Dinka and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (Migration) - [2025] ARTA 2276

Dinka and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (Migration) [2025] ARTA 2276 (13 October 2025)
Applicant/s:  Maykin Dinka
Respondent:  Minister for Immigration and Citizenship
Tribunal Number:                2025/4495
Tribunal:Deputy President S. Roushan
Place:Sydney
Date:13 October 2025
Decision:The decision under review is affirmed.

....................SGD...................
Deputy President S. Roushan
Catchwords
MIGRATION – decision of delegate of Minister to refuse to revoke cancellation of an applicant’s Class XB Subclass 202 Global Special Humanitarian visa under s 501CA(4) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) – character test not passed – whether there is another reason to revoke the cancellation – Direction No 110 – protection of the Australian community – family violence committed by the non-citizen – expectations of the Australian community – strength, nature and duration of ties to the Australian community – legal consequences of the decision under review – impediments – decision affirmed
Legislation
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
Migration Act 1958 (Cth)
Cases
CRNL v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FCAFC 138
DBWG v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2024] FCAFC 3
Howells v MIMIA (2004) 139 FCR 580
Ismail v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2024] HCA 2
Nguyen v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2024] FCA 468
Plaintiff M1/2021 and Minister for Home Affairs [2022] HCA 17.
RCLN v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2024] FCA 876
Secondary Materials
Direction No. 110 – Visa refusal and cancellation under section 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under section 501CA (7 June 2024)
Statement of Reasons
INTRODUCTION

This is an application for a review of a decision of a delegate of the Respondent (the Minister), dated 22 July 2025, made under s 501CA(4) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act), not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the applicant’s Class XB Subclass 202 Global Special Humanitarian visa (GSHV). The visa had been mandatorily cancelled under s 501(3A) of the Act.
The issue before the Tribunal is whether the mandatory cancellation of the applicant’s GSHV under s 501(3A) of the Act should be revoked under s 501CA(4) of the Act, that is, whether the applicant passes the character test as defined under s 501(6) of the Act, and, if not, whether there is another reason the cancellation decision should be revoked.
BACKGROUND
Immigration and procedural history
The applicant was born in Mosul, Iraq in 1991 and he is a national of that country. He identifies as an Assyrian Christian. He states that his father was killed in Iraq when he was 10 years old, and his sister was kidnapped for a period. After these events, the applicant, his mother, and two brothers fled Iraq for Syria. They were subsequently reunited with his sister.[1]
[1] HB, 132 see also 208.
On 16 August 2007, the applicant and his family were granted a GSHV (offshore humanitarian visa)[2] and arrived in Australia on 9 November 2007.[3] His mother and two brothers are now Australian Citizens.[4]
[2] Ibid, 289.
[3] Ibid, 149.
[4] Ibid, 132.
On 15 May 2017, the applicant’s GSHV was cancelled under s 501(3A) of the Act because he did not pass the character test (the first cancellation). The cancellation was based on his substantial criminal record, which included a 12 September 2013 conviction for Ongoing Supply of Prohibited Drugs, for which he was sentenced to two years and eight months imprisonment, and for a 4 May 2017 conviction for Resist Officer in Execution of Duty, for which he was sentenced to 14 months imprisonment.[5]
[5] HB, 164-165.
The applicant made representations to the Department seeking revocation of the first cancellation of his GSHV.[6] On 4 June 2018, the delegate refused to revoke the cancellation[7] and the applicant applied to the former Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) for a review of the delegate’s decision. On 24 August 2018, a differently constituted Tribunal (the first Tribunal) affirmed the non-revocation decision.[8]
[6] Ibid, 194.
[7] Ibid, 150.
[8] Ibid.
On 18 December 2019, the Federal Court of Australia set aside the decision of the first Tribunal and remitted the matter to be determined according to law.[9] On 4 May 2022, a differently constituted Tribunal (the second Tribunal) set aside the reviewable decision and, in substitution, decided that the mandatory cancellation of the applicant’s GSHV be revoked.[10] Following this decision, the applicant’s GSHV was reinstated.
[9] Ibid, 148.
[10] Ibid, 130.
On 27 June 2024, the applicant’s GSHV was again cancelled under s 501(3A) of the Act on the basis that he does not pass the character test, having a substantial criminal record as a result of being sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more (the second cancellation).[11] The applicant received and signed the notification of cancellation on 28 June 2024. On 4 July 2024, he made representations to the Department seeking revocation of the second cancellation of his GSHV.[12]
[11] Ibid, 212.
[12] Ibid, 172.
On 22 July 2025, a delegate of the Minister refused to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the applicant’s visa under s 501CA(4) of the Act. The notice of decision not to revoke the cancellation was hand delivered to the applicant at Villawood Immigration Detention Centre (VIDC) on 23 July 2025.[13] On 31 July 2025, the applicant applied to the Administrative Review Tribunal (ART) for a review of the delegate’s decision.[14] This decision and statement of reasons are the outcome of that review by the presently constituted Tribunal (the Tribunal).
[13] Ibid, 287.
[14] HB, 23.
Applicant’s offending, conviction and sentence
The applicant has an extensive criminal history spanning from 2010 to 2024, detailed at Schedule 1 of this decision. In summary, his offending is varied and includes numerous traffic offences; possession of stolen goods; stealing; assault; affray; driving offences; possession of an offensive weapon; unlawful entry; resisting police; drug possession and supply; resisting an officer in execution of duty; possession of goods suspected of being stolen; assault occasioning actual bodily harm in a domestic violence context; contravening an Apprehended Violence Order (AVO); destroying or damaging property in a domestic violence context; and dishonestly obtaining financial advantage by deception.[15]
[15] Ibid, 65-71.
The applicant’s first significant conviction was on 12 September 2013 for supply of prohibited drugs on an ongoing basis, arising from his conduct as a ‘middle level street level runner’ and supplier of drugs ‘over a long period of time.’[16] He was sentenced to two years and 8 months’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of one year and four months. The sentencing remarks note that the applicant had been ‘a substantial drug user for a number of years’ and had long occupied a ‘vulnerable position’ in life. The sentencing judge observed that ‘for reasons related to his inability to deal with his vulnerable position, he seemed to have been attracted to a very bad peer group and that has assisted him in using and abusing drugs.’[17] While the judge found the applicant’s drug addiction was not a mitigating factor, it nonetheless demonstrated his vulnerability, which, together with other life circumstances, was relevant to his prospects of rehabilitation. Her Honour also noted the applicant’s ‘strong statements that he wishes to rehabilitate himself’ but identified ‘several potential problems for the future,’ including a diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder, and considered that he would benefit from a medium to high level of supervision. Accordingly, Her Honour imposed a non-parole period subject to conditions, requiring participation in alcohol and other drug support services for people from non-English speaking backgrounds, attendance at a rehabilitation program for survivors of torture and trauma, and participation in an Arabic transition project.’[18]
[16] Ibid, 111.
[17] Ibid, 112.
[18] HB, 114-116.
On 21 September 2015, the applicant was convicted of Resist officer in execution of duty – T2. He was called up for the offence on 16 November 2015 and placed on an 18-month section 9 bond supervised by the NSW probation service. On 4 August 2016, he was sentenced to six months’ imprisonment in relation to five counts of goods in personal custody suspected being stolen. On 4 May 2017, he was again convicted of Resist officer in execution of duty – T2 and sentenced to 14 months imprisonment with a non-parole period of six months.[19] The sentencing remarks noted that the bond imposed on 16 November 2015 for the earlier resisting officer offence was still in effect when the conduct leading to the second offence occurred.[20]
[19] Ibid, 60-62.
[20] Ibid, 107.
The applicant was held in immigration detention from June 2017 until his release following the second Tribunal’s decision on 4 May 2022.[21] After his release, he appeared before the courts on 25 January 2023, 13 April 2023, 3 May 2023, 28 September 2023, 11 December 2023, and 14 May 2024.[22] During this period, he was detained in custody from 13 May 2023 to 19 December 2023 and again from 10 February 2024 until at least 10 August 2024, after which he was transferred to VIDC.[23] His most serious offending during this time may be summarised as follows.
[21] Ibid, 138.
[22] Ibid, 58-60.
[23] Ibid, 124.
On 28 September 2023, the applicant was convicted of Assault occasioning actual bodily harm (DV)-T2 and Contravene prohibition/restriction in AVO (Domestic). According to the sentencing remarks, on 9 May 2023, he went to his mother's residence in breach of an AVO to collect some belongings. His mother had offered to prepare food for him when his brother returned and asked him to leave. The applicant responded by punching his brother six or seven times, causing low-level actual bodily harm. The applicant was sentenced to 10 months’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of six months and a two-year AVO was issued in respect of his brother, prohibiting the applicant from, among other things, assaulting, threatening, stalking, harassing, intimidating and damaging any property belonging to him.[24]
[24] HB, 99-103.
On 11 December 2023, the applicant was convicted of goods in personal custody suspected being stolen (not m/v) and destroy or damage property <- $2000 (DV)-T2. These convictions arose from his possession of bank and Medicare cards suspected to have been stolen or unlawfully obtained, and from damaging his mother's car with a brick after she refused to give him money to buy drugs. The applicant was sentenced to three months’ imprisonment and a final order for a two-year AVO was made in respect of his mother and brother, prohibiting the applicant from harming them or going within 100 metres of where they lived.[25]
[25] Ibid, 91-93.
On 14 May 2024, the applicant was convicted of four counts of goods in personal custody suspected being stolen (not m/v) and dishonestly obtain financial advantage etc by deception -T1. According to the sentencing remarks, the offences occurred between 26 April 2023 to 10 February 2024 and involved, among other things, possession of letters not addressed to him, a cheque obtained from a mailbox, credit and debit cards, driver's licences and other items. The conviction for dishonestly obtaining a financial advantage by deception related to the use of credit and debit cards at tobacco outlets, service stations and other retail premises, causing a total loss of $10,300. The sentencing judge noted that it is not the situation that the total loss ‘represents the benefit obtained by use of the credit card.’ The applicant was sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 6 months in relation to these offences.[26]
Incidents in immigration detention
[26] Ibid, 75-79.
According to an Incident Detail Report dated 16 September 2025,[27] the applicant was involved in two recent incidents in VIDC on 10 February 2025 and 20 February 2025. The first incident occurred on 10 February 2025, when the applicant assisted another detainee in assaulting the victim. The second incident took place on 20 February 2025, during a targeted search of the applicant’s room. Officers discovered an improvised weapon (shiv) fashioned from a sharpened piece of metal with a shoe or pant lace tied around it, along with three smoking implements and two Serco-issued razors. The applicant admitted ownership of all these items.[28]
[27] The Tribunal notes that the ‘Incident Detail Report - As at 16/09/2025’ is a consolidated record. Each individual Incident Report, however, was created by detention staff (DSM) on or about the date of the relevant incident. References in these reasons to the ‘Incident Reports’ are to those contemporaneous records, notwithstanding their later compilation in the consolidated report.
[28] HB, 364, 370.
THE HEARING AND THE EVIDENCE
The matter was heard on 2 October 2025. At the hearing, the applicant was self-represented, and Mr Ben Nam of Clayton Utz appeared for the Minister. Only the applicant gave evidence at the hearing and there were no other witnesses.
In deciding this matter, I have considered:
a)    The G-documents;
b)    The Minister’s bundle of documents submitted on 22 September 2025;
c)    The Minister’s SOFIC submitted on 22 September 2025;
d)    The Minister’s supplementary bundle of documents submitted on 25 September 2025;
e)    The applicant’s email submission of 27 September 2025 (Exhibit A1); and
f)     The oral evidence given by the applicant.
All documents, with the exception of the applicant’s email submission of 27 September 2025, are contained in the Hearing Book (HB). Unless otherwise indicated, all footnote references are to the HB. References to the applicant’s email submission are cited as Exhibit A1.
RELEVANT LAW AND DIRECTION
The Migration Act provides special powers for the Minister to refuse or cancel visas on character grounds.
Under s 501(3A), the Minister must cancel a visa that has been granted to a person if the Minister is satisfied that the person does not pass the character test due to having a substantial criminal record under s 501(6)(a) and further specified in s 501(7), and if that person is currently serving a full-time sentence of imprisonment in a custodial institution for an offence against the law of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory.
The character test as set out in s 501(6) of the Migration Act essentially deems that a person does not pass the character test if the circumstances listed in that provision apply. Section 501(6)(a) of the Migration Act relevantly provides that:
(6)For the purposes of this section, a person does not pass the character test if:
(a)
the person has a substantial criminal record (as defined by

subsection (7)); …
(Original emphasis.)
A ‘substantial criminal record’ is relevantly defined by s 501(7)(c) of the Migration Act as follows:
(7)For the purposes of the character test, a person has a substantial criminal record if: …
(c)
the person has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of

12 months or more; …
(Original emphasis.)
A person whose visa has been cancelled under s 501(3A) may seek revocation of that decision pursuant to s 501CA(4) of the Act. This provision enables the Minister to revoke the original cancellation if the person makes representations in response to the invitation to do so, and if the minister is satisfied either that the person passes the character test, or that there is another reason why the cancellation should be revoked.
The Direction
As stated above, the Tribunal (standing in the shoes of the Respondent) is required to form a state of satisfaction as to whether there is ‘another reason’ why the original decision should be revoked, reasonably and on a correct understanding of the law. By reason of s 499(2A) of the Migration Act, in doing so the Tribunal must comply with written directions about the performance of its functions or the exercise of those powers which are given by the Minister pursuant to s 499(1) of the Migration Act.
On 7 June 2024, the Minister made Direction No. 110 under s 499 of the Migration Act, which commenced operation on 21 June 2024 (the Direction). The Direction replaced the previous Direction No. 99.
The purpose of the Direction is to guide decision-makers in exercising powers under ss 501 or 501CA of the Migration Act.
Objectives
Paragraph 5.1 of the Direction sets out of the Migration Act. Specifically, paragraph 5.1(2) of the Direction provides:
Specifically, under subsection 501 (1) of the Act, non-citizens may be refused a visa if they do not satisfy the decision-maker that they pass the character test. Under subsection 501(2), non-citizens may have their visa cancelled if the decision-maker reasonably suspects that they do not pass the character test, and the non-citizens do not satisfy the decision-maker that they do pass the character test. Where the discretion to refuse to grant or to cancel a visa is enlivened, the decision-maker must consider the specific circumstances of the case in deciding whether to exercise that discretion.
Principles
Paragraph 5.2 of the Direction sets out the ‘principles’ which must be taken into account by decision-makers under ss 501 and 501CA of the Migration Act. These principles ‘provide the framework within which decision-makers should approach their task of deciding whether to refuse or cancel a non-citizen's visa under section 501’ and are expressed 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 [sic] risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community.
(5) Australia has a low tolerance of any criminal or other serious conduct by visa applicants or those holding a limited stay visa, or by other non-citizens who have been participating in, and contributing to, the Australian community only for a short period of time.
(6) With respect to decisions to refuse, cancel, and revoke cancellation of a visa, Australia may afford a higher level of tolerance of criminal or other serious conduct by non-citizens who have lived in the Australian community for most of their life, or from a very young age.
(7) Decision-makers must take into account the primary and other considerations relevant to the individual case. In some circumstances, the nature of the non- citizen's conduct, or the harm that would be caused if the conduct were to be repeated, may be so serious that even strong countervailing considerations may be insufficient to justify not cancelling or refusing the visa, or revoking a mandatory cancellation.
(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.

Informed by the principles set out in paragraph 5.2 of the Direction, the Tribunal must take into account the ‘primary considerations’ listed in paragraph 8 of the Direction, and the ‘other considerations’ listed in paragraph 9 of the Direction, where relevant to the decision.
Primary considerations – paragraph 8 of the Direction
In making a decision under s 501CA(4) of the Migration Act, the five ‘primary considerations’ the Tribunal must take into account are:
(i)protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct:
(ii)whether the conduct engaged in constituted family violence;
(iii)the strength, nature, and duration of ties to Australia;
(iv)the best interests of minor children in Australia; and
(v)expectations of the Australian community.
Other considerations – paragraph 9 of the Direction
The ‘other considerations’ the Tribunal must take into account, as far as they are relevant, include (but are not limited to):
(vi)legal consequences of the decision;
(vii)extent of impediments if removed; and
(viii)impact on Australian business interests.
Primary & other considerations – further guidance
Further guidance as to how a decision-maker is to apply the considerations in
the Direction can be found in paragraph 7, which provides:
(1) In applying the considerations (both primary and other), information and evidence from independent and authoritative sources should be given appropriate weight.
(2) The primary consideration at 8.1 below (protection of the Australian community) is generally to be given greater weight than other primary considerations. Otherwise, primary considerations should generally be given greater weight than the other considerations.
(3) One or more primary considerations may outweigh other primary considerations.
THE CHARACTER TEST
The applicant has been convicted of multiple offences and sentenced to terms of imprisonment exceeding 12 months. Most recently, on 14 May 2024, he was sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of six months, for four counts of having goods in his personal custody suspected being stolen and for dishonestly obtaining financial advantage by deception (T1). I am therefore satisfied that the applicant has a substantial criminal record within the meaning of s 501(7)(c) and does not pass the character test.
As the applicant does not pass the character test, the remaining issue is whether there is another reason the decision to cancel his visa should be revoked, having regard to the mandatory considerations in the Direction and any other relevant matters.
CONSIDERATIONS
Protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct
The first primary consideration, in paragraph 8.1(1) of the Direction, focuses on the protection of the Australian community. The Direction requires decision-makers to keep in mind that the safety of the Australian community is the highest priority of the Australian Government and to that end the Government is committed to protecting the Australian community from harm because of criminal activity or other serious conduct by non-citizens. Entering or remaining in Australia is a privilege that Australia confers on non-citizens in the expectation that they are, and have been, law abiding, will respect important institutions, and will not cause or threaten harm to individuals or the Australian community.
Paragraph 8.1(2) of the Direction provides that decision-makers should also give consideration to:
(i)the nature and seriousness of the non-citizen’s conduct to date; and
(ii)the risk to the Australian community should the non-citizen commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct.
Nature and seriousness of the applicant’s conduct
Paragraph 8.1.1(1) of the Direction provides:
(1) In considering the nature and seriousness of the non-citizen's criminal offending and other conduct to date, decision-makers must have regard to the following:
a) without limiting the range of conduct that may be considered very serious, the types of crimes and conduct described below are viewed very seriously by the Australian Government and the Australian community:
i. violent and/or sexual crimes;
ii. …
iii. acts of family violence, regardless of whether there is a conviction for an offence or a sentence imposed;
b) without limiting the range of conduct that may be considered serious, the types of crimes or conduct described below are considered by the Australian Government and the Australian community to be serious:
....
ii. crimes committed against vulnerable members of the community (such as the elderly and the disabled)...
c)....the sentence imposed by the courts for a crime or crimes;
d) the impact of offending on any victims of offending or other conduct and their family....
e) the frequency of the non-citizen’s offending and/or whether there is any trend of increasing seriousness;
f) the cumulative effect of repeated offending;
(Emphasis added)
In this matter, I have had regard to the applicant’s criminal offending as well as other conduct.
As has already been noted, the applicant has an extensive criminal history. Between 2010 and 2017, he was convicted of numerous offences, including traffic offences, goods in personal custody suspected of being stolen, assault occasioning actual bodily harm, stealing, use of an offensive weapon, resisting an officer in execution of duty, affray, drug possession and supplying a prohibited drug. Several of these offences were committed on multiple occasions, resulting in varied terms of imprisonment, the longest being two years and 8 months’ imprisonment for supplying a prohibited drug.
The applicant was held in immigration detention for five years from June 2017. Following his release in May 2022, after the AAT set aside a previous non-revocation decision, he engaged in further offending involving violence, family violence, dishonesty, and goods in personal custody suspected being stolen. This conduct led to numerous court appearances and resulted in sentences of imprisonment of three months, 10 months and an aggregate term of 18 months.[29]
[29] HB, 59-60.
On 28 September 2023, the applicant was convicted of Assault occasioning actual bodily harm (DV)-T2 and Contravene prohibition/restriction in AVO (Domestic). As previously noted, he went to his mother’s home in breach of an AVO and assaulted his brother. At the time, he was on bail for another domestic violence offence involving a different complainant.[30] In sentencing the applicant, Magistrate Gibson stated:
The assault occasioning actual bodily harm carries a maximum penalty of five years' imprisonment and it was a relatively serious assault in the home and the victim being his brother, in circumstances where he was at the address in breach of an AVO…
Having regard to it being a domestic violence offence in the home of the victim and because of the multiple punches that were thrown, it is aggravated by the fact that he was on bail for a domestic violence offence, although not in relation to this victim, and also on a community corrections order that I have not called up because it related to a different type of offending and still has some considerable period of time to go, but it is an aggravating feature. There is a greater need for denunciation and specific deterrence. [The applicant] has a record that has a history of violence, including sentences of imprisonment and including for affray.[31] (emphasis added)
[30] Ibid, 100-101.
[31] HB, 101.
The applicant’s conviction on 11 December 2023 arose from possession of goods suspected of being stolen and damaging his mother's car with a brick after she refused to give him money to buy drugs. In sentencing the applicant, Magistrate Gibson noted that the offence was the applicant’s first domestic violence offence against his mother and ‘effectively out of character for him.’ However, His Honour also referred to the ‘serious nature’ of the offence and noted that the offence fell ‘within that broad mid-range of seriousness for an offence of this type.’[32] Addressing the applicant, His Honour stated:
…clearly the s 5 threshold is crossed and a sentence of imprisonment is required. Your record disentitles you to some leniency, the fact that you committed a more serious domestic offence after this one means that the prospects of rehabilitation are guarded, there is a need or punishment and deterrence and specifically general deterrence.[33]
[32] Ibid, 91.
[33] Ibid, 92.
His Honour warned the applicant, who was subject to a community corrections order at the time, that if he were to commit another offence, ‘not only would it be a breach of parole but it would mean that the community corrections order could get called up by this Court and [he] could be resentenced for that offence.’[34]
[34] Ibid, 91-92.
Nevertheless, on 14 May 2024, the applicant was convicted of further offences involving four counts of goods in personal custody suspected being stolen (not m/v) and dishonestly obtain financial advantage etc by deception -T1. In sentencing the applicant, Magistrate Sia noted that it was an ‘aggravating factor’ that the applicant ‘was subject to a community corrections order when the offences were committed and ‘further aggravated’ by the fact that he was on parole.[35] Her Honour characterised the objective seriousness of the offences to fall between ‘low and mid-range,’ noting ‘consistent and repetitive offending of identical nature.’[36] Her Honour stated:
However the nature of the offending before me is consistent, persistent, repetitive and committed while subject to community based orders imposed or on parole for an identical offence. I have had regard to his criminal history, it does not assist him. I am satisfied that the s 5 threshold is crossed.[37]
Having determined that a custodial sentence should be imposed the next issue to be determined is the length of that sentence. In my view, the appropriate length of the sentence is 18 months.[38]
[35] HB, 76.
[36] Ibid.
[37] Ibid, 77.
[38] Ibid, 77-78.
The imposition of a custodial sentence is considered a last resort in any sentencing process that is applied reasonably and correctly. Such sentences are seen as a measure of the objective seriousness of an offence.[39] In sentencing the applicant in December 2023 and May 2024, both Magistrates Gibson and Sia found that the threshold in s 5 of Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) had been crossed, making a term of imprisonment appropriate. Magistrate Sia, in particular, determined that an Intensive Corrections Order was not appropriate, having regard to community and victim safety, the applicant’s reoffending while subject to supervision and parole, and his continued disregard for the law as shown by persistent offending.
[39] See s 5(1) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW).
The Minister referred to a number of offences taken into account on Form 1 by the Campbelltown District Court on 12 September 2013. It was submitted that, in accordance with Nguyen v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs,[40] the Tribunal is prohibited from considering Form 1 offences. Accordingly, the Minister placed no reliance on those offences. For the avoidance of doubt, I have not had regard to, or relied upon, any of the applicant’s Form 1 offences, nor the underlying conduct giving rise to them, for the purposes of this decision.
[40] [2024] FCA 468.
While some of the applicant’s offences were less serious, several were violent, including acts of family violence within the meaning of paragraph 4.1 of Direction 110, which caused the victims to be fearful or apprehensive about their safety. The applicant acknowledged at the hearing that he has committed serious offences. I find that the applicant’s offending constitutes violent offences and acts of family violence, which are regarded as very serious by both the Australian Government and the Australian community (paragraph 8.1.1(1)(a)).
I accept that there is no obvious trend of increasing seriousness in the offending. However, the applicant’s extensive, frequent and persistent offending is of significant concern. I accept the Minister’s submission that the offending has had a ‘deleterious impact’ on the community, not only through violent offences, but also through numerous theft and financial-related crimes. The applicant was effectively on notice of the consequences of further offending when his visa was previously cancelled. Nevertheless, he resumed his offending not long after his release from detention in May 2022, in what has been described as a ‘consistent, persistent, repetitive’ manner.[41] I have also had regard to the cumulative effect of his repeated offending and the fact further offences were committed while he was on parole and subject to a community corrections order.
[41] HB, 77.
Finally, I have taken into account the applicant's more recent conduct in immigration detention. In his oral evidence, the applicant repeatedly sought to distance himself from responsibility for incidents reported in the detention centre. He denied any recollection of an incident on 10 February 2025 involving the assault of another detainee. He accepted that implements for smoking ice and other items were found in his room during a search but claimed they were already there when he entered the room. Although he admitted taking ownership of the items, he said this was only because they were found in his room and there was no point in disputing it. He added that his roommate had used the implements, but nonetheless denied that they belonged either to himself or to the roommate. When it was suggested that, in light of his drug history, others would reasonably assume the implements were his, he responded that he could not prevent people from making assumptions but maintained that he knew what he did and did not do. However, he did acknowledge that a knife was found in his room while in detention, stating the knife had never been used but he needed it for self-defence.
The incidents in question were recorded in official Incident Reports prepared by detention centre staff. I consider those contemporaneous records to be more reliable than the applicant's oral evidence, which was marked by denials and attempts to distance himself from responsibility. While the incidents did not result in criminal charges or convictions, they nonetheless demonstrate troubling behaviour while in detention.
As to the nature and seriousness of the applicant’s conduct, I find that the applicant’s offending was very serious and weighs in favour of not revoking the cancellation.
Risk to the Australian community should the applicant commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct
Paragraph 8.1.2 of the Direction states, in part:
(1) In considering the need to protect the Australian community (including individuals, groups or institutions) from harm, decision-makers should have regard to the Government's view that the Australian community's tolerance for any risk of future harm becomes lower as the seriousness of the potential harm increases. Some 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.
(2) In assessing the risk that may be posed by the non-citizen to the Australian community, decision-makers must have regard to, cumulatively:
a) the nature of the harm to individuals or the Australian community should the non-citizen engage in further criminal or other serious conduct; and
b) the likelihood of the non-citizen engaging in further criminal or other serious conduct, taking into account:
i. information and evidence on the risk of the non-citizen re-offending; and
ii. evidence of rehabilitation achieved by the time of the decision, giving weight to time spent in the community since their most recent offence (noting that decisions should not be delayed in order for rehabilitative courses to be undertaken). ...
c) where consideration is being given to whether to refuse to grant a visa to the non-citizen -whether the risk of harm may be affected by the duration and purpose of the non-citizen's intended stay, the type of visa being applied for, and whether there are strong or compassionate reasons for granting a short stay visa. (Emphasis added)
The nature of the harm to individuals or the Australian community
The applicant has an extensive criminal history, including serious offences such as assault, affray and more than one incident of family violence. He has also been convicted of a range of other offences, including goods in personal custody suspected of being stolen, stealing, use of an offensive weapon, resisting an officer in execution of duty, drug possession and supplying a prohibited drug. Offending of this kind exposes victims to physical and psychological harm, undermines their personal safety, and causes wider social and financial costs. I have had 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. In this case, I find that, should the applicant engage in further criminal conduct, the nature of the harm to individuals and to the Australian community would be serious and significant.
The likelihood of the non-citizen engaging in further criminal or other serious conduct
In sentencing the applicant in 2013, Judge Syme referred to his limited educational skills, a diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and a long history of drug abuse. Her Honour noted that, while drug use was not a mitigating factor, it did in part explain the applicant’s impulsivity and lack of planning in relation to his offending. Having considered a psychological report before the court, Her Honour also referred to the applicant’s difficult childhood, reflecting circumstances often experienced by refugees, and observed that the applicant had been in a vulnerable position for much of his life and, unable to deal with that vulnerability, had gravitated towards negative peer groups and long-term drug use.
In his 2017 representations to the Department following the first cancellation, the applicant stated: ‘I am now 26 years old and have made enough bad decisions to realize that one has to make a good decision in order to change.’ He claimed that all of his convictions occurred when he was under the influence of drugs and that he began selling drugs to support his habit. He said his drug use was a coping mechanism for his ‘past experiences in torture trauma,’ the death of his father when he was 10 years old, and financial hardship.[42] However, he also stated that he did not have a diagnosed medical or psychological condition.[43]
[42] HB, 208.
[43] Ibid, 204.
In December 2023, Magistrate Gibson acknowledged the applicant's difficult background. His Honour referred to his upbringing in Syria, where, following the death of his father, he became the family’s financial provider at the age of 13 and endured a harsh existence on the streets. His Honour noted that, although the family migrated to Australia, the applicant’s traumatic upbringing led him to turn to drugs, which in turn contributed to multiple offences and terms of imprisonment.
In May 2024, Magistrate Sia had regard to a sentencing assessment report (considered further below), which described the applicant’s transient lifestyle prior to custody, limited pro-social supports, and close associations with family and friends who were entrenched in drug use.
In his oral evidence, the applicant said that his drug use first began after the loss of his father and traumatic experiences in Iraq, including witnessing another child injured by an explosive device. He stated, however, that after his release from detention in May 2022 he resumed drug use because of problems with his ex-partner, and that those problems were the only reason for his drug use at that time. When asked whether any other issues had led him to take drugs, he said there were none. The applicant was questioned about earlier references to PTSD in his representations to the Department. After PTSD was explained to him at his request, he acknowledged experiencing events in Iraq in Syria but that he was improving and trying not to think about them. He said matters had improved significantly and that these issues would not affect him if he had a job. He denied having nightmares and said he was not taking any medication apart from Panadol.

I accept that the applicant’s difficult childhood and traumatic experiences in Iraq and Syria, including the death of his father, rendered him vulnerable and contributed to his drug use after arriving in Australia, which in turn contributed to his offending. I also accept his limited education. Notwithstanding, his underlying substance use and trauma appear to remain unresolved. There is no direct, recent, independent psychological evidence before me that sheds light on their current impact or treatability. While he acknowledged the seriousness of his conduct, his oral evidence disclosed limited insight into the drivers of his persistent and continuing offending and did not identify a credible strategy to reduce the risk of relapse or reoffending.
The applicant has at various times sought to emphasise that he would not reoffend and has presented assurances about his rehabilitation. In his 2017 representations to the Department following the first cancellation, he stated that there is ‘no’ likelihood of reoffending and that he has completed courses to avoid further offending, and that his time in custody had a ‘salutary effect.’ [44] He said he understood the need to take responsibility for turning his life around, stated that he was no longer a drug addict, and assessed himself as having a ‘good reasonable prospect of rehabilitation.’[45] However, those reassurances have not been borne out as the applicant resumed using drugs and offending in the community soon after his release from immigration detention in May 2022, after the AAT set aside the earlier non-revocation decision.
[44] HB, 202-203.
[45] Ibid 208-209.
In sentencing the applicant on 11 December 2023, Magistrate Gibson assessed his prospects of rehabilitation as ‘guarded.’[46] In a sentencing assessment report dated 2 April 2024, Ms Bronwyn Grainger, Team Leader of the Silverwater Parole Unit, assessed the applicant at a ‘medium to high risk of reoffending’ under the Level of Service Inventory – Revised (LSI-R). She recorded minimal responses to supervision, consistent with a February 2024 breach report, finding poor compliance and lack of motivation to engage in treatment. The applicant was reported to be using illicit substances in custody, including sourcing buprenorphine without prescription. The report noted the applicant's self-described long history of polysubstance use since adolescence, identifying ‘ice’ as his primary drug which he used at a rate of one gram per day, together with daily suboxone prior to arrest. The report also noted very limited pro-social supports, with most of his family and peers ‘entrenched’ in drug use. Although his mother was described as a primary support, she was listed as a protected person under an AVO, and two further AVOs where active with respect to his brother and ex-partner.[47]
[46] Ibid, 92.
[47] Ibid, 355-358.
The report further recorded that the applicant denied any mental health concerns but that corrective services records documented exposure to trauma as a youth. He also expressed a willingness to engage in psychological counselling to address past trauma. In relation to the index offences, the report stated that the applicant denied financial motivation, claimed limited recollection due to intoxication, and said the items in his possession had been given to him by an associate. While he accepted that victims would have been upset, he was said to have deferred responsibility to others. Ms Grainger observed that the applicant appeared unwilling to be fully transparent and assessed his insight as ‘mixed.’ He recognised his substance abuse as significant in his offending history but minimised his role in the index offences.
The report outlined a proposed supervision plan, including referral to the EQUIPS foundation program, Odyssey House for drug counselling, STARTTS for psychological intervention, together with relapse prevention strategies. It assessed the applicant as unsuitable for community service work, owing to unresolved substance abuse posing workplace health and safety risks.[48]
[48] HB, 355-358.
In her sentencing remarks on 14 May 2024, Magistrate Sia referred to Ms Grainger’s assessment of the applicant as displaying ‘mixed insight,’ being unwilling to be fully transparent, and giving a selective account of memory as to how the events occurred, while recalling clearly that the items in his possession were provided by an associate. Her Honour also noted that the applicant had expressed ‘some limited insight.’ In sentencing the applicant to imprisonment, Magistrate Sia recommended that the applicant accept ‘all referrals for treatment for drug and alcohol and counselling and rehab as directed.’[49]
[49] Ibid, 128.
In his representations to the Department in 2024 following the second cancellation, the applicant stated that he had ‘associated with the wrong crowd,’ accepted that he had made mistakes and expressed a willingness to change and turn his life around for the better. He said that he had been using drugs but had undertaken rehabilitation while in custody.[50] He further stated that he posed no risk of reoffending because he knows ‘the consequences’ and does not wish to leave his mother.[51] At the hearing, the applicant repeated that he would not reoffend, explaining that he did not want to be sent back to Iraq. He said he had stayed away from drugs, intended to participate in drug and alcohol counselling, and recognised that his previous approach was not ‘the way to deal with things.’ When asked what has changed between the last time he gave such assurances and this occasion, he said that he now knew if anything upset him, he would not turn to drugs.
[50] Ibid, 185.
[51] Ibid.
However, as already noted, the applicant engaged in concerning conduct in the detention centre earlier this year, including being involved in an assault on another detainee, admitting to owning a knife and taking ownership of smoking implements found in his room. At the hearing, other than in relation to the knife, he sought to distance himself from responsibility for these incidents. The applicant's unwillingness to accept responsibility for his behaviour, when considered against his broader history, reinforces my concern that he continues to present a high risk of reoffending.
The applicant’s medical reports from the detention centre also show that he had failed to attend Alcohol and Other Drug (AOD) reviews on three occasions. At the hearing, he stated that he did not know the purpose of the sessions, otherwise he would have attended. He indicated that he had never completed any AOD related programs in the community, but said he would do so if released. However, he acknowledged that he had not made any enquiries as to what programs would be available to him. I consider the applicant’s attitude towards treatment to be consistent with Ms Grainger’s assessment of ‘a pattern of poor compliance with supervision, and a lack of motivation to engage in treatment intervention.’[52] I accept the Minister’s submissions that the applicant has failed to address his drug related criminogenic factors, even after the successful AAT proceedings, which ought to have had a salutary effect. At the hearing, the applicant stated that he was scheduled to attend drug counselling as part of his parole obligations but was jailed before having the chance to do so. He reiterated that he wished to turn his life around and would not reoffend. When it was put to him that his present reassurances were similar to those made following the first cancellation, he responded that he had meant them then and meant them now, adding that ‘sometimes things happen in life and you learn from it’ and that he has now learned not to reoffend.
[52] HB, 357.
Having regard to the evidence before me cumulatively, I find that the applicant presents a medium to high risk of reoffending. This conclusion is supported by his lengthy and unresolved history of poly-substance abuse; his poor compliance with past supervision and treatment interventions; his use of illicit substances in custody; his limited insight into the drivers of his persistent and continuing offending; his recent concerning conduct while detained; and his very limited prosocial supports. While his mother provided a letter of support, she is the protective person under an AVO against the applicant, and the applicant stated at the hearing that he would not live with her if released. The applicant was assessed at a medium to high risk of reoffending in the most recent sentencing assessment report, which had recorded his poor motivation to engage in rehabilitation. These observations were referred to by Magistrate Sia in her sentencing remarks in May 2024, while in December 2023 Magistrate Gibson separately observed that the applicant’s prospects of rehabilitation were ‘guarded.’ Taken together, these assessments and observations reinforce the conclusion that the risk of reoffending remains medium to high.
There is very limited evidence to suggest that the applicant has achieved any meaningful rehabilitation. At the hearing, he stated that he initially made some progress following the earlier AAT decision, maintaining employment and stability for about five to six months before relapsing into drug use after the breakdown of his relationship with his ex-partner, which he said triggered his recent offending. However, notwithstanding that short period of stability, he subsequently resumed offending in the community and accrued further convictions. Importantly, he has not spent any time in the community since his most recent convictions and his assurances of change and non-offending remain entirely untested. He has not completed any community-based substance abuse programs, failed to attend scheduled AOD reviews while in detention, has not engaged in any ongoing psychological treatment, and denies any mental health issues including PTSD, notwithstanding childhood traumatic experiences. These matters raise serious doubts regarding his genuine motivation and capacity to undergo rehabilitation in a sustained and effective way. Furthermore, his limited education and lack of meaningful employment history reduce the likelihood that he could secure stable employment, which might otherwise operate as a protective factor against reoffending.
In light of these factors, I consider there to be a medium to high likelihood of reoffending, with a corresponding high risk to the Australian community. Having also found that the applicant’s offending was very serious and that any further criminal conduct would result in serious and significant harm to both individuals and the Australian community, I give the primary consideration of protection of the Australian community against criminal and other serious conduct significant weight against revoking the cancellation of the applicant’s visa.
Whether the conduct engaged in constituted family violence
Paragraph 8.2 of the Direction provides that the Tribunal must have regard to family violence perpetrated by the non-citizen when deciding whether to revoke a visa cancellation decision. Paragraph 8.2(1) states that the Australian Government has ‘serious concerns about conferring on non-citizens who engage in family violence the privilege of entering or remaining in Australia’ and that the government’s concerns are proportionate to the seriousness of the family violence engaged by the non-citizen.
Paragraph 8.2(3) of the Direction provides that:
(3) In considering the seriousness of the family violence engaged in by the noncitizen, 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 noncitizen's favour. This includes warnings about the non-citizen's migration status, should the non-citizen engage in further acts of family violence.
At the hearing, the applicant was asked about his convictions involving violence against his mother and brother. He provided limited detail, stating he could not recall how the altercation with his brother arose but that they had argued since childhood. He acknowledged becoming upset and striking a wall with an ashtray, as well as damaging his brother's car (not his mother’s), but he could not remember exactly what he had done to the vehicle.
When asked about the impact of his behaviour, the applicant stated that his mother and brother were ‘upset’ and that they had the right to be, but he was unable to elaborate further. He accepted that he had done wrong, said he had apologised to his mother, but had not spoken to his brother because of an AVO. He confirmed that AVOs were in place in relation to his brother, his mother, and his ex-partner. In respect of his ex-partner, he acknowledged that the AVO arose from an argument between them and confirmed that it prevented him from contacting her or attending her home. He described the problems with his ex-partner as him asking her for money and ‘assuming things.’
In his closing statement, the applicant repeated that his relationship with his brother had always been argumentative and said that when there was an altercation, neighbours would call the police and he would be arrested. He stated he would not claim his brother had hit him first but suggested that no one knew exactly what had happened and that ‘maybe’ he was not the one who had struck his brother. He added that he does not hurt anyone and wants to be a better person. His responses overall suggested limited recall of the incidents, a tendency to minimise or cast doubt on his responsibility, and only partial acceptance of the impact of his behaviour on others.
In the RSFIC, the Minister submitted that the applicant had engaged in family violence on two occasions: first, by punching his brother in the face six or seven times, for which he was convicted on 28 September 2023; and second, by damaging his mother’s car with a brick after she refused to provide him with money for drugs, for which he was convicted on 11 December 2023. The Minister contended that, while the number of incidents was limited, there was a trend of increasing seriousness as noted by the sentencing judge, and that the conduct would have caused physical harm, psychological distress and financial loss to the victims. In closing submissions at the hearing, the Minister emphasised the seriousness of these incidents, contending that there was very limited evidence of rehabilitation in respect of domestic or family violence.
I note that in its reasons dated 4 May 2022, the AAT referred to violence between the applicant and his ‘younger’ brother which appeared to have been ‘minor and not serious in nature.’ The AAT noted that the relevant charges against the applicant were dismissed ‘but the papers provide some confirmation that the charges involving the younger brother had a factual basis.’[53]
[53] HB, 140.
Having regard to the evidence before me, I am satisfied that the applicant has been convicted of family violence offences against his mother and brother, and that he remains subject to AVOs in respect of his brother, mother and ex-partner, which underscores both the seriousness and ongoing consequences of his conduct. While the number of incidents is limited, they are not isolated, and when considered cumulatively with earlier charges involving violence towards his younger brother (dismissed but with the factual basis noted by the AAT), they show some frequency and a trend of increasing seriousness. The conduct has no doubt caused physical harm, psychological distress and financial loss to the victims. The applicant has expressed some remorse but has demonstrated only a limited understanding of the impact of his behaviour, and while he accepted responsibility in general terms, he also sought at times to shift or dilute that responsibility. I accept the Minister’s submissions that there is limited evidence of rehabilitation in respect of domestic or family violence. In light of these matters and having regard to the considerations in paragraph 8.2 of the Direction, I conclude that this factor weighs significantly against revoking the decision to cancel the applicant’s visa.
The strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia
Paragraph 8.3 of the Direction provides that:
(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 arrived in Australia in 2007 at the age of 16. He has now lived here for about 18 years, including two to three years in custody and over six years in immigration detention. His first court appearance occurred in February 2010, approximately two years and three months after arrival.
In his 2024 representations to the Department, the applicant identified his immediate family in Australia as his mother, [Redacted], his brothers, [Redacted] and [Redacted], and his sister, [Redacted], all of whom reside in Australia.[54] The applicant also referred generally to aunties, cousins, a niece and nephew, and a grandmother.[55] In terms of positive contributions to the Australian community, the applicant stated that he had been employed as a ‘steel fixer’ and in a ‘car wash,’ completed ESL and was qualified to spray paint cars.[56] he also listed ‘clean up Australia day' and being an 'organ donor after I pass’ as contributions.[57] He further noted that his mother was ‘very sick’ and suffered from PTSD, and worried about being separated from him.[58]
[54] HB, 184.
[55] Ibid.
[56] Ibid, 186.
[57] Ibid, 187.
[58] Ibid, 184.
The applicant's mother previously provided a letter of support in April 2018 stating that she missed him and was emotionally affected by his absence.[59] On 27 September 2025, she wrote again expressing concern that he may be deported to Iraq, stating that she was extremely worried for his safety and asking the Tribunal to allow him to remain in Australia.[60]
[59] Ibid, 210.
[60] Exhibit A1.
At the hearing, the applicant stated that he has lived in Australia for 18 years, described it as ‘a beautiful country’ with ‘a lot of opportunities,’ and said his removal would upset his family, particularly his mother. He stated he speaks to his mother every day or every second day, he is in contact with his younger brother, Michael, but not his older brother, Martin, and that he spoke to his sister two or three times a year. He confirmed he has no partner, wife, or children, and no family members remaining in Iraq. His grandmother had passed away the previous year.

The applicant initially told the Tribunal that he has three aunts (his father's sisters) and five ‘uncles’ (his father's cousins) in Australia, and that he spoke occasionally to an uncle's son, [Redacted], about once a week or once a month. He said he did not spend much time with extended relatives when in community. When later questioned by the Minister, however, he gave a broader account, saying he had more than 30 cousins in Australia, was ‘close’ to them, and would visit his aunts and uncles weekly in the community. He also said he and his cousins help each other whenever help is needed.
The applicant stated that he provides assistance to his siblings when required but did not provide his mother or siblings with financial support and did not provide his mother with care. He acknowledged that AVOs had been issued against him to protect his mother and older brother. In his closing submissions, however, he emphasised the importance of his family to him, stating that he did not want to imagine the impact his removal would have on them. He said that everyone would suffer, particularly his mother, who he described as having brought the family to Australia and done everything for him. He stressed that his family was ‘the main thing’ for him and reiterated that all his relatives are either in Australia or outside Iraq.
In the RSFIC, the Minister submitted that while there was some evidence of emotional impact on the applicant’s family, particularly his mother, this must be viewed in light of the fact that some family members had themselves been victims of his violence. The Minister noted the absence of evidence of significant financial or practical reliance on the applicant by his family. The applicant’s employment was described as limited and sporadic, comprising only short-term cash-in-hand jobs. His positive contributions to the community were described as minimal. As to family and social ties, while extended family members were referred to, little detail was provided beyond his immediate family.
At the hearing, the Minister conceded that the applicant has been in Australia for 18 years, arriving as a minor, but noted that his offending began soon after arriving in Australia. The Minister further accepted that the applicant's mother would be the family member more significantly impacted by the cancellation of the visa, notwithstanding that she was not called to give evidence. It was submitted that the applicant neither provides his mother with financial support or care nor intends to reside with her upon release. It was also submitted that, although the applicant's siblings would be emotionally affected, his relationship with one brother is significantly strained. The applicant's extended family network was acknowledged, and it was accepted that he has some relationship with them. The Minister contended that the applicant's employment history and positive contributions to Australia were minimal, consisting of only very short-term work and minor community participation.
I accept that the applicant has resided in Australia for 18 years having arrived at the age of 16. While the length of residence is significant, the weight to be attached to it is reduced by the fact that he began offending soon after arrival and has continued offending for much of his time here. I accept that his immediate family in Australia comprises his mother, two brothers and a sister. He maintains close contact with his mother, and I accept that she would be emotionally impacted by his removal. He has also said that she is unwell and would be particularly distressed if he were removed, but no further evidence has been provided regarding her current medical or psychological condition. Moreover, she is a protected person under an AVO and the applicant does not provide her with financial support or care. His relationship with his older brother is strained and also subject to an AVO, and his contact with his sister is limited. I accept that he has a closer relationship with his younger brother and is in contact with him. However, beyond the applicant's own assertions, there was no further evidence from his younger brother or otherwise to shed light on the closeness of the relationship or the extent to which his younger brother would be affected by the decision. As to his extended family, while the applicant referred to a large network of aunts, ‘uncles’ and cousins, his oral evidence about the frequency of contact varied from not spending much time with extended relatives to weekly visits, and he identified only one cousin by name. Finally, his contributions to the Australian community through employment and volunteering have been minimal, consisting of sporadic short-term jobs and isolated activities of little significance. Taking these matters together, I find that the primary consideration in paragraph 8.3 of the Direction weight in favour of revoking the cancellation of the applicant’s visa, but only moderately.
The best interests of minor children in Australia
I accept that the applicant has a niece and a nephew, being his sister’s children. At the hearing, he was asked about his relationship with his sister's young children. He stated that he did not see them often and was therefore not close to them. He said that before entering detention he would see them about once a month. When asked about their ages, he was uncertain but thought that one child might be around three years old and the other about one year old. He confirmed that he had met both children. He stated, nevertheless, that his sister’s children would be affected by their uncle’s absence as these matters affect every child.
The Minister acknowledged the existence of these young relatives, but submitted that, given the applicants non-parental role and limited contact, the best interests of the children would only be nominally affected by the decision. I accept these submissions. Accordingly, I find that the nature of the relationship is limited and there is no evidence that the applicant has played a meaningful role in their upbringing.
The applicant's own evidence indicates that he is not close to his sister's two young children. He was unable to state their ages with certainty, which suggests limited knowledge and little involvement in their lives. While I accept that separation may cause some emotional effects on the children, given their very young ages and the absence of a close or parental relationship, I consider that any such impact is likely to be minimal, particularly as their daily needs are met by their own parents. There is no evidence before me that the applicant has played a significant role in their upbringing or that he would be in a position to do so in the future. Although there is nothing to indicate that his niece and nephew have been directly affected by his conduct, I am of the view that his extensive history of offending, driven in large part by longstanding and unresolved drug issue, could negatively affect the children were they to have closer involvement with him. Otherwise, there is no suggestion that they have been exposed to family violence abuse or neglect by him or that they have otherwise experienced trauma as a result of his conduct. Having regard to these matters, I give this consideration slight weight in favour of revoking the cancellation of the applicant’s visa.
Expectations of the Australian community
Paragraph 8.5(1) of the Direction provides that the Australian community expects non-citizens to obey Australian laws while in Australia. Where a non-citizen has engaged in serious conduct in breach of this expectation, or where there is an unacceptable risk that they may do so, the Australian community, as a ‘norm’, expects the government would not allow them to enter or remain in Australia.
Paragraph 8.5(2) of the Direction directs that visa cancellation or refusal, or non-revocation of the mandatory cancellation of a visa, may be appropriate simply because the nature of the character concerns or offences is such that the Australian community would expect that the person should not be granted or continue to hold a visa. 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 certain conduct, including ‘acts of family violence’, ‘serious crimes against the elderly or other vulnerable persons in the form of fraud, extortion, financial abuse/material exploitation or neglect’, and ‘commission of crimes against government representatives or officials…in the performance of their duties’.
Paragraph 8.5(3) of the Direction further confirms that the stated expectations apply regardless of whether the non-citizen poses a measurable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community.
Paragraph 8.5(4) provides that decision-makers must apply the Government’s stated expectations and are not to conduct an independent assessment of those expectations in light of the individual’s circumstances.
In the RSFIC, the Minister referred to Ismail v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs[61] and DBWG v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs[62] and submitted that the expectations of the Australian community are not to be inferred in the circumstances of a particular case but that the views of the government set out in paragraphs 8.4(1) and (3) of the Direction are the relevant norm described as the expectations of the Australian community.
[61] [2024] HCA 2.
[62] [2024] FCAFC 3.
The Minister submitted that the applicant’s conduct raises serious character concerns as the applicant has engaged in acts of family violence. The Minister contended that in accordance with paragraph 8.5(2), non-revocation would be appropriate simply because the nature of the applicant's character concerns and offences, are such that the Australian community would expect he should not continue to hold a visa.
The expectations of the Australian community in paragraph 8.5 of the Direction are stated in a normative matter. The consideration concerns the expectations of the Australian community as a whole. In applying it, the Tribunal is to rely on the Government’s stated views, rather than independently assessing the community’s expectations in the particular case.
Referring to paragraph 8.5 of Direction No. 99, Horan J in RCLN v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs[63] noted that the Direction does not ‘require decision-makers to moderate the expectations of the Australian community in light of the specific circumstances of the non-citizen.’ [64] His Honour stated:
The articulation of community expectations is directed to the kinds of criminal conduct or other serious conduct in respect of which the Australian community expects that the Government can and should refuse or cancel visas, “regardless of whether the non-citizen poses a measurable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community”…
The assessment of community expectations is therefore not a matter of evidence, and does not turn on the personal circumstances of the individual non-citizen...
[T]he decision-maker can take into account the personal circumstances of the individual non-citizen in so far as they are relevant to another primary consideration or one of the other considerations, and adjust the relative weight to be given to each of the primary and other considerations accordingly.[65] (Horan J’s emphasis)
[63] [2024] FCA 876.
[64] RCLN v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2024] FCA 876 at [52].
[65] Ibid at [56].
Justice Horan referred to the decision of High Court in Ismail,[66] which confirmed that a decision maker is not required to attribute to the hypothetical Australian community knowledge of the individual’s personal circumstances as known to the delegate.’[67] In discussing paragraph 8.4(4) of Direction 90, which was expressed in identical terms to paragraph 8.5(4) of Direction No. 99 and Direction No. 110, the Court stated:
Paragraph 8.4(4) is to be understood as directing the decision maker not to attempt to infer what the expectations of the Australian community would be "in the particular case" (that is, with the knowledge of the delegate about the applicant's personal circumstances), but to proceed on the basis that the views of the Australian Government set out in para 8.4(1) (3) are the relevant norm described as the expectations of the Australian community. That norm, as applicable by reference to the terms of para 8(1) (3), is then to be weighed with other relevant matters as required by paras 6 and 7 of Direction 90.[68]
[66] [2024] HCA 2.
[67] Ibid at [51].
[68] Ismail v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2024] HCA 2 at [52].
The applicant has engaged in serious conduct, including family violence, in breach of this expectation and I have found the risk of reoffending to be medium to high with serious consequences to the Australian community. I find that the Australian community expects that the Australian Government should not allow the applicant to remain in Australia by cancelling the visa. I find that this consideration weighs significantly against revoking the cancellation of the applicant’s visa.
Other considerations
Paragraph 9 of the Direction states:
(1) In making a decision under section 501(1), 501(2) or 501CA (4), the considerations below must also be taken into account, where relevant, in accordance with the following provisions. These considerations include (but are not limited to):
a) legal consequences of the decision;
b) extent of impediments if removed;
c) impact on Australian business interests
Legal consequences of the decision
The Tribunal is required to consider the legal consequences of a decision on a non-citizen, including having regard to Australia’s non-refoulement obligations in respect of unlawful non-citizens.
While this consideration in the Direction refers to non-refoulment obligations, it also makes reference to detention and removal, highlighting that there are a range of legal consequences of a visa refusal or cancellation under s 501 or related provisions, including unlawful status, the likelihood of being detained and/or removed, and refusal or cancellation of other visas.
If the mandatory cancellation of the applicants visa is revoked, he will retain his visa and would be released back into the Australian community. If the mandatory cancellation is not revoked, the applicant becomes an unlawful non-citizen. As a result, he would be liable to removal from Australia as soon as reasonably practicable under s 198, and in the meantime, detention under s 189 of the Act. Section 197C of the Act provides that for the purposes of s 198, it is irrelevant whether Australia has non-refoulement obligations in respect of a non-citizen. In such circumstances, the applicant would face significant restrictions on applying for another visa. Under s 501E of the Act, an application for a visa other than a protection visa cannot be made from within the migration zone, unless it is for a Bridging Visa R (Class WR) in limited circumstances.
Furthermore, certain visas are subject to special return criteria (SRCs). SRC 5001(c) is of particular relevance as it provides for permanent exclusion if the visa applicant previously had a visa cancelled under section 501 and that cancellation has not been revoked under s 501CA. There is no provision for a visa applicant to whom SRC 5001 applies to request a waiver of the permanent exclusion. However, SRC 5001 will no longer apply if the Minister acts personally to grant a permanent visa to a person whose visa was cancelled under s 501.
The applicant has never held or applied for protection visa and is not presently the subject to a protection finding. He is, therefore, not barred under s 48A of the Act from applying for a protection visa. Should he do so, he would have the opportunity to present further evidence in support of his claims, which would be assessed under the protection visa procedures provided for in the Act. I note that the Tribunal does not have power in these proceedings to make a protection finding in respect of the applicant. Should the applicant lodge a valid protection visa application, he would not be liable to be removed to Iraq while that application is under consideration.
Against this backdrop, I note that the applicant has raised matters that may properly be construed as claims intended to engage Australia’s non-refoulement obligations in respect of Iraq. The applicant is a national of Iraq and an Assyrian Christian. His claims that his father was killed by ‘terrorists’ and his sister kidnapped before he fled with his mother and brothers to Syria have never been disputed. In his representations to the Department,[69] and in evidence before the AAT[70] and this Tribunal, he has consistently claimed that he would be targeted and killed by ‘extremists and terrorists’ in Iraq because of his Assyrian Christian faith, as he claims has already occurred to some of his cousins.[71] At the hearing, he stated that he has no remaining family in Iraq and that his entire family is now in Australia. He said he was bullied at school, he left Iraq at a very young age, he knows little about life there, and that he would have no place or prospects if returned. He described people in Iraq as ‘judgmental’ and said that, as a Christian, he would be looked at differently even if nothing else were to occur. He reiterated that his father had been killed and his sister kidnapped in Iraq, and that similar harm could befall him if he were to return.
[69] HB, 208, 188.
[70] Ibid, 132.
[71] Ibid, 188.
Paragraph 9.1.2 of the Direction makes it clear that non-citizens who are not the subject of a protection finding may nonetheless raise claims that potentially engage Australia’s non-refoulement obligations in the context of a visa cancellation or revocation process under ss 501 or 501CA of the Act, and such claims must be considered. However, where the non-citizen is eligible to apply for a protection visa, it is not necessary at that stage to determine those issues in the same detail as would occur in a protection visa application. The protection visa process is specifically designed for assessing such claims, and the decision-maker may proceed on the basis that, if an application is lodged, any protection claims will be assessed as required by section 36A of the Act before any character or security concerns are considered.
In Plaintiff M1/2021 and Minister for Home Affairs,[72] the High Court stated:
In deciding whether there was ‘another reason’ to revoke the Cancellation Decision pursuant to s 501CA(4)(b)(b)(i) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), where the plaintiff remained free to apply for protection visa under the Migration Act:
(1) the Delegate was required to read, identify, understand and evaluate the plaintiff’s representations made in response to the invitation issued to him under section 501CA(B)(b) that raised a potential breach of Australia’s international non-refoulement obligations;
(2) Australia’s international non-refoulement obligations unenacted in Australia were not a mandatory relevant consideration; and
(3) to the extent Australia’s international non-refoulement obligations are given effect in the Migration Act, one available outcome for the Delegate was to defer assessment of whether the plaintiff was owed those non- refoulement obligations on the basis that it was open to the plaintiff to apply for protection visa under the Migration Act.[73]
[72] Plaintiff M1/2021 and Minister for Home Affairs [2022] HCA 17.
[73] Ibid at [42].
The Court also noted that
It is also well-established that the requisite level of engagement by the decision-maker with the representations must occur within the bounds of rationality and reasonableness. What is necessary to comply with the statutory requirement for a valid exercise of power will necessarily depend on the nature, form and content of the representations. The requisite level of engagement – the degree of effort needed by the decision-maker – will vary, among other things, according to the length, clarity and degree of relevance of the representations. The decision-maker is not required to consider claims that are not clearly articulated or which do not clearly arise on the materials before them.[74] (footnotes omitted)
[74] Ibid at [25].

Other than the representations referred to above, the applicant did not provide any further material, including country information, in support of his claims. In reading, identifying, understanding and evaluating the applicant’s representations that relate to Australia’s non-refoulement obligations, I have considered the DFAT Country Information Report concerning Iraq dated 16 January 2023, which was submitted by the Minister. According to that report, Assyrian Christians are recognised by Iraq’s personal status law and registered with the government.[75] DFAT assessed that:
3.36 Iraqi laws and long-standing practices tend to discriminate against non-Muslims. The extent of this discrimination varies by geographic area and may include violence or the threat of violence against members of religious minorities who do not adhere to Islamic standards of dress…
3.45 Christians belonging to recognised denominations face a low risk of official discrimination. Like other minorities, Christians face a moderate risk of societal discrimination and violence in areas where they are a minority, including as targets of violent crime, kidnapping and extortion. Those involved in the alcohol trade face a moderate risk of societal violence. Those living in areas where violence continues or who have been displaced face a risk of societal violence similar to that faced by other groups living in those areas or situations.[76]
[75] HB, 308.
[76] HB, 310.
The applicant was born in Mosul, where he lived until fleeing to Syria. DFAT records the Christian population in Mosul has fallen from 5,000 families to just 70, largely as a result of violence inflicted by ISIS and subsequent displacement, leaving Christians a small minority in the city.[77] Beyond the brief references in his representations, the applicant’s claims for protection have not been comprehensively or precisely articulated in these proceedings. Further consideration of evidence and issues specific to the applicant, availability of state protection and his ability to internally relocate would be required for a proper assessment in the protection visa process. On the limited evidence before me, however, his circumstances suggest that Australia’s non-refoulement obligations may be engaged.
[77] Ibid.
If the cancellation of the applicant's visa is not revoked, he would become an unlawful non-citizen and subject to detention and removal as soon as reasonably practicable. There will be significant restrictions on his ability to apply for another visa before his removal and Special Return Criteria will prevent his return to Australia if he is removed. The applicant is not presently the subject to a protection finding, but he has raised claims that may engage Australia’s non-refoulement obligations. Having regard to these matters, I give this consideration significant weight in favour of revoking the cancellation of the applicant’s visa.
Extent of impediments if removed
Paragraph 9.2 of the Direction provides that taking into account the matters identified in paragraphs 9.2(1)(a), (b) and (c) of the Direction, the Tribunal must consider the extent of any impediments that the applicant may face if removed from Australia to their home country in establishing himself and maintaining basic living standards in the context of what is generally available to other citizens of that country. The matters identified under paragraph 9.2(1)(a) to (c) of the Direction are:
(1)The applicant’s age and health;
(2)Whether there are substantial language or cultural barriers; and
(3)Any social, medical and/or economic support available to the applicant in their country.
The applicant is 34 years old. As previously noted, he had made references in his representations to having PTSD. However, no recent, independent psychological evidence was submitted to indicate that he suffers from any mental health issues. At the hearing, he denied experiencing any mental health issues, pointing to improvements. Nevertheless, there is no question in my mind that the applicant continues to carry the weight of his traumatic childhood experiences in Iraq and his underlying substance use remains unresolved.
The applicant arrived in Australia at the age of 16 and has not lived in Iraq since he was approximately 13 years old.[78] While he speaks Arabic and Assyrian, I accept that he has no remaining family members, social network or other means of support in Iraq. In these circumstances, there is no doubt that he would face significant cultural and economic barriers in establishing himself in Iraq, compounded by his Christian religion, his limited education and drug use history. While the Minister submitted that the applicant would be ‘entitled to any health and welfare services on the same basis of other citizens of Iraq,’ it was conceded, by reference to the DFAT report, that ‘the overall quality and availability of healthcare in Iraq is low, and mental health services are inadequate, with significant societal stigma against people with mental illness.’
[78] HB, 89, 92.
Finally, as outlined under ‘legal consequences of the decision,’ the applicant could also be at risk of violence and discrimination because of his Christian religion.
I find that this factor weighs significantly in favour of revoking the visa cancellation.
Impact on Australian business interests
There is no evidence before me that the cancellation of the visa would impact Australian business interests in the manner contemplated by the Direction. I give this consideration neutral weight.
CONCLUSION
Weighing the considerations arising under the Direction involves a complex and finely balanced evaluative exercise. As noted by the Full Court of the Federal Court in CRNL v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs:[79]
The balancing process is directed to determining whether there is “another reason” why the visa cancellation should be revoked. It requires an identification of the matters that may constitute “another reason” and bringing to bear the considerations that the Direction requires the Tribunal to take into account where relevant in determining whether or not the Tribunal is satisfied that there is another reason (or reasons) to revoke the visa cancellation. Some of the considerations set out in the Direction, where relevant, may weigh in favour of revocation, and so may constitute “another reason” capable of supporting the state of satisfaction required in order for revocation under s 501CA(4)(b)(ii) to occur. But whether they do qualify as a reason of that kind will need to be assessed in the context of different considerations set out in the Direction which may weigh against revocation, where relevant. That is why it is appropriate to describe it as a process of weighing and balancing. But to go beyond that to treat the Direction as mandating some sort of calculation of the net weight to be given to the considerations on each side is to lose sight of the ultimately evaluative nature of the statutory task.[80]
[79] [2023] FCAFC 138.
[80] Ibid at [35].
I have found that the applicant does not pass the character test under s 501 of the Act. In considering whether I am satisfied that there is ‘another reason’ to revoke the cancellation decision, I have had regard to the specific circumstances relating to the applicant. I have also had regard to the considerations referred to in the Direction.
The Direction provides that the protection of the Australian community is the Government’s highest priority. Paragraph 7(2) expressly states that primary consideration 1, protection of the Australian community, is generally to be given greater weight than other primary considerations and primary considerations should generally be given greater weight than the other considerations. However, the Direction does not prescribe a mechanical hierarchy and the evaluative exercise of weighing up the factors in the Direction is not subject of some ritualistic formula.[81] It requires that appropriate weight ultimately be given to both primary and other considerations.
[81] Howells v MIMIA (2004) 139 FCR 580 at 127.
I have found that the applicant's offending was very serious and that there is a medium to high likelihood of further offending, such that the risk to the Australian community is high. Primary consideration 1, protection of the Australian community, therefore, weighs significantly against revocation of the cancellation decision. I have also found that the applicant has engaged in family violence, and that primary consideration 2 weighs significantly against revocation. Primary consideration 5, the expectations of the Australian community, likewise weighs significantly against revocation.
On the other hand, I have found that primary consideration 3, the strength, nature and duration of the applicant’s ties to Australia, weighs moderately in favour of revoking the cancellation of the visa. Primary consideration 4, the best interests of minor children, weighs only slightly in favour of revocation. Among the ‘other considerations,’ I have found that the legal consequences of non-revocation weighs significantly in favour of revoking the cancellation decision, and I have also given significant weight in favour of revocation to the extent of impediments the applicant would face if removed. The impact on Australian business interests has been given neutral weight.
Having regard to all of the primary considerations and the relevant other considerations, I conclude that the protection of the Australian community, the family violence perpetrated by the applicant and expectations of the Australian community outweigh all other considerations that, individually or cumulatively, weigh in favour of not revoking the cancellation of the applicant’s visa. I am, therefore, not satisfied that there is another reason to revoke the cancellation decision.
DECISION
The decision under review is affirmed.

Date(s) of hearing: 2 October 2025

130.    Applicant

131.    Self-represented

132.    Advocate for the Respondent:

133.    Mr Ben Nam

Solicitors for the Respondent:

134.    Clayton Utz

SCHEDULE 1 – APPLICANTS CRIMINAL OFFENDING AS AT 18 JUNE 2024 AS DISCLOSED BY THE AUSTRALIAN CRIMINAL INTELLIGENCE COMMISSION REPORT DATED 17 JUNE 2024.[82]
[82] HB, 36-48

Court and conviction date

Offence

Result

Convictions since the decision of the second Tribunal

Bankstown Local Court

(14 May 2024)

Goods in personal custody suspected being stolen (not m/v) (x4)

AND

Dishonestly obtain financial advantage etc by deception – T1
Imprisonment (aggregate): 18 months, 6 months non-parole.

Fairfield Local Court (11 December 2023)
Goods in personal custody suspected being stolen (not m/v)

AND

Destroy or damage property <=$2000 (DV) – T2

S10 conviction with no other penalty

AND

Imprisonment: 3 months

Fairfield Local Court (28 September 2023)
Contravene prohibition/restriction in AVO (domestic)

AND

Assault occasioning actual bodily harm (DV) – T2

S10 conviction with no other penalty

AND

Imprisonment: 10 months with non-parole period of 6 months

AND

AVO made in respect of applicant’s brother Martin for period of 2 years.

Liverpool Local Court (3 May 2023) Possess prohibited drug Fine: $200

Fairfield Local Court (13 April 2023) Goods in personal custody suspected being stolen (not m/v) Fine: $440, Community Corrections Order: 12 months, supervision by community corrections service treatment programs: 12 months, engage in drug and alcohol counselling.

Fairfield Local Court (25 January 2023) Goods in personal custody suspected being stolen (not m/v) Fine: $500

Convictions considered by the second Tribunal

Fairfield Local Court (4 May 2017)
Call-up: Affray – T1, Resist officer in execution of duty – T2, Possess prohibited drug, 5x Goods in personal custody suspected being stolen.

AND

Resist officer in execution of duty – T2

For call-up offences Imprisonment: 6 months.

AND

Imprisonment 14 months. Non parole period of 6 months.

Fairfield Local Court (4 August 2016) Goods in personal custody suspected being stolen (x5) Imprisonment: 6 months, Bond s12 6 months.

Fairfield Local Court (11 February 2016)
135.    Never licensed person drive vehicle on road – first offence

136.    AND

137.    Enter prescribed premises of any person w/o lawful excuse

138.    AND

139.    Goods in personal custody suspected being stolen (not m/v)

140.    AND

141.    Be carried in conveyance taken w/o consent of owner

Fine: $200

AND

Fine: $500

AND

Fine: $500

And

Fine: $500

Fairfield Local Court (16 November 2015)
Call-up: Affray – T1, Resist officer in execution of duty – T2

AND

Possess prohibited drug

Call-up: S9 Bond 18 months supv NSW prob service.

AND

142.    S9 Bond: 18 months to attend for counselling. Educational development, drug or alcohol rehab.

Fairfield Local Court (21 September 2015
Affray

AND

Resist officer in execution of duty – T2

Fine: $400, S9 Bond, 9-month

AND

S9 Bond, 12-month

Campbelltown District Court (12 September 2013)
Supply prohibited drugs on an ongoing basis

AND

Supply a prohibited drug (x9)

AND

Supply a prohibited drug >small &<=indictable quantity – T1

AND

Take part supply prohibited drug >small &<=indictable pty – T1
143.    Imprisonment: 2 years & 8 months. Non- parole period with conditions: 1 year & 4 months. Release subject to supervision to participate in alcohol and other drugs support services for people from non-English speaking backgrounds. Attend rehabilitation of torture and trauma, also participate in Arabic transition project.

Campbelltown Local Court(13 February 2013) Call-up for offences: Assault occasioning actual bodily harm, Steal from the person, Steal from the person (accessory after the fact to an offence) Imprisonment: 7 days

Fairfield Local Court (8 June 2012)
Possess prohibited drug

AND

Enter enclosed land not presc premises w/o lawful excuse

Imprisonment: 3 months

AND

Fine: $225

Campbelltown Local Court (25 March 2012) Affray – T1 Imprisonment 4 Months and 21 days

Campbelltown Local Court (10 May 2012)
Call-up for 23 November 2011 offence of Use etc offensive weapon w/I to commit indictable office – T1

AND

Drive while disqualified from holding a licence

Call-up Imprisonment: 1 month

AND

Disqualification: 2 years

Fairfield Local Court (15 March 2012) Drive while disqualified from holding a licence Fine: $100, disqualification: 2 years

Liverpool Local Court (23 November 2011)
Call-up for 11 August 2010 offences of Assault occasioning actual bodily harm – T2 and Steal from the person

AND

Never licensed person drive vehicle on road – 2^nd offence

AND

Steal from the person (Accessory after the fact to an offence)

AND

Use etc offensive weapon w/I to commit indictable office – T1

Call up: Community service order: 40 hours

AND

Fine: $100, disqualification: 3 years

AND

Community service order: 50 hours

AND

S9 Bond, 12-month supv NSW prob service

Fairfield Local Court (26 September 2011) Possess prohibited drug Fine: $250

Fairfield Local Court (21 March 2011) Possess prohibited drug (x2) Fine $200

Fairfield Local Court (25 January 2011) Never licensed person drive vehicle on road – 1st offence Fine: $200

Fairfield Local Court

(15 November 2010)
Possess prohibited drug Fine: $250

Liverpool Local Court

(11 August 2010)

Assault occasioning actual bodily harm – T2

AND

Steal from the person
S9 Bond, 12-month supv NSW prob service

Parramatta Local Court

(12 February 2010)

Goods in personal custody suspected being stolen (not M/V)

AND

Possess housebreaking implements - T2

144.    Section 9 good behaviour bond: 12 months

145.    AND

Fine: $500

130. Applicant	131. Self-represented
132. Advocate for the Respondent:	133. Mr Ben Nam
Solicitors for the Respondent:	134. Clayton Utz

Court and conviction date	Offence	Result
Convictions since the decision of the second Tribunal
Bankstown Local Court (14 May 2024)	Goods in personal custody suspected being stolen (not m/v) (x4) AND Dishonestly obtain financial advantage etc by deception – T1	Imprisonment (aggregate): 18 months, 6 months non-parole.
Fairfield Local Court (11 December 2023)	Goods in personal custody suspected being stolen (not m/v) AND Destroy or damage property <=$2000 (DV) – T2	S10 conviction with no other penalty AND Imprisonment: 3 months
Fairfield Local Court (28 September 2023)	Contravene prohibition/restriction in AVO (domestic) AND Assault occasioning actual bodily harm (DV) – T2	S10 conviction with no other penalty AND Imprisonment: 10 months with non-parole period of 6 months AND AVO made in respect of applicant’s brother Martin for period of 2 years.
Liverpool Local Court (3 May 2023)	Possess prohibited drug	Fine: $200
Fairfield Local Court (13 April 2023)	Goods in personal custody suspected being stolen (not m/v)	Fine: $440, Community Corrections Order: 12 months, supervision by community corrections service treatment programs: 12 months, engage in drug and alcohol counselling.
Fairfield Local Court (25 January 2023)	Goods in personal custody suspected being stolen (not m/v)	Fine: $500
Convictions considered by the second Tribunal
Fairfield Local Court (4 May 2017)	Call-up: Affray – T1, Resist officer in execution of duty – T2, Possess prohibited drug, 5x Goods in personal custody suspected being stolen. AND Resist officer in execution of duty – T2	For call-up offences Imprisonment: 6 months. AND Imprisonment 14 months. Non parole period of 6 months.
Fairfield Local Court (4 August 2016)	Goods in personal custody suspected being stolen (x5)	Imprisonment: 6 months, Bond s12 6 months.
Fairfield Local Court (11 February 2016)	135. Never licensed person drive vehicle on road – first offence 136. AND 137. Enter prescribed premises of any person w/o lawful excuse 138. AND 139. Goods in personal custody suspected being stolen (not m/v) 140. AND 141. Be carried in conveyance taken w/o consent of owner	Fine: $200 AND Fine: $500 AND Fine: $500 And Fine: $500
Fairfield Local Court (16 November 2015)	Call-up: Affray – T1, Resist officer in execution of duty – T2 AND Possess prohibited drug	Call-up: S9 Bond 18 months supv NSW prob service. AND 142. S9 Bond: 18 months to attend for counselling. Educational development, drug or alcohol rehab.
Fairfield Local Court (21 September 2015	Affray AND Resist officer in execution of duty – T2	Fine: $400, S9 Bond, 9-month AND S9 Bond, 12-month
Campbelltown District Court (12 September 2013)	Supply prohibited drugs on an ongoing basis AND Supply a prohibited drug (x9) AND Supply a prohibited drug >small &<=indictable quantity – T1 AND Take part supply prohibited drug >small &<=indictable pty – T1	143. Imprisonment: 2 years & 8 months. Non- parole period with conditions: 1 year & 4 months. Release subject to supervision to participate in alcohol and other drugs support services for people from non-English speaking backgrounds. Attend rehabilitation of torture and trauma, also participate in Arabic transition project.
Campbelltown Local Court(13 February 2013)	Call-up for offences: Assault occasioning actual bodily harm, Steal from the person, Steal from the person (accessory after the fact to an offence)	Imprisonment: 7 days
Fairfield Local Court (8 June 2012)	Possess prohibited drug AND Enter enclosed land not presc premises w/o lawful excuse	Imprisonment: 3 months AND Fine: $225
Campbelltown Local Court (25 March 2012)	Affray – T1	Imprisonment 4 Months and 21 days
Campbelltown Local Court (10 May 2012)	Call-up for 23 November 2011 offence of Use etc offensive weapon w/I to commit indictable office – T1 AND Drive while disqualified from holding a licence	Call-up Imprisonment: 1 month AND Disqualification: 2 years
Fairfield Local Court (15 March 2012)	Drive while disqualified from holding a licence	Fine: $100, disqualification: 2 years
Liverpool Local Court (23 November 2011)	Call-up for 11 August 2010 offences of Assault occasioning actual bodily harm – T2 and Steal from the person AND Never licensed person drive vehicle on road – 2^nd offence AND Steal from the person (Accessory after the fact to an offence) AND Use etc offensive weapon w/I to commit indictable office – T1	Call up: Community service order: 40 hours AND Fine: $100, disqualification: 3 years AND Community service order: 50 hours AND S9 Bond, 12-month supv NSW prob service
Fairfield Local Court (26 September 2011)	Possess prohibited drug	Fine: $250
Fairfield Local Court (21 March 2011)	Possess prohibited drug (x2)	Fine $200
Fairfield Local Court (25 January 2011)	Never licensed person drive vehicle on road – 1st offence	Fine: $200
Fairfield Local Court (15 November 2010)	Possess prohibited drug	Fine: $250
Liverpool Local Court (11 August 2010)	Assault occasioning actual bodily harm – T2 AND Steal from the person	S9 Bond, 12-month supv NSW prob service
Parramatta Local Court (12 February 2010)	Goods in personal custody suspected being stolen (not M/V) AND Possess housebreaking implements - T2	144. Section 9 good behaviour bond: 12 months 145. AND Fine: $500