GMWT and Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (Migration) - [2025] ARTA 1244

GMWT and Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (Migration) [2025] ARTA 1244 (5 August 2025)
Applicant/s:  GMWT
Respondent:  Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs
Tribunal Number:                2025/3685

Tribunal:Senior Member M Kennedy
Place:Adelaide
Date of Decision: 5 August 2025

Decision: The decision under review is affirmed.

Statement made on 05 August 2025 at 2:52pm
Catchwords
MIGRATION – decision of delegate of Minister not to revoke mandatory cancellation of visa – character test – Direction No 110 – money laundering - primary and other considerations – protection of Australian community – nature and seriousness of criminal offending – risk to the Australian community should the Applicant commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct – strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia – expectations of the Australian community – extent of impediments if removed – impact on Australian business interests – decision under review affirmed.
Legislation
Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ss 5AB, 15, 189, 196, 197C, 197C(1), 198, 499(1), 499(2A), 501(1), 501(2), 501(3A), 501(6), 501(7). 501(7)(c), 501CA, 501CA(4), 501E, 501F, 503, 5001, 5001(c).
Cases
HZCP v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 1803
BSJ16 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCA 1181
Hambledon v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 7
Rano v Minister for Home Affairs, Minister for Cyber Security (2 September 2024) [2024] FCA 1003
Plaintiff M1/2021 and Minister for Home Affairs [2022] HCA 17
Uelese v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2016) 248 FCR 296
Webb v Minister for Home Affairs [2020] FCA 831
CRNL v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FCAFC 138
Secondary Materials
Minister for Citizenship, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs, Direction no. 110 — Visa refusal and cancellation under section 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under section 501C (21 June 2024).
Statement of Reasons

Mr GMWT is a is a 26-year-old citizen of Pakistan. He arrived in Australia for the first time on 31 January 2017 as the holder of a subclass 500 student visa.
Mr GMWT was arrested on 26 May 2020 in connection with a scheme that ultimately led to his conviction for a number of counts of money laundering. He was granted bail on or about 2 June 2020. He was tried in the District Court of South Australia between 2 August 2022 and 7 September 2022, and found guilty on 6 June 2023 of 20 counts of money laundering.
The offending for which Mr GMWT was charged and convicted occurred between 27 April 2020 and 25 May 2020, although I have noted the remarks of the sentencing judge reproduced below regarding Mr GMWT acknowledging he had been involved for about six years prior to the charged offending.[1]
[1] In the hearing, I informed Mr GMWT about his right against self-incrimination in advance of him being asked to elaborate on this reference in the sentencing remarks. Mr GMWT chose to exercise his rights in that regard. I draw no adverse inference from Mr GMWT exercising his right against self-incrimination, but do not disregard the comment in the sentencing remarks on this point.
The offending involved a scheme where Telstra customers in Australia were deceived into providing access to their accounts by persons in Pakistan purporting to be Telstra employees offering a discount on services. With access to the account fraudulently obtained in this way, new Apple iPhones would then be ordered through Telstra’s online store on the customer’s account. The delivery address would be diverted ultimately to Mr GMWT via courier drivers recruited by Mr GMWT. The tainted property would then be sold, and funds retained in part by Mr GMWT with the balance remitted to Pakistan. The value of the property the subject of the charges for which Mr GMWT was convicted (that is, for the period 27 April 2020 to 25 May 2020) was approximately $200,000.
Mr GMWT was taken back into custody at the time of the verdict. He was sentenced on 8 December 2023 to six years imprisonment, with a non-parole period of three years and six months.
At the time of his imprisonment, Mr GMWT held a Bridging Visa C (Subclass 030) (hereafter ‘the visa’) which had been granted to him on 9 March 2021 pending consideration of an application for a Class VC Temporary Graduate (subclass 485) skilled (Provisional) visa. On 17 September 2024 Mr GMWT’s visa was cancelled pursuant to subsection 501(3A) of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act),[2] because he was taken not to have passed the character test on account of his substantial criminal record, and at that time was serving a sentence of imprisonment on a full‑time basis in a custodial institution for an offence against the law of South Australia. As a consequence of the cancellation, his outstanding application for a substantive visa was also taken to be refused.
[2] HB60.
On 2 October 2024 Mr GMWT applied for revocation of the visa cancellation.[3] On 19 May 2025, a delegate of the Minister refused to revoke the visa cancellation.[4] Mr GMWT applied to the Tribunal for review on 24 May 2025.
[3] HB119.
[4] HB19.
LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK
Under subsection 501(3A) of the Migration Act 1958 (‘the Act’), the Minister must cancel a visa that has been granted to a person if, among other things:
(a)the person does not pass the character test because of a substantial criminal record; and
(b)the person is serving a sentence of imprisonment on a full-time basis in a custodial institution for an offence against a law of the Commonwealth, a State or Territory.
A person has a substantial criminal record in the circumstances set out in subsection 501(7) of the Act. These circumstances include that the person has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more (paragraph 501(7)(c) of the Act). This applies no differently for a sentence imposed for two or more offences (section 5AB of the Act).
If a visa is cancelled under subsection 501(3A), the Minister must give the person a written notice inviting them to make representations about revocation of the original decision.[5] If the person makes representations in accordance with the invitation, then under subsection 501CA(4), the Minister may revoke the original decision if satisfied that the person passes the character test or that there is another reason why the original decision should be revoked.
[5] Migration Act s 501CA(3).
Ministerial Direction 110
Under subsection 499(1) of the Act, the Minister may give written directions to a person or body having functions or power under the Act, and a person or body must comply with any direction given by the Minster (subsection 499(2A)).
The Minister has issued Direction 110, Visa refusal and cancellation under section 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under section 501CA (‘the Direction’). It is expressed to apply to the Tribunal in making a decision under section 501 or section 501CA of the Act, and the Tribunal must comply with the Direction.
An objective of the Direction is to guide decision-makers in exercising powers under sections 501 or 501CA of the Migration Act.[6] In exercising the power under subsection 501CA(4), the Tribunal must have regard to the primary and other considerations set out in the Direction where relevant to the decision.[7]
[6] Direction No 110 para 5.1(4).
[7] Direction No 110 para 6.
Clause 5.2 of the Direction provides principles to provide a framework to approach decision making. These are:
(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 measureable 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.
The Direction also sets out matters to be considered in refusing or not revoking the cancellation of a visa. It requires certain primary and other considerations to be considered in making a decision, and states that in taking these into account that:
(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 … (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.[8]
[8] Ibid cl 7.
The Direction does not limit the matters the Tribunal can consider in deciding if there is another reason the cancellation of a visa should be revoked.
ISSUES
The issues before the Tribunal are therefore:
(a)whether the Applicant passes the character test, as defined by subsection 501(6) of the Migration Act; and
(b)if the Applicant does not pass the character test, whether the Tribunal is satisfied that there is another reason why the decision to cancel the visa should be revoked.[9]
[9] See subsection 501CA(4) of the Migration Act.
DOES THE APPLICANT PASS THE CHARACTER TEST?
As noted above, the character test is defined in subsection 501(6) of the Act. Paragraph 501(6)(a) of the Act provides that a person does not pass the character test if they have a ‘substantial criminal record’, as defined by subsection 501(7) of the Act. Relevant to Mr GMWT’s case, a person has a substantial criminal record if they have been ‘sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more’.
Mr GMWT was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more. I find he has a substantial criminal record and he does not pass the character test.
IS THERE ANOTHER REASON WHY THE DECISION TO CANCEL THE VISA SHOULD BE REVOKED?
Clause 8 of the Direction contains five primary considerations, which are:
(1) protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct;
(2) whether the conduct engaged in constituted family violence;
(3) the strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia;
(4) the best interests of minor children in Australia;
(5) expectations of the Australian community.
Clause 9 of the Direction contains other considerations, which are:
(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;
d)impact on Australian business interests.
I have considered each one in turn, keeping in mind the principles in clause 5.2 of the Direction.
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 that the Government is committed to protecting the Australian community from harm as a result of criminal activity or other serious conduct by non-citizens.[10]
[10] The Direction cl 8.1(1).
The Tribunal is directed to have particular regard to the principle that entering or remaining in Australia is a privilege that Australia confers on non-citizens in the expectation that they are, and have been, law abiding, will respect important institutions, and will not cause or threaten harm to individuals or the Australian community.[11]
[11] Ibid.
Decision-makers should consider the nature and seriousness of the non-citizen’s conduct to date and the risk to the Australian community should the non-citizen commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct.[12]
[12] Ibid cl 8.1(2).
Nature and seriousness of the conduct
I must consider the nature and seriousness of Mr GMWT’s criminal offending or other conduct to date.[13] In doing so, paragraph 8.1.1(1) of Direction No 110 provides that, without limiting the range of conduct that may be considered to be either very serious or serious, certain types of crime and conduct are viewed very seriously or seriously by the Australian Government and the Australian Community. As will be seen, Mr GMWT’s offending does not fall into any of the specified types of conduct referred to in the Direction, but it is clear that the identification of different categories of conduct in the Direction is not intended to limit what offending can be considered serious or very serious. Cl.8.1.1.(1)(c) looks to sentence imposed by the courts for a crime as a matter decision makers must have regard to.
[13] Direction No 110 para 8.1(1).
In that regard, the sentencing remarks of the District Court of South Australia are before me,[14] as are the published reasons for verdict.[15] I reproduce extracts of the sentencing remarks only, but record for completeness that I have also had regard to the detailed reasons for verdict in reaching my understanding of the nature of the conduct and the context in which the District Court made certain remarks on sentencing, particularly the remarks made by the sentencing judge regarding Mr GMWT’s conduct at trial, the scale and sophistication of the scheme, and the serious level of criminality involved.
[14] HB 41.
[15] Exhibit B (the citation reveals the identify of the applicant so is not reproduced).
…following a trial on 6 June 2023 I found you guilty of 20 counts of money laundering. The maximum penalty for that offence is 20 years imprisonment. On 6 June 2023 I revoked your bail and you have been in custody ever since…
…I will only briefly summarise your offending. You were part of a fraudulent scheme that had been set up to defraud Telstra Corporation, (Telstra). Specifically, those whom you were working with would contact Telstra customers purporting to be a Telstra employee and offering a discount on their service with Telstra. The female caller, who was purporting to be a Telstra employee, was in possession of some of the Telstra customers’ details including their name and address but would say that the customer was required to provide further information. The fraudulent caller then obtained personal details from Telstra customers such as their driver's licence and would then explain that a one-time PIN was required to activate a purported discount linked to their account. That one-time PIN would be sent to their mobile account.
Once the PIN had been sent to the customer's mobile via a text message, they would be asked by the fraudulent caller to read out aloud that one-time PIN over the phone. At that time either the fraudulent caller or someone connected with them were simultaneously accessing that Telstra customer's account. When the one-time PIN was read back by the Telstra customer, that PIN was then used to access the customer's account online and a new Apple iPhone was ordered using the Telstra online shop.
There was no upfront payment required for those phones as the scheduled repayments would be added to the customers’ billing cycle.
As part of the ordering process, a nominated delivery address different to the Telstra customer's address would be inserted into the online application, which is where the phones were sent and where you would later collect them. All orders for the mobile telephones were made using several IP addresses located in Pakistan, which is your country of birth and where your family is located.
You recruited courier drivers to collect the parcels containing the iPhones when they arrived at the Australia Post depot and deliver them to you. The Telstra customers eventually noticed that there were unauthorised orders for Apple iPhones which led to the matter being investigated by Telstra and the police.
In around March 2020 the police were live to the scheme and your involvement and in around April 2020 they began intercepting parcels which were to be delivered by an Australia Post courier driver, Mr N#, to addresses in M where you would collect them. Eventually a police undercover operative was utilised who pretended to be a courier driver for StarTrack. He met with you and discussed the delivery of parcels to you. You told the undercover operative that you would pay him $25 for each parcel with a bonus of $1,000 once he had delivered 150 parcels to you.
You gave evidence at your trial denying that you had any involvement in the scheme. You gave various explanations, most of which were nonsense and almost all of which were lies. However, having been found guilty you now accept your involvement in this scheme. You accept that you had been involved in defrauding Telstra of mobile phones, in fact, for about six years prior to the charged offending. I make it clear that you will not be sentenced for charges with which you have not been charged with. The relevance of that background of involvement is that it reduces the leniency that would otherwise be available to you had your offending been isolated.
Between April and May 2020, more than 100 parcels of Apple iPhones were fraudulently ordered. The value of the phones that are the subject of the charges have a total value of approximately $200,000. Some of the phones were recovered by police. Phones that were not recovered amount to a total value of about $83,000.
…
You played a central role in this scheme which was, at the very least, to organise and nominate delivery addresses, to recruit courier drivers, then take delivery of the fraudulently obtained Apple iPhones and thereafter sell them. You say that you were around the wrong people in 2020 and that contributed to you making the poor decision that you did. That, of course, does not explain why you were involved in the scheme for the six years prior to that.
You submit that the money you received for the phones would go back to Melbourne and Sydney, then from there to Pakistan. You, of course, would receive a portion of the money before it went back to Pakistan. It is plain that you stood to receive a significant amount of money for your involvement in the scheme.
…
Your expressions of remorse come very late in the piece. They come after you have been convicted following a trial and after you gave sworn evidence for a number of days, where, as I say, you lied almost from start to finish.
I make it clear you are not to be punished for pleading not guilty, that is your right, and you will not be, but I am sceptical, to say the at least, about your expressions of remorse.
Money laundering is a serious offence. The offending for which I will sentence you for represents a serious example of this type of offence. You were part of a sophisticated, organised group that were actively targeting Telstra and stealing large amounts of mobile phones from them. In a month you had stolen about $200,000 worth of iPhones. The offending was not isolated but represents an ongoing course of conduct. You were motivated purely by greed. General and personal deterrence are important considerations. Although you have expressed remorse for your offending, as I have already said, I find those expressions of remorse hollow and lacking any real weight.
[His Honour then addresses notional sentences for each count, and explains the ultimate sentence imposed allows a large degree of concurrency to avoid a crushing sentence disproportionate to the overall criminal offending].

In written submissions before the Tribunal,[16] Mr GMWT’s representative suggested two mitigating factors should be taken into consideration, suggesting in context that the sentencing court may not have done so. Mr GMWT’s submissions however made it clear that Mr GMWT does not intend to diminish or abrogate responsibility for his crimes.
[16] HB418.
It is said that I should take into consideration that at the time of the offending and the trial Mr GMWT was a young and naive man ill-attuned to Australian culture and under considerable financial pressure. It is said that culturally the impetus for the offending came from Pakistan and Mr GMWT’s elder brother.
It is submitted that it should be viewed as unsurprising that with Mr GMWT’s background from a country where fraud and corruption are commonplace, even amongst police and government officials, a young naive man facing financial pressure combined with a strong impetus from aggressive forces at home would succumb to the scheme, which presented an easy, non-violent, impersonal way to cover mounting debts.
The foundation for such submissions on the documentary evidence (including the statements of Mr GMWT) is elusive. The foundation for the submissions came in Mr GMWT’s oral evidence where he expressed fears about now returning to Pakistan in that context. Mr GMWT claims that his elder brother is now threatening to harm and torture him because funds and property were confiscated by Police. Later in his evidence that claim also encompassed a claim that his mother was being threatened with torture by his elder brother. Mr GMWT’s evidence was that his brother is culturally in charge of the household, and is dictating matters concerning the family in Pakistan to the exclusion of his father. It was also claimed that associates of his elder brother would also harm him for the same reason.
As elaborated upon later in these reasons, I have accepted the Minister’s submission that this would be an appropriate case to refrain from making findings about potential protection obligations and to defer consideration of any such claims to the appropriate process in the event that Mr GMWT were to make an application for a protection visa. The claims being made in relation to these circumstances were emerging and appeared to develop as they were tested and confronted in cross-examination.
For the purposes of understanding the nature and circumstances of the offending however, the submission made on behalf of Mr GMWT is that I should take into account the cultural context, that Mr GMWT was under cultural pressure from his elder brother to offend in the way he did, was naive and under financial pressure.
It is clear from the reasons for verdict that Mr GMWT’s elder brother [‘T’], in Pakistan, was indeed involved in the scheme – but in my view that is the extent of any support for the submission suggesting that in the cultural context Mr GMWT might be approaching the status of a victim himself.
His Honour observed that the prosecution case could not prove the extent to which Mr GMWT was directly involved in the ‘front end’ of the scheme (being that part of the scheme being run from Pakistan), but there was evidence of Mr GMWT receiving information about Telstra customers from his brother, and the evidence otherwise showed a level of autonomy and independence for Mr GMWT within the scheme.[17] At trial, Mr GMWT had given evidence that a Mr S was the mastermind of the scheme, but His Honour rejected his evidence in that regard, describing aspects of it as incredulous. His Honour rejected Mr GMWT’s explanation of how T had become involved in the scheme through Mr S, and found other aspects of Mr GMWT’s evidence, including the existence of damning WhatsApp messages to be ludicrous.[18]
[17] Exhibit B (verdict) at [331].
[18] Exhibit B (verdict) at 348.
As extracted above, his Honour expressly found beyond reasonable doubt that Mr GMWT knew of and was involved in the scheme, a necessary finding to convict. The eleven specifically identified basis for reaching this finding explain why in the sentencing remarks His Honour found (as extracted above) that Mr GMWT played a central role in the scheme,[19] it was a sophisticated and organised group and Mr GMWT was motivated purely by greed.
[19] Exhibit B (verdict) at [354] to [364].
I may not go behind the Court’s findings as to the essential facts on which the convictions are based where, as here, the conviction is the foundation for the exercise of power . [20] I may however take evidence and consider the wider circumstances of the offending. To this end, I have considered the submissions made in relation to the cultural context said to be relevant to the wider circumstances of the offending, and Mr GMWT’s evidence in support of it.
[20] HZCP v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 1803 upheld by a majority on appeal in HZCP v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2019] FCAFC 202.
I find the suggestion that Mr GMWT was naive, under pressure financially and under cultural pressure from Pakistan as circumstances explaining the offending to be inconsistent with the sentencing judge’s summary of the circumstances of the offending. Specifically, these circumstances were Mr GMWT’s central involvement, the seriousness and sophistication of the offending, Mr GMWT’s motivation of greed, and the Court’s scepticism as to Mr GMWT’s remorse. I prefer to accept the Court’s observations of these wider circumstances of offending, noting that they flow naturally and reflect the detailed reasoning in the verdict and arise from the Court’s observation and analysis of some nine days’ of evidence in the trial and the stridently adverse impression the Court formed of Mr GMWT as a witness.
I reject the submissions made on behalf of Mr GMWT and his evidence as to the wider circumstances of the offending. I note that the submissions rely on Mr GMWT’s evidence of his motivations and the pressure from Pakistan he says he was and is facing. I do not prefer to accept his evidence in this regard over the observations of the sentencing Judge as to circumstances which are inconsistent with his evidence. I consider the circumstances of the offending were that Mr GMWT was centrally involved, had been involved for longer than the particular time period the subject of charges with which he was convicted, and was motivated purely by greed. I note that the absence of any reference in the sentencing remarks of claimed financial or cultural pressure. It is apparent that these matters about the circumstances of the offending were not put to the court on sentencing, even though by that time Mr GMWT had acknowledged his guilt and expressed remorse, expressions which the Court found to be hollow and lacking any real weight.
The sentencing judge described Mr GMWT’s offending as a serious example of a serious offence.
I turn to address the specific factors in cl.8.1.1 of the Directions where relevant.
As to the sentence imposed by the Court, I note that the head sentence of six years imprisonment reflects the remarks the Court has made as to the gravity of the offending and Mr GMWT’s culpability.
There is no information before me as to the impact of the offending on any victims of the offending. It appears that the direct impact of the offending was on Telstra, and I note there is some evidence before me addressing a limited degree of financial restitution from Mr GMWT. Behind Telstra of course there would inevitably be a myriad of individuals across the spectrum of vulnerabilities found in the community for whom being caught up in the ‘front end’ of the scheme would have had a range of impacts varying from inconvenience to distress. Although I consider such people would also be victims of the offending, as I can only speculate in this regard, I place no further adverse weight having regard to the impact of the offending on individual victims.
As to the frequency of Mr GMWT’s offending, and whether there is any trend of increasing seriousness, I am conscious that Mr GMWT was charged and convicted of counts pertaining only to approximately 1 month of the scheme’s operation. Having regard to the sentencing remarks however, it would be inaccurate to view the offending as isolated. Indeed, the sentencing judge, while making it clear that Mr GMWT would not be sentenced for charges with which he had not been charged, considered this background was relevant nonetheless in reducing the leniency that would have been available if the offending had been isolated. For my purposes, I view these remarks as foundation for concluding that the offending was not isolated and there is no dilution in my understanding of the nature and seriousness of the offence which might otherwise arise if the offending was isolated or ‘one-off’.
Other than minor traffic offending dealt with by way of fine, Mr GMWT has no other criminal antecedents.[21] There is no repeated offending or offending of increasing seriousness outside the offences arising from Mr GMWT’s involvement in the scheme.
[21] HB40. For completeness, I note the Hearing book contains an SA Police IRU Occurrence Report detailing a report of an assault, possibly an indecent assault, reported on 27 September 2020, pertaining to an alleged incident during an OLA trip. The matter did not proceed, and there appears to have ultimately been uncertainty as to whether Mr GMWT was driving, and the victim appears to have decided not to proceed with her complaint. Mr GMWT was not asked about these records. I consider the material too slight to justify any suspicion or finding that further offending has taken place, and I wholly disregard that material for my purposes.
There is no evidence of Mr GMWT providing false or misleading information to the Minister’s Department, and nor was Mr GMWT previously formally warned about the consequences of further offending on his migration status.
The sentencing judge recognises that aspects of the scheme involved conduct undertaken by the group with which Mr GMWT was associated in Pakistan, and observes in the reasons for verdict that the prosecution had accepted it could not prove the extent to which Mr GMWT was directly involved in the front end of the scheme.[22] Mr GMWT was not charged with nor convicted for offences relying on his conduct in Pakistan. Mr GMWT was convicted in relation to his conduct as part of the scheme for conduct in Australia.
[22] Exhibit B Verdict [331].
Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of Mr GMWT, and the various factors provided for at cl. 8.1.1 of the Direction, I have formed the view that the nature and seriousness of Mr GMWT’s criminal offending was serious, and I respectfully adopt the sentencing judge’s characterisation of the offending as a serious example of a serious type of offence. In particular, I consider that the sentence imposed by the court, and the nature of the offending as an ongoing course of highly criminal conduct, and not an isolated offence, speaks to its seriousness. The seriousness of Mr GMWT’s conduct weighs heavily in favour of refusing to revoke the decision to cancel the visa.
Risk to the Australian community should the non-citizen commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct.
The Tribunal must also consider the risk to the Australian community should the Applicant commit further offences. Clause 8.1.2 of the Direction states, in part:[23]
(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 noncitizen 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). …
[23] See also the Direction, cl 8.1(2)(b).
This requires an assessment of the nature of the harm should the Applicant engage in further criminal or other serious conduct.[24] It also requires an assessment of the likelihood of the Applicant engaging in such conduct.[25] There is no statutory constraint on the way that risk is assessed by the decision-maker other than that there must be a rational and probative basis for the assessment.[26]
Nature of the harm
[24] The Direction, cl 8.1.2(2)(a).
[25] Ibid cl 8.1.2(2)(b).
[26] See BSJ16 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCA 1181, [68] per Moshinsky J; Hambledon v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 7, [41] per Kenny J.
I have found that Mr GMWT’s conduct was serious, and indeed it was a serious example of a serious type of offending. It was an offence of dishonesty, and perpetrated as part of sophisticated scheme involving international elements, and the fraudulent access to online information of individual Telstra customers.
Should Mr GMWT engage in further criminal conduct of a similar nature, the nature of the harm would be serious. In this regard, and without minimising the impact of the offending on Telstra, the targeting and scamming of individual Australians was a central component of the scheme. Offending of this kind has every potential of causing profound financial and psychological harm to individuals, even though it would appear that the financial impact of the scheme in this case was carried by Telstra.
I consider that the Australian community’s tolerance for the risk of future harm that it may be exposed to by crimes of dishonesty is very low, having regard to Government’s view in this regard as expressed at cl.8.1.2(1) of the Direction.
Likelihood of the conduct being repeated
I approach my assessment of the likelihood of Mr GMWT engaging in further criminal conduct or other serious conduct by examining the remarks of the sentencing court in this regard, the evidence of the expert Professor Metzer adduced by the applicant, and the evidence of rehabilitation before me. I will also take into account the opinions of others as to Mr GMWT’s personal qualities that might be relevant to the likelihood of reoffending.
The sentencing judge did not specifically assess or address the likelihood of Mr GMWT committing further offending, or the prospects of rehabilitation per se. It cannot be denied that the sentencing judge appears to have formed an adverse view of Mr GMWT, and there is little in the remarks on sentence that might be viewed as sympathetic of Mr GMWT’s circumstances or that could be viewed as identifying factors tending to reduce the criminality of the behaviour or viewing what had happened as isolated or out of character. The sentencing judge was sceptical of the expressions of remorse that had come very late in the piece.
The sentencing judge did however note Mr GMWT’s significant achievement in completing a Bachelor of Aviation, achieving high distinctions in a number of subjects, and recognised that Mr GMWT was a man of some intelligence. The sentencing judge observed that Mr GMWT was capable of being a productive member of the community if he were to apply himself in a pro-social way in the future.
Although the sentencing judge did not himself draw an express link, I observe that the sentencing judge’s highly adverse observations of Mr GMWT’s conduct in the trial, where he was said ‘to have lied almost from start to finish’ is not a strong launching point to conclude that the likelihood of Mr GMWT engaging in further conduct, including offending, of dishonesty is so remote that it might be safely disregarded.
A report of Professor Metzer dated 14 July 2025 is before the Tribunal.[27] Professor Metzer also attended the Tribunal to give evidence and for cross-examination.
[27] HB612.
Professor Metzer’s qualifications are set out in his report and are impressive. I note relevantly that Professor Metzer is a member of the College of Forensic Psychology, and has supervised the teaching of advanced degrees in Forensic Psychology.
In his report, Professor Metzer opined that Mr GMWT has Post Traumatic Stress Disorder arising from trauma Mr GMWT experienced as a passer-by to the aftermath of a bomb attack near his school in Pakistan at the age of 12. Professor Metzer recommended Mr GMWT engage in therapy. He mentions that Mr GMWT seemed not to have much family support in Pakistan,[28] and only threats to his safety from his brother and a gang of criminals.
[28] I summarise the various letters of support provided by members of Mr GMWT’s family later in these reasons.
As to the motivation for the offending, Professor Metzer suggests that instead of greed or criminality, his view of the case was that Mr GMWT had suffered trauma as a child and escaped to a better world, and had showed most of the elements of becoming a good citizen, and suggests that a traumatic experience in prison (I understand Mr GMWT was assaulted) ‘ensures’ that he will not offend again.
As to the likelihood of reoffending, Professor Metzer found ‘no or very low risk behaviours’.
Professor Metzer was cross-examined by the Minister’s representative. The cross-examination provided a foundation for the Minister to submit that I should place no weight on Professor Metzer’s opinion and report in this particular matter. Mindful and respectful of Professor Metzer’s eminence in his field, I have nonetheless decided to accept that submission in this case.
It was established under cross-examination that Professor Metzer had not been briefed with a copy of the Administrative Review Tribunal (Expert Evidence) Practice Direction 2024. That oversight in briefing the expert is not ideal, but I acknowledge that Professor Metzer indicated in his report that he had complied with an out-of-date equivalent from the Supreme Court of South Australia and in cross examination said that he was aware of the role of an expert in proceedings such as this. That concession when combined with a remark in the report to the effect that ‘the purpose of the report was to assist his appeal to the AAT to revoke his cancellation of his visa’ raises some uncertainty on my part as to whether Professor Metzer had fully appreciated that his overriding duty was to provide impartial assistance to me and his role was not that of an advocate for Mr GMWT, as set out in the Practice Direction. I have considered Professor Metzer’s response to the line of questions in that regard. On balance, I accept that Professor Metzer is sufficiently experienced as an expert witness that the remark does not disclose a misapprehension of his role, and I do not suggest that the opinions expressed in the report amount to advocacy to the exclusion of an attempt at assistance to me on matters relevant to Professor Metzer’s expertise.
The real difficulty I have in accepting Professor Metzer’s opinion and placing weight on his report arises from the record made of the background and history he has relied upon to express his opinion, and indeed the language he has used to express his opinion on the likelihood of reoffending.
First, I note that Professor Metzer was not briefed with the remarks of the Court on verdict. As mentioned above, this lengthy and complex decision provides compelling context and justification for the more general observations of the sentencing judge as to Mr GMWT’s central involvement and the overall level of criminality. To the extent that Professor Metzer posits an alternative explanation of Mr GMWT’s motivations for offending, namely the trauma he experienced as a passer-by to the aftermath of a bombing incident when he was 12, and contradicts the clear findings of the Court pertaining to greed as a motivation, I reject it. Furthermore, the report’s reference to Mr GMWT escaping without his family to a better world strikes me as inconsistent with Mr GMWT’s general evidence about his family and background in Pakistan and purpose for travelling to Australia. In that regard, Mr GMWT’s father held a responsible position in the Pakistani military and now works in real estate. Mr GMWT was educated to the point of being a candidate for acceptance into the University of South Australia, and he said he chose to come to South Australia to study Aviation because he considered it to be the premier course of its type in the world. To reduce Mr GMWT’s circumstances in Australia as ‘an escape without family to a better world’ comprehensively mischaracterises those circumstances and Mr GMWT’s personal background.

Of more concern is the summary of the offending contained in the report. Professor Metzer, when questioned about where he had got his facts from confirmed that they had come primarily from Mr GMWT in the course of his 90 minute interview. The summary was inaccurate and contained highly material error:
·The report states Mr GMWT was arrested in 2023, but he was in fact arrested in 2020.
·The report proceeds upon an acceptance that Mr GMWT was (as he appears to have told Professor Metzer) an unwitting participant, on the periphery of a gang organized by his older brother. For reasons already addressed, Mr GMWT was in fact central to the operation of the scheme, and participated in each element of the twenty counts with which he was convicted knowingly. Indeed, knowing participation is a central element to the offence of money laundering, and the introduction of a notion of unwitting involvement must therefore be rejected comprehensively. Similarly Mr GMWT’s history to Professor Metzer that he did not know the contents of the packages must be seen as Mr GMWT misleading Professor Metzer in this regard, as would have been apparent had the reasons for verdict been made available to the Professor.
·Contrary to the information given to Professor Metzer, Mr GMWT did not plead guilty when he discovered his belief was misguided and demonstrated remorse by commencing repayments of stolen money. As mentioned above Mr GMWT pleaded not guilty, and was then found to have lied almost from start to finish throughout the course of the nine-day trial. He was found guilty by verdict, and acknowledged his guilt only at the point of sentence. The judge found the expressions of remorse hollow.
It appears to therefore that Professor Metzer approached his task of providing impartial assistance to the Tribunal on his area of expertise suffering under a material misunderstanding of Mr GMWT’s conduct and criminality.
With that in mind, and when it comes to Professor Metzer’s assessment of recidivism, I raised with him a concern I had as to how he had expressed his view in that regard:
As there was no evidence of previous offending, it seemed that misplaced family loyalty, and having been exposed to Pakistan’s culture of widespread corruption, rather than personal greed, was an underlying factor for the offence. Further, he has completed a degree in Australia, and operated a successful business with no evidence of kleptomania, stealing, corruption, manipulation of others, gang criminal behaviours or personal offences having been suggested as risks of reoffending for this individual. In my assessment I found no or very low risk behaviours.
I requested a further explanation of this extract, noting that contrary to what was stated the offending in question itself was evidence of stealing, manipulation and gang criminal behaviours. Professor Metzer explained that he was intending to refer to there being no evidence other than the instant offending. Perhaps that may be what was intended to be conveyed, but when that assessment is considered in the light of the material misunderstanding of the circumstances of the offending as set out above, my confidence in the ultimate assessment is lost.
I note that when it was put to Professor Metzer that instances of dishonesty permeated the history he had been given by Mr GMWT, and he was asked to reflect upon his assessment of the likelihood of reoffending in an offence of dishonesty, Professor Metzer appeared to recognise that his assessment may need to be the subject of revision, but he did indicate it would not be the only factor he would consider.
I do not accept Professor Metzer’s expert opinion that any trauma suffered by Mr GMWT explains the offending instead of motivation by greed, and I do not accept Professor Metzer’s opinion that there are no or very low risk behaviours. I accept the Minister’s ultimate submission about the report that it should be given no weight.
Turning to evidence of rehabilitation, I have had regard to the following certificates evidencing Mr GMWT’s participation in rehabilitative, educative or self-improvement courses and activities:

Kairos Short Course Program[29]

14 June 2024

Breathe S.M.A.R.T. Stress management and rehabilitation training[30]

25 June 2024

OARS Community Transitions Gambling Relapse Prevention 2024[31]

25 March 2024

Department for Correctional Services Positive Psychology – Inside Out[32]

(undated)

Salvation Army – Positive Lifestyle Program[33]

10 July 2024

Prison Fellowship Australia – Change on the Inside[34]

13 September 2024

OARS Community Transitions One on One Counselling

23 May 2024

TAFE SA Provide First Aid[35]

13 November 2024

TAFE SA Prepare to work safely in construction industry[36]

4 December 2024

TAFE SA Provide cardiopulmonary resuscitation[37]

28 November 2024

Carey Training Out2Work Program[38]

28 February 2025

SMART Recovery – self management of addictive behaviours

28 April 2025

[29] HB70.
[30] HB71.
[31] HB72, HB74, HB104, HB105, HB606.
[32] HB73.
[33] HB75, HB76.
[34] HB77.
[35] HB168, HB608.
[36] HB169, HB609.
[37] HB170, HB610.
[38] HB173, HB607.

I have also examined the records available to me regarding Mr GMWT’s behaviour in prison. There are no adverse incidents of significance, and generally speaking the records indicate that Mr GMWT is well behaved in prison. I consider that the evidence of Mr GMWT engaging in rehabilitative and self-improvement courses as outlined above, combined with records confirming his good behaviour in prison reflects well on Mr GMWT. The subject matters of the various courses undertaken by Mr GMWT, while demonstrating he is making the best of his time in prison, appear to have limited nexus with the circumstances of his offending however. Nonetheless, I take these matters positively into account.
Finally, I have had regard to the evidence before me regarding the opinions and assessments of third parties and family members of Mr GMWT’s character and qualities.
The sentencing judge also acknowledged many letters of support and acknowledged there were many members of the community that hold Mr GMWT in high regard and speak of his good qualities.
Ms L is Mr GMWT’s partner. She provided letters to the Department and the Tribunal,[39] and gave evidence in person. Personal correspondence between her and Mr GMWT during his imprisonment has been submitted. As submitted by counsel for the Minister, she is an impressive person and was an impressive witness. It is clear from her account of meeting Mr GMWT and explaining why she has remained committed to the relationship to this point notwithstanding the difficulties and distress Mr GMWT’s offending has placed on her that she sees many qualities in him that are not evident in the course of his offending or his behaviour towards the court during his trial. She views Mr GMWT as a caring, kind and genuine person who assisted her during a difficult experience in her life showing kindness and willingness to help someone in need. She met Mr GMWT while he was on bail, and said that he had explained his involvement in the offending before she committed to the relationship. She would not be drawn in her evidence as to how she could reconcile what he had told her in this regard with his conduct towards the court, or what this might indicate as to his capacity for dishonesty. Ms L said that while he has been in prison, he has expressed his remorse and she has witnessed how it has affected him emotionally. Ms L believes that Mr GMWT’s past mistakes should not define him and she is confident he will continue to be a dedicated, law-abiding and contributing member of the community. I will return to Ms L’s evidence later in these reasons.
[39] HB78, HB98, HB564, HB565.
I have noted and take into account the submissions that Mr GMWT’s relationship with Ms L is likely to be a protective factor operating to dissuade Mr GMWT from further offending.
Other statements of personal support have been received by the Department or by the Tribunal from Mr GMWT’s sister describing him as a person of integrity, dedication and responsibility,[40] another sister who says he is known for his honesty, responsibility and dedication,[41] his friend Mr K who gave evidence to the Tribunal who states he is hardworking, helpful and friendly and very apologetic for his past mistake.[42] Mr K gave evidence to the Tribunal and explained that he was the main conduit of communication as to Mr GMWT’s circumstances to his parents in Pakistan, particularly his father, who were very worried about him.
[40] HB79.
[41] HB80.
[42] HB81, HB617.
Mr A believes Mr GMWT made a mistake in his youth, but attests to his good character and strong moral values, pointing out his education and self-improvement while in prison demonstrates his rehabilitation. [43] Mr S is also Mr GMWT’s friend, and says he is confident in Mr GMWT’s inherent goodness and potential for growth, as he has shown qualities such as honesty, kindness and responsibility. He says that he believes Mr GMWT has the potential to turn his life around. Similar sentiments are expressed in a letter of support from Mr R,[44] and Mr Az.[45]
[43] HB82.
[44] HB85.
[45] HB86.
Another sister, resident in Dubai, says he has a wonderful personality and is hardworking.[46] The offending is described by Ms K as isolated and she is pretty confident he will never repeat any such activities. Another sister, Ms Z highlights Mr GMWT’s strong support system in his family, friends and mentors and believes he is capable of turning his life around.[47]
[46] HB94.
[47] HB96.
Mr GMWT’s mother writes vouching for her son’s good character and assures he will not engage in criminal activity in the future.[48]
[48] HB97.
Dr B is a retired General Practitioner, who met Mr GMWT through being the landlord to one of his friends.[49] He found him to be bright and cheerful, well-motivated and positively occupied. He was asked to visit Mr GMWT when Mr GMWT was on remand, but was unable to. Dr B doesn’t know the details of Mr GMWT’s sentence, but feels it would be a sad outcome if he were to be deported. He offers to provide counselling to Mr GMWT should Mr GMWT request it.
[49] HB568.
I have taken all those statements into account. Aspects of the statements attesting to Mr GMWT’s honesty and inherent good moral character are very difficult to reconcile against the circumstances and gravity of the convictions for money laundering, but it is clear that these people see a different side to Mr GMWT, and I take that into account. It is quite clear, as observed by the sentencing judge, that Mr GMWT is indeed an intelligent and hard-working individual.
Having taken into account and reflected on all the sources of information that might inform on the likelihood of Mr GMWT reoffending, I have formed the view that to describe it as low, or as so low that it may be safely disregarded, would be to inappropriately disregard the nature of the offending as an offence of dishonesty and the sustained and demonstrated dishonesty identified by the sentencing judge in Mr GMWT’s response to his charges and the misdirection as to the circumstances of the offending Mr GMWT appears to have given Professor Metzer which has formed, in part, the basis of his opinion as to low likelihood of reoffending which I have rejected.
I have taken into account that Mr GMWT was on bail pending trial for a significant period of time, and there is no evidence of further offending during that period. Any positive weight I might place on that observation however is counter-balanced by Mr GMWT’s subsequent conduct of lying almost from start to finish (under oath) during his trial despite having a number of years to reflect upon his situation.
Instead, I have formed the view that there is a moderate likelihood that Mr GMWT would commit further offences of dishonesty. The risk in the sense of likelihood is not so low as it may be safely disregarded in my view and I am not comfortable, in light of the evidence I have examined, to otherwise describe the likelihood as low. Mr GMWT has, unfortunately, demonstrated himself to be a thoroughly dishonest person capable of long term and central involvement in a sophisticated scheme of deception. Although I accept other people see a different side to him, it would be naïve of me to place determinative weight on Mr GMWT’s expressions of remorse and contrition, and as mentioned above I have not accepted the submissions made about the cultural context or Mr GMWT’s naivety as an explanation for the offending. There are indicators perhaps that the gravity of consequence for Mr GMWT has come as a surprise to him, but this of itself does not reduce my assessment of likelihood of reoffending to low.
Ultimately, I consider that the risk, in the sense of likelihood, of Mr GMWT reoffending is moderate and cannot be safely disregarded. The risk, in the sense of gravity of harm if similar offending is repeated is serious. I consider the community would have a very low tolerance therefore for the risk, in the composite sense of the term, presented by Mr GMWT’s ongoing presence in Australia.
I consider that the nature and seriousness of Mr GMWT’s criminal conduct to date is serious, and the risk to the community should he commit further offences is such that I have little tolerance for it as part of the overall evaluative exercise with which I am engaged. I place significant weight against revoking the visa cancellation having regard to the primary consideration of protecting the Australian community.
Family violence committed by the non-citizen
Clause 8.2 of the Direction provides that decision-makers, such as the Tribunal, must have regard to family violence perpetrated by the non-citizen when deciding whether to revoke a visa cancellation decision.
There is no evidence that Mr GMWT has perpetrated family violence. This consideration is therefore not relevant, carrying neutral weight.
The strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia
This consideration requires the Tribunal to have regard to the strength, nature and duration of the Applicant’s ties to Australia. Clause 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.
Immediate family
Mr GMWT and Ms L are partners, with their relationship as partners being registered under the Relationships Register Act (SA) 2016.[50] Ms L gave detailed evidence at the hearing regarding the circumstances in which the relationship formed and how it progressed. I am satisfied the relationship is genuine.
[50] HB165.
Ms L came to Australia in 2020 as a student. In recounting her background, Ms L described obtaining tertiary qualifications in Vietnam which provided a foundation for her to study a Master’s degree in an allied health field at Flinders University. She arrived in Australia by herself, and after arrival decided she wished to migrate permanently and pursued a migration pathway based on her qualifications. She was granted Australian citizenship on 30 November 2024.[51]
[51] HB163.
She and Mr GMWT met in mid-2021. This I note was after Mr GMWT’s first arrest and while he was on bail awaiting trial. The relationship progressed a few months after they met. Mr GMWT and Ms L did not and have not cohabitated. In this regard, Ms L was living in student accommodation and then pursued her allied health career in Whyalla. In her evidence, she also explained there were certain cultural constraints in her and Mr GMWT cohabitating before marriage. She was working in Whyalla at the time of Mr GMWT’s second arrest when his bail was revoked after the verdict in June 2023. Ms L relocated to Adelaide a few months after Mr GMWT’s arrest.
In her evidence, Ms L described her hopes for the future with Mr GMWT. She described wanting to marry and have children. She has purchased a house in metropolitan Adelaide which is mortgaged. While the house is held in her name, she hopes Mr GMWT will assist her in purchasing the house in the future.
Ms L says she has no family in Australia. She struck me as being somewhat isolated in this regard. Although the relationship with Mr GMWT is not particularly longstanding, I accept that her relationship with Mr GMWT was a central support for her, and his incarceration and absence has been very difficult for her. I accept that she has visited Mr GMWT in prison essentially every weekend.
Ms L confirmed in her evidence that Mr GMWT’s incarceration and absence has been very hard on her. As mentioned, she has no family in Australia and has to deal with this situation on her own. Ms L’s mental health has suffered. Medical evidence establishes that she has been diagnosed with Depression and Anxiety with panic disorder. She takes medication and undergoes psychological counselling.[52] The psychologist reports that her symptoms developed in response to her partner’s imprisonment and her isolation. Her distress causes significant impairment. Ms L says she has recently taken unpaid leave from work as she has been unable to cope.
[52] HB153-162.
Ms L had difficulty responding to the line of questions she was asked regarding what she would do if Mr GMWT’s visa remained cancelled. Form the questioning however, and although Ms L struggles to acknowledge it, it seems clear that her relationship with Mr GMWT would not survive his removal from Australia to Pakistan were that to happen. Ms L said she wishes to remain in Australia and could not see how she could live in Pakistan. She said she hasn’t yet made up her mind.
There are no other persons who could be described as members of Mr GMWT’s immediate family in Australia who are citizens, permanent resident or otherwise have a right to remain indefinitely in Australia.
The impact of a decision to refuse to revoke the visa cancellation would have a highly adverse impact on Ms L. Although it would not change matters in the short term, as Mr GMWT has considerable time left on his sentence and before he is eligible for parole, the ultimate removal of Mr GMWT from Australia would, in my assessment, almost inevitably lead to the end of the genuine partner relationship between Ms L and Mr GMWT, with the consequences that the aspirations described by Ms L for the relationship would not come to pass. The medical evidence also leads me to predict that such a decision would continue to serve as a stressor impacting profoundly on Ms L’s mental health and wellbeing.
I have placed significant weight on the adverse impact of not revoking the visa cancellation on Ms L.
I must also consider the strength, nature and duration of other ties Mr GMWT has to the Australian community. In doing so, I must have regard to how long Mr GMWT has resided in Australia, including whether he arrived as a young child, with more or less weight being given depending on whether the non-citizen began offending soon after arriving in Australia and where the non-citizen has spent time contributing positively to the community, and the strength nature and duration of any family or social links with Australian citizens, permanent residents or people with an indefinite right to remain in Australia.

The respondent advanced a submission that placed the strength, nature and duration of Mr GMWT’s ties to Australia in context. First it must be observed that Mr GMWT has only held one limited duration substantive visa as a student. He was an applicant for a further limited duration visa and the holder of a non-substantive bridging visa. He was not a permanent resident of Australia, although I understand he aspired to become one, and but for his offending and the consequential visa cancellation was on the path to do so.
The Respondent observed that the offending for which Mr GMWT was charged occurred about three years after Mr GMWT’s arrival. In this way, he has been in Australia for some 8 years, with three of those years on bail and two of those years in prison.
Proceeding on a construction that the text of clause 8.3.(2)(a) requires decision makers to have regard to how long a non-citizen has resided in Australia in the sense of been present in Australia (as opposed to other more strict notions of residency), I consider that less weight should be given to Mr GMWT’s other ties to Australia. I consider he began offending soon after his arrival in Australia.
As to what those other ties include, I have taken into account the statement of friends and associates in Australia, Mr GMWT’s involvement in establishing business in Australia and his completion of an undergraduate degree in Australia.
While I have taken into account the statements of friends and associates,[53] I do not consider the ties represented by these associations to be particularly deep or significant.
[53] HB617 (Mr K), HB167 (Mr R), HB568 (Dr B).
Mr GMWT’s association with a business is somewhat significant in my view, although some uncertainty exists as to the extent to which Mr GMWT was centrally involved in the establishment and operation of the business.
ASIC records establish that the corporate entity “Z Pty Ltd” was established on 23 May 2022.[54] At the time of its registration Mr K was the Director and Secretary and owned all 100 shares. Financial records in the form of Business Activity Statements show that the entity had a turnover of substance: sales were $146,627 in the September 2022 quarter, $266,782 in the December 2022 quarter and $334,892 in the March 2023 quarter.[55]
[54] HB547.
[55] HB106.
The sentencing remarks mention that Mr GMWT had set up his own business (identifying Z Pty Ltd) in 2021, and Mr GMWT had 11 employees and 13 trucks.[56] The sentencing remarks identify that the business was a distribution business with well-known supermarkets, beverage companies and courier companies as clients. The context of the sentencing court’s reference to these matters is in relation to identifying favourable matters in relation to Mr GMWT’s personal circumstances.
[56] At HB43.
Returning to the ASIC records, they establish that Mr GMWT replaced Mr K as the Director and Secretary on 28 February 2023, and the shares were transferred to him also on that date. This date falls after Mr GMWT’s trial, but before the verdict. The ASIC records contradict the notion that Mr GMWT established, controlled or owned Z Pty Ltd in 2021 as the court appears to have been told.
In his evidence, Mr K was asked about these matters, and ultimately said that he was paid approximately $30,000 by Mr GMWT for the transfer of control and his interest in Z Pty Ltd. Prior to this evidence, Mr K explained that he wished to relinquish involvement in the business because he had moved on in his vocation as a design engineer and no longer wished to devote the time he once had devoted to the business.
Earlier in his evidence, Mr GMWT was asked about the ASIC records tending to demonstrate that until February 2023 the Director, Secretary and owner of the shares in the company was Mr K and not him. Mr GMWT said he was running the company before that date and Mr K was his partner. He said he had operated the business under his own Australian Business Number (that is, in a personal capacity) before the business grew and registration was required with ASIC (that is, incorporation of a company).
Mr GMWT was recalled so he could comment on the evidence given by Mr K to the effect that a transaction of $30,000 had taken place leading to him being appointed Director and Shareholder and for the transfer of the shares, and also to comment specifically on a concern emerging from the chronology that the court may have been misled in sentencing as to Mr GMWT’s involvement and the timing of him establishing Z Pty Ltd.
On this issue, Mr GMWT said that because of his trial in 2022, he did not want anything under his name. Prior to that, the business had operated under his personal ABN. However, in 2023, Mr K no longer wanted to have anything to do with the business and so the transactions were undertaken naming him as director, secretary and transferring the shares. Mr GMWT confirmed he had paid Mr K $30,000 but emphasised that prior to that they had operated the business together. Mr GMWT said that when the judge had said that he had started Z Pty Ltd in 2021, that statement had been inaccurate.
In submissions, the Minister’s representative stated that it was not contended that Mr GMWT was not involved in the company in any way prior to the transactions of 2023, but the company was not owned by him and he was not an office holder until that time. Ultimately, and although not free from doubt in my mind, I proceed on the basis that Mr GMWT and Mr K did establish a business from about 2021, which incorporated to the exclusion of Mr GMWT in 2023, but Mr GMWT then purchased at least Mr K’s share in the business in February 2023 by acquiring control of the company.
I accept that the business was successful, and it employed a number of courier drivers. It demonstrates a tie to the Australian community of substance for Mr GMWT in that he had a role in employing a number of other persons, including for example Mr R who wrote in positive terms about being employed by the company.[57]
[57] HB167.
I place favourable weight on Mr GMWT’s ties to the Australian community through his business. That weight however is diminished for two reasons. First, as mentioned, I am to give less weight to such ties where a non-citizen began offending soon after arriving in Australia, and I find that to be the case with Mr GMWT. Second, as was put to Mr GMWT, the corporations law now provides for his automatic disqualification from being a director of a company on account of his conviction for an offence of dishonesty. His ties to the community as a director of the company will therefore be severed, although I accept it would be open to Mr GMWT to remain an employee and involved in the company’s operations.
Finally, Mr GMWT mentioned in passing that he had occasionally undertaken charitable work in support of cancer research, as I understood it raising money or selling merchandise. I take that into account notwithstanding the absence of corroborating evidence, but view it to be of minimal substance.
Ultimately however, the strength, nature and duration of Mr GMWT’s ties to Australia carry significant weight in favour of revoking the decision to cancel his visa on account of the highly adverse impact of such a decision on Mr L. I attach some further weight to this factor having regard to Mr GMWT’s association with the business now operated by Z Pty Ltd, but restate it is the impact on Ms L of the decision that carries most weight in the overall evaluative task I am undertaking.
Best interests of minor children in Australia affected by the decision
Paragraph 8.4 of Direction No 110 requires the Tribunal to consider the best interests of minor children in Australia affected by the decision. Under paragraph 8.4, the Tribunal must make a determination whether cancellation or refusal under s 501, is or is not, in the best interests of children who are under 18 at the time the decision is expected to be made.
No case or evidence is presented identifying any minor children in Australia who will be affected by the decision. Mr GMWT confirmed this to be the case in his oral evidence. This consideration is therefore not relevant and as such carries no weight in the overall evaluative task I am undertaking.
Expectations of the Australian Community
The fifth primary consideration requires the Tribunal to weigh the expectations of the Australian community. Paragraph 8.5(1) of Direction No 110 provides that the Australian community expects non-citizens to obey Australian laws while in Australia. The Direction goes on to state that 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) 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.
Direction No 110 notes that the Australian community expects that the Australian Government can and should refuse entry to non-citizens, or cancel their visas, if they raise serious character concerns through conduct, in Australia or elsewhere, of particular kinds. The paragraph directs that, in particular, the Australian community expects that the Australian Government should cancel a non-citizen’s visa if they raise serious character concerns through specific conduct listed in sub-paras 8.5(2)(a)–(f). Those particularised types of harm generally reflect the types of conduct identified in para 8.1.1 as conduct which is considered ‘very seriously’ or ‘serious’.
One such category of offending is identified to be serious crimes against the elderly or other vulnerable person in the form of fraud. As mentioned above, I have no direct evidence identifying or addressing the vulnerabilities of the victims of Mr GMWT’s offending, being those individuals who found themselves scammed at the front end of the scheme, but there is every potential if not likelihood that some of those victims would have been vulnerable and/or elderly. It is ultimately sufficient in my view to restate that I have assessed Mr GMWT’s offending as serious.
Paragraph 8.5(3) of Direction No 110 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.
This consideration will, in most cases, weigh against revocation of a cancellation decision if that expectation has been breached.
In my view the expectations of the Australian community as a whole have indeed been breached in terms of Mr GMWT’s failure to obey Australian laws while in Australia by committing serious offences of dishonesty.
I have no hesitation in finding that the Australian community would expect that Mr GMWT’s visa would remain cancelled on the basis of the expressed norms provided for in the Direction. I consider that the expectation of the Australian community weighs heavily against revocation in the context of the overall evaluative task I am undertaking.
Other considerations
Paragraph 9 of Direction No 110 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;
d)impact on Australian business interests
Legal consequences of decision under section 501 or 501CA
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.[58]
[58] Direction No 110 para 9.1.
While this consideration in Direction No 110 refers to non-refoulement obligations, it also makes reference to detention and removal, highlighting that there are a range of legal consequences of a decision not to revoke the cancellation of the Applicant’s visa. The consequences of a visa refusal or cancellation under s 501 or related provisions include:
·Unlawful status;
·The likelihood of becoming subject to detention and/or removal;[59]
·Refusal of other visa applications and cancellation of other visas;[60]
·A prohibition on applying for other visas;[61] and
·Periods of exclusion and special return criteria may apply.[62]
[59] Migration Act ss 189, 196, 197C, 198.
[60] Migration Act s 501F.
[61] Migration Act s 501E.
[62] Migration Act s 503, special return criteria (SRC) 5001.
Generally, if a visa is cancelled its former holder becomes an unlawful non-citizen immediately after cancellation.[63] Under section 189 of the Act, the Applicant must be detained and removed as soon as reasonably practicable under section 198 of the Act.
[63] Migration Act s 15.
If the cancellation of the visa is not revoked, and subject to the discussion below regarding Mr GMWT raising fears of harm if returned to Pakistan, Mr GMWT will remain in prison until at least December 2026, whereupon he might be paroled to immigration detention. Alternatively, if Mr GMWT is not granted parole, he will remain in prison until he has served his sentence, potentially until mid-2029. If his visa cancellation is not revoked, he will remain an unlawful non-citizen and subject to detention under section 189 of the Act for the purpose of effecting removal. He will be removed from Australia to Pakistan as soon as practicable under section 198 of the Act.
As his country of nationality is Pakistan, and again subject to the discussion below regarding Mr GMWT’s claimed fear of harm, there is no evidence of any practical difficulty in effecting removal to Pakistan. I am satisfied that the legal consequences of a decision not to revoke the visa cancellation is that Mr GMWT will be removed to Pakistan, albeit not for some time given he continues to serve his sentence of imprisonment and will continue to do so for some time to come.
Section 501E of the Act operates to very substantially restrict Mr GMWT’s ability to apply for another visa while in the migration zone. Furthermore, certain visas (indeed most classes of visa) are subject to special return criteria 5001(c) which provides for ‘permanent’ exclusion if a visa has previously been cancelled under section 501 of the Act and there has been no revocation under section 501CA, although special return criteria cease to apply if the Minister acts personally to grant a permanent visa to a person whose visa was cancelled under section 501 of the Act.
In Rano v Minister for Home Affairs, Minister for Cyber Security (2 September 2024) [2024] FCA 1003, the Court concluded that the applicant’s indefinite exclusion from travel to, entry and (or) remaining in Australia was a legal consequence of a decision to cancel his visa…and [a]ccordingly was a consideration the Minister was bound to take into account (at [14]). However, the Court in Rano recognised that the outcome was an obvious outcome and was plainly intended from the overall statutory scheme. It was not necessary to expressly mention it because it looms large and forms part of the implicit, if not explicit, assumption and backdrop against which all considerations are to be evaluated.
As the practical operation of these provisions are a legal consequence of a decision not to revoke a visa cancellation, and in any event, I record for completeness that I am acutely aware of them and take them into account.
Mr GMWT has advanced certain matters that may be understood to be claims seeking to engage Australia’s non-refoulement claims in respect of Pakistan. Mr GMWT claims that his elder brother and his elder brother’s criminal associates will harm him if he is returned to Pakistan because the detection of the offending has resulted in the confiscation of money and property which Mr GMWT’s elder brother and the criminal associates continue to demand that he pay to them. It appears to be a further aspect of Mr GMWT’s claim in this regard that Pakistani authorities will not protect him, and his family’s presence will not be a protective factor. In submissions in reply, a further aspect of the claim was expressed in the context of Mr GMWT having been seen to have betrayed his brother.[64]
[64] HB603.
The claim was elaborated upon by Mr GMWT under cross-examination. I have identified the following particulars that may be material to the claim on review of the recording of his evidence:
·Mr GMWT explained that although his elder brother lived in the same house as his parents, his parents didn’t like him because he had quit school.
·Mr GMWT said he had not asked his brother what he was doing with his time, but continued to look up to him.
·Mr GMWT said he has to give his elder brother $65,000 and if he didn’t his brother would torture him.
·Mr GMWT said the threat was made by his brother sending his mother a message.
·At the time of his trial he was in communication with his brother who had assured him everything was alright and he should plead not guilty.
·Mr GMWT said that his brother was running the scheme.
·Mr GMWT said he would have been tortured if he told the truth, based on there being dangerous people back home, and his brother’s friends are all dangerous people.
·Mr GMWT said he was not frightened to return to Pakistan on the previous occasions he had been, as his brother had only made the threats after the verdict.
·Mr GMWT said he was threatened then because his brother needed his money back.
·Mr GMWT said his mother has told him not to return.
·Mr GMWT has not discussed the issue with his father because he goes to work at a different time.
·He doesn’t think his mother and father would be in a position to help him because of the culture and the environment and everyone is busy in their own lives.
·His father used to be the head of the family but now it’s his brother.
·He had considered telling the truth to the court but was under too much pressure from his brother, and his brother had threatened to torture their mother when Mr GMWT was considering telling the truth.
Mr GMWT has provided the Tribunal with Country Information pertaining to Pakistan produced by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (‘DFAT’) (the DFAT Report).[65] No particular aspect of that report was referred to in submissions or in relation to Mr GMWT’s claims, although references were made to widespread corruption in Pakistan as being a component of the explanation about why Mr GMWT had offended, and then lied to the court.[66] The DFAT Report supports the proposition that corruption in Pakistan, both petty and serious, is prolific. Other aspects of the DFAT report which may touch on themes raised by Mr GMWT’s claims include the extract pertaining to violent and organised crime,[67] and the capacity and effectiveness of the Police in the context of state protection.[68] I have had regard to the DFAT Report.
[65] DFAT Country Information Report Pakistan 30 April 2025 at HB460.
[66] Applicants’ submissions in reply at HB597.
[67] HB486.
[68] HB538.
Mr GMWT’s claims invite recognition of a non-refoulement obligation in respect of Pakistan through engaging Australia’s protection obligations in respect of him. He has not made a claim for a protection visa, but indicated he has been considering it subject to the outcome of these proceedings. It follows that there has been no detailed claim, and it appeared to me in observing and reviewing Mr GMWT’s evidence under cross examination that much of the detail of Mr GMWT’s claim was being made up on the spot. There has been no protection finding.

The Direction points out that subsection 197C(1) of the Act provides that it is irrelevant for the purpose of section 198 whether Australia has non-refoulement obligations in respect of an unlawful non-citizen. The Direction specifically addresses circumstances where a non-citizen is covered by a ‘protection finding’ as defined in section 197C of the Act. In these circumstances, section 198 of the Act does not authorise or require removal of the non-citizen to a country in respect of which a protection finding has been made, meaning that a non-citizen cannot be removed to that country in breach of non-refoulement obligations even if an adverse decision is made under section 501 of the Act. They will instead remain an unlawful non-citizen and must remain in immigration detention unless and until they are granted another visa or are removed to a country other than the country by reference to which the protection finding was made. I take note of these matters.
The Direction goes on to state that where it is open for a person to apply for a protection visa, it is not necessary to consider non-refoulement issues in the same level of detail in the context of a section 501CA process (as here) as such issues will be considered in a protection visa application, where the process is specifically designed for that process. Having considered the person’s representations, the decision-maker may choose to proceed on the basis that if and when the person applies for a protection visa, any protection claims they have will be assessed before consideration is given to any character or security concerns associated with them.
In Plaintiff M1/2021 and Minister for Home Affairs [2022] HCA 17 the majority of the High Court answered the question of law stated for the Court as follows:
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.[69]
[69] Plaintiff M1/2021 and Minister for Home Affairs [2022] HCA 17 at [42].
Thus, deferral of the assessment of whether the Applicant is owed non-refoulement obligations is ‘one available outcome’ for the Tribunal. The Minister submitted that in all the circumstances this was a matter where that approach should be adopted. I accept that submission.
I am required to ‘read, identify, understand and evaluate’ Mr GMWT’s representations that seek to engage Australia’s non-refoulement obligations.
In respect of a decision-maker’s approach to representations, the High Court said that what is necessary will depend on the ‘nature, form and content of the representations’ and that the ‘requisite level of engagement…will vary, among other things according to the length, clarity and degree of relevance of the representations’.[70]
[70] Ibid at [25].
There are two central difficulties in understanding and evaluating Mr GMWT’s claims. The first is, as I have observed, the impression I formed that the particulars and detail of the claims were being made up on the spot in response to questions under cross-examination seeking further and reasonable detail. The core proposition in the claim is also relatively recently articulated, there being no record of the circumstances around Mr GMWT’s brother and the alleged gang not being mentioned to the sentencing judge. I note the core elements of the claim are set out in Mr GMWT’s request for revocation of the visa cancellation.[71] The two central difficulties in understanding and evaluating the claim is that they have not been fully articulated with care and precision, and there will inevitably be a real question as to whether Mr GMWT’s fears are genuinely held in circumstances where any decision maker will be justified in approaching the credibility of Mr GMWT’s evidence cautiously. Consideration of issues such as the capacity of Pakistani authorities to protect Mr GMWT (assuming his core claims were to be accepted) and Mr GMWT’s capacity to relocate within Pakistan to avoid harm would be further issues a decision maker would need to consider.
[71] HB137.
I consider that Mr GMWTs claims will face barriers in being accepted as establishing a non-refoulement obligation in respect of him. In my limited evaluation, the primary barrier will be whether Mr GMWT’s claims can be accepted as genuine.
Having evaluated Mr GMWT’s claims to that limited extent, and restricted to the instant purpose, I would defer assessment of his claims under the more appropriate mechanisms available for such claims to be considered when and if Mr GMWT were to apply for a protection visa.
Having regard to the legal consequences of the decision, I have identified that those consequences would be immigration detention at the completion of his sentence or upon parole and then removal to Pakistan as soon as it were practicable to do so, subject only to Mr GMWT’s entitlement to apply for a protection visa. I do not consider that anything arises from the analysis of the legal consequences of the decision that falls outside the implicit, if not explicit, assumption and backdrop against which all considerations are to be evaluated. I take that into account as part of the overall evaluative process with which I am engaged.
Extent of impediments if removed
Paragraph 9.2 of Direction No 110 provides that taking into account the matters identified in sub-paragraphs 9.2(1)(a), (b) and (c) of Direction No 110, the Tribunal must consider the extent to which the Applicant would face an impediment or impediments 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 sub-paragraphs 9.2(1)(a), (b) and (c) are:
(a)The Applicant’s age and health;
(b)Whether there are substantial language or cultural barriers; and
(c)Any social, medical and/or economic support available to the Applicant in their country.
Aside from the claims Mr GMWT has raised in relation to his fear of harm from his brother and his brother’s associates, Mr GMWT is demonstrably young, intelligent and capable. He is also highly educated. Nothing arises on the evidence before me to amount to concerns over Mr GMWT’s age that would present an impediment if removed.
I note Professor Metzer diagnosed Mr GMWT with post-traumatic stress disorder and recommended therapy. The DFAT Report addresses the availability of mental health treatment in Pakistan, indicating that government run hospitals have mental health units and medications to treat mental illness is often provided free of charge. The DFAT Report observes however that the mental health workforce in Pakistan is limited and 90 percent of people living with common mental health conditions do so untreated. I am to consider the extent of impediments if removed in the context of what is generally available to other citizens of Pakistan. I accept that if Mr GMWT wishes to engage in therapy for his PTSD as recommended by Professor Metzer, the resource limitations referred to in the DFAT Report may present an impediment. I take that into account.
Mr GMWT has spent 8 years in Australia, having previously been raised and educated in Pakistan. I am not satisfied that there are any language or cultural barriers that would serve as an impediment to Mr GMWT establishing himself and maintaining basic living standards.
As to whether there is social, medical and/or economic support available to Mr GMWT in Pakistan, I note Mr GMWT told Professor Meltzer that he does not have much family support in Pakistan, and only threats from his brother. Similarly, Mr GMWT gave evidence under cross examination that he did not want to talk to anyone back home, and it would be hard to seek help back home. Mr GMWT’s evidence in that regard is inconsistent with the fact that a number of letters of support have been provided by his siblings and one by his mother. Similarly, Mr K gave evidence that he had been in contact with Mr GMWT’s family in Pakistan throughout the trial up until relatively recently, explaining that his family were worried for him.
I am satisfied that Mr GMWT will be able to access a degree of social and family support in Pakistan such that there will be no particular impediment in establishing himself or maintaining basic living standards in that regard. I reject Mr GMWT’s evidence suggesting that his family (excluding his elder brother for the purpose of this aspect of the analysis) would not offer and provide support for him on his return.
There is nothing to indicate that Mr GMWT will require economic support in Pakistan. As mentioned, Mr GMWT will be able to access medical support generally available to other citizens of Pakistan.
Mr GMWT’s submissions on this factor point to Ms L circumstances, and submit that she would face many impediments in relocating to Pakistan. This submission is advanced in response to the observation of the Minister that it would be open to Mr GMWT and Ms L to live together in Pakistan or a third country. As indicated above, I am satisfied that Ms L will not live in Pakistan, but the various impediments to her doing so are not relevant to this consideration. I accept that separation from Ms L if Mr GMWT is removed to Pakistan would present a significant psycho-emotional stressor on Mr GMWT, but I have no basis to conclude it would impact on him establishing himself or maintaining basic living standards in light of the family and social support I find he has in Pakistan.
Overall however, I accept that there are some limited impediments to Mr GMWT’s removal caused by the reduced access to therapy for his PTSD, and the psycho-emotional stress that would inevitably be caused by his separation from Ms L. I place some weight in favour of revoking the decision to cancel the visa on this impediment, in the context of the overall evaluative task I am undertaking.
Impact on Australian business interests
Paragraph 9.3 of Direction No 110 states:
(1)Decision-makers must consider any impact on Australian business interests if the non-citizen is not allowed to enter or remain in Australia, noting that an employment link would generally only be given weight where the decision under section 501 or 501CA would significantly compromise the delivery of a major project, or delivery of an important service in Australia.
I have assessed Mr GMWT’s involvement and association with the business now operated through Z Pty Ltd. Accepting that Mr GMWT was instrumental in establishing that business, and subject to apparently being disqualified from being a director of the company, is currently the director, secretary and sole shareholder of Z Pty Ltd.
Ms GMWT however is a number of years into a six-year (head) sentence of imprisonment, and his capacity to operate and influence Z Pty Ltd must be understood to have been restricted accordingly. In many respects therefore, the impact on Z Pty Ltd if Mr GMWT is not allowed to remain in Australia (at the conclusion of his term of imprisonment) is minimal given he will have by then had little influence over the operation of the business for a number of years.
The submissions made on behalf of Mr GMWT in this regard appear not to appreciate that Mr GMWT is disqualified from being a director of Z Pty Ltd because of his convictions. However, the submissions do point out that Mr GMWT would be able to work for the company on his release and could thus contribute his knowledge and experience to the South Australian economy. I accept that to be the case, and accept there will be adverse impact to Z Pty Ltd in the event Mr GMWT is not allowed to remain in Australia and return to work in the business he helped establish.
Having regard to the Direction however, an employment link would generally only be given weight where the decision would significantly compromise the delivery of a major project or delivery of an important service in Australia. Having regard to the nature of the business, and in the absence of any evidence to demonstrate that a decision to refuse to revoke the visa cancellation would significantly compromise the delivery of a major project or delivery of an important service in Australia, I am not satisfied that it would.
I do however accept that there will be a negative impact on the business if Mr GMWT were not allowed to remain in Australia, primarily as he would not be able to practically return to the business he assisted in establish. I place only minimal weight on this consideration however given Mr GMWT will not have worked for the company for many years and his absence would not significantly compromise the delivery of a major project or delivery of an important service in Australia.
I have no evidence of any other business or employment link that may be relevant, and none was identified in submissions.
CONCLUSION
Clause 7 of the Direction sets out the way in which the relevant considerations are to be taken into account and weighed.
There has been extensive judicial consideration on the exercise of balancing and weighing considerations contained in the relevant Ministerial Directions (considering a number of Ministerial Directions preceding the Direction).
The Full Court of the Federal Court in CRNL v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs (‘CRNL’) said:
‘[t]he real burden of the task to be undertaken by a decision-maker who must comply with the Direction [the precursor Direction 90] is to bring together the considerations as part of a single evaluation of their relative significance thereby weighing them all together.’[72]
[72] [2023] FCAFC 138, [23].
I find the guidance from the Court at paragraph [38] is particularly instructive:
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.
In my evaluation, I have identified that the adverse impact of the decision on Ms L should be given very significant weight, and I have done so. To a much lesser degree than that aspect of the case, I have also placed weight in favour of revoking the decision to cancel the visa on the impediments Mr GMWT would face if removed to Pakistan, and the adverse impact on Z Pty Ltd.
However, having regard to the seriousness of the offending, including being satisfied there is a moderate risk of Mr GMWT committing future offences of dishonesty in light of the totality of his behaviour in Australia, and Mr GMWT’s otherwise limited ties to Australia (excluding my considerations regarding Ms L in that regard), I consider that the overall evaluative task I have undertaken points firmly towards refusing to revoke the decision to cancel the visa. I consider the expectations of the community weigh in favour of refusing to revoke the decision to cancel the visa.
To conclude, the sentencing judge observed that Mr GMWT’s offending was a serious example of a serious kind of offending. He played a central role in a sophisticated scheme of deception. Mr GMWT has been in Australia on either a limited duration visa or a bridging visa for only 8 years, with the balance of that time either offending, being on bail pending trial or being in prison.
The impact of a decision to refuse to revoke the decision to cancel the visa represents a personal tragedy for Ms L, which I regret very much. However, as stated, I consider the totality of the evidence and the outcome of the overall evaluative task I am undertaking points firmly to maintaining the cancellation of the visa.
There is not another reason to revoke the decision to cancel Mr GMWT’s visa and the decision under review is affirmed.

180. I certify that the preceding 179 (one hundred and seventy nine) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Senior Member Kennedy.

........................[SGND]................................
Associate

Dated: 5 August 2025

Date of hearing: 24 and 25 July 2025

Applicant’s Representative: Dr Timothy Haines of Emulink Migration and Intercultural Consultancies

Respondent’s Representative: Mr David Brown of the Australian Government Solicitor

Kairos Short Course Program[29]	14 June 2024
Breathe S.M.A.R.T. Stress management and rehabilitation training[30]	25 June 2024
OARS Community Transitions Gambling Relapse Prevention 2024[31]	25 March 2024
Department for Correctional Services Positive Psychology – Inside Out[32]	(undated)
Salvation Army – Positive Lifestyle Program[33]	10 July 2024
Prison Fellowship Australia – Change on the Inside[34]	13 September 2024
OARS Community Transitions One on One Counselling	23 May 2024
TAFE SA Provide First Aid[35]	13 November 2024
TAFE SA Prepare to work safely in construction industry[36]	4 December 2024
TAFE SA Provide cardiopulmonary resuscitation[37]	28 November 2024
Carey Training Out2Work Program[38]	28 February 2025
SMART Recovery – self management of addictive behaviours	28 April 2025

Date of hearing:	24 and 25 July 2025
Applicant’s Representative:	Dr Timothy Haines of Emulink Migration and Intercultural Consultancies
Respondent’s Representative:	Mr David Brown of the Australian Government Solicitor