Chung and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (Migration) - [2025] ARTA 2082

Chung and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (Migration) [2025] ARTA 2082 (14 October 2025)
Applicant:Chase Lawrence Reo Chung
Respondent: Minister for Immigration and Citizenship
Tribunal Number: 2025/4443

Tribunal:Senior Member Hon J Rau SC
Place:Adelaide
Date:14 October 2025
Decision:The decision under review is set aside and substituted with a decision that the cancellation of the Applicant’s visa is revoked.

..................[SGND]..................
Senior Member Hon J Rau SC
CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – cancellation of Class TY Subclass 444 (Special Category) visa under section 501(2) – where Applicant does not pass the character test – Applicant has substantial criminal record – whether the visa cancelation under section 501 (2) should be revoked – consideration of Ministerial Direction No. 110 – decision under review is set aside and substituted.
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth)
CASES
Uelese v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCA 348
YNQY v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCA 1466
Afu v Minister for Home Affairs [2018] FCA 1311
Suleiman v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 594
FYBR v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCA 50
FYBR v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCAFC 185
SECONDARY MATERIAL
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).
REASONS FOR DECISION
Senior Member Hon J Rau SC
14 October 2025
INTRODUCTION

1.The Applicant seeks a review of the decision by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs (“the Respondent”) made under section 501(2) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (“the Act”) on 12 June 2025,[1] to cancel his Class TY Subclass 444 (Special Category) visa (“the Visa”).
2.Notice of cancellation was given by way of a letter dated 23 July 2025.[2]
[1] Exhibit 1: Hearing Book (‘HB’) 24-47.
[2] HB 24-47.

Section 501(2) of the Act provides that:
“The Minister may cancel a visa that has been granted to a person if:
(a) the Minister reasonably suspects that the person does not pass the character test; and
(b) the person does not satisfy the Minister that the person passes the character test.”
Sections 501(6)(a) and 501(7)(c) of the Act provide that a person does not pass the character test if they have been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more.
The Applicant fails the character test on account of his conviction on 4 August 2015 of various offences for which he was sentenced to a conditional suspended imprisonment order, of 14 months (the “relevant offence”).[3]
[3] HB 49, 66-67.
The Applicant concedes that he does not pass the character test.
The issue before the Tribunal is whether the discretion to cancel the Visa should be exercised.
The hearing was held on 7 and 8 October 2025. The Applicant was represented by Mr Paul O’Connor of AAA Migration Australia and the Respondent was represented by Ms Alina Ali of Minter Ellison.
The Applicant gave evidence by Teams. He presented very well. He gave direct and responsive answers to questions, even when to do so, cast his past behaviour in a poor light. He made no attempt to prevaricate or equivocate.
The Applicant generally agreed with the recorded content of police incident reports, even to the extent of agreeing that a child was present, during some family violence conduct. Where he disputed police records, he questioned the truth of what they had been told by a complainant, not the accuracy of their record, as such. For example, he referred to an aspect of a police report noting comments made by his mother (Ms RN) on 19 October 2011.[4] He also disputed some of the claims made to police by Ms.AD. These matters are discussed in more detail below. I generally, however, accept his explanations as reliable.
[4] HB 593.
He did not dispute the judge’s findings in relation to the relevant offence.
The Applicant gave the impression that he has reflected on his past behaviour, that he now has insight into why he behaved as he did, and how his behaviour would have affected others. This impression permeated his evidence, rather than being conveyed by the repetition of glib catchphrases.
My assessment that the Applicant was generally a reliable witness has significant implications for example, in my assessment of Ms AD’s probable role in the family violence conduct being considered in this matter, and the possible voracity of her statements to police. This is also important, because aspects of the Direction, require the Tribunal to undertake an assessment of risk regarding the Applicant’s future behaviour.
The Applicant called Ms NN, his cousin. She gave evidence by phone. She generally presented in a straight forward manner. She told the Tribunal that both the Applicant and Ms.AD were her cousins. The Applicant had met Ms AD at her wedding. She described their relationship as “toxic”. She said that it was not out of character for Ms AD to “make things up”. She said that she had never seen the Applicant being violent towards Ms AD, but she has seen Ms AD being violent towards him. She told the Tribunal that Ms AD once slashed a friend’s tyres, because she was jealous of her. She said that Ms AD’s life is chaotic. She strongly advised the Applicant to keep away Ms AD, even though Ms AD was her cousin.
Ms NN’s evidence is consistent with the Applicant’s, but she was much more revealing about Ms AD’s bad behaviour. If anything, the Applicant understated the extent of Ms AD’s dysfunctional conduct.
Ms NN gave evidence about the Applicant’s connection to his extended family in Perth. This was generally consistent with the Applicant’s evidence.
The Applicant called his mother, Ms RN. She gave evidence by phone. She was not an impressive witness. She was equivocal and, at times, argumentative. The Applicant told the Tribunal that his mother had told police lies, in the context of her own past abusive relationship with a partner. Ms RN did however, like Ms NN, give evidence of many instances of abusive behaviour by Ms AD, directed at the Applicant. The reported pattern of abusive behaviour by Ms AD here seems consistent.
The Applicant called his uncle Mr WN. He gave evidence by phone. He generally confirmed the Applicant’s links to his extended family.
At the Tribunal’s request, the Applicant’s representative provided a schedule detailing his claimed connection to relatives, friends and minor children in Australia. This was admitted as an exhibit.[5] As it turned out, this document was both confusing and inaccurate. It did not provide as much assistance as it may have. That said, the Respondent did not dispute the Applicant’s significant ties to Australia, including perhaps 15 or more minor children.
[5] Exhibit 2: Applicant’s Family Ties to Australia.
Background Facts
The Applicant was born in New Zealand on 15 December 1990. He is a New Zealand citizen.[6]
[6] HB 98.
The Applicant first came to Australia with his parents and his brother on 15 July 1996. He departed on 24 July 1996.[7]
[7] HB 100, 114.
When he was 7-8 years old, his parents divorced. He lived with his father for the next several years.
The Applicant next came to Australia on 30 December 2003. He departed on 2 February 2004.[8]
[8] HB 113.
The Applicant next came to Australia on 27 November 2004, this time disembarking in Perth. He left again on 12 February 2005, only to return a week later, on 19 February 2005.[9] From this point onwards, when he was aged 14, the Applicant has been resident in Australia. He initially lived in Perth with his aunt, uncle and cousin.
[9] HB 113.
Between 2005 to 2007, the Applicant completed high school here.[10]
[10] HB 108.
On 1 September 2009, the Applicant’s half-sister (Child A) was born in New Zealand.[11]
[11] HB 525.
On 4 November 2009, Ms AD had a daughter (Child B). Child B is not the Applicant’s biological child.
In late 2009 or early 2010, the Applicant commenced an intimate relationship with Ms AD. At the time they were living in Perth.[12] They met at Ms NN’s wedding. They are both part of the same broad family group. Ms NN told the Tribunal that this has, at times, made things difficult. Family members have sometimes been pressured by Ms AD to take sides when her relationship with the Applicant has soured. This has happened many times over the years, as set out below.
[12] HB 182.
I am satisfied, based upon the evidence before the Tribunal, that Ms AD has at all relevant times been a volatile, and at times, abusive, even violent individual. Her bad behaviour has been frequently directed at the Applicant. This is confirmed not only by witnesses before the Tribunal, but in the body of police reports.[13]
[13] E.g. 7 November 2014, a 72-hour restraining order was issued.[13] Other examples include: HB 202, 206, 207, 226, 228.
I am also satisfied that the Applicant was very slow to accept that this relationship was as he put it, “toxic”. He remained in this relationship and indeed returned to it, long after it was plain that it was bad for him to do so. He told the Tribunal that he accepted responsibility for his failure to move on. He said that his love for Ms AD was like a drug. He only finally broke up with Ms AD in December 2024.
By 19 September 2010, the Applicant, Ms AD and Child B, had moved to Kalgoorlie to be closer to her parents.[14] WA Police record the first known case of family violence involving the Applicant and Ms AD. This states:
“This is the first domestic violence incident between the two. They do not have any children together nor were there any children in the vicinity of this incident.
The two involved in this incident have been in a boyfriend/girlfriend relationship for the past 12 months. They have just moved from Perth to Kalgoorlie so [AD] can be with her family. They do not live together.[15]
ITI the two have been walking along Boomerang Cres, South Kalgoorlie towards [AD]’s home. The two have been arguing for a few days over [AD]’s ex-boyfriend and the amount of alcohol she consumed at the Ladies Day races on Wednesday.
The two were heard to argue by the occupier of [redacted] so she contacted police. Prior to police arrival, the two got into a taxi and went to Chung's home situated at [redacted]. On the way there they continued to argue. Upon arrival at Chung's home, he got out of the taxi whilst (AD) remained in the taxi and left the area and went to her ex-boyfriends home [redacted] at [redacted].
Police attended at Chung's home and spoke to him about the incident. No offences were disclosed to police. Chung was offered outreach but declined and was conveyed to a friend's house. He thanked police for their assistance. No 24hr police order was given to Chung as he did not know where [AD] was and did not want to contact her.
Police later attended at [redacted]’s home and spoke with [AD]. She was happy where she was because she knew Chung did not know where she was and knew that even if he did he wouldn't go there as he was afraid of [redacted]. [AD] was offered outreach but declined. No offence was disclosed to police. I/R number provided to her should she wish to speak with police at a later date. (Attending officers believed that [AD] had been assaulted but she was not going to disclose anything in front of [redacted])”.[16]
[14] HB 182.
[15] The fact that the Applicant and Ms AD were not living together does not stop this conduct being “family violence” as defined. They were in an intimate relationship.
[16] HB 182.
On 29 December 2010, the Applicant had a verbal argument with Ms AD. She asked him to leave. He became angry and cut himself with a knife.[17] A 24 hour restraining order was issued.[18] WA Police record a case of family violence involving the Applicant and Ms AD. This states:
[17] HB 184.
[18] HB 242.
“3. Relationship: Partners (boyfriend/girlfriend) EX partners according to (AD)
4. Recorded DVIs : 1 previous.
5. Children: Present, DOB [Child B]. Nil other children involved, nil others normally reside at residence.
6. Account: police called to address after concerned neighbour heard shouting from house. On attendance no-one came to door and no noise could be heard from inside the house, Police were departing scene but were stopped by POI [AD].
POI [AD] told police her boyfriend was in the house and he would not leave. The house belongs to her parents and he is not allowed there. After being dropped at the house by his cousin, POI CHUNG, was asked to leave by [AD] but would not go.
POI's became engaged in a verbal argument and at some point POI CHUNG took a knife from the kitchen and threatened to hurt himself.
Chung inflicted a small wound on himself and also held the knife to his own throat (causing no injuries).
[AD] took her daughter (Child B) into the bathroom and locked the door.[19]
Chung soon after called to [AD] that police were there (this was not heard by attending police).
[AD] left the house put (Child B) in car and spoke to police.
POI CHUNG was found in side by officers near the laundry door, nil weapons. Chung was compliant and agreed to police taking him to hospital to have his wound seen to. Police order was issued at hospital (number [redacted])
7. Risk Factors: possible mental health issues, Self-harm (POI Chung) , attempts to end relationship (by POI [AD]).
8.Behavioural Factors: threats to self-harm (nil others known at this time)
[19] The fact that a child was present during this episode is an aggravating factor.
[20] HB 184.
9. Consent to share information: Yes (requested by [redacted]).”[20]
The Applicant was asked about this. He remembered it. He agrees that he hurt himself. He generally agreed with the police account.
On 30 December 2010, Ms AD reported to police that the relationship with the Applicant was over.[21]
[21] HB 592.
On 19 October 2011, a 24-hour restraining order was issued.[22] This incident this time involved the Applicant and his mother. WA Police records state:
[22] HB 244.
“NO OFFENCES VERBAL ARGUMENT ONLY
POI CHUNG has been involved in on/off again verbal arguments with his girlfriend (Ms AD) (not present).
At about 2130hrs on Tuesday the 19th of October 2011 at [redacted] CHUNG has been speaking to his girlfriend on his mobile telephone, CHUNG has became upset and has gone outside to vent off.
CHUNG has kicked the inside of the garage door a few times (nil damage) in frustration.
His mother [RN] has shouted at him to stopped, which CHUNG has done.
[RN] has then had an argument with CHUNG regarding his girlfriend.
[RN] has contacted police because, "she knows how young people think and they sometime use knives".[23]
A knife was not mentioned by either CHUNG or [redacted], she just mentioned it to the police call taker.
All quiet on police arrival, CHUNG calm and appeared to have been crying.
[23] This is consistent with the Applicant’s mother being aware of his previous episode of self-harm.
[24] HB 186.
[RN] seemed to be more interested to speaking to someone on the telephone to speak to police initially and appeared to be the aggressor in the situation and had to be repeatedly told to stop inflaming the situation, stop swearing at CHUNG and to remain in her bedroom.”[24]
The Applicant said that he remembered this incident. The Applicant told the Tribunal that there was no knife involved and that his mother had just added that for reasons of her own. He told the Tribunal that she had made inaccurate reports to police in the past, when she was in an abusive family relationship. Ms RN told the Tribunal that there was no knife, but she could not explain why the police would have invented her reported comment about a knife.
On 15 December 2012, the Applicant departed Australia to visit family in New Zealand, returning on 28 December 2012.[25] He was granted the Visa on his return.
[25] HB 113.
On 6 November 2013, WA Police records state:
“ITI POI1 (Ms. AD) and POI2 (the Applicant) have split up today after been in a relationship for the length of 4 years.
POI1(Ms. AD) was collecting her belongings in company of her father. Whilst property was being removed both parties started a verbal argument.
POI2 lost control and threw few pieces of on the front lawn in at the property. No damage to property.
POI1 left the scene prior to police arrival.
Witness (Caller) stated to police that his daughter POI1 was planning to stay at his house. Police does not have any welfare concern for POI1.
[26] HB 189, 192.
No police Order issued nil visible injuries.”[26]
On 15 June 2014, WA Police records state:
“[AD] has a daughter, (Child B) who resides permanently with [AD]’s mother and not with the POIs. was not present.
The POIs had previously separated, but they have since reconciled and [AD] has recently moved back in.
This morning [AD]’s vehicle was not operational, and she requested to used CHUNG's vehicle. CHUNG declined and became angry. Both POIs argued and threw items. Nil physical altercation between parties. Nil assaults reported. Nil injuries disclosed or detected.
[AD] went to a neighbour's house and waited for a friend to collect her. [AD] does not plan to return to the address tonight and will stay with her friend or at her mother's.
Both POIs spoken to. Support agency referral card provided to CHUNG. Anger management and relationship support groups suggested to CHUNG to provide strategies to address behavioural issues.
Nil substance abuse issues disclosed or detected.
Nil offences and nil welfare concerns. POIs separated of their own accord. Support for POIs present with family and friends aware of the incident.
Police Order not issued.”[27]
[27] HB 193.
In about September of 2014, the Applicant and Ms AD split up again.[28]
[28] HB 248 at [5].
On 7 November 2014, a 72-hour restraining order was issued.[29] WA Police records state:
“The caretaker directed Police to [redacted unit number] where a heated discussion was taking place between parties.
POI1(Ms.AD) stated that they had a verbal argument only, but when pressed further she said that POI2 (the Applicant) had chased her because she was trying to leave. She did not disclose any offences.
POI1 was told that a Police Order would be served and she asked to speak with POI2.
POI1 then proceeded to yell and swear at POI2 in Police presence.
POI1 became argumentative with Police and attempted to leave, despite being asked to wait for the service of a Police Order.
POI1 was detained for the purposes of serving a Police Order and told she could not leave. She was not physically restrained.
A Police Order was served on both parties for 72hrs due to the continuance of arguments and aggression.”[30]
[29] HB 245.
[30] HB 604.
The Applicant said that he remembered this. She had taken his keys to prevent him leaving. He chased her to get his keys back. In the process he sprained his ankle. He agreed that his conduct was getting worse at this time.
On 13 November 2014, the Applicant engaged in acts of family violence against Ms AD. In the subsequent court hearing, the events of the day were summarised by the sentencing judge as follows.
“Essentially, on 13 November at about midday, you and the complainant went off to have lunch at a restaurant in Rockingham.
You left the restaurant and you drove to her house and you became embroiled in an argument as you arrived at her house. As your vehicle turned into Discovery Crescent in Port Kennedy, she repeatedly asked you to let her out of the vehicle. You refused to stop and she proceeded to open the door and exit the vehicle while it was travelling at about 40 kilometres per hour.
Now, there were other witnesses who saw all of this occurring. They saw the way you were driving and one person described your driving as driving in a "psycho manner".
Now, when she jumped out of the vehicle, she sustained grazing and cuts to multiple body parts. There are photographs which show the bruising and the cuts which she suffered. Fortunately, no significant injuries were sustained when she jumped out of the vehicle.
The assaults upon her were also outlined by [redacted]. Essentially what you did on each of the three occasions was that you grabbed her hair, you pulled and pushed her and as you did so. So she was sitting in the passenger seat; you grabbed her hair and on three separate occasions and obviously that would have been a terrifying situation for that particular young woman. You’re obviously a strong young man and you’re obviously physically stronger than her and bigger than her no doubt.
Now, in relation to the breach of bail you were charged and as I said, part of the conditions imposed on you in the bail undertaking were that you were not to approach within 100 metre radius of [AD] and not to attempt or not to contact or attempt to contact her with - at - by any means at all.
You breached that requirement. You ignored the bail requirement and you telephoned her and you went to her address. What you hoped to achieve by going to her address I’ve not been informed of but you’d certainly, by your conduct, breached the bail condition.”[31]
[31] HB 62-68.

On 15 November 2014, the Applicant was arrested, charged with aggravated assault and released on bail.[32]
[32] HB 171, 174.
On 3 December 2014, the Applicant entered into a protective bail undertaking not to contact or come within 100 meters of Ms AD.[33]
[33] HB 178.
On 28 December 2014, the Applicant breached his protective bail conditions by calling Ms AD.[34]
[34] HB 178, 380.
On 17 January 2015, the Applicant was detected by a speed camera driving at 183 kph in a 100 kph zone. He was disqualified from driving for 9 months and fined $1,100.[35]
[35] HB 176.
He told the Tribunal that he was on a downward spiral at that time, he was concerned that he may have been facing prison, and he was also late for work. He accepted that this driving offending could have had serious consequences.
On 29 January 2015, the Applicant was served with a 2-year VRO for the protection of Ms AD.[36]
[36] HB 181, 243.
This was subsequently revoked at Ms AD’s request.[37] The exact date is unclear, but it was probably in late 2015.[38]
[37] HB 650.
[38] See HB 57.
On 4 August 2015, the Applicant was convicted in the District Court at Perth of one count of deprivation of liberty, three counts of common assault in circumstances of aggravation or racial aggravation and one count of a breach of bail protective condition. These convictions related to the events of 13 November 2014 (set out above).[39] He was sentenced to 14 month’s imprisonment, suspended for 18 months.[40]
[39] HB 49.
[40] HB 67, 575-6.
This is the relevant offence upon which the Respondent’s decision to cancel the Visa was based.
The Respondent, however, took no steps in relation to cancelling the Visa, for over 4 years. During these years the Applicant remained in the community and his ties to the Australian community deepened.
On 29 August 2015, the Applicant breached the VRO by attending at Ms AD’s home address. She reported this breach to police.[41] He was still subject to the suspended imprisonment order. He told the Tribunal that he knew he was breaching the order. He knew that he may face imprisonment for going there. He said that they still loved each other, and she was messaging him. It was hard for him to stop himself. He was immature. He did not have as much control of his emotions as he does now. He accepts that he had an anger management problem then. He said that this is not so much the case now.
[41] HB 181.
On 20 October 2015, the Applicant was arrested and interviewed by police. He made full admissions. His explanation to police was that “She called me and asked me to come over. I didn’t want to go and wouldn’t have if she hadn’t invited me. We hadn’t spoken in a while and I wanted to give her the right to end it”. He was refused bail.[42]
[42] HB 181.
On 23 December 2015, the Applicant was convicted of breach of a VRO and fined $600.[43]
[43] HB 575.
At some point, probably in 2016, the Applicant undertook an anger management course.[44] He told the Tribunal that he did not complete the course because he found opening up about his feelings difficult, but that it had helped him to empathise with others. He said that he was immature at the time of his offending and that he would manage things differently now.
[44] HB 107.
On 15 March 2016, the Applicant came before the District Court of WA. The remarks of Sleight CJDC include the following:
“On 4 August 2015 you breached orders made by his Honour Judge Stavrianou who imposed a suspended term of imprisonment with conditions in relation to five offences. The main offence committed by you was an offence of deprivation of liberty which has a maximum penalty of 10 years. His Honour imposed a term of imprisonment of 12 months and suspended this with conditions for 18 months.
You also were sentenced in relation to some other offences which were sent up from the Magistrates Court. There were three counts of assault for which you received a term of imprisonment of one month on each.
You were also sentenced for a breach of protective bail conditions. Judge Stavrianou imposed a term of imprisonment of two months in relation to this charge. The terms of imprisonment imposed on all matters were suspended for a period of 18 months with conditions.
You then breached the order made by his Honour by committing this further offence of breach of a violence restraining order. The restraining order was served on you on 29 January 2015 and you breached the order on 29 August 2015. That was only, what, 25 days after you'd been placed on the conditional suspended term of imprisonment.
As a result of the breach of Judge Stavrianou's orders I have a number of options available to me. Normally you would expect that you receive the suspended terms of imprisonment. In other words, you would get 14 months' imprisonment immediately.
However, there is provision for me, if I feel that it is just to do so because of change of circumstances, not to impose the suspended terms of imprisonment and to look at some other penalty. I agree that the appropriate penalty is a fine. The reason for this conclusion is that I consider that things have changed.
Firstly, it's relevant to take into account the nature of the breach. You were invited around to your girlfriend's place, you stayed the night, and it was only when an argument occurred the next morning that she rang the police and that led to you being charged with a breach of the violence restraining order. No actual violence occurred.
Subsequent to that episode, your girlfriend took steps to remove the violence restraining order. Also, you were granted bail with protective bail conditions to protect her. Those protective bail conditions were subsequently lifted, I assume at her request.
I am told that since December 2015 you have reconciled with your girlfriend. I also have a report which indicates that you've otherwise been compliant with the program and supervision requirements of the order made by his Honour Judge Stavrianou.
You're currently employed. Quite frankly, your offending behaviour is a sign of your immaturity. You simply have to be able to take the ups and downs of a relationship and you've got to understand that you're in a particularly vulnerable position because you have hanging over your head this suspended term of imprisonment. Do you understand that?
ACCUSED: Yes, your Honour.
SLEIGHT CJDC: Now, all things look positive at the moment, and for that reason I'm going to impose a fine. However, I should stress to you that these matters are serious and the fine I'm going to impose will reflect that. I can impose a fine of up to $6,000.
I won't impose anything like that, but it will be a reasonably substantial fine. What you must understand is that if you come back to this court again, having breached the order made by Judge Stavrianou, you can expect a term of imprisonment. The ball essentially is in your court to make sure that you behave yourself. Do you understand that?
ACCUSED: Yes, your Honour.
SLEIGHT CJDC: I'll impose a fine of $750.
There'll be an enforcement order made under section 59 of the Sentencing Act that if you don't pay the fine within three months that you'll serve a term of imprisonment that is set out under the terms of the Sentencing Act.
So let me make this quite clear to you, this is not like a normal fine you get from the Magistrates Court where if you don't pay they just take some other fairly easy method of recovery, usually by suspending your licence. The order I'm making is that if you don't pay the fine within three months you'll be arrested and placed in prison and you'll have to cut the fine out in prison. Do you understand that?
ACCUSED: Yes, your Honour.
SLEIGHT CJDC: Yes. You'll need to receive a slip of paper explaining the procedures before you leave. Thank you. You may stand down.”[45]
[45] HB 362-371, 575.
On 24 August 2016, WA Police records state:
“[AD] & CHUNG in relationship for past 6 yrs. No children. Child to [AD] (Child B) from previous relationship. Both have previous DVI history, last being Aug 2015.
CIRCUMSTANCES
[AD] reports verbal arguing only, stated she was having a bad morning (24.08.16), and was taking it out on CHUNG. Due to arguing she wanted him to leave the house. CHUNG reports that the arguing started after he got back from taking [redacted] to school. He wasn't feeling too well, and didn't know why the arguing started. Did not disclose too much more information. [AD] stated she was having a 'female' moment, and was in a rush to go out and was irritated with CHUNG. Both report nothing physical took place, no evidence to dispute this. incident now 24hrs old. CHUNG stated that he waited to see if and when Police arrived as he knew DIXON had phoned them, but he left the house when she did and did not return home until 4:00pm. Both report things have been OK since then.”[46]
[46] HB 202.
On 23 May 2017, WA Police records state:
“Chase had been looking after his partner [AD]'s house and dog all weekend while [AD] was in Kalgoorlie. [AD] asked him to return to the house today, Tuesday 23rd May 2017, to return the garage remote control.
When Chase arrived at the house he went into the shed and said hello to [AD]'s daughter. [AD] came out of the house and started to argue with Chase. As Chase tried to leave the property [AD] damaged the panels of his car.
[AD] was not at the address when police attended. Chase was unsure where she was and attempts to contact her by phone were unsuccessful.
Chase did not wish to give a statement to Police. Chase has been listed as a POI as police are yet to speak with [AD] to establish her version of events.”[47]
[47] HB 207.
On 18 November 2017, WA Police records state:
“A call from the neighbour that there was a disturbance ongoing at the address and a lot of smashing could be heard from within.
Sister of [redacted] also called the Police stating she had left the address with the child and another party.
There was a fight on going at the address and that there were knives present.
Contact of initial caller by attending police (If not SUSPECT/Victim): Spoken to at the scene. Stated most parties had left the address he wasn’t sure about the females.
Attendance Report:
The parties are all related, Suspect 1&2 are married.
Suspect 3 is the cousin of Suspect 2.
Suspect 4 is the brother of Suspect 1.
The parties had all been drinking at the attend address throughout the evening and S4 felt that Suspects 2 &3 were being disrespectful to S1, this escalated and a verbal argument followed. All parties began to scuffle and continue to argue.
Property was thrown around the address but no property was damaged.
Police were called as a result of the disturbance heard.
Witness called the Police and left the address, stating that there were knives present.
Police investigation resulted in all other parties denying that there were knives used. There is no injuries to parties involved and no parties willing to provide statements in relation to the disturbance.
Officers located Suspects 1 & 4 nearby to the scene whilst 2&3 had fled the area, confirmed by the caller.
Police Actions:
Entered the address following the neighbour not going if parties still present, search of the address showed no sign of any suspects and no blood at the scene.
S1&4 located nearby and taken to Mothers address.
Officers re-attended the incident address and could sight suspects 2&3 they were uninjured but walked to the rear of the property and would not engage with Police.
Transported Suspects 1& 4 to mothers address [redacted].
ORS spoken with and happy with actions taken.
Advice regarding Violence Restraining Orders: Not All parties intoxicated and stated they always deal with each other like this and would be ok in the morning, they had separated themselves prior to Police arrival no requirement for Police order.”[48]
[48] HB 211-212.
The Applicant recalled this. They were all drinking at his cousin’s house. Cousin and wife’s brother were arguing. Others were involved in the conflict.
On 9 December 2018, WA Police records state:
“POI CHUNG, Chase is the son of (RN).
At about 1900hrs on Sunday 9th December 2018, [Applicant’s mother, RN] was at home with her 9 year old daughter [Child B) and her son Chase CHUNG (POI).
[RN] and CHUNG had an argument about CHUNG not having a job, CHUNG then threatened to smash the caller (RN) with his fist.
[RN] has got her 9 year old (Child B) and left the house and hid in the bushed until Police has attended.
On arrival Police have issued CHUNG with 24hr Police Order and escorted from the premises.
VRO advice given to [redacted].”[49]
[49] The victim in this case was the Applicant’s mother. See HB 216-220.
In relation to this, the Applicant said that he recalled this incident. He said that there was an argument about him not working, but he didn’t threaten to smash her with his fist. He was applying for jobs but didn’t have one yet. He said that the incident was not that serious. He said that he didn’t even know that she left. He said that his mother probably gave false information to the police. He said that she has done this previously with her ex-partner. Having heard evidence from both the Applicant and Ms RN, I am inclined to accept his account of events, over her reports to police at the time.
In late 2018, the Applicant resumed his relationship with Ms AD after a 2-year break.[50]
[50] HB 221.
On 30 April 2019, WA Police records state:
“Police a/a/a spoke to both parties separately.
Upon arrival [AD] was in the shower, and Chase was in the house.
Chase stated that they argued over small stuff, and he normally leaves when they argue, but he couldn’t this time as yesterday when he came over he had no fuel. [AD] was insistent she wanted him to stay over, but he had no fuel or money to buy fuel. She told him she would give him fuel money if he came. Which he did. Now they are not getting along, he cant leave. He stated he feels trapped and hates having to rely on her for financial
support. Especially when he didn’t want to come in the first place.
Chase questioned if he made comments suggesting he wanted to hit or harm [AD]. Chase stated nothing of the sort. He was angry and blowing off steam, and repeatedly asked her to allow him to leave.
No children together. No plans to. Currently living apart. They were previously in a relationship for about 6 years, had a 2-year break and have only been back together for 5 months.
[AD] spoken to in private. She stated they argued over â trivial shit and she asked him to leave, but he had no fuel.
Questioned if he threatened to harm her; she stated no, nothing like that, just both yelling at each other, and she was telling him to "just fucking go", but he could not/would not. She didn't care how, she just wanted him to go, even if he broke down, she didn't care, just wanted him out of her house.
She left to go to her mums (around the corner) to borrow $20 so Chase could go. But her mum was out. Her bank is set up as a joint account with her mum, and the only way she can withdraw money, is if she goes into the branch, and both of them sign for it. And she was not prepared to give him her ATM card. She had only arrived back moments before Police arrived. When she came back, he was calmed down. They are waiting for her mum to finish shopping so they can sign for some cash. She confirmed no children live at the house. Her daughter (Child A) lives with her parents due to her FIFO situation. She flies out tomorrow for a few weeks.
She confirmed they normally have a good relationship, and only argued verbally. Normally he does leave, but in this instance he physically couldn’t. He does not live at the address. He lives with his cousin, and just stays over as her boyfriend. No property sighted in the house belonging to Chase, other than a overnight bag in master room.
Both given advice about having some backup cash around for such emergencies. Chase chose to drive off even with fuel light on, stating he will make it to the servo, and call his cousin for assistance.
Both parties separated willingly. Both civil with each other. (Ms.AD) flies out tomorrow for 3 weeks. No children live at the address currently, or plan on staying in the next night.
[AD] stated he won’t come back. [AD] did not feel intimidated by Chase, nor fear property damage. Both parties were given FV card and explained. Both currently attempt to separate from each other when they argue. Normally this method works to diffuse their aggression towards each other.
Police order considered however deemed not appropriate given the circumstances
Due to questioning of both parties denying any such comments regarding threats to harm, nill offence listed, as initial caller was 3 doors down. When spoken to over the phone, she stated he called her a cunt. Made no mention of any threats.”[51]
[51] HB 221-224.
On 4 May 2019, a 72-hour restraining order was made.[52] WA Police records state:
[52] HB 246.
“Attendance Report:
Suspects have been in an on and off again relationship for the past 8 years.
The pair were having an argument whilst driving back to CHUNG'S house, on arrival the agreement got heated.
The events following have been described by both parties in a similar manner however slight differences have accounted for self-defence in their stories.
CHUNG stated that he got out of the vehicle and [AD] has driven the vehicle towards him in a manner that he believed she was trying to run him over. He picked up a brick and held it up in an attempt to stop [AD] driving towards him, this failed and the vehicle nudged him causing him to drop the brick hitting the windscreen.
CHUNG denies deliberately throwing the brick at the vehicle. Not wishing to pursue criminal charges.
[AD] stated that CHUNG got out of the vehicle and threw a rock at her vehicle slightly missing it, she was attempting to drive away when CHUNG ran towards the front of her vehicle and threw a brick smashing the front windscreen.
[AD] denies having any intention to run CHUNG over. Not wishing to pursue criminal charges.
The witness was driving past and stated that she observed the vehicle driving towards the male, not willing to provide a statement.
After conducting an investigation into suspected family violence under [redacted], there was a requirement for a Police Order to be issued in accordance with S30A ROA 1997.
Police Actions:
Police order issued to both parties.
FV support cards provided and advice on FVROs given
Advice regarding Violence Restraining.”[53]
[53] HB 226-228.
The Applicant said that he remembered this incident. He disputed the recorded facts as provided by Ms AD. He did not throw the rock at the windscreen. They had an argument. Ms AD started revving the car and moving it towards him. He said “I held a rock over my head to defend myself because I didn’t want to get run over. She nudged me with the car and the rock fell.” He accepted that this was a heated argument.
On 14 September 2019, a 72-hour restraining order was made.[54] WA Police records state:
“Neighbour reported that female at the address (AD) was on her knees screaming "help me" and they could hear a male shouting in the front garden.
On arrival the address was quiet, Chase Chung was located inside the address. He stated he had a verbal argument with [AD] over him going to Sydney. Address was searched and no sign of [AD] was found. Chung stated she had left the address in his car. One internal door was damaged with pieces of it on the floor which suggested that it had recently happened. Chung provided no account for how the damage had occurred.
[AD] would initially only communicate with police via text message but then returned to the address, she stated she did not want to talk about what had happened and refused to answer any DV questions. She stated she only wanted Chung to be given a police order for the night as she had no intention of getting a restraining order.
Chung issues with restraining order until 10am the same morning and left the address in his vehicle.”[55]
[54] HB 247.
[55] HB 231.
The Applicant recalled this incident. He said that they had an argument over him going to his cousin’s wedding in Sydney. She didn’t want him to go. He agrees with the facts set out in the report. He agreed that he damaged a door. He said that she was being dramatic and that he was not threatening to hurt her. He accepted that she may have been scared.

The Respondent advised the Tribunal that a first attempt was made to write to the Applicant giving notice of intention to consider cancellation of the Visa under section 501(2) of the Act, in December 2019. The letter was apparently not sent to his then current address. It was returned. This was over 4 years after his conviction for the relevant offence.
On 3 March 2020, the Respondent again wrote to the Applicant giving notice of intention to consider cancellation under section 501(2) of the Act.[56] This letter did reach the Applicant.
[56] HB 387-391, 498-502.
Over 5 years had by now passed since the relevant offending.[57]
[57] 14 November 2014
On 29 June 2020, the Applicant completed a personal circumstances form.[58]
[58] HB 407-422, 518-533.
By letter dated 20 August 2020, the Applicant was advised that the Respondent was still considering cancelling the Visa.[59] This was already 5 years after the relevant conviction and sentence was imposed.[60]
[59] HB 338.
[60] 4 August 2015
The Tribunal asked the Respondent’s representative why this had taken so long. She indicated that she was instructed that at the time, the Respondent had “other priorities.”
On 2 December 2020, WA Police records state:
“ALLEGED OFFENCES: Aggravated Common Assault
CHARGED (Y/N): No
Parties have been in a relationship for a number of years now and have no children together. Both currently reside at separate addresses.
SUMMARY OF INITIAL CAD REPORT: Caller is requesting police at A/A as her boyfriend Chase CHUNG has assaulted her and threw her on the ground and grabbed her around the throat and attempted to choke her.
CONTACT WITH INITIAL CALLER BY ATTENDING POLICE (IF NOT SUSPECT/VICTIM): N/a
ATTENDANCE REPORT: On police arrival attending officers spoke with [AD] who advised that she was at Chase's address earlier on in the afternoon when both began arguing resulting in Chase grabbing [AD] around the throat then pushing her to the ground.
In anger Chase then walked away and punched [AD]'s car window (causing no damage) before both he and [AD] left to Perth airport.
[AD] stated that she had no injuries as Chase did not attempt to 'choke her' he just had his hands on her throat. [AD] appeared reluctant to speak with police possibly due to her father being present that was unaware of today's incident.
Chase has since left to fly to work in Mullaamulla where he will be for approx 3 weeks.”[61]
[61] HB 236-240.
The Applicant said that he recalled this. There was an argument about Ms AD giving him a lift to the airport to go to work. The Applicant eventually got a lift from his aunt. The Applicant told the Tribunal that Ms AD followed them to the airport and initiated an argument there, during which she bit him on the side of his face. The statements made by her to the police about this incident were false. This incident was observed by his aunt Jaqueline.
It would have been very concerning if the Applicant was again involved in family violence, after receiving two letters from the Respondent, advising that the cancellation of the Visa was being considered. This correspondence expressly referred to the sentencing remarks of the District Court of WA on 4 August 2015 and 15 March 2016.[62] This was put to the Applicant. He said that the events as alleged by Ms AD, simply did not happen.
[62] HB 388.
This incident was not the subject of a prosecution. Again, I am inclined to accept the Applicant’s account of this episode.
On 23 December 2024, the Applicant again separated from Ms AD.[63]
[63] HB 564.
On 21 March 2025, the Respondent again wrote to the Applicant giving notice of intention to consider cancellation under section 501(2) of the Act.[64] By this time, the relevant offence was over a decade in the past.[65] Again the Respondent attributed this delay to “other priorities”.
[64] HB 381-386, 492-497.
[65] Ie. 14 November 2014.
On 10 April 2025, the Applicant’s mother Ms RN and others made statements in support of the Applicant.[66]
[66] HB 503-510, 565-571.
On 12 June 2025, the Respondent decided to cancel the Applicant’s visa under section 501(2) of the Act.[67]
[67] HB 454-468.
On 23 July 2025, the Applicant was advised by letter of the Respondent’s decision to cancel the Visa.[68]
[68] HB 339-357.
On 8 September 2025, the Applicant provided a statement in the following terms:
“1. I was in a toxic relationship with [AD] and we were together for a long time in excess of 14 years. The relationship with [AD] commenced in December 2010.
2. On the day of the evening that led to me being charged we were having an argument where she took my wallet with my ID from the glovebox and I needed the ID to fly out for my work that day.
3. I deeply regret my actions in taking my wallet back and not stopping the car immediately when she asked me to let her out of the car and I take full responsibility for this.
4. These events occurred when I was in my early twenties, during a turbulent period of my life where the relationship with [AD] encountered heated verbal arguments on a number of occasions and me also suffering violence from her.
5. Since this time and during the ongoing relationship with [AD] I have matured significantly, sought rehabilitation and sought and attended an anger management course, and stabilised my life in Australia with intent to help family, nieces and nephews, aunties and uncles and my mother and sister and her children.
6. I attended an anger management program in 2017 which taught me empathy, self control, and healthier coping mechanisms which I now actively integrate in my daily life. I have progressively taken on board the training from the anger management course and now have control over those emotional issues that lead to conflict.
7. I no longer associate with any negative influences and can maintain clam if confronted with emotionally distressing situation and have maintained a clean record for nearly a decade since my last offence.
8. I have reviewed my long past behaviour, and taken steps to ensure that will never happen again. I am certain that I will never again repeat those actions or behaviour and mistakes.
9. I have lived in Australia since age 15, which is over 20 years, and completed my schooling here.
10. I have stable employment history, including work as a fly-in/fly-out trade assistant. My Employers describe me as hardworking, honest, and reliable person who gets on with other workers
11. My community, extended family, and professional contacts consider me a positive and supportive influence in their lives and an important part of their lives.
12. My mother and sister are residents in Australia, and I provide both financial aid emotional support.
13. I reside with my full sister [redacted]. I help care for my 16-year-old younger half-sister, [Child B] (born 2009), who lives with my mother (RN) 30 minutes away and who has no father figure in her life. Her best interests rare important and I am requesting this be considered in the Tribunal’s decision.
14. Allowing me to stay and restoring my via would avoid her emotional distress, and allow me to remain with her as the male role model in her life and maintain the stability, love and care and support for her and the keep the families stability.
15. I understand the Australian community expects non-citizens to obey the law.
16. I have done so consistently for the part 9 years.
17. The community also values rehabilitation, family unity, and fairness.
18. I respectfully submit that my record since 2016 demonstrates I am no longer a risk and that my continue presence in Australia benefits my family and society.
19. I have rebuilt my life, demonstrated remorse and rehabilitation, and play a vital role in supporting my family in Australia.
20. My removal would cause disproportionate harm to my loved ones, particularly my minor sister, while offering no real benefit to the community.
STRONG TIES TO AUSTRALIA
21. My Mother and sister, Niece, Aunties and uncles and their children all see me as an important part of their families and their lives.
22. The arbitrary deprivation of liberty came because after she asked me to let her out of the car it was longer than 100 metres before I let her out. Unfortunately, I did not give that much thought at the time because we did argue on many occasions and this was part of an argument that had been going on for some time in the car.
23. I am not a risk to the community and have taken steps to ensure my behaviour matches my character and parental teaching and guidance to be good and kind to people.
24. The relationship with [AD] has ended recently more than 9 years after the incident and the case where I was charged and convicted.
25. We continued to live as a couple until recently when we separated on 23 December 2024. I really wanted the relationship to work and gave it everything I had until 23 December 2024 when I ended the relationship and have had no contact other than a message I received from [AD] when my Uncle died in July 2025 and She messaged me condolences.
26. During this time I was subjected multiple times to domestic violence by [AD] including her trying to run me over with the car.
[69] HB 563-4
27. My life is peaceful now and I have left that toxic relationship and will ensure I am always a good person and never a risk to society.”[69]
As at the time of the hearing, the Respondent had still not taken the Applicant into immigration detention, as required by law. He has been in the community, without a visa, for several months now. The Respondent has again had “other priorities”.
The Applicant has provided various statements of support.[70]
[70] Eg. See HB 392-399
If the Applicant were to be released into the community, he plans to continue to work in a fly in, fly out job in the mining industry. He has recently established a new relationship with a woman whom he has known for many years. He says that he has no intention of resuming his relationship with Ms AD.
LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK
Does the Applicant Pass the Character Test?
As previously discussed, the Tribunal finds that the Applicant has a “substantial criminal record” and, therefore, he does not pass the character test. This is not disputed by the Applicant.
The issue before the Tribunal is whether the discretion to cancel Visa should be exercised.
Should the discretion to cancel Visa should be exercised ?
In considering whether the discretion to cancel Visa should be exercised, the Tribunal is bound by section 499(2A) to comply with any directions made under the Act. In this case, Direction No 110 – Visa refusal and cancellation under section 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under section 501CA (“the Direction”) has application.[71]
[71] On 21 June 2024, the former applicable direction, Direction No. 99 – Visa refusal and cancellation under s501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under s501CA, was revoked and was replaced by Direction 110.
For the purposes of deciding whether to refuse or cancel a non-citizen’s visa or whether or not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of a non-citizen’s visa, paragraph 5.2 of the Direction contains several principles that must inform a decision maker’s application of the considerations identified in Part 2 where relevant to the decision.
The principles that are found in paragraph 5.2 of the Direction may be briefly stated 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 non-citizens in the expectation that they are, and have been, law-abiding, will respect important institutions, such as Australia’s law enforcement framework, and will not cause or threaten harm to individuals or the Australian community.
(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. However, 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.
(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 noncitizen’s conduct, or the harm that would be caused if the conduct were to be repeated, may be so serious that even strong countervailing considerations may be insufficient to justify not cancelling or refusing the visa, or revoking a mandatory cancellation.
(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 to the Australian community.
Paragraph 6 of the Direction provides that:
Informed by the principles in paragraph 5.2, a decision maker must take into account the considerations identified in sections 8 and 9, where relevant to the decision.
Paragraph 7(2) of the Direction requires that protection of the Australian community (Primary Consideration 8.1), is generally to be given greater weight than other primary considerations.
Paragraph 8 of the Direction sets out five Primary Considerations that the Tribunal must take into account and they 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.
Paragraph 9 of the Direction sets out three Other Considerations which must be taken into account. These considerations are:
a)Legal consequence of the decision;
b)extent of impediments if removed;
c)impact on Australian business interests
I note the importance of the Other Considerations being “other” considerations, as opposed to “secondary” considerations. As noted by Colvin J in Suleiman v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection:[72]
“…Direction 65 [now Direction 110] makes clear that an evaluation is required in each case as to the weight to be given to the 'other considerations' (including non‑refoulement obligations). It requires both primary and other considerations to be given 'appropriate weight'. Direction 65 does provide that, generally, primary considerations should be given greater weight. They are primary in the sense that absent some factor that takes the case out of that which pertains 'generally' they are to be given greater weight. However, Direction 65 does not require that the other considerations be treated as secondary in all cases. Nor does it provide that primary considerations are 'normally' given greater weight. Rather, Direction 65 concerns the appropriate weight to be given to both 'primary' and 'other considerations'. In effect, it requires an inquiry as to whether one or more of the other considerations should be treated as being a primary consideration or the consideration to be afforded greatest weight in the particular circumstances of the case because it is outside the circumstances that generally apply.”[73]
[72] [2018] FCA 594.
[73] Ibid [23].
OFFENDING HISTORY
The Applicant’s criminal record as produced by the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission is outlined at Annexure B.
The Applicant’s recorded family violence commenced in 2010. The detail of his conduct and his criminal offending history are set out above.
Primary Consideration 1 – Protection of The Australian Community
In considering this Primary Consideration 1, paragraph 8.1 of the Direction requires decision-makers to keep in mind 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. Decision-makers should have particular regard to the principle that entering or remaining in Australia is a privilege that this country confers on non-citizens in the expectation that they are, and have been, law abiding, that they will respect important institutions and that they will not cause or threaten harm to individuals or the Australian community.
In determining the weight applicable to Primary Consideration 1, paragraph 8.1(2) of the Direction requires decision-makers to 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
When assessing the nature and seriousness of a non-citizen’s criminal offending or other conduct to date, paragraph 8.1.1(1) of the Direction specifies that decision-makers must have regard to a number of factors. I will now turn to addressing these considerations.
Sub-paragraph (a) of paragraph 8.1.1(1) of the Direction provides that without limiting the range of conduct that may be considered very serious, violent and/or sexual crimes; crimes of a violent and/or sexual nature against women or children (regardless of the sentence imposed); or acts of family violence (regardless of whether there is a conviction for an offence or a sentence imposed) are viewed very seriously by the Australian Government and the Australian community.
The Applicant has been involved in multiple family violence incidents. Some have resulted in criminal convictions, most notably, the relevant offence.
Family violence is viewed very seriously, whether there is a conviction or not. The history is set out in detail above. Some offending has involved assault, deprivation of liberty, as well as breaches of bail and protection orders.[74]
[74] HB 575-7.
The Applicant has been involved in family violence with more than one person. The parties have included Ms AD and his mother. He accepts that some of this conduct was witnessed by a child.
Sub-paragraph (b) of paragraph 8.1.1(1) of the Direction provides that without limiting the range of conduct that may be considered serious, the types of crimes or conduct described below are considered by the Australian Government and the Australian community to be serious:
(i)causing a person to enter into or being party to a forced marriage (other than being a victim), regardless of whether there is a conviction for an offence or a sentence imposed;
(ii)crimes committed against vulnerable members of the community (such as the elderly and the disabled), or government representatives or officials due to the position they hold, or in the performance of their duties;
(iii)any conduct that forms the basis for a finding that a non-citizen does not pass an aspect of the character test that is dependent upon the decision-maker’s opinion (for example, section 501(6)(c));
(iv)where the non-citizen is in Australia, a crime committed while the non-citizen was in immigration detention, during an escape from immigration detention, or after the non-citizen escaped from immigration detention, but before the non-citizen was taken into immigration detention again, , or an offence against section 197A of the Act, which prohibits escape from immigration detention.

The Applicant does not pass the character test.
The Applicant has committed a serious driving offence by driving at excessive speed. He accepted that this could have had very grave consequences.
Sub-paragraph (c) of paragraph 8.1.1(1) of the Direction requires a decision-maker (with the exception of the crimes or conduct mentioned in sub-paragraphs (a)(ii), (a)(iii) or (b)(i) of paragraph 8.1.1(1)) to have regard to the sentence(s) imposed by the Courts for a crime or crimes of a non-citizen/applicant. 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.
The Applicant has been sentenced to 14 months imprisonment, suspended for 18 months.[75]
[75] HB 67.
This is indicative of the gravity of his offending.
Sub-paragraph (d) of paragraph 8.1.1(1) of the Direction requires a decision-maker to have regard to the impact of the offending on any victims offending or other conduct and their family, where information in this regard is available and the non-citizen whose visa is being considered for refusal or cancellation, or who has sought revocation of the mandatory cancellation of their visa, has been afforded procedural fairness;
The Tribunal has been provided with a statement made by Ms AD dated 13 November 2014 regarding the circumstances of the Applicant’s offending against her on that day.[76]
[76] HB 266-276.
I am satisfied that the offending probably had a serious adverse impact on Ms AD.
Sub-paragraph (e) of paragraph 8.1.1(1) of the Direction requires a decision-maker to have regard to the frequency of a non-citizen’s offending and whether there is any trend of increasing seriousness.
The relevant offence occurred over a decade ago. The trend since then has been for his conduct to become less serious.
Sub-paragraph (f) of paragraph 8.1.1(1) of the Direction requires a decision-maker to have regard to the cumulative effect of an Applicant’s repeated offending.
There is insufficient evidence to form a clear view about this.
Sub-paragraph (g) of paragraph 8.1.1(1) of the Direction requires a decision-maker to have regard to whether a non-citizen has provided false or misleading information to the Department, including by not disclosing prior criminal offending.
There is no evidence of this.
Sub-paragraph (h) of paragraph 8.1.1(1) of the Direction requires a decision-maker to have regard to whether the non-citizen has re-offended since being formally warned about the consequences of further offending in terms of the non-citizen’s migration status ( noting that the absence of a warning should not be considered to be in the non-citizen’s favour).
There is no evidence of this.
Sub-paragraph (i) of paragraph 8.1.1(1) of the Direction requires a decision-maker to have regard, where the offence or conduct was committed in another country, to whether that offence or conduct is classified as an offence in Australia.
There is no evidence of this.
I do not consider factors (f) to (i) of paragraph 8.1.1(1) of the Direction apply to the Applicant’s offending or circumstances. The rest of the relevant sub-paragraphs of paragraph 8.1.1(1) of the Direction, in their totality, weigh in favour of exercising the discretion to cancel Visa .
The Risk to the Australian Community Should the Applicant Commit Further Offences or Engage in Other Serious Conduct
Paragraph 8.1.2(1) provides that in considering the need to protect 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 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 posted 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; and
c)where consideration is being given to whether to refuse to grant a visa to the non-citizen - whether the risk of harm may be affected by the duration and purpose of the non-citizen’s intended stay, the type of visa being applied for, and whether there are strong or compassionate reasons for granting a short stay visa.
Nature of harm should the Applicant engage in further criminal or other serious conduct
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 his 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 (Paragraph 8.1.2(1)).
The Applicant has a history of family violence offending and conduct. This is very serious.
The trend in seriousness has been reducing for over a decade.
The Applicant’s speeding offence is so serious as to indicate at least a reckless indifference to the safety of other road users and a contempt for our laws. This is, however, an isolated event, now a decade in the past.
Likelihood of engaging in further criminal or other serious conduct
The Applicant completed an anger management course in 2017. [77] In relation to this he said:
“I did a anger management course in 2017 that helped a lot it made me thoroughly understand the meaning of the word empathy to better manage myself and future situations as well as how to handle situations that I used to find extremely difficult.”[78]
[77] The evidence suggests that it was probably in 2016 not 2017.
[78] HB 107.
The Applicant says of his risk of offending:
“From when my mother and father got divorces at 9, my mother and her ex partner would have huge arguments where things would get broken or they would scream and yell in front of us (my younger sister and I). It would be such a regular thing that I would take my sister in the room and just close the door and get her to listen to a MP3 player or something so she didn’t have to hear it. I would pretend to not hear it and hope it stops. A lot of that I feel is why I reacted the way that I did fuelled with my own emotions and lack of understanding its what I’ve seen to be normal but still is not right.”[79]
[79] HB 107.
If the Applicant were still in a relationship with Ms AD, I would have assessed the risk of him reoffending as moderate.
The fact that he ended that relationship in December 2024, is a significant step forward for him. I am prepared to accept his assurance that this time, it is over for good.
Having heard all the evidence and formed a positive view of the Applicant’s credibility as a witness, I am satisfied that provided he keeps away from Ms AD, he presents only a slight risk of reoffending.
This Primary Consideration weighs against him, but not as heavily as it would have if Ms AD was still on the scene.
Conclusion: Primary Consideration 1
Primary Consideration 1 weighs in favour of exercising the discretion to cancel Visa.
Primary Consideration 2: 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 (see paragraph (3) below).
(2)This consideration is relevant in circumstances where:
a)a non-citizen has been convicted of an offence, found guilty of an offence, or had charges proven howsoever described, that involve family violence; and/or
b)there is information or evidence from independent and authoritative sources indicating that the non-citizen is, or has been, involved in the perpetration of family violence, and the non-citizen being considered under section 501 or section 501CA has been afforded procedural fairness.
(3)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 witness of that abuse (particularly children);
iii.efforts to address factors which contributed to their conduct; and
d)Whether the non-citizen has re-offended since being formally warned, or since otherwise being made aware by a Court, law enforcement or other authority, about the consequences of further acts of family violence, noting that the absence of a warning should not be considered to be in the 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.
The details of the Applicant’s family violence offending and conduct are set out in detail above.
The Applicant has engaged in family violence conduct in circumstances where he has exposed several people, including minors, to this behaviour. The people involved have been Ms AD, her daughter (Child B), the Applicant’s mother and Child A.
It is particularly concerning that this conduct continued after he was warned by judicial officers, and after he had participated in an anger management course in 2016.
On the other hand, the gravity of his offending had been reducing since 2015.
The Respondent took a decade after the relevant offending to cancel the Visa. In that time, the Applicant has been in the community, and his conduct has improved.
I accept that he now has some insight into his offending and that he is no longer in a relationship with Ms AD.
Nevertheless, family violence is very serious, and it weighs against him.
Conclusion: Primary Consideration 2
This Primary Consideration 2 weighs in favour of exercising the discretion to cancel Visa.
Primary Consideration 3: 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 whether to revoke the mandatory cancellation of their visa, the decision-maker must also consider the strength, nature and duration of any other ties that the non-citizen has to the Australian community. In doing so, decision-makers must have regard to:
a) how long the non-citizen has resided in Australia, including whether the non-citizen arrived as a young child, noting that:
i.less weight should be given where the non-citizen began offending soon after arriving in Australia; and
ii.more weight should be given to time the non-citizen has spent contributing positively to the Australian community
b) the strength, duration and nature of any family or social links with Australian citizens, Australian permanent residents and/or people who have an indefinite right to remain in Australia.
The Applicant’s representative provided a schedule outlining the Applicant’s Australian connections at the request of the Tribunal. As previously mentioned, this document was admitted as exhibit 2. It is confusing and clearly inaccurate in some respects. That said, I accept that the Applicant is part of a large and closely connected extended family living in Perth.
The Applicant has regular contact with his family members when he is on an “off” cycle in his FIFO work. He stays with many of them frequently, probably every month or so has a number of family connections in Australia including his mother, his sister, a half-sister (Child A), uncles, aunts, cousins, nieces and nephews.[80]
[80] HB 104-106; Exhibit 2.
I accept that the Applicant has a close connection to his family in Australia.
The Applicant has been settled here since he was 15 years old. Many of his formative years were spent here.
For the last decade, since the relevant offence, the Applicant has remained here and deepened his ties to the Australian community. This decade of his life in Australia, occurred courtesy of the Respondent’s failure, due to “other priorities”, to act promptly after the relevant offence.
The Applicant has been employed and contributing through his taxes.
The Applicant has provided many statements of support from friends and family as mentioned above.
Child A, Child B and other minor children are discussed in more detail, in the context of the Primary Consideration 4. I refer to that discussion in this context.
Conclusion: Primary Consideration 3
This Primary Consideration 3 weighs strongly against exercising the discretion to cancel Visa.
Primary Consideration 4: 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.
Paragraph 8.4(4) of the Direction sets out a number of factors to take into consideration with respect to the best interests of minor children in Australia. Those include, relevantly:
a)the nature and duration of the relationship between the child and the non-citizen. Less weight should generally be given where the relationship is non-parental, and/or there is no existing relationship and/or there have been long periods of absence, or limited meaningful contact (including whether an existing Court order restricts contact);
b)the extent to which the non-citizen is likely to play a positive parental role in the future, taking into account the length of time until the child turns 18, and including any Court orders relating to parental access and care arrangements;
c)the impact of the non-citizen’s prior conduct, and any likely future conduct, and whether that conduct has, or will have a negative impact on the child;
d)the likely effect that any separation from the non-citizen would have on the child, taking into account the child’s or non-citizen’s ability to maintain contact in other ways;
e)whether there are other persons who already fulfil a parental role in relation to the child;
f)any known views of the child (with those views being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child);
g)evidence that the child has been, or is at risk of being, subject to, or exposed to, family violence perpetrated by the non-citizen, or has otherwise been abused or neglected by the non-citizen in any way, whether physically, sexually or mentally;
h)evidence that the child has suffered or experienced any physical or emotional trauma arising from the non-citizen’s conduct.
The Applicant has a half-sister in Australia, Child A. She is 16 years old.[81] In relation to her he says:
“[Child A] is my half sister from my mothers previous relationship with her ex. As stated I am currently stay with her and my mother if not I usually see her every second week as my mother and her live together and with my mum having her full time and being a sole parent she can be at times disobedient so being her older brother I can tell her to listen and give her a better perspective on the reason why mum makes her do the things she ask of her (e.g. cleaning her dishes, cleaning her room, doing her chores or not being disrespectful) and being her brother helps to relate had being brought up the same way and understanding the importance of why things like that matters.
…
For [Child A] being her only brother here in Australia she would be sad if the decision were negative but I’m sure she would manage. My main concern would be the disrespectful side of things not having her father or any other male figure in her life. While living here sometimes she needs a little reminder to respect her mother and understand why and I feel that’s where an impact on her could be if the decision were to be a negative outcome.”[82]
[81] HB 104-107.
[82] HB 105-107.
Child A is a New Zealand citizen, but she is a permanent resident in Australia. She lives in Perth with her mother.
I accept that the Applicant has an ongoing relationship with Child A and that she would be distressed if he were to be removed from Australia.
On the other hand, she has witnessed family violence conduct committed by the Applicant, directed at her mother.
If the Applicant were removed to New Zealand, Child A could continue to keep in touch with the Applicant electronically. She could visit him in New Zealand.
She will turn 18 in two years.
The Applicant has never performed a parental role in Child A’s life.
Child B is Ms AD’s daughter from a previous relationship. She is almost 16. The Applicant does not claim any particular connection to Child B.
The Applicant nominated a number of minor children as set out in Exhibit 2.[83] These number in the order of 15 minor children. They are generally within the Applicant’s extended family in Perth.
[83] Applicant’s Family Ties to Australia.
The Applicant has never performed a parental role in relation to these children.
I accept that the Applicant has had regular ongoing contact with these children when he visits their families during his “off” work cycles. I accept that he has a good relationship with these children and that they would be disappointed, possibly distressed, if he were to be removed to New Zealand.
All of the Children could keep in electronic contact with the Applicant if he was removed to New Zealand. They could also visit him there.
Conclusion: Primary Consideration 4
Having regard to all of the above, Primary Consideration 4 weighs moderately against of exercising the discretion to cancel Visa.
Primary Consideration 5 – The Expectations of The Australian Community
The relevant paragraphs in the Direction
In making the assessment for weight to be allocated to Primary Consideration 5, paragraph 8.5(1) of the Direction provides that the Australian community expects non-citizens to obey Australian laws while in Australia. I should consider whether the Applicant has breached, or whether there is an unacceptable risk that he would breach, this expectation by engaging in serious conduct.

Paragraph 8.5(2) of the Direction directs that a visa cancellation or refusal, or non-revocation of the mandatory cancellation of a visa, may be appropriate simply because the nature of the character concerns or offences are such that the Australian community would expect that the person should not be granted or continue to hold a visa. In particular, the Australian community expects that the Australian Government can and should refuse entry to non-citizens, or cancel their visas, if they raise serious character concerns through conduct, in Australia or elsewhere, of the following kind:
(a)acts of family violence; or
(b)causing a person to enter into, or being party to (other than being a victim of), a forced marriage;
(c)commission of serious crimes against women, children or other vulnerable members of the community such as the elderly or disabled; in this context, ‘serious crimes’ include crimes of a violent or sexual nature, as well as other serious crimes against the elderly or other vulnerable persons in the form of fraud, extortion, financial abuse/material exploitation or neglect;
(d)commission of crimes against government representatives or officials due to the position they hold, or in the performance of their duties; or
(e)involvement or reasonably suspected involvement in human trafficking or people smuggling, or in crimes that are of serious international concern including, but not limited to, war crimes, crimes against humanity and slavery; or
(f)worker exploitation.
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 [2019] FCAFC 185 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. 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.[84]
[84] 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.
Paragraph 8.5 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.
Analysis – Allocation of Weight to Primary Consideration 5
Accordingly, in assessing the weight attributable to Primary Consideration 5, it is necessary to have regard to the following matters:
a.The Applicant’s criminal record as set out in Annexure B
b.The Applicant’s history of family violence
c.The Applicant’s failure to heed warnings from judges
d.The Applicant’s failure to fully change his behaviour after undertaking an anger management course in 2016.
e.The Applicant’s driving offence.
f.The other matters set out above
Conclusion: Primary Consideration 5
Primary Consideration 5 weighs in favour of exercising the discretion to cancel Visa.
It is necessary to look at the Other Considerations listed at paragraph 9 of the Direction.
(a) legal consequence of the decision:
No protection claim is made in this case.
I do however accept that if the Applicant is not successful in these proceedings, he will be liable for detention and removal from Australia. This would be an adverse outcome, but one common to all unsuccessful applicants in similar proceedings.
In this context I note that the Respondent has not detained him yet, notwithstanding that the visa was cancelled in June 2025.
I also note that the belated nature of the Respondent’s decision to cancel the Visa, has both entrenched the Applicant’s ties to Australia and possibly denied him the opportunity of having had the last decade or so, to re-establish himself in New Zealand.
This Other Consideration (a) weighs slightly against exercising the discretion to cancel the Visa.
(b) 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 aged 35 and is apparently in good health.[85]
[85] HB 109.
There are no substantial language or cultural barriers involved in him making the transition back to life in New Zealand. He lived there until he was 15.
I accept that he would experience distress in being separated from his family and friends in Australia and that it would take him some time to reestablish himself in New Zealand.
The Applicant has a substantial family connection to New Zealand including his father, 1 grandparent and many other relatives.[86] He agreed that they would assist in him managing the transition to life in New Zealand.
[86] HB 106.
The Applicant would be entitled to the same social, medical and/or economic support available to any other New Zealand citizen.
If the Respondent had acted in a timely fashion, the Applicant may possibly already have had the best part of a decade, to make this adjustment.
Other Consideration (b) weighs very slightly against of exercising the discretion to cancel Visa.
(c) Impact on Australian business interests
There was no relevant evidence on this topic, so this Other Consideration is neutral.
CONCLUSION
It is necessary to weigh up all the primary and other considerations.
Primary Consideration 1 weighs in favour of exercising the discretion to cancel Visa.
Primary Consideration 2 weighs in favour of exercising the discretion to cancel Visa.
Primary Consideration 3 weighs strongly against exercising the discretion to cancel Visa.
Primary Consideration 4 weighs moderately against exercising the discretion to cancel Visa.
Primary Consideration 5 weighs in favour of exercising the discretion to cancel Visa.
Other Consideration (a) weighs slightly against exercising the discretion to cancel Visa
Other Consideration (b) weighs slightly against exercising the discretion to cancel Visa.
Other Consideration (c) is neutral.[87]
[87] Find in the above paragraphs.
I note that paragraph 7(2) of the Direction requires that protection of the Australian community is generally to be given greater weight than other Primary Considerations, and that Primary Considerations should generally be given greater weight than the Other Considerations.
The Applicant has been convicted of very serious offences. He has committed acts of family violence. This weighs against him.[88] Primary Considerations 1, 2 and 5 favour cancellation of the Visa.
[88] See Primary Considerations 1.2 and 5.
On the other hand, he has strong, longstanding connections to Australia.[89]
[89] See Primary Considerations 3 and 4.
Taking these matters into consideration, the question of whether to exercise the discretion to cancel the Visa, is finely balanced.
There are, however, other considerations that are relevant in this case.
The Respondent waited almost 10 years from the time of the Applicant’s conviction for the relevant offence in August 2015, before finally getting around to cancelling the visa. The Applicant’s ties to the Australian community deepened during this period of over a decade since the relevant offence.
The Applicant has also possibly lost a decade to readjust to life in New Zealand, if indeed that were to be the final outcome of the Visa cancellation.
During the decade or so since the relevant offence, I am satisfied that the Applicant has demonstrated an improvement in his behaviour and that he has matured.
I also note that due to other priorities, the Respondent has not yet managed to comply with the law and to detain the Applicant, notwithstanding the fact that the Visa was cancelled back in June 2025. He has not reoffended during this time that he has been illegally in the community.
If the Applicant were still in a relationship with Ms AD, I would not necessarily have come to the same conclusion that I ultimately have. The fact that the Applicant has both recognised that his relationship with Ms AD has been “toxic”, and ended it, are very positive developments.
In saying this, I am mindful that in the past he has split up with Ms AD, only to return to the relationship again, at some later time.
I remain very concerned that if the Applicant were unwise enough to resume a relationship with Ms AD, the risk of him reoffending may seriously escalate.
If he were to resume his relationship with Ms AD, and to reoffend, he would risk a further visa cancellation.
In those circumstances, having come as close to being excluded permanently from Australia as he now has, he could expect a future Tribunal to have very little confidence in his assurances, that he could remain safely in our community.
Having regard to all the considerations set out in this decision, I am however satisfied that on balance, the discretion to cancel the visa should not be exercised
In my view, the proper application of the Direction, on this occasion, weighs against exercising the discretion to cancel the Visa.
DECISION
The decision under review is set aside and substituted with a decision that the cancellation of the Applicant’s visa is revoked.

I certify that the preceding two hundred and twenty four (224) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Senior Member Hon J Rau SC.

............................[sgnd].......................................
Associate

Dated: 14 October 2025

Date of hearing: 7 and 8 October 2025

Advocate for the Applicant:

Mr Paul O’Connor (AAA Migration Australia)

Advocate for the Respondent:
Ms Alina Ali (Minter Ellison)

ANNEXURE A – LIST OF EXHIBITS

Exhibit no.

Lodged by

Document

1

Respondent

Hearing Book

2

Applicant

Applicant’s Family Ties to Australia

ANNEXURE B – APPLICANT’S OFFENDING HISTORY

Court

Court Date

Offence

Court Result

Perth District of Western Australia

15/03/2016

Reoffended whilst subject to conditional suspended imprisonment

[Counts 1]FINE: $750

Rockingham Magistrates Court

23/12/2015

Breach of Violence Restraining Order.

[Counts 1]FINE: $600

Perth District Court of Western Australia

04/08/2015

Common Assault in Circumstances of Aggravation or racial Aggravation

[Counts 1]COND SUSP IMP ORDER:

1 MTH CONC SUSPENDED 18 MTHS

Perth District Court of Western Australia

04/08/2015

Common Assault in Circumstances of Aggravation or racial Aggravation

[Counts 1]COND SUSP IMP ORDER:

1 MTH CONC SUSPENDED 18 MTHS

Perth District Court of Western Australia

04/08/2015

Breach of protective bail conditions

[Counts 1]COND SUSP IMP ORDER:

2 MTHS CUM SUSPENDED 18 MTHS

Perth District Court of Western Australia

04/08/2015

Deprivation of Liberty

[Counts 1]COND SUSP IMP ORDER:

12 MTHS SUSPENDED 18 MTHS

Perth District Court of Western Australia

04/08/2015

Common Assault in Circumstances of Aggravation or racial Aggravation

Counts 1]COND SUSP IMP ORDER:

1 MTH CONC SUSPENDED 18 MTHS

Rockingham Magistrates Court

Reckless Driving - Excessive speed

[Counts 1]Mdl Disqualified: 9 mths -Concurrent; FINE: $1100

Date of hearing:	7 and 8 October 2025
Advocate for the Applicant:	Mr Paul O’Connor (AAA Migration Australia)
Advocate for the Respondent:	Ms Alina Ali (Minter Ellison)

Exhibit no.	Lodged by	Document
1	Respondent	Hearing Book
2	Applicant	Applicant’s Family Ties to Australia

Court	Court Date	Offence	Court Result
Perth District of Western Australia	15/03/2016	Reoffended whilst subject to conditional suspended imprisonment	[Counts 1]FINE: $750
Rockingham Magistrates Court	23/12/2015	Breach of Violence Restraining Order.	[Counts 1]FINE: $600
Perth District Court of Western Australia	04/08/2015	Common Assault in Circumstances of Aggravation or racial Aggravation	[Counts 1]COND SUSP IMP ORDER: 1 MTH CONC SUSPENDED 18 MTHS
Perth District Court of Western Australia	04/08/2015	Common Assault in Circumstances of Aggravation or racial Aggravation	[Counts 1]COND SUSP IMP ORDER: 1 MTH CONC SUSPENDED 18 MTHS
Perth District Court of Western Australia	04/08/2015	Breach of protective bail conditions	[Counts 1]COND SUSP IMP ORDER: 2 MTHS CUM SUSPENDED 18 MTHS
Perth District Court of Western Australia	04/08/2015	Deprivation of Liberty	[Counts 1]COND SUSP IMP ORDER: 12 MTHS SUSPENDED 18 MTHS
Perth District Court of Western Australia	04/08/2015	Common Assault in Circumstances of Aggravation or racial Aggravation	Counts 1]COND SUSP IMP ORDER: 1 MTH CONC SUSPENDED 18 MTHS
Rockingham Magistrates Court	Reckless Driving - Excessive speed	[Counts 1]Mdl Disqualified: 9 mths -Concurrent; FINE: $1100