LAL and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (Migration) - [2025] ARTA 837

LAL and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (Migration) [2025] ARTA 837 (25 June 2025)
Applicant/s:  Mohinish LAL
Respondent:  Minister for Immigration and Citizenship
Tribunal Number:                2025/3104

Tribunal:Senior Member S. Thode
Place:Sydney
Date:25 June 2025

Decision:The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

.........................[SGD]............................
Senior Member S. Thode
Catchwords
MIGRATION – Refusal to revoke cancellation of partner visa – whether applicant passes the character test – family violence offences – Ministerial Direction 110 applied – decision under review affirmed
Legislation
Migration Act 1958 (Cth)
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
Cases
Aghbolagh v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FCA 43
Re Lynch and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs (Administrative Review Tribunal), 2024/5629, unreported, 24 October 2024
Deng v Minister for Immigration , Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2022] FCAFC 115
Deng v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2021] FCA 1456
FHHM v Minister for Immigration [2022] FCAFC 19
MBBG v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (Migration) [2025] ARTA 53 (31 January 2025)
NBMZ v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2014] FCAFC 38; (2014) 220 FCR 1
NZYQ v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] HCA 37
Suleiman v Minister for Immigration [2018] FCA 594
LDKT v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2024] ARTA 405
Taulahi v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCAFC 177; (2016) 246 FCR 146
Secondary Materials Secondary Materials
Direction No 110 – Migration Act 1958 – Direction under section 499 – Visa Refusal and Cancellation under section 501 and revocation of mandatory cancellation of a visa under section 501CA
Statement of Reasons

The applicant seeks review of a decision made on 10 April 2025 not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of his Subclass 100 Partner (Migrant) visa (the visa) under s 501(3A) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).
The application was heard on 11 and 12 June 2025. The applicant was unrepresented. The Minister was represented by his solicitor Mr Wong, of HWL Ebsworth Lawyers.
The applicant gave sworn evidence. The applicant called one witness in support of his application.
For the following reasons I have decided to affirm the decision.
BACKGROUND
The background facts of the applicant and the procedural history of the matter are not in contention and are referenced in the respondent’s Statements of Facts, Issues and Contentions (SFICs).
The applicant is a 39-year-old citizen of Fiji who first arrived in Australia on 5 October 2005, using a Subclass 309 Partner (Provisional) Visa.
THE VISA HISTORY, CANCELLATION AND REVIEW
There was a prior cancellation of the applicant’s visa that was subsequently revoked.
On 13 February 2020, the applicant was issued with a notice by a delegate that his visa had been cancelled under s 501(3A) of the Act. This was on the basis that he did not pass the character test given his "substantial criminal record", and, particularly, because of his convictions of offences, Assault occasioning actual bodily harm (DV)-T2 and Stalk/intimidate intend fear physical etc harm (Domestic)-T2, for which he was sentenced to a 20-month term of imprisonment by the Hornsby Local Court on 9 January 2019.
On 9 March 2020, the applicant, through the assistance of a legal representative, wrote to the Department of Home Affairs (Department) to submit that the above convictions were annulled by the Fairfield Local Court on 13 March 2019 and were still under consideration by the Court. The applicant provided evidence to support his account, including an Advice of Court Result dated 9 March 2020 and a Notice of Listing. He requested revocation of the mandatory cancellation decision on that basis.
On 7 May 2020, the applicant was issued with a notice by a delegate that they had decided to revoke the mandatory cancellation of his visa, noting that "after consideration of your response, the decision-maker has decided to revoke the original decision to cancel your visa". The notice included a warning that, "if you engage in further criminal or other serious conduct, this may again result in your visa being cancelled on character grounds".
Further, the applicant was required to sign an acknowledgment on 7 May 2020, set out as follows:
I, Mohinish LAL acknowledge that I have received the Notice of decision to revoke visa cancellation under s501CA(4) of the Migration Act 1958. I understand that if I engage in further criminal or other serious conduct, this may again result in any visa I hold being cancelled on character grounds, and in this case my past conduct and previous relevant information held by the Department can also be reconsidered.
On 5 December 2023, the applicant was issued with a notice by a delegate that his visa had again been cancelled under s 501(3A) of the Act. This was on the basis that he did not pass the character test given his "substantial criminal record", and, particularly, because of the following ten convictions, for which he was sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment of two years and nine months by the Fairfield Local Court on 25 January 2023: Assault occasioning actual bodily harm (DV)-T2 (two counts), Contravene prohibition/restriction in AVO (Domestic) (three counts), Threaten to distribute intimate image w/o consent (DV) -T2 (two counts), Stalk/intimidate intend fear physical etc harm (Domestic)-T2, Common assault (DV)-T2, and, Intentionally choke etc person without consent (DV)-T1.
On 21 December 2023, the applicant made representations seeking revocation of the mandatory cancellation decision. He provided a Personal Circumstances Form, along with written evidence, including, for instance, a GP Mental Health Care Plan dated 21 March 2018, case note reports, character references from his (then) partner and a reverend from his local church as well as written and handwritten submissions, including about the annulled convictions and certificates of completion.
On 10 April 2025, a delegate decided under s 501CA(4) of the Act not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the applicant’s visa. The applicant was notified of the decision on 2 April 2025.
On 11 April 2025, the applicant applied to the Tribunal for review of the delegate's decision.
JURISDICTION
The Tribunal has jurisdiction to review a decision to refuse to grant a visa under s 501(1), where the application for review is lodged within nine days after the decision is notified: s 500(6B). In this case, a delegate refused to grant the applicant a protection visa on 10 April 2025 and the application for review of that decision was lodged on 11 April 2025, which is within nine days after the decision was notified. The Tribunal therefore has jurisdiction to hear and determine the application.
NATURE AND SERIOUSNESS OF THE APPLICANT’S CRIMINAL CONDUCT
The Direction indicates that violent crimes are viewed seriously by the Australian Government and the Australian community.
At the outset I note that I have not taken into account any offending for which the applicant did not receive a conviction. I have not taken into account the annulled conviction set out above.
I have, however, considered the warning that was issued to and signed by the applicant which will be referred to further below in these reasons.
THE APPLICANT’S OFFENDING HISTORY
The applicant’s criminal offending commences in 2009. The applicant's Check Results Report dated 29 November 2023 shows that the applicant has been convicted of 33 offences on ten separate occasions whilst living in Australia, between the period of 26 November 2009 and 8 May 2023.
Mr Lal’s criminal offending was a regular occurrence between 2009 and 2020 and most of the offences were dealt with by way of financial penalties, license disqualifications, bonds and intensive correction orders.
In 2009 the applicant was convicted and received a $1000 fine for Drive with middle range PCA and was disqualified for a period of 6 months. Following that conviction he received several more traffic offences which escalated to high range PCA in 2013 and 2014, respectively.
In 2014 his criminal offending escalated and he was convicted for offences in respect of his then domestic partner, Contravene prohibition/restriction in AVO (Domestic). A conviction was recorded and the court declined to impose any further penalty pursuant to s10A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW).
In 2017 he was convicted and fined in respect of further traffic offences Drive, never licensed person drive vehicle on road - first offence, fined $300; and recorded a ‘Conviction for Drive motor vehicle during disqualification period - 2nd+off’, for which he received a s9 bond to be of good behaviour for three years.
In 2018 his offending continued. The Check Results Report indicated that on 12 September 2018 he was convicted in Downing Centre Local Court of two counts of Drive motor vehicle during disqualification period - 2nd+off, Drive vehicle, illicit drug present in blood etc - 2nd+off, Drive motor vehicle during disqualification period - 1st off, for which he received another s9 bond for 2 years, plus an order to attend counselling, educational development drug or alcohol rehab, as well as a driving disqualification for 12 months. The circumstances surrounding the applicant's convictions were described in a NSW Police Facts Sheet dated 31 May 2018 as follows:
About 1.20am on Friday the 13th of April 2018….the accused, Mohnish LAL was stopped by Police upon Narellan Road, Narellan for the purpose of a Random Breath and Drug Test.
The accused breath test result was negative; the accused was then subjected to an oral fluid\ test, which subsequently produced a positive detention to Methamphetamines. …In relation to the taking of drugs the accused stated, he smoked amphetamine on Tuesday. …In relation to the accused's drivers licence, RMS and Criminal Records indicate the accused formerly held a Class C drivers licence….which expired on 29/9/2010. This licence is now endorsed DISQUALIFIED by court order from the 29/1/2014 till the 22/12/2018. The accused was convicted at Liverpool Local Court on the 25/10/2017 for the offence of Drive vehicle illicit drug present in blood etc - 1st offence, making the offence associated with this charge a subsequent offence.
The circumstances surrounding the applicant's conviction of Drive motor vehicle during disqualification period 2nd+off, which was dealt with in Hornsby Local Court on 10 May 2018, was described in a NSW Police Facts Sheet dated 26 March 2018 as follows:
About 5:08pm Thursday 22 March 2018 the accused, Mohinish LAL, drove a white coloured Volkswagen sedan, bearing New South Wales Number plates YBK-34-N, in an easterly direction along Endeavour Street CHATSWOOD. Upon reaching the intersection Anderson Street the accused was stopped for an offence dealt with by way of a penalty notice. …Checks via systems kept by the New South Wales Roads and Maritime Services revealed the accused was once the holder of a New South Wales Class C driver license, number 15428246, currently endorsed DISQUALIFIED from 29-01-2014 to 22-12-2018. This disqualification was imposed at Liverpool Local Court on 29 January 2014 regarding a Drive With High Range Prescribed Concentration of Alcohol matter.
On 19 September 2019 the applicant was convicted of further traffic and drug offences, Drive motor vehicle during disqualification period - 2nd+off (three counts), Drive motor vehicle during disqualification period - 1st off, Possess prohibited drug (two counts), Possession of equipment for administering prohibited drugs for which he was sentenced to an intensive correction order for seven months, ordered to complete a traffic offenders intervention program, (which he states he did not complete), community service work order of 100 hours and a further driving disqualification of 12 months.
On 20 October 2020, the applicant was again convicted of Drive motor vehicle during disqualification period - 2nd+off for which he received a s10A conviction with no other penalty and a driving disqualification of 6 months.
In respect of the traffic offending, I find that there is a prolonged period of criminal offending and conclude that the applicant’s many convictions, corrections and other orders had no impact in kerbing the applicant’s persistent offending. I find the applicant’s conduct in terms of the traffic offences is very serious.
On 25 January 2023 the applicant was convicted of Assault occasioning actual bodily harm (DV)- T2 (two counts), Contravene prohibition/restriction in AVO (Domestic) (three counts), Threaten to distribute intimate image w/o consent (DV) -T2 (two counts), Stalk/intimidate intend fear physical etc harm (domestic)-T2, Common assault (DV)-T2, Intentionally choke etc person without consent, (DV)-T1, Possess prohibited drug; for which the applicant was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of two years and nine months commencing 1 December 2022 and concluding 31 August 2025, with a non-parole period of 20 months. The applicant lodged a severity appeal in respect of this sentence.
On appeal (against severity) the non-parole period was reduced from 20 months to 16 months, with the applicant being eligible for parole on 31 March 2024.
Finally on 8 May 2023 the applicant was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 5 months to be served concurrently for Drive motor vehicle during disqualification period - 2nd+off. The applicant was released from gaol on 31 March 2024 and has remained in immigration detention since.
In respect of the offences of Assault occasioning actual bodily harm (DV)- T2 (two counts), Contravene prohibition/restriction in AVO (Domestic) (three counts), Threaten to distribute intimate image w/o consent (DV) -T2 (two counts), Stalk/intimidate intend fear physical etc harm (domestic)-T2, Common assault (DV)-T2, Intentionally choke etc person without consent, (DV)-T1, Possess prohibited drug , I have before me the New South Wales Police Facts Sheet and the District Court remarks made by the Court, on the occasion of the applicant’s severity appeal.
The circumstances surrounding the applicant’s offending were described by Judge Buscombe in the appeal to the District Court of NSW on 25 January 2023 as follows:
The facts of those offences are quite serious, and involve him hitting his partner several times with a belt and telling her to sit up straight. And, he threatened her again in relation to her bank account. That is the stalk and intimidate. When she did not provide access or provide him with money, he attacked her again with the belt.
At one point he covered her mouth with his hand and covered her nose. He threatened to send an intimate photograph of her and there was a threat to kill. There cannot be any doubt that those series of offences were quite serious domestic violence offences.
While on bail for those offences, he commits further offences against the same victim, a Ms Naidu who is here, supporting him as women who are the victim of domestic violence frequently do. They frequently still support, generally speaking, the male offender. On this occasion, on the 17th of November, he has, with his right hand in a back hand motion, slapped her across the
side of the face, causing his knuckles to connect with her cheekbone. He has punched her in the right eye and shoulders, arms.
He has grabbed her back, scratched her and began to hit her on the legs, with the tip of a metal pole. She has sustained a black eye, multiple bruises to her arms, cheek, legs and a split lip. He has then jumped on the bed, placed his right hand over her mouth and pinching her nose. This has caused her to have restricted breathing. She was unable to breathe for about 10 seconds. She moved her body. She was able to escape. She was unable to breathe, according to the facts. He has then shown her a mobile phone. Depicted on the screen are nude photographs of her, which he threatened to post on Facebook, on her account. A common offence. A really repulsive offence that this Court sees, very frequently. Then there is a rather more minor assault which is sequence 5 of that sequence.
Then there is a further breach of an apprehended domestic violence order, when he is found in a motel room with the victim. He was hiding in the bathroom, clearly in breach of the Order. These are serious domestic violence offences. There is no doubt about that and two lots of them were committed while on bail for the initial lot of offending I referred to.
The circumstances surrounding the applicant's conviction of Contravention prohibition/restriction in AVO (Domestic), which was dealt with in the Liverpool Local Court on 18 November 2016, are described in a NSW Police Fact Sheet dated 18 July 2016. The facts of the conviction were reported by NSW Police, but because the conviction for those domestic violence offences was annulled, I have elected not to repeat the particulars of the offence.
I accept that on 13 March 2019, the Local Court of New South Wales at Liverpool granted an annulment for the convictions of 9 January 2019 and accept that Mr LAL was not found guilty of the convictions of 9 January 2019, and I have not taken this offending into consideration.
However, I have taken into account the New South Wales Police Facts Sheet for Mr LAL’s arrest on 18 July 2016, issued on 7 May 2024, that resulted in his s10A conviction for contravene prohibition/restriction in AVO (Domestic). While the court did not impose any further penalties on this date, I note that the reporting officer’s comment that, “The accused is constantly coming under Police notice for domestic violence incidents with the same victim. The accused has an extensive history relating to domestic violence incidents which relate to the same victim.” According to the Police Facts Sheet, Mr LAL had been in an intimate relationship with his victim for two years and that there had been “numerous reported domestic violence incidents.”
I take into account the applicant’s submission that his s10A conviction for contravene prohibition/restriction in AVO (Domestic) resulted from being within 100 metres of the protected person because she had driven to his apartment building’s carpark. The applicant stated during oral submissions that this occurred by mistake and that he was not aware of the breach and that the victim of this offending had sought out his company and not the other way around.
The issue of remorse will be dealt with in more detail further below in these reasons.
EVIDENCE AND SUBMISSIONS
In deciding the application, I have taken into account the following evidence and submissions:
·The applicant’s Statement and submission tendered on 11 June 2025;
·The respondent’s Statements of Facts, Issues and Contentions;
·The Joint Hearing Book (HB) -Volume 1 and Volume 2 - Exhibit One;
·Mr Abbas Jaffari Rahaghi’s statement dated 10 June 2025;
·The applicant’s oral evidence and closing submissions 12 June 2025.
LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK AND MINISTERIAL DIRECTION 110
Section 501 of the Act deals with decisions to refuse or cancel a visa on character grounds. Relevantly to this case s 501(1) states that the Minister may refuse to grant a visa to a person if the person does not satisfy the Minister that the person passes the character test.
Section 501(6)(a) states that a person does not pass the character test if the person has a substantial criminal record; and s 501(7)(c) states that a person has a substantial criminal record if the person has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more.
The Minister has made written directions under section 499 of the Act which apply to decision-makers in the exercise of power under subsection 501CA(4). The relevant direction is Direction no. 110 – Visa refusal and cancellation under section 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under section 501CA (the Direction or Direction 110).

Paragraph 5.2 of Direction 110 provides overarching principles which I have considered when reviewing the application. It relevantly provides:
(1)Australia has a sovereign right to determine whether non-citizens who are of character concern are allowed to enter and/or remain in Australia. Being able to come to or remain in Australia is a privilege Australia confers on noncitizens in the expectation that they are, and have been, law-abiding, will respect important institutions, such as Australia's law enforcement framework, and will not cause or threaten harm to individuals or the Australian community.
(2)The safety of the Australian community is the highest priority of the Australian Government.
(3)Non-citizens who engage or have engaged in criminal or other serious conduct should expect to be denied the privilege of coming to, or to forfeit the privilege of staying in, Australia.
(4)The Australian community expects that the Australian Government can and should refuse entry to non-citizens, or cancel their visas, if they engaged in conduct, in Australia or elsewhere, that raises serious character concerns. This expectation of the Australian community applies regardless of whether the non-citizen poses a measurable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community.
(5)Australia has a low tolerance of any criminal or other serious conduct by visa applicants or those holding a limited stay visa, or by other non-citizens who have been participating in, and contributing to, the Australian community only for a short period of time.
(6)With respect to decisions to refuse, cancel, and revoke cancellation of a visa, Australia may afford a higher level of tolerance of criminal or other serious conduct by non-citizens who have lived in the Australian community for most of their life, or from a very young age.
(7)Decision-makers must take into account the primary and other considerations relevant to the individual case. In some circumstances, the nature of the noncitizen's conduct, or the harm that would be caused if the conduct were to be repeated, may be so serious that even strong countervailing considerations may be insufficient to justify not cancelling or refusing the visa, or revoking a mandatory cancellation.
(8)The inherent nature of certain conduct such as family violence is so serious that even strong countervailing considerations may be insufficient to justify not cancelling or refusing the visa, or revoking a mandatory cancellation, even if the information available at the time of consideration suggests that the non-citizen does not pose a measurable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community.
Part 2 of the Direction identifies the considerations the Tribunal must take into account where relevant to a decision.
In applying the considerations, information and evidence from independent and authoritative sources should be given appropriate weight. The primary consideration of the 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. One or more primary considerations may outweigh other primary considerations.
The primary considerations in the Direction are:
(1)protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct;
(2)whether the conduct engaged in constituted family violence;
(3)the strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia;
(4)the best interests of minor children in Australia; and
(5)expectations of the Australian community.
The other considerations set out in Direction 110 which must be taken into account where relevant include, but are not limited to:
a)legal consequences of the decision;
b)extent of impediments if removed;
c)impact on Australian business interests.
In FHHM v Minister for Immigration,[1] the Court considered paragraph 8.4 of Direction 79, which also stated that primary considerations should generally be given greater weight than other considerations. O’Callaghan and Colvin JJ (Derrington J) agreeing referred to remarks made by Colvin J in Suleiman v Minister for Immigration[2] who stated at [34] that “particular circumstances may pertain that may justify greater weight being to one or more of the other considerations than one of more of the primary considerations”.
[1] [2022] FCAFC 19.
[2] [2018] FCA 594.
THE ISSUES TO BE DECIDED
The issues for review in this matter are:
(a) whether the Applicant passes the character test, as defined in s 501 of the Act; and
(b) if not, whether there is another reason why the original decision should be revoked,
pursuant to s 501CA(4)(b)(ii) of the Act.
The character test
The relevant ground of the character test in this case is section 501(6)(a), which provides that a person does not pass the character test if a person has a substantial criminal record. "Substantial criminal record" is defined in s 501(7) and includes circumstances where a person has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more (s 501(7)(c)).
On 25 January 2023 the applicant was convicted of Assault occasioning actual bodily harm (DV)- T2 (two counts), Contravene prohibition/restriction in AVO (Domestic) (three counts), Threaten to distribute intimate image w/o consent (DV) -T2 (two counts), Stalk/intimidate intend fear physical etc harm (domestic)-T2, Common assault (DV)-T2, Intentionally choke etc person without consent, (DV)-T1, Possess prohibited drug; for which the applicant was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of two years and nine months commencing 1 December 2022 and concluding 31 August 2025.
The Tribunal finds that on 25 January 2023 the applicant was convicted of the offences set out and that the applicant has a substantial criminal record.
As a result of the convictions and sentence set out above I find that the applicant does not pass the character test pursuant to s501(6)(a) of the Act. I have considered the submission and evidence provided by the applicant and in the submissions and documents tendered. The applicant does not dispute the information provided by the Check Results Report.
The issue to be determined is therefore whether the discretion to revoke the Minister’s decision to cancel the applicant’s visa should be exercised pursuant to s 501CA(4)(b)(ii) of the Act taking into account all relevant considerations in the Direction.
PRIMARY CONSIDERATIONS
Protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct – 8.1 of Direction 110
When considering the protection of the Australian community, decision-makers should keep in mind that the safety of the Australian community is the highest priority of the Australian government. Decision makers should have particular regard to the principle that entering or remaining in Australia is a privilege that Australia confers on non-citizens in the expectation that they are, and have been, law abiding, will respect important institutions and will not cause or threaten harm to individuals or the Australian community.
Decision-makers should also give consideration to:
(a)the nature and seriousness of the non-citizen’s conduct to date; and
(b)the risk to the Australian community, should the non-citizen commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct.
The nature and seriousness of the applicant’s conduct to date – 8.1.1 of Direction 110
The Direction provides that violent and/or sexual crimes; crimes of a violent and/or sexual nature against women or children (regardless of the sentence imposed); or acts of family violence (regardless of whether there is a conviction for an offence, or a sentence imposed) are viewed very seriously by the Australian Government and the Australian community.
Sub-paragraph (c) of paragraph 8.1.1(1) of the Direction requires a decision-maker to have regard to the sentence(s) imposed by the Courts for a crime or crimes of a non-citizen. Subparagraph (e) requires the decision maker to have regard to the frequency of the non-citizen’s offending and /or whether there is any trend of increasing seriousness.
The sentencing remarks of by Judge Buscombe in the appeal to the District Court outline the details of the applicant’s offending in 2022. There is also the offending that lead to the imposition of an ADVO which the applicant subsequently breached. Each of the offending is in relation to the applicant’s domestic partner(s). For the offences in 2023, the applicant was sentenced to a cumulative custodial sentence of twenty months. The imposition of a custodial term is regarded as the last resort in any reasonably and correctly applied sentencing process. Custodial terms are viewed as a reflection of the objective seriousness of an applicant’s offending.
In considering the nature and seriousness of the applicant’s criminal offending and other conduct to date, I have taken into account all of the documents in the parties’ joint tender bundle, volumes one and two.[3] I have had particular regard to the sentencing remarks, transcript of proceedings, as well as the applicant’s oral and written submissions in respect of his offending.
[3] Exhibit One
Nature and seriousness of criminal conduct
The Direction indicates that violent crimes are considered very seriously by the Australian community. The applicant’s criminal offending is set out in detail above. I have had regard to the Minister’s submissions and the relevant factors in Direction 110. Paragraphs 8.1.1(1)(a)(i) – (iii) state that crimes of a violent nature against women and acts of family violence are viewed very seriously by the Australian community, regardless of the sentence imposed (and regardless of whether there is a conviction, in the case of family violence). In the case of Mr Lal’s offending I consider there has been a general trend of increasing seriousness of his criminal offending and I consider the escalation from traffic offending of medium seriousness, such as driving whilst disqualified and driving under the influence of alcohol and drugs, to very serious violent offending against women who are his domestic partners as outlined above, represents a trend of increasing seriousness.
Based on the applicant’s criminal history check, I find that at least 11 of the applicant’s convictions relate to acts of violence against his partner. The applicant was described as committing serious domestic violence offences in the judgment of the District Court of 20 April 2023[4] when his partner sustained a black eye, multiple bruises to her arms, cheek, legs and a split lip. She was hit on her legs by a metal pole. Her breathing was restricted. The sentencing court described the applicant’s threat to post intimate pictures of his partner as “repulsive”. It is further illustrative of the increasing violence perpetrated by the applicant that when he came to the attention of the authorities in 2016 the police remarked that he “was constantly coming under Police notice for domestic violence incidents with the same victim” and having “an extensive history relating to domestic violence incidents which relate to the same victim”.[5] The Tribunal notes that the victim referred to in 2016 is not the victim referred to in 2023. Each victim was the domestic partner of the applicant at the relevant time.
[4] G Documents p. 53
[5] G Documents p. 85
I consider Mr Lal’s family violence offending above to be very serious. It involved violent and threatening behaviour that does not appear to have been caused by provocation. I do not doubt that the two victims would have been significantly frightened and continue to suffer long term effects as a result of the applicant’s criminal offending. The witness, who previously supported the applicant during sentencing in 2023, no longer supports the applicant and she was not called as a witness in these proceedings. The applicant demonstrated during sworn oral evidence that he has only limited insight into his behaviour and shows only conditional remorse. He states that his criminal offending occurred as a result of the victim, subject of the 2023 proceedings, cheating on him. There were repeated assertions during sworn oral testimony that there are ‘two sides to each argument’ and that the events did not unfold as recorded. The applicant stated repeatedly that he is remorseful of “having taken a hand to a woman” and that there is no excuse for such behaviour. When it was put to him that he had taken more than a hand, and rather, attacked the victim with a belt and a metal pole, he denied doing so and stated that he was not shown the agreed facts by his duty solicitor before pleading guilty to the offences before the Court. It is his sworn evidence before me that he did not understand the full facts he pleaded guilty to and that he pleaded guilty, because a plea would grant him a better security rating and therefore better conditions while in prison. I consider that the applicant, while showing some remorse, continues at least to some extent to blame the victim and other extraneous circumstances, for his offending.
In respect of paragraph 8.1.1(1)(e) which requires the Tribunal to have regard to the frequency of the offending and whether there is any trend in increasing seriousness, the Tribunal finds that the applicant’s offending has been frequent and the seriousness of the offending has increased, resulting in a term of imprisonment. The Tribunal has also considered the cumulative effect of the applicant’s offending, paragraph 8.1.1(1)(f). The applicant has committed 33 offences between 26 November 2009 and 8 May 2023 which have required significant resources from the courts. The offences relate to dangerous driving, drugs and acts of family violence, notwithstanding multiple court imposed deterrent measures, including corrective orders, apprehended domestic violence orders, (which have been breached) [6] and intensive corrections orders.
[6] G Documents p. 63
I find that the two year sentence the applicant received is a further indication of the seriousness of the offending. Dispositions involving incarceration of the offender are the last resort in the sentencing hierarchy and I have considered that the court viewed the offending as very serious.
In respect of paragraph 8.1.1(1)(g), I have also considered that the applicant has provided false and misleading information to the Department including his failure to disclose criminal convictions on his incoming passenger cards on 7 March 2010 and 3 September 2010. I have considered the applicant’s oral evidence in this regard. He stated that he was visiting his ill mother in New Zealand and that he failed to consider or overlooked the requirement to disclose his criminal convictions upon entry into Australia. He conceded that at the relevant time he had a relevant criminal conviction of Drive with middle range PCA but that he suffered an error of judgment. I am satisfied that the applicant has provided false and misleading information to the Department. I consider the provision of false information demonstrates the applicant’s disregard for Australian laws and I consider the applicant’s failure to abide by Australian laws in this respect as somewhat serious.
I have had regard to the fact that the applicant has re-offended since being formally warned in writing about the consequences of further offending in respect of his immigration status, paragraph 8.1.1(1)(h). On 7 May 2020, the applicant signed an acknowledgment confirming his understanding that "…if I engage in further criminal or other serious conduct, this may again result in any visa I hold being cancelled on character grounds….". This warning was issued when the Department chose to revoke an earlier mandatory cancellation decision. As stated earlier in these reasons, I have not taken into account a criminal conviction which was annulled by the Court. Nor have I taken into account the prior cancellation of the applicant’s visa (the prior cancellation). However, I have taken into account that on account of the prior cancellation the applicant was issued a warning and that despite this clear warning, the applicant re-offended in a serious and similar manner on 28 September 2022, and continued to offend thereafter[7]. The seriousness of this offending resulted in a substantial criminal record which triggered the cancellation of his visa once again.[8]
[7] G Documents p.52
[8] Respondent’s SOFIC at [27(e)]
Other Offences
Between 2009 and 2018 the applicant was convicted of multiple driving offences. These offences were largely related to driving while disqualified and driving under the influence of alcohol or illicit drugs. These offences are considered serious, given the number of convictions over a number of years. They demonstrate a clear disregard for Australian laws and the safety of the Australian community, especially other road users where the applicant was driving whilst possibly under the influence of an illicit drug.[9]
[9] Bartlett and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] AATA 1561 [43]-[45] and QJYD and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2021] AATA 1 at [51]
Conclusion
Having regard to the nature of the applicant’s offending and the trend of increasing seriousness, his offending is serious. I find that his violent offending against his domestic partners to be very serious.
Risk to the Australian Community – 8.1.2.
Paragraph 8.1.2 (1) of Direction 110 provides that the Australian community’s tolerance for any risk of future harm becomes lower as the seriousness of potential harm increases. This entails the cumulative consideration of
(a) the nature of the harm to individuals or the Australian community should the applicant engage in further criminal or other serious conduct; and
(b) the likelihood of the applicant engaging in such conduct, taking into account information and the risk of the applicant reoffending of any demonstrated rehabilitation (8.1(2)).
Relevantly 8.1.2 (1) provides that some conduct and the harm that would result, if it were to be repeated, is so serious that any risk that it may be repeated may be unacceptable. The violence of the applicant against domestic partners is very serious
If the applicant were to commit similar offences particular but not limited to offences constituting violent assault of a domestic partner, this would be likely to cause immense emotional and psychological harm to his victims.
Factors contributing to past conduct
The Minister accepted that the applicant’s past offending occurred during a time when Mr Lal had substance abuse issues such as excessive alcohol consumption and methamphetamine use. The Minister conceded, and I accept, that Mr Lal does not currently exhibit addictive behaviour and that he is now a social drinker.
I have had regard to the applicant’s mental health care plan.[10] The applicant was diagnosed with “Ext severe depression, Severe Anxiety and Moderate Stress” by Dr Mohammad Hossain, general practitioner, on 21 March 2013 after completing the DASS questionnaire (Depression Anxiety and Stress Scale 21 (DASS-21)). It is not in dispute that the applicant has ingested medication to treat his anxiety and depression since about 2014. I also refer to the applicant’s statement where he deposes that he ingests Mirtazapine, and that he requires ‘regular treatment, which includes therapy and medication’. [11] Although no specific submission has been made by the applicant that his offending is linked to his medical condition, I have considered that he has had a traumatic childhood, marred by domestic violence perpetrated by his father against his mother, and that he has had some insight in to his offending because “I have seen what my father did to my mother”. I accept that he suffers from depression and anxiety. I do not accept, and there is no evidence to suggest, that his offending is causally linked to his mental health problems.
[10] G Documents p. 149
[11] Statement Mohinish Lal, undated.

I do not accept that the applicant’s diagnoses and his family background detract from the seriousness of his offending.
Rehabilitation and Remorse
In relation to the applicant’s prospects of rehabilitation, I accept the applicant’s evidence that he has been drug and alcohol free for a significant, albeit unspecified, period. The respondent accepts that at the time of his offending the applicant had several addictions, to alcohol, drugs and gambling. There is no evidence to support a finding that the applicant is currently engaging in addictive behaviours.
Protective factors
There is no evidence that the applicant is receiving regular treatment or that he has many protective factors such as family or community ties which may protect him from future offending. There is one protective factor that was brought to the Tribunal’s attention, the evidence of the applicant’s witness, Mr Abbas Jafari Rahaghi who deposes that he is willing to offer the applicant accommodation in his two bedroom apartment where he resides with his wife and young child. The witness further states that he and the applicant have considered starting a “transport business” together. The witness stated that he found the applicant to be an intelligent and considerate friend, with whom he prayed regularly and who had convinced him to marry his wife and have a child. I accept Mr Jafari Rahaghi to be an honest witness, and I accept that he has made an offer for the applicant to reside with him and his family.
Conclusions
I have had regard to the past medical records referred to by the respondent and the pre-sentence report prepared by Corrective Services on 25 January 2023.
In relation to the likelihood of the applicant committing further offences in the future I have had regard to a pre-sentence report before the Tribunal which suggests that the risk of the applicant committing further offences was, as at the time of the report, T2 Low-Medium. The report is prepared by Amanda Perreira Senior Community Corrections Officer and states that the applicant’s response to supervision under an Intense Corrections Order (ICO) was unsatisfactory given he failed to report as directed and failed to engage in intervention to address his offending behaviour . His order was subsequently revoked in December 2019 and he was returned to custody. While the officer acknowledged that Mr Lal’s expressed “a lot of regret” and displayed “good insight into his offending” she also listed ‘factors related to offending’. She stated that Mr Lal’s criminal history commenced in 2009 consisting primarily of driving, alcohol, drug and domestic violence related offences. It was also noted that there “appears to be a pattern of domestic violence related offences throughout Mr Lal’s criminal history”.
I have taken into account the applicant’s oral evidence and am of the view that there is still a real likelihood that the applicant will re-offend:
·There is evidence that indicates that the applicant has a lack of insight and a lack of responsibility for his actions. During his sworn oral evidence he stated numerous times that there are two sides to the argument, when describing the violent altercation with his domestic partner, and stating that he became violent because he was suspicious of his partner and that the Tribunal must understand the issue also from his point of view.
·He stated that in Australia women are usually believed which led to police attending at his home in 2016 after a domestic disturbance was reported although, according to the applicant, no offence had been committed and the conviction was annulled.
·He appears to minimise the seriousness of his offending by stating that he only slapped his victim but denies any other violence, such as assault with a belt, or pole, despite his plea of guilty.
·The applicant has little support in the community which raises doubt as to whether the applicant can remain abstinent from alcohol and drugs and, in the event of him re-entering a new relationship whether he will be able to escape the “pattern of domestic violence” identified by the corrective service officer in her report and by the judge in the sentencing remarks.
·Although the applicant has advised that he has been medicated since 2014, that has not deterred him from offending. Even though the applicant had access to psychological services on at least 8 occasions, the applicant was still willing to disregard Australian laws and institutions which is reflected in his criminal record between 2006 and 2023.
·There is some evidence that the applicant is ingesting medication but no evidence that he is currently accessing mental health services. The applicant’s criminal history indicates that community based orders which included rehabilitation and supervision are not strictly adhered to and not effective in preventing him from offending.
In conclusion I accept the evidence that there has been more than one event of domestic violence related incidents and that based on the history of the applicant’s offending there remains a real likelihood that the applicant will re-offend.
Remorse
I have had regard to the applicant’s statements of remorse as to his past offending. The applicant provided evidence of his remorse.
During sworn oral testimony and under cross-examination, the applicant stated that he was remorseful and that he was devastated that “he had taken a hand to a woman”. I have already set out above that the applicant makes only conditional admissions. In addition I have had regard to the applicant’s request for revocation of a mandatory visa cancellation under s501(3A)[12] in which states
“ I take full responsibility for my crimes and I am truly sorry and ashamed of my past actions. I know that domestic violence is wrong. I want to become a domestic violence counsellor. I was exposed to domestic violence as a child and know the impact it can have. Unfortunately, I was suffering from severe mental ill-health at the time of the incidents.”
[12] G Documents p.123
In terms of remorse, I accept that the applicant pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity to the offences for which he was sentenced in 2023.
I also accept that the applicant is somewhat remorseful for his actions and he attributes his past offending to his mental health issues, including depression and anxiety. I have had regard to the applicant’s past trauma experienced in Fiji, including the domestic violence he experienced in his own family unit. While I accept that the applicant has experienced traumatic hardships in Fiji I do not accept that these factors reduce his criminality. In regard to rehabilitation, I accept that the applicant has engaged in some limited programs that were available to him[13] (he participated in the KAIROS and HOPE courses) and that he is currently in remission in respect of his former substance abuse. I also accept that the applicant demonstrates some insight into his offending and the factors that contributed to his offending. I am however not as accepting of his genuine remorse as to his interaction with the victims of domestic violence. He gave oral evidence at the hearing that still demonstrates a tendency to minimise his offending and to blame extraneous circumstances for the offence.
[13] G Documents p. 139,
Protective factors
The applicant submits that he would not reoffend because he has meaningful support from his witness, Mr Abbas Jaffari Rahaghi. As set out above I have accepted that an offer of accommodation has been made and that there is limited support from the witness and his family.
Summary
I consider that the offending individually and cumulatively meets two of the three criteria in paragraph 8.1.1(1)(a) being crimes of a very serious nature. The types of offences committed by the applicant are set out above and include violent crimes (8.1.1 (1)(a)(i)).
I find that these offences are very serious within the meaning of 8.1.1(1)(a)(i) and (ii).
In respect of the further offending, the applicant has been convicted of one offence of domestic violence, but has a history of violent altercations with former partners. I am of the view that the applicant has on at least two occasions perpetrated family violence and that the offences were very serious and conclude that the applicant’s conduct presents an unacceptable risk to the Australian community.
In addition, the applicant has numerous convictions for driving offences over an extended period commencing in 2006. The types of driving offences include driving whilst disqualified and under the influence of alcohol and drugs. I consider the offences serious given the number of convictions over the years. They demonstrate that the applicant is unwilling to abide by the road rules and that he has a persistent disregard for the safety and wellbeing of road users, thereby putting the Australian community at risk.
The applicant gave frank evidence that he has a history of methamphetamine use and I accept that he stopped using drugs and is drug free at the current time.
Conclusion on the protection of the Australian community
Given the seriousness of the applicant’s offending and given that he is likely to re-offend if given the opportunity to enter into another domestic relationship, in respect of the primary consideration, protection of the Australian community, I conclude that this factor weighs heavily against the revocation of the Minster’s decision to cancel the visa.
Family Violence committed by the non-citizen – 8.2
Under paragraph 8.2(1), the Tribunal must consider the Government’s serious concerns about conferring the privilege to remain in Australia on non citizens who engage in family violence. Those concerns are proportionate to the seriousness of the family violence engaged in.
Paragraph 4(1) of Direction 110 provides the following relevant definitions:
·Family violence means ‘violent, threatening or other behaviour by a person that coerces or controls a member of the person’s family or causes the family member to be fearful.
·Member of the person’s family includes a person who has, or has had, an intimate personal relationship with the relevant person.
I have considered whether the victim of the domestic violence offence is a member of the applicant’s family when considering paragraph 8.2 of the Direction and the term used extends to at least persons who are living together and who are financially dependent on each other. [14]
[14] Deng v Minister for Immigration , Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2022] FCAFC 115 at [126] (Farrell, Moshinsky and Burley JJ) and Deng v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2021] FCA 1456 at [155] Halley J.
Under paragraph 8.2(2)(a), the Tribunal must have regard to any convictions for offences that involve family violence.
Under paragraph 8.2(2)(b), the Tribunal must (my emphasis added) have regard to family violence if:
(a) there is information or evidence from independent and authoritative sources;
(b) indicating that the non-citizen is, or has been, involved in the perpetration of family violence; and
(c) the applicant has been afforded procedural fairness.[15]
[15] CRNL v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2024] FCA 1482
In Re Lynch and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs[16] (Administrative Review Tribunal, 2024/5629, 24 October 2024) the Tribunal explained its understanding of when this primary consideration arises as a relevant consideration, as follows:
[16] 2024/5629, 24 October 2024, unpublished
This primary consideration is only relevant where an applicant has been convicted of an offence that ‘involve[s] family violence’ or there is credible information or evidence before the Tribunal that they have been ‘involved in the perpetration of family violence’.
The first note to cl 4 of the Direction indicates that a number of terms used within the Direction are defined in section 5 of the Migration Act. The term “family violence” is defined in cl 4 (1) of Direction no. 110 (and in contrast with Div 1.5 of the Migration Regulations) as meaning ‘violent, threatening or other behaviour by a person that coerces or controls a member of the person’s family (the family member), or causes the family member to be fearful’. The definition gives examples of such behaviour, including an assault.
The same definitional clause of Direction no. 110 also provides that, for the purposes of considering whether family violence has been committed under the Direction, ‘member of the person’s family … includes a person who has, or has had, an intimate personal relationship with the relevant person’. This definition is inclusive. It also contrasts with the visa concept of a ‘member of the family unit’ or ‘member of the same family unit’, which are defined terms under the Migration Act and Regulations.
The Tribunal is required to make an assessment of whether the persons identified as victims of the relevant conduct or offending are ‘family members’. Other than with respect to the explicit inclusion of persons with whom an applicant has, or has had, an intimate personal relationship, Direction no. 110 does not contain a definition of ‘member of the person’s family’. The Courts have indicated this term is not to be narrowly construed. The Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia at [124] of their judgment in Deng v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2022] FCAFC 115; (2022) 293 FCR 509 (Deng) observed that in the absence of a definition:
The question is therefore left to be determined on the basis indicated above, namely by reference to the text, context and purpose of the expression “member of a person’s family”. We agree with the primary judge (at [156]-[157]) that the expression should not be narrowly construed and that it could extend (depending on the circumstances) to a person who is in an intimate relationship with the person.
In Dore and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2022] AATA 1750, the Tribunal had regard to the definition of ‘family member’ in the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (Family Law Act) in applying the family violence considerations. While accepting the Tribunal’s assessment is not constrained by the definition of family members contained in the Family Law Act, the Tribunal considers the definition is useful in understanding the sorts of relationships which may be considered to fall within the expression of family members under the Direction noting in particular that this however includes extended family members of a person and a person’s married or de facto partner or former married or de facto partner.
Section 5G of the Migration Act provides that, for the purposes of the Act, the members of a person’s family and relatives of a person are taken to include the following:
de facto partner of the person;
someone who is the child of the person, or of whom the person is the child, because of the definition of child in section 5CA;
anyone else who would be a member of the person’s family or a relative of the person if someone mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b) is taken to be a member of the person’s family or a relative of the person.
…
The term “intimate personal relationship” is not defined within Direction no. 110 or the Migration Act and Regulations. Therefore, the ordinary meaning of the words should be adopted. The Tribunal notes that whilst many intimate personal relationships will involve a sexual relationship, this is not a requirement. It can also include relationships where some other form of personal or emotional intimacy exists. In any event, that definition is not exhaustive and would not exclude persons who in the ordinary meaning of the words would be considered members of the person’s family.[17]
[17] See also MBBG and Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (Migration) [2025] ARTA 53 (31 January 2025) (unpublished)
The threshold for relevance set by paragraphs 8.2(2)(b) is low (see CRNL at [54] citing Aghbolagh v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FCA 43 at [41] Burley J).
It is not in dispute that the applicant has been convicted of offences involving family violence. The question that arises is whether the Tribunal should take into account further information or evidence from independent and authoritative sources that indicate that the non citizen has been involved in the perpetration of family violence, other than those offences of which he has been convicted. The respondent relies on a number of police reports that purport to describe further offending.
I have had regard to a recent decision of the Tribunal in MBBG v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (Migration) [2025] ARTA 53 (31 January 2025) and respectfully follow the approach taken. Although the police facts sheets tendered by the Minister describe various disturbances they are, in my view not probative of further family violence offences.
The applicant was cross examined at length about reports involving five separate women dating from 2006 to 2022. First, I note the historic nature of the FACTs described by police. Some of the purported offending dates back approximately two decades. Second, the applicant variously denied being in a domestic relationship with the women in question, thereby the definition of ‘member of person’s family’ not being established, and denies ever perpetrating family violence, (other than in relation to the offences giving rise to his plea of guilty). After extensive cross examination he recalled some occasions when police attended, however it is his sworn evidence that he cannot recall the incidents that gave rise to police involvement and he denies having assaulted the women in question. He denies perpetrating any offence of which he was not convicted.
In light of the applicant’s denial, and in the absence of any witnesses being called to establish the respondent’s case in this regard, I am not satisfied that the additional information relied upon is sufficiently probative for me to arrive at a finding that there is the information before me that can establish incidents of further family violence for the purposes of cl 8.2(2)(b).
In applying the considerations I have considered the information provided by the respondent. However considering both the police facts and the evidence given under cross examination and in considering the appropriate weight I should afford the information from independent and authoritative sources, I have decided to give the information provided in the police facts sheets neutral weight.
I conclude that it is not necessary for the respondent to establish additional acts of family violence. The offending giving rise to the applicant’s conviction and incarceration is sufficient. The respondent has established that the applicant has engaged in conduct constituting very serious family violence for the purposes of the Direction. As addressed earlier in these reasons, I also find there is only a limited extent to which the applicant accepts responsibility for his family violence related conduct which is demonstrated in his explanation to the Tribunal that the police facts, to which he pleaded guilty, are not the facts of his offending. In summary, the Primary Consideration 2, Family Violence, weighs very heavily against the revocation of the respondent’s decision to cancel the applicant’s visa.
Strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia
The applicant has resided in Australia since arriving as the holder of a partner visa in 2005. Paragraph 8.3 of the Direction requires a decision maker to consider any impact of the decision on the non-citizen’s family members in Australia, where those family members are Australian citizens, Australian permanent residents, or people who have a right to remain in Australia.

The applicant arrived in Australia on 5 October 2005. He was 19 years old at the time. The applicant has lived in Australia for 19 years. He has twice travelled to Fiji to visit relatives, once on the occasion of his father’s funeral. It is his evidence that he had a falling out with his siblings at the funeral and has had no contact with his brother and sister since that time. Both his brother and sister are residents of Fiji.
The applicant has no immediate family members who reside in Australia. His former partner who was the victim of the family violence offences no longer supports his application and was not a witness in these proceedings He states in oral evidence to the Tribunal that he has no further contact with her. His adult son from a previous marriage is 20 years old and resides in Spain. The applicant states in evidence that he has no contact with him.
I have taken into account the applicant’s submission that he has resided in Australia for more than half of his life and I have taken into account the witness statement written in support of his application by Abbas Jafari Rahaghi. Mr Jafari Rahaghi is willing to offer the applicant a room in his two bedroom apartment in which he resides with his wife and young daughter. Mr Jafari Rahaghi and the applicant have plans to open a transport business together. I accept the applicant’s evidence that he will be offered accommodation in the event of a revocation. I accept that his friend and witness Mr Jafari-Rahaghi will be somewhat affected if the applicant is removed to Fiji.
I have taken into account that the applicant has made some positive contribution to Australia in his previous employment in various financial roles. He has worked for a period of time, which is unspecified, and has paid taxes. He has studied and worked in various fields of administration, finance and accounting from 2005 to 2019.
The applicant has provided a letter from a pastor Rev Shalen Sharma of the Lighthouse Christian Centre, dated 9 January 2024. The witness submits that he has known Mr Lal since 2021 and believes that Mr Lal intends to return to the church as a committed member. The applicant did not give oral evidence before me that he has returned to the Lighthouse Christian Centre. He states that he is a man of faith who prays regularly with his friend and witness, Mr Jafari Rahaghi, which I accept. I find that the letter from Rev Sharma is of limited probative value, the reverend did not appear to give evidence on behalf of the applicant and it is unclear whether the applicant still has any link with the author or the church.
Further it is unclear whether the reverend is an Australian Citizen, Australian permanent resident or a person who has an indefinite right to remain in Australia for the purpose of paragraph 8.3(2)(b) of the Direction.
Overall I conclude that this consideration only weighs moderately in favour of the applicant.
Best interests of minor children in Australia – 8.4
The Tribunal must determine whether a refusal to revoke the Minister’s decision is or is not in the best interest of a minor child in Australia affected by the decision.
There is no indication that the applicant has minor children in Australia. He has an adult son who resides in Spain and with whom he has no contact. There are no minor children whose interests may be affected by the refusal to revoke.
I give this consideration neutral weight.
Expectations of the Australian community – 8.5
In relation to this consideration, 8.5(1) of the Direction states:
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.
The applicant has committed very serious offences under Australian laws. He would therefore be expected to be removed from the community, as violent offending against women is at the very serious end of the spectrum.
In relation to this consideration, 8.5(1) of the Direction states:
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.
The applicant has failed to obey Australian laws. He would therefore be expected to be removed from the community, as violent offences against women are at the very serious end of the spectrum. Further, whilst the risk of reoffending is stated to be T2 Low-Medium, I have concluded above that any risk of the applicant reoffending is unacceptable in circumstances where the nature of the offending is likely to cause great harm to potential victims, with life long and enduring consequences.
The Minister contends that the Tribunal’s task is to engage in an overall balancing of the weight of all considerations together,[18] and that the protection of the Australian community is generally to be given greater weight than the other considerations and that it is not for the Tribunal to infer the expectations of the Australian community based on the applicant’s personal circumstances. I find that the Australian community would expect that the Minister’s decision to cancel the visa should not be revoked, on account of his very serious offending and other conduct (8.5(1)). Not to revoke the Minister’s decision to cancel the visa is appropriate simply because of the nature of the applicant’s offending which includes family violence offending as well as other, regular, offending.
[18] Ismail v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2024] HCA 2; see ASFIC at [16].
I find that the Australian community expects that the Australian government should not revoke the decision to cancel the applicant’s partner visa.
I consider that this factor weighs strongly against the revocation of the decision of the Minister to cancel the visa.
Legal consequences of the decision - 9.1
As noted above, the applicant is a citizen of Fiji. The applicant did not raise any non- refoulment obligations and the applicant has not applied for a protection visa.
Extent of impediments if removed to Fiji
The Tribunal is required to consider the legal consequences of its decision.[19] That is, the Tribunal must have regard to the statutory framework in which the power to revoke a mandatory cancellation decision exists, including the direct and immediate consequences of an exercise of the power.
[19] Direction, cl 9.1(1). See also NBMZ v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2014] FCAFC 38; (2014) 220 FCR 1, [3], [9]-[10]; Taulahi v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCAFC 177; (2016) 246 FCR 146, [84], [88].
There are three major consequences of visa refusal or cancellation under s 501 and related provisions:
(a)a prohibition on applying for other types of visas under s 501E of the Migration Act (other than a protection visa or a bridging (removal pending) visa);[20]
(b)refusal/cancellation of other visa applications/visas under s 501F of the Migration Act; and
(c)
the possible application of periods of exclusion and special return criteria under

s 503 of the Migration Act and SRC 5001 and 5002 in Sch 5 to the Migration Regulations. This includes permanent exclusion where SRC 5001 applies unless the Minister acts personally to grant a permanent visa to the person.
[20] See also Migration Act s 46(1)(d).
Accordingly, this decision is primarily about whether the applicant would be subject to the s 501E bar on further visa applications and any special return criteria should he be removed from Australia and apply for another visa.
I have considered the extent of any impediments that the applicant will face, if removed from Australia to Fiji. The applicant contends that if he is removed he will face “the risk of irreparable physical, psychological and emotional harm.” [21] I have taken into account his diagnoses of depression and anxiety and that he takes medication for his depression. There is no evidence before me that would lead me to conclude that the applicant cannot access health services in Fiji and while I accept that the applicant will face some hardship reintegrating into Fijian society, he is likely to experience limited hardship, for cultural or linguistic reasons, as he lived in Fiji until he was an adult, 19 years of age. I am also satisfied that, as an educated man, he is adept at re-acclimatising.
[21] Statement Applicant, undated, [4]
I have considered his submission that Fiji is a ‘third world island nation’ and that he may die if he returns to Fiji. I am of the view that he has shown considerable resilience in establishing himself in a foreign country, Australia, and that he will likely gain employment and be able to financially support himself should he be removed to Fiji.
He does have family in Fiji, a brother and sister, but I accept his evidence that he is estranged from his siblings and that it is unlikely that he would be able to lean on immediate family for support or accommodation. However, for the reasons set out above I am of the view that he does have income earning capacity and will be able to gain employment to support himself and house himself if necessary.
I find that this consideration weighs moderately in favour of the decision to revoke.
Impact on Australian business interests – 9.3
There is no evidence of impact on Australian business interests. This consideration is neutral.
CONCLUSION
I have found that the applicant does not pass the character test and he has not satisfied me that he passes the character test.
In considering the use of my discretion I have given the highest priority to the safety of the Australian community and the need to protect safety. I have found that there is a likelihood the applicant will reoffend and that the risk of harm to the Australian community is unacceptable. I have concluded that this consideration weighs very heavily against the revocation of the respondent’s decision to cancel the applicant’s visa.
I have concluded that any adverse decision could not result in hardship on the applicant’s family and friends stemming directly from his removal. I have given limited weight in favour of the applicant to the strength, nature and duration of his ties to Australia, Further, while the applicant has a few friends, associates and social connections and while he contributed to the Australian community to a degree, I have also considered that his offending commenced within a short time after arriving in Australia.
Furthermore, I have considered that the Australian community expects the government not to allow non-citizens who have engaged in family violence and who has assaulted a family member to enter or remain in Australia. I give this primary consideration substantial weight in support of the refusal to revoke the Minister’s decision to cancel the visa.
The applicant also has a long and extensive criminal history and has had little regard for community corrections orders, suspended sentences and bail. He has breached an Apprehended Domestic Violence order. His visa was previously cancelled for the same type of offence as that which led to this cancellation, and the previous warning issued to and signed by him did not prevent him reoffending in the same way. That the type of offending which resulted in the cancellation of his visa involved family violence, which is itself a separate consideration in the Direction, adds a degree of gravity to this repeated conduct. His remorse does not assure me that the risk to the community has lessened during his period of imprisonment and detention.
Overall, the weight attached to the protection of the Australian community, the family violence committed by the applicant and the expectations of the Australian community, outweighs his ties to Australia, and the legal consequences of the decision and the extent of impediments if removed.
As a result, another reason the original decision should be revoked has not been established for the purposes of s 501CA(4)(b)(ii).
As the applicant does not pass the character test as defined by s 501 for the purposes of s 501CA(4)(b)(i) and another reason to revoke the cancellation has not been established for s 501CA(4)(b)(ii) the decision not to revoke the cancellation of the visa is affirmed.
DECISION
The decision under review is affirmed.

Date(s) of hearing: 11 and 12 June 2025

Solicitors for the Applicant: Self-represented

Solicitors for the Respondent: Mr Wong, Solicitor, HWL Ebsworth

Date(s) of hearing:	11 and 12 June 2025
Solicitors for the Applicant:	Self-represented
Solicitors for the Respondent:	Mr Wong, Solicitor, HWL Ebsworth