Haskell and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (Migration) - [2025] ARTA 1415

Haskell and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (Migration) [2025] ARTA 1415 (20 August 2025)
Applicant/s:  Vicky Lee Haskell
Respondent:  Minister for Immigration and Citizenship
Tribunal Number:                2025/3884

Tribunal:Deputy President P Britten-Jones
Place:Sydney (hearing by video)
Date:20 August 2025

Decision:The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and in substitution decides to revoke the cancellation decision made on 10 April 2024.

.....................[SGD]...................................................
Deputy President P Britten-Jones
Catchwords
MIGRATION – Non-revocation under s 501CA(4) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) of the mandatory cancellation of Applicant’s Class TY Subclass 444 Special Category (Temporary) Visa – where the Applicant does not pass the character test – whether there is another reason to revoke the mandatory cancellation – the seriousness of long term drug related offending – Applicant has lived the majority of her life in Australia and has a severely disabled child who needs her care - the decision under review is set aside
Legislation
Migration Act 1958 (Cth)
Cases
Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs v Viane [2021] HCA 41
Plaintiff M1/2021 v Minister for Home Affairs [2022] HCA 17
SZRTN v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2014) 141 ALD 395; [2014] FCA 303
Tanielu v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2014) 225 FCR 424
Secondary Materials
Direction No. 110 – Migration Act 1958 – Direction under section 499: Visa refusal and cancellation under section 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under section 501CA
Statement of Reasons

This is an application for review of a decision to not revoke the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant’s Class TY Subclass 444 Special Category (Temporary) visa (the visa) under s 501(3A) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth).[1]
[1] All references to legislation are to the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) unless otherwise stated.
THE DECISION TO CANCEL THE APPLICANT’S VISA
On 10 April 2024, the Applicant’s visa was mandatorily cancelled (the cancellation decision) by a delegate of the Minister under s 501(3A) on character grounds due to her substantial criminal record and because she was serving a sentence of imprisonment of over 12 months.[2]
[2] G-Documents G67, 333-8.
The Applicant sought revocation of the cancellation decision on 18 April 2024 and made representations in support of revocation.[3]
[3] Ibid G12-13, 87-106.
On 2 June 2025, a delegate of the Minister decided not to revoke the cancellation decision (the non-revocation decision).[4] The Applicant applied to the Tribunal for review of the non-revocation decision on 4 June 2025.[5]The Tribunal heard the matter by video on 11 August 2025.
[4] Ibid G2 16-8.
[5] Ibid G1, 1-15.
LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK
Under s 501(3A), the Minister must cancel a visa that has been granted to a person if:
(a)the Minister is satisfied that the person does not pass the character test because of the operation of paragraph (6)(a) (substantial criminal record), on the basis of paragraph (7)(a), (b) or (c); 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 a Territory.
The character test referred to in s 501(3A) is outlined in s 501(6). Relevantly, s 501(6) provides that a person does not pass the character test if the person has a substantial criminal record (as defined by sub-s (7)). For the purposes of s 501(6)(a), and relevant to this matter, a person has a substantial criminal record if the person has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more.
Where a visa has been cancelled as set out above, the Minister has a power under s 501CA(4)(b) to revoke the cancellation decision if satisfied that the visa holder passes the character test, or that there is another reason why the original decision should be revoked:
501CA Cancellation of visa—revocation of decision under subsection 501(3A) (person serving sentence of imprisonment)
(1) This section applies if the Minister makes a decision (the original decision) under subsection 501(3A) (person serving sentence of imprisonment) to cancel a visa that has been granted to a person.
(2) For the purposes of this section, relevant information is information (other than non‑disclosable information) that the Minister considers:
(a)would be the reason, or a part of the reason, for making the original decision; and
(b)is specifically about the person or another person and is not just about a class of persons of which the person or other person is a member.
(3) As soon as practicable after making the original decision, the Minister must:
(a)give the person, in the way that the Minister considers appropriate in the circumstances:
(i)a written notice that sets out the original decision; and
(ii)particulars of the relevant information; and
(b)invite the person to make representations to the Minister, within the period and in the manner ascertained in accordance with the regulations, about revocation of the original decision.
…
(4) The Minister may revoke the original decision if:
(a)the person makes representations in accordance with the invitation; and
(b)the Minister is satisfied:
(i)that the person passes the character test (as defined by section 501); or
(ii)that there is another reason why the original decision should be revoked.
(Emphasis in original)
Where the cancellation decision is not revoked, the right to have that decision reviewed by the Tribunal is enlivened.
ISSUES BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL
The Applicant does not pass the character test prescribed under s 501(6)(a) as she has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more, and therefore has a ‘substantial criminal record’ as defined under s 501(7). It follows that the Applicant cannot rely on s 501CA(4)(b)(i) to have the mandatory visa cancellation revoked.
Section 501CA(4)(b)(ii) requires the Tribunal to examine the factors for and against revoking a mandatory cancellation decision to assess if there is ‘another reason’ why the cancellation decision should be revoked. This assessment is made by reference to the representations made by the Applicant which I am required to ‘read, identify, understand and evaluate’.[6] As held in Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs v Viane,[7] ‘deciding whether or not to be satisfied that “another reason” exists might be the product of necessary fact finding, or the product of making predictions about the future, or it might be about assessments or characterisation of an applicant’s past offending’.[8]
[6] Plaintiff M1/2021 v Minister for Home Affairs [2022] HCA 17, [24], [36].
[7] [2021] HCA 41.
[8] Ibid [14].
BACKGROUND
The Applicant is a 56-year-old citizen of New Zealand who has been living in Australia since 1988 when she arrived as a 20-year-old. The Applicant’s criminal history begins in 1999 and has been relatively constant up to her final conviction in November 2024.[9] Most offending is for possession of drugs and related offences. The Applicant has a sad history of drug addiction and associated criminal behaviour. Her main concern about being deported is that she has a disabled son with very special needs for whom she cares.
[9] G-Documents G3, 39-48.
Direction 110
The Tribunal is bound by s 499(2A) to comply with any directions made under the Migration Act. In this case, Direction No. 110 – Migration Act 1958 – Direction under section 499: Visa refusal and cancellation under section 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under section 501CA (the Direction) has application.[10]
[10] Direction No. 110 – Migration Act 1958 – Direction under section 499: Visa refusal and cancellation under section 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under section 501CA (‘The Direction’).
For the purposes of deciding whether to refuse a non-citizen’s visa or whether to revoke the mandatory cancellation of a non-citizen’s visa, paragraph 5.2 of the Direction contains several principles that must inform a decision-maker’s application of the Primary and Other Considerations identified in Part 2 where relevant to the decision.
The principles that are found in paragraph 5.2 of the Direction are as follows:
(1) Australia has a sovereign right to determine whether non-citizens who are of character concern are allowed to enter and/or remain in Australia. Being able to come to or remain in Australia is a privilege Australia confers on 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 noncitizen does not pose a measureable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community.
Informed by the principles in paragraph 5.2 above, I must take into account the primary and other considerations in the Direction.
The primary considerations are:[11]
(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.
[11] Ibid at 8.
The other considerations are:[12]
a) legal consequences of the decision;
b) extent of impediments if removed;
c) impact on Australian business interest.
[12] Ibid 9(1).
The primary consideration of the protection of the Australian community is generally to be given greater weight than other primary considerations.[13]
CONSIDERATION
[13] Ibid 7(2).
Protection of the Australian community – 8.1 of Direction 110
When considering the protection of the Australian community, I have regard to the principle that the Government is committed to protecting the Australian community from harm as a result of criminal activity. 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.[14] As required by paragraph 8.1(2) of the Direction, I give consideration below to:
(a)the nature and seriousness of the non-citizen’s conduct to date; and
(b)the risk to the Australian community, should the non-citizen commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct.
[14] Ibid 8.1(1).
The nature and seriousness of the non-citizen’s conduct – 8.1.1 of Direction 110
When considering the nature and seriousness of the Applicant’s conduct, I take into account her criminal activity and other serious conduct. The Applicant has engaged in drug related crime for about 25 years. She was sexually abused when 13 years old and became pregnant as a result. The child was adopted out. There were numerous other traumatic events as a teenager. Her drug use commenced at that time.
The most recent and serious offending was committed from 2019 to 2023 which resulted in convictions for possessing a commercial quantity of dangerous drugs (methylamphetamine). The Applicant had been released from immigration detention in July 2016.[15] She recommenced smoking marijuana and then started using methylamphetamine in late 2018. The Applicant said that her life was out of control in 2019. She was struggling to look after her disabled son but at the same time taking and supplying drugs. She said that she needed money to pay for her son’s accommodation. Her house was searched on 12 August 2023, and she was arrested and taken into custody. She pleaded guilty to many charges and was sentenced in February and September 2024 to terms of imprisonment totalling eight years. She became eligible for parole and was released into immigration detention on 19 March 2025.
[15] G-Documents G64, 326.
The offending from 1999 until 2023 is remarkably frequent. There are 117 convictions recorded against the Applicant for offences the majority of which, if considered individually, would be considered as not very serious but the cumulative effect is very serious.
Other more serious offences were dealt with on 23 November 2010 in the District Court of Queensland when the Applicant pleaded guilty to dishonesty offences including counterfeit money, fraud, stealing and driving unregistered and without a licence. She was sentenced to numerous terms of imprisonment of up to three years.
Whilst on parole for the offences in the above paragraph, the Applicant committed further drug related offences for which she was convicted on 10 December 2013. The sentencing Magistrate referred to her criminal history including drug offences in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2008 and 2011. She was sentenced to nine months’ imprisonment suspended for 18 months.
The Applicant’s addiction to drugs is the immediate contributor to most of her offending but the drug addiction itself stems from the trauma and abuse in her childhood.
Overall, the Applicant engaged in frequent offending for over 20 years during which time the seriousness of the offending increased. The cumulative effect of repeated offending is very significant. There are very frequent and numerous convictions for possession of drugs and utensils or pipes which relate to a personal use of drugs. There are less frequent convictions for possession of drugs for commercial use. The Applicant admitted that she had supplied drugs, but those convictions appear confined to three offences in the period 2019 to 2023 and an earlier offence on 31 July 2007. This offending was very serious with a significant detrimental impact on the community. The fraud and other dishonest offences in 2010 were also serious. All of her offending should be seen in the context of childhood trauma and longstanding abuse of and addiction to drugs.
The custodial sentences imposed by the Courts reflect the serious of her offending. Drugs are a scourge in our society and she was responsible for spreading misery into the community, but most of her offending related to personal drug use as an addict. It is concerning that she reoffended after being formally warned by having her previous visa cancellation revoked. I conclude as to the nature and seriousness of the Applicant’s conduct that it was very serious. It is a very significant factor in terms of whether I am satisfied that there is ‘another reason’ to set aside the non-revocation decision.
The risk to the Australian community should the non-citizen commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct – 8.1.2 of Direction 110
In considering the need to protect the Australian community from harm, I 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 repeated, is so serious that any risk that it may be repeated may be unacceptable.[16] As required by paragraph 8.1.2(2) of the Direction, I also have regard to, cumulatively:
(a)the nature of the harm to individuals or the Australian community should the non-citizen engage in further criminal or other serious conduct; and
(b)the likelihood of the non-citizen engaging in further criminal or other serious conduct, taking into account:
(i)information and evidence on the risk of the non- citizen re-offending; and
(ii)evidence of rehabilitation achieved by the time of the decision, giving weight to time spent in the community since their most recent offence (noting that decisions should not be delayed in order for rehabilitative courses to be undertaken).
[16] The Direction (n 10) at 8.1.2(1).
In terms of measuring the risk to the Australian community, guidance can be found in the decision of Mortimer J (as she then was) in Tanielu v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection.[17] Her Honour said that, to determine an unacceptable risk, one has to evaluate what the consequences of reoffending are as well as the likelihood of the person engaging in that conduct in the future. It is my view based on the following reasons that the Applicant’s conduct and the harm that would be caused if it were to be repeated is not so serious that any risk that it may be repeated is unacceptable.[18]
Nature of harm if further criminal or other serious conduct – 8.1.2(2)(a) of Direction 110
[17] (2014) 225 FCR 424.
[18] The Direction (n 10) 8.1.2(1).
If the Applicant were to engage in further similar criminal offending, the nature of the harm would be very serious because of the impact on the community of drugs and the impact on victims of fraud and dishonest offences.
Likelihood of further criminal or other serious conduct – 8.1.2(2)(b) of Direction 110
The Applicant has expressed remorse for her offending and says that she is motivated to not reoffend primarily because she is committed to looking after her disabled son. The sentencing Judge in September 2024 accepted that she was genuinely remorseful for her offending. Having heard the Applicant’s evidence, I find that her remorse is genuine and that she has a genuine intention to not reoffend so she can continue to look after her son.
In addition to hearing from the Applicant, I have had the benefit of information and evidence from independent and authoritative sources to which I give appropriate weight.[19]
[19] Ibid 7(1).
Amanda Gordon is a clinical psychologist who assessed the Applicant, provided a report dated 14 July 2025 and gave oral evidence to the Tribunal. Ms Gordon was optimistic about the prospects of the Applicant not reoffending but only if she engaged with supports and stayed drug free. She said that the Applicant understood the negative impact of drugs on herself and others in the community and that she had been drug free for two years and was participating in an opioid treatment program administered by Queensland Health and NSW Health. Ms Gordon referred to the very positive motivating factor of caring for her disabled son. This gives the Applicant some purpose in life and will help her avoid a relapse into drugs because she will be meaningfully occupied and has a very strong incentive to not reoffend. She has promised to never let her son down again.

There is an earlier report dated 7 February 2024 from Marissa Piat who provided a pre-sentence psychological assessment.[20] Ms Piat diagnosed the Applicant with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and severe amphetamine-type substance use disorder and severe cannabis use disorder.[21] Ms Gordon agreed with the PTSD but said that, because the Applicant was drug free when she saw her, she no longer suffered from the drug disorders.
[20] G-Documents G49, 217-28.
[21] Ibid 226.
The 2024 and 2025 psychological reports both indicate that the Applicant has made a promising start towards rehabilitation but that significant psychological and other support will be needed in the future. The Applicant has expressed a willingness to engage with available supports which would include a continuation of the opioid treatment program. The Applicant has completed rehabilitative programs available in prison including SSI, LISI, Build Don’t Break Resilience and Turning Point Preparation.[22] In December 2024, she was classified by Queensland Corrective Services as a low security classification, but I note that she was assessed to fall into the category of prisoners who pose a high risk of reoffending. Her institutional behaviour was reported to be of an acceptable standard.
[22] Ibid G28, 163-9.
The sentencing Judge in September 2024 referred to some positive factors that I consider suggest a low to moderate risk of reoffending, namely:[23]
…the steps that you have taken towards your rehabilitation, and the fact that you have engaged with services while you have been in custody to set about making some important changes in your life…
[23] Ibid G5, 62.
The Applicant has indicated a willingness to work with Sisters Inside who have provided some letters of support. I accept what they say in their letter dated 6 December 2024:[24]
Vicki is motivated to ensure she does not slide back into her past life. She is pain-free and has a strong commitment to maintaining her sobriety so she can care for Reece. If released into the community Vicki will be his full-time carer under NDIS.
[24] Ibid G18, 116.
The Applicant’s disabled son receives NDIS benefits and has a two-bedroom flat in Redland Bay where the Applicant can live away from old influences. She has the support of her brother and sister-in-law who live nearby. They gave written and oral evidence to the Tribunal that they are available to help and support the Applicant. The Applicant also has support from Tyniell Brand who was herself received support from the Applicant while in the foster care system. Ms Brand gave written and oral evidence that she is now in a position where she can help her “mum” if she is released into the community. Other support will come from Seona Crick who is a close friend who lives nearby. In my view, the Applicant will be well served by having stable accommodation near her friends who will provide much needed support to her if she is released. This stable environment and support will reduce the likelihood of her reoffending.
It is a positive factor that the Applicant self-referred in January 2025 to participate in the Turning Point Preparatory Program[25] conducted by Queensland Corrective Services where she identified the negative consequences of continuing with her current lifestyle. According to the Completion Report, she created an individual change plan related to the desire to change her whole lifestyle and identified motivating factors to achieve a good and normal life which include maintaining sobriety. She also identified various professional support services she could access as part of her change process.
[25] Respondent’s evidence bundle at 432.
The fact that she obtained early parole is another positive factor.
Ms Gordon said that if the Applicant has the necessary supports then it is likely that she will flourish. In response to the suggestion that she had relapsed when given previous opportunities, Ms Gordon said that it is different now because the Applicant is off the drugs and recognises finally the risk of never seeing her sons again. Ms Gordon’s optimism is not without foundation because of the Applicant’s genuine motivation to be there for her disabled son. Further, the Applicant has already taken steps towards improving her mental and physical health by taking medication and complying with treatment programs. I expect that will continue if she is released into the community because she has already reached out to organise a counsellor and a doctor. Most of the Applicant’s offending took place when she was a drug addict. Now that she is taking steps to deal with her addiction, the underlying cause of her offending is negated.
I believe that there are genuine differences between the situation facing the Applicant today compared to her situation when released into the community back in 2016. The biggest change is the extent of her rehabilitation and the increased incentive to not reoffend because of the deterioration in the condition of her disabled son.[26]
[26] G-Documents, letter from Dr Heshmat dated 25 October 2024 at G54, 254-5.
I take into account that the Applicant’s sobriety has not been tested in the community and that there will be challenges, in particular in terms of caring for her disabled son. However, I consider the need to care for her son is likely to have a net positive impact overall on the Applicant because it provides her with a meaningful purpose and is a strong motivator against reoffending.
Based on the information and evidence on the risk of reoffending and the evidence of rehabilitation achieved to date, it is my view that there is a low to moderate risk of the Applicant reoffending.
Conclusion as to protection of the Australian community – 8.1 of Direction 110
There is both a backward and forward looking assessment to be made when considering the protection of the Australian community. It requires a consideration of the Applicant’s past conduct, namely a lengthy history of drug related offending with some crimes of dishonesty, and a consideration of the low to moderate risk of further offending. I believe that this is a case where the Applicant’s conduct and the harm that would be caused, if it were to be repeated, is not so serious that any risk that it may be repeated is unacceptable. However, there remains a material risk of serious potential harm. I conclude that the protection of the Australian community is a factor that weighs against revocation of the cancellation decision but only moderately so because of the extent of the Applicant’s rehabilitation and the low to moderate risk of the Applicant reoffending.
Family Violence – 8.2 of Direction 110
There is no evidence that the Applicant has engaged in family violence.
Strength, Nature and Duration of Ties to Australia – 8.3 of Direction 110
This primary consideration provides at paragraph 8.3 of Direction 110:
(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.
It would be disastrous for the Applicant’s disabled son if she were removed to New Zealand. The occupational therapist report[27] states that he requires total assistance ‘100% of the time’. There are numerous letters from various health providers and persons in the care industry who note that without his mother’s support, his mental health and overall wellbeing will be significantly impacted.[28] The extent of his disabilities are clear from a video of him which was provided by the Applicant.
[27] Ibid G55, 249.
[28] Ibid G51, G52, G53, G56, G57 and G58.
The son has been counting down the days until the Applicant is released. He was extremely distressed when he learnt that she was not returning to him when she was released on parole in March 2025 but transferred into immigration detention. The Tribunal heard firsthand evidence from Tyniell Brand who, as a foster child, was helped by the Applicant. She feels she owes her life to the Applicant who took her in and sheltered her physically and mothered her emotionally. She will be a great support to the Applicant if she is released. She gave verbal and written evidence that she checked in on the Applicant’s son only three weeks ago and he was distressed that his mother had not returned. The house was a mess, and he had stopped taking his medication despite having the benefit of care being provided through a NDIS plan. Ms Brand said that he is deteriorating and that it was horrible to see him in that state. She said that he needs the Applicant in addition to the NDIS care. Ms Brand’s evidence that his condition is deteriorating and that he needs the Applicant to help with his care is consistent with the letters referred to above from health professionals.
The Applicant has two other sons who are both currently on remand awaiting criminal trials. They have provided letters of support which indicate how devastated they would be if their mother is removed to New Zealand.[29] The Applicant’s father, brother and sister-in-law would also be negatively impacted by her removal. The brother and sister-in-law both gave written and oral evidence to the Tribunal that they have a close relationship with the Applicant and will support her if she released.
[29] Ibid G42, G44 at 210-12.
In addition to the Applicant’s strong ties to family members, the Applicant has strong ties of a long duration with many others in the Australian community including Susan Stewart, Tyniell Brand and Seona Crick who all gave written and oral evidence in support of the Applicant.
The Applicant has been living in Australia for nearly 37 years including almost her whole adult life. She has worked and given birth to four children in Australia. She provided care to her mother before she died. She has had a parenting role with her children, most significantly in recent times with her disabled son. The Applicant arrived in Australia in 1988 and did not commit any offences until 1999 which represents a significant period of positive contribution to the Australian community when she was working and then bringing up her children. As the sentencing Judge said in November 2010, the Applicant went off the rails ‘big time’ from about the age of 33.[30]
[30] Ibid G9, 75.
In conclusion, I consider that this factor weighs in favour of revocation of the cancellation decision. I give this factor very significant weight because of the needs of the Applicant’s disabled son and the disastrous impact on him if his mother is removed to New Zealand. Further weight is given to this factor because the Applicant has spent nearly the whole of her adult life in Australia and because of her positive contribution to the Australian community from the age of 20 when she arrived up until the age of about 33 years old which was when her more serious offending began.
Best interests of minor children – 8.4 of Direction 110
The Applicant has three grandsons aged between 13 and 17 years old and she lived with two of them for a while. She also lived around the corner from them, and they often visited her. The Applicant’s son in his letter of support says that all his children have been a huge part of the Applicant’s life. Revocation of the cancellation decision would be in the best interests of the three grandsons.
The Applicant’s brother and sister-in-law have seven grandchildren who know the Applicant. The Applicant’s sister-in-law gave particular evidence about her thirteen-year-old grand-daughter, Fayth, who has seen the Applicant regularly and would be very sad if the Applicant were deported. In would be in this child’s best interests for the cancellation decision to be revoked.
This is a consideration that weighs in favour of revoking the cancellation decision, but I do not give it significant weight because the relationships are non-parental with limited meaningful contact because of the Applicant’s periods of incarceration.
Expectations of the Australian community – 8.5 of Direction 110
The Australian community expects non-citizens to obey Australian laws while in Australia. Where a non-citizen has engaged in serious conduct in breach of this expectation, or where there is an unacceptable risk that they may do so, the Australian community, as a norm, expects the Government to not allow such a non-citizen to remain in Australia.[31] The Applicant has failed to obey the laws of Australia and has engaged in serious criminal activity with a significant impact on the broader community due to the crimes of supplying drugs and committing fraud. She would therefore be expected to be removed from the community. However, Australia would afford the Applicant a higher level of tolerance of his criminal conduct because she has lived in Australia for the majority of her life.[32] Given the seriousness and cumulative effect of the Applicant’s criminal conduct, I give this factor significant weight.
[31] The Direction (n 10) 8.5(1).
[32] Ibid 5.2(6).
I conclude that the Australian community expects that the Australian government should cancel the Applicant’s visa. There is a real, albeit low to moderate, risk of further crime. This is a factor that weighs heavily against revoking the cancellation decision.
Other Considerations
In deciding whether there is ‘another reason’ to revoke the cancellation of the Applicant’s visa, I must also take into account the ‘other considerations’ listed in the Direction, where relevant, but these are not exhaustive.[33]
[33] SZRTN v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2014) 141 ALD 395, 409 at [86]; [2014] FCA 303.
Legal Consequences of Decision – 9.1 of Direction 110
As a consequence of affirming the decision under review, the Applicant would be liable to be removed from Australia as soon as reasonably practicable. She will not be able to apply for another visa (except for a protection visa). The Applicant has raised no claim of non-refoulement obligations.
These are the intended consequences of a visa cancellation and therefore this consideration weighs neutrally in this matter.
Extent of impediments if removed – 9.2 of Direction 110
The Direction requires that I consider the extent of any impediments that the Applicant may face if removed from Australia to her home country in establishing herself and maintaining basic living standards (in the context of what is generally available to other citizens of that country), taking into account:[34]
(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 him in that country.
[34] The Direction (n 10) at 9.2(1).
The Applicant is a 56-year-old woman whose mental and physical health issues are being treated and have improved recently, but they remain significant. Further, it is likely that the stress of being removed to New Zealand would exacerbate her PTSD and her mental health more generally. The Applicant’s immediate family is in Australia and she has no connections with her father’s relatives who remain in New Zealand. In these circumstances it would be very difficult for the Applicant to adjust to a new life in New Zealand without any family or social supports. Language and cultural issues would not be a problem but the period of readjustment would be significant because she has not lived in New Zealand since 1988.
This is a consideration that weighs in favour of revocation, but I would give it limited weight because the identified impediments are minimal and are not so significant as to prevent the Applicant from establishing herself and maintaining basic living standards in New Zealand.
Impact on Australian business interests – 9.3 of Direction 110
There was no evidence of impact on Australian business interests within the meaning of the Direction. This factor is neutral.
CONCLUSION
I have considered the specific circumstances relating to the Applicant as part of my consideration. I am now required to carry out the evaluative exercise of weighing up the factors to determine whether I am satisfied that there is ‘another reason’ to revoke the cancellation decision.
The primary considerations of the protection and expectations of the Australian community weigh heavily against the Applicant because of the seriousness of the offending. The ties to Australia, the best interests of minor children and the extent of impediments if removed are considerations that weigh in favour of the Applicant.
The Applicant experienced the most traumatic childhood in New Zealand including the death of her three-year-old sister and nana when seven years old, being raped and becoming pregnant and giving birth aged 13 years old. Also, as a teenager, she lost her boyfriend in a motorbike accident which also left her with lifelong chronic pain issues. As Ms Gordon said, the Applicant has had a life full of trauma. The sentencing Judge in February 2024 said this explained how later in life she was caught up in a very sad cycle of offending and drug addiction which ‘has turned you into something you are not’.[35] The Judge imposed sentences totalling seven years imprisonment which reflects the seriousness of the offending but I agree with the effect of the sentiment expressed by the sentencing Judge that she was acting out of character primarily because of her drug addiction. The Applicant understands now more than ever that her disabled son needs her by his side and she has promised to not let him down. She is receiving the treatment she needs for her drug addiction and she has engaged in appropriate rehabilitative programs. She is a 56-year-old woman who has support from friends and stable accommodation with her son away from the negative influences of her past. She is motivated to not relapse into drug use because she knows that if she does, she will be removed to New Zealand and her disabled son will not cope without her. There will be challenging times ahead but I believe that the Applicant will stay true to her commitment to her son if she is given the chance.
[35] G-Documents G6, 65.
In my view, the primary considerations of the protection and expectations of the Australian community are outweighed by the strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia, the best interests of minor children and the extent of impediments if removed. I was very impressed by the rehabilitative steps taken by the Applicant which has seen her address the major contributors to her past criminal activity. I was also very impressed by the Applicant’s genuine desire to spend the rest of her life caring for her disabled son. It would be a very cruel outcome of these proceedings if the Applicant were prevented from caring for her son.
I conclude that there is another reason why the cancellation decision should be revoked. I set aside the non-revocation decision and substitute an order that the cancellation decision is revoked.

I certify that the preceding 70 (seventy) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Deputy President P Britten-Jones.

...............................[sgd].........................................
Associate
Dated: 20 August 2025

Date of hearing:

11 and 12 August 2025

Applicant’s Representative
Ms Sue Merrotsy (North Queensland Women’s Legal Service)

Respondent’s Representative: Ms Tegan Weir (HWL Ebsworth Lawyers)

Date of hearing:	11 and 12 August 2025
Applicant’s Representative	Ms Sue Merrotsy (North Queensland Women’s Legal Service)
Respondent’s Representative:	Ms Tegan Weir (HWL Ebsworth Lawyers)