.5 of Direction 110, carry greater weight than the ‘primary considerations’ which weigh in favour of revocation, namely the third ‘primary consideration’ (Strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia), in paragraph 8.3 of Direction 110, and the fourth ‘primary consideration’ (Best interests of minor children in Australia affected by the decision) and the second ‘other consideration’ (Extent of impediments if removed), in paragraph 9.2 of Direction 110, which carries limited weight in favour of revocation.

25. In reaching this conclusion, the Tribunal notes that, as stated above (at [28]), paragraph 7(2) of Direction 110 states that the first ‘primary consideration’ (Protection of the Australian community), in paragraph 8.1 of Direction 110, is generally given greater weight than the other four ‘primary considerations’ and that, otherwise, the ‘primary considerations’ (in section 8 of Part 2 of Direction 110) should generally be given greater weight than the three ‘other considerations’ (in section 9 of Part 2 of Direction 110).

26. For the above reasons, the Tribunal is not satisfied that there is ‘another reason’ why the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant’s Visa should be revoked.

    DECISION

27. For the above reasons, the Tribunal affirms the decision under review.  

I certify that the preceding one hundred and ninety-two (192) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Senior Member Chelsea Lyford

……[SGD]…………………………..

Associate

Date of hearing:	4 August 2025
Applicant:	Self-represented
Representative for the Respondent:	Mr Cohen Dietrich
Solicitors for the Respondent:	Minter Ellison

Annexure A
Table of Applicant’s Offending[26]

[26] In accordance with the decisions of the High Court in Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migration Services and Multicultural Affairs v Thornton [2023] HCA 17 and Lesianawai v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2024] HCA 6, the Tribunal has not had regard to any offending for which the Applicant received no conviction.

QLD	BRISBANE DISTRICT COURT	13/09/2023	CC 315A(1)(A)&(B)(I)&564(3A) CHOKING SUFFOCATION STRANGULATION DOMESTIC RELATIONSHIP - DOMESTIC VIOLENCE OFFENCE (ON 01/12/2022) ABOVE REFERS TO INDICTMENT NO: 1571/23 AS BELL, BEVAN WAYNE	CONVICTION RECORDED SENTENCED IMPRISONMENT: 2Y 6MO TO BE SUSPENDED FOR: 3Y AFTER SERVING: 11MO DECLARE THAT TIME SPENT IN PRE-SENTENCE CUSTODY BE DEEMED AS TIME ALREADY SERVED UNDER THIS SENTENCE: 177 DAYS (BTN 20/03/2023 & 12/09/2023)
QLD	BRISBANE MAGISTRATES COURT	05/12/2022	RE: BREACH OF ORDER IMPOSED ON 03/12/2022	SUSPENDED SENTENCE FULLY INVOKED CONCURRENT PAROLE RELEASE DATE: 05/12/2022
QLD	BRISBANE MAGISTRATES COURT	05/12/2022	[DFVPA2012] 177(2)(A) CONTRAVENTION OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ORDER (AGGRAVATED OFFENCE) (ON 04/12/2022) BCS2204952836 AS BELL, BEVAN WAYNE	CONVICTION RECORDED SENTENCED IMPRISONMENT: 4MO CONCURRENT Parole release date: 05/12/2022
QLD	BRISBANE MAGISTRATES COURT	03/12/2022	[DFVPA2012] 178(2) CONTRAVENTION OF POLICE PROTECTION NOTICE (ON 02/12/2022) BCS2204926550 AS BELL, BEVAN WAYNE	CONVICTION RECORDED SENTENCED IMPRISONMENT: 4MO TO BE SUSPENDED FOR: 12MO CONCURRENT
VIC	LATROBE VALLEY MAG COURT	16/08/2022	UNLAWFUL ASSAULT	With conviction, fined $800.00.
VIC	LATROBE VALLEY MAG COURT	23/05/2022	CONTRAVENE FAMILY VIOLENCE SAFETY NOTICE (2 Charges)	With conviction, fined an aggregate of $750.00.
WA	Perth Magistrates Court	04/07/2019	Exceed 0.02g alcohol per 100ml of blood	[Counts 1]Mdl Disqualified: 3 mths - Concurrent; FINE: $200
WA	Perth Magistrates Court	04/07/2019	No authority to drive - cancelled	[Counts 1]FINE: $400; Mdl Disqualified: 9 mths - Cumulative
WA	Perth Magistrates Court	04/07/2019	Used an unlicensed vehicle	[Counts 1]FINE: $100
WA	Joondalup Magistrates Court	22/03/2019	Used an unlicensed vehicle	[Counts 1]FINE: $100
WA	Joondalup Magistrates Court	22/03/2019	Drove under the influence of Alcohol	[Counts 1]Mdl Disqualified: 10 mths - Concurrent; FINE: $900
WA	Joondalup Magistrates Court	22/03/2019	No authority to drive (never held)	[Counts 1]Mdl Disqualified: 3 mths - Cumulative; FINE: $100
VIC	LATROBE VALLEY MAG COURT	26/05/2014	OBTAIN PROPERTY BY DECEPTION	Aggregate 5 DAYS imprisonment. Concurrent. Pay compensation $1025.00.
VIC	LATROBE VALLEY MAG COURT	26/05/2014	OBTAIN PROPERTY BY DECEPTION	Aggregate 5 DAYS imprisonment. Concurrent. Pay compensation $930.00.
VIC	LATROBE VALLEY MAG COURT	26/05/2014	OBTAIN PROPERTY BY DECEPTION	Aggregate 5 DAYS imprisonment. Concurrent. Pay compensation $990.00.
VIC	LATROBE VALLEY MAG COURT	26/05/2014	CONTRAVENE FAM VIOLENCE INTERVENTN ORDER UNLAWFUL ASSAULT USE THREATENING WORDS IN PUBLIC PLACE FAIL TO ANSWER BAIL (2 Charges)	With conviction, fined an aggregate of $500.00.
VIC	LATROBE VALLEY MAG COURT	21/06/2012	CRIMINAL DAMAGE (INTENT DAMAGE/DESTROY)	With conviction, fined $200.00.
VIC	LATROBE VALLEY MAG COURT	13/09/2011	FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH ICO	PROVEN.
VIC	LATROBE VALLEY MAG COURT	13/09/2011	Breach re 29/06/2010 INTENTIONALLY DESTROY PROPERTY (3 Charges) INTENTIONALLY DAMAGE PROPERTY (3 Charges) RECKLESSLY CAUSE INJURY BREACH INTERVENTION ORDER CONTRAVENE FAM VIOLENCE INTERVENTN ORDER	BREACH OF INTENSIVE CORRECTION ORDER. 110 DAYS TO BE SERVED BY WAY OF INTENSIVE CORRECTION ORDER.
VIC	DANDENONG MAGISTRATES COURT	29/06/2010	INTENTIONALLY DESTROY PROPERTY (3 Charges) INTENTIONALLY DAMAGE PROPERTY (3 Charges) RECKLESSLY CAUSE INJURY BREACH INTERVENTION ORDER CONTRAVENE FAM VIOLENCE INTERVENTN ORDER	AGGREGATE 5 MONTHS. TO BE SERVED BY WAY OF INTENSIVE CORRECTION ORDER. TO PAY $198 COSTS.
VIC	SUNSHINE MAGISTRATES COURT	02/03/2009	SMOKE TOBACCO IN CARRIAGE ATT TRAVEL PART RAIL VEH NOT FOR TRAVEL FALSE NAME/ADDRESS TRANSPORT ACT BEHAVE IN DISORDERLY MANNER IN RAIL VEHICLE USE OFFENSIVE LANGUAGE IN A RAIL VEHICLE USE THREATENING LANGUAGE IN RAIL VEHICLE	CONVICTED AND FINED AGGREGATE $750. TO PAY $62.80 COSTS.
VIC	LATROBE VALLEY MAG COURT	09/02/2009	BREACH INTERVENTION ORDER RESIST POLICE BEHAVE IN OFFENSIVE MANNER PUBLIC PLACE DRUNK IN A PUBLIC PLACE	Convicted and a Community Based Order for 3 MONTHS. The order commences with the following conditions: To perform 50 HOURS of unpaid community work over 3 MONTHS.
VIC	FRANKSTON MAGISTRATES COURT	05/09/2006	THEFT (2 Charges)	With conviction, fined an aggregate of $500.00.
VIC	FRANKSTON MAGISTRATES COURT	05/09/2006	DEAL PROPERTY SUSPECTED PROCEED OF CRIME	With conviction, fined an aggregate of $500.00.
VIC	MOE MAGISTRATES COURT	13/09/2005	FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH CBO	PROVEN.
VIC	MOE MAGISTRATES COURT	13/09/2005	Breach re 07/11/2003 THEFT (3 Charges) BRING STOLEN GOODS INTO VICTORIA FAIL TO ANSWER BAIL	BREACH OF CBD. ORDER CONFIRMED. IN DEFAULT OF PAYMENT OF $60.00. PERFORM 8 HOURS UNPAID COMMUNITY WORK.