Lee and Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (Migration) - [2025] ARTA 767

Lee and Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (Migration) [2025] ARTA 767 (16 June 2025)
ApplicantKiat Hong Lee
Respondent: Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs
Tribunal Number: 2025/2956
Tribunal:General Member R. West
Place:Melbourne
Date:16 June 2025

Decision:Pursuant to section 105(a) of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth) the Tribunal affirms the decision of the delegate of the Respondent of 26 March 2025 not to revoke the cancellation of the Applicant’s Class WA Subclass 010 Bridging A visa.

.................................[SGD]...................................
General Member R. West
Catchwords
MIGRATION – mandatory cancellation of applicant’s visa – conviction for family violence offences – applicant does not pass the character test – whether discretion to revoke mandatory cancellation should be exercised – Direction 110 – primary considerations – protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct – strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia – best interests of minor children – expectations of the Australian community – legal consequences of the decision – extent of impediments if removed – decision affirmed.
Legislation
Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth)
Migration Act 1958 (Cth)
Cases
CKL21 v Minister for Home Affairs [2022] FCAFC 70; (2022) 293 FCR 634
FYBR v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCAFC 185
Gaspar v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCA 1166
Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs v HSRN [2023] FCAFC 68
Rano v Minister for Home Affairs, Minister for Cyber Security [2024] FCA 1003
Rokobatini v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [1999] FCA 1238
Suleiman v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 594
Viane v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCAFC 116
Singh v Minster for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2020] FCA 556;
HZCP v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2019] FCAFC 202;
Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Daniele (1981) 61 FLR 354;
Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v SRT (1999) 91 FCR 234.
Minister for Home Affairs v Stower [2020] FCA 407
NZYQ v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] HCA 37
Plaintiff M1-2021 v Minister for Home Affairs (2022) 96 ALJR 497
Secondary Materials
Direction No. 110 – Migration Act 1958 – Direction under s 499 – Visa refusal and cancellation under s 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under s 501CA
Statement of Reasons

This matter concerns an application for review of the decision of a delegate of the Respondent not to revoke the cancellation of the Applicant’s Class WA Subclass 010 Bridging A Visa (the Visa) under section 501CA(4) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).
BACKGROUND
The Applicant is a citizen of Malaysia. He first arrived in Australia as a visitor in June 2006.[1]
[1] G14 at p.112
On 31 January 2024 the Applicant was convicted of seven offences for which he was sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment of 19 months.[2]
[2] G6 at pp.40–3.
On 20 February 2024 the Applicant’s Visa was cancelled under section 501(3A) of the Act (Cancellation Decision) and the Applicant was notified of the cancellation and invited to make representations about revocation.[3]
[3] G15 at pp.113-121
On 8 March 2024 the Applicant sought revocation of the cancellation of the Visa and made representations to the Respondent as to why the cancellation of the Visa should be revoked.[4]
[4] G11 at pp.91-94 and G12 at pp.95-109
On 26 March 2025 a delegate of the Respondent decided not to revoke the cancellation of the Applicant’s Visa (Reviewable Decision)[5] and notified the Applicant of the decision on 2 December 2024.[6]
[5] G2 at pp.18-38
[6] G2 at p.18
On 4 April 2025 the Applicant applied to the Tribunal for review of the Reviewable Decision[7] (Application).
[7] G1 at pp.5-17
HEARING
The Tribunal conducted a hearing of the Application on 11 June 2025 by video-conference. The Applicant was self-represented, with the assistance of a Mandarin/English interpreter. The Respondent was represented by Ms Clair Campbell, a solicitor.
In conducting the review, the Tribunal had regard to:
(a)the documents produced to the Tribunal by the Respondent pursuant to section 501G of the Act, numbered G1 to G20 and paginated from pages 1 to 175 (G Documents), and further documents produced under summons sequentially numbered RB1 to RB6 and paginated from pages 1 to 136 (RB Documents);
(b)a Statement of Facts, Issues, and Contentions produced by the Respondent (RSFIC); and
(c)the oral evidence of the Applicant.
Directions issued by the Tribunal on 16 April 2025 provided for the Applicant to lodge and serve a Statement of Facts, Issues, and Contentions (ASFIC) and any evidence upon which he intended to rely by 16 May 2025. The Applicant did not lodge and serve an ASFIC or any further evidence.
LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK
Section 501CA(4) of the Act enables the Tribunal on review to revoke the mandatory visa cancellation decision if it is satisfied that:
(a) the Applicant passes the character test (as defined by section 501); or
(b) there is another reason why the cancellation should be revoked.
Section 501(6)(a) provides that a person is deemed not to pass the character test if they have a ‘substantial criminal record’, which is relevantly defined in section 501(7)(d) to include having been sentenced to 2 or more terms of imprisonment, where the total of those terms is 12 months or more.
On 31 January 2024 the Applicant was convicted of seven offences in the Burwood Local Court, for which he was sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment of 19 months[8]. As a result, the Applicant has a ‘substantial criminal record’ as defined in section 501(7)(d). He therefore fails the character test under section 501(6)(a).
[8] G3 at pp.39-40
Accordingly, the sole issue before the Tribunal is whether, under section 501CA(4)(b)(ii), there is another reason why the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant’s Visa should be revoked. That reason:
... must be a reason that carries sufficient weight or significance to satisfy the Minister entrusted with the responsibility to consider whether to revoke the visa cancellation that the decision should be revoked. Only a reason of that character enlivens the statutory power to revoke. It is the absence of such a reason that will result in a decision not to revoke a visa cancellation.[9]
[9] Viane v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCAFC 116 at [64] per Colvin J.
DIRECTION 110
On 7 June 2024, the Minister issued Direction No. 110 – Visa refusal and cancellation under s 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under s 501CA (Direction 110) to commence operation from 21 June 2024. Direction 110 provides guidance for decision-makers in determining, relevantly, whether there is another reason why the cancellation of the Applicant’s Visa should be revoked.
Section 499 of the Act authorises the Minister to give written directions to a person or body having functions or powers under that Act, provided that the directions are about the performance of those functions or the exercise of those powers. Section 499(2A) of the Act mandates that the Tribunal must comply with the direction.[10]
[10] See Rokobatini v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (1999) 90 FCR 583 [17].
Paragraph 6 of Part 2 of Direction 110 provides that decision-makers must take into account the considerations identified in paragraphs 8 and 9 where relevant to the decision within the framework provided by the principles stated in paragraph 5.2.
Paragraph 8 of Part 2 sets out the five primary considerations:
(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.
Paragraph 9(1) of Part 2 sets out other considerations. These include, but are not limited to:
a)        legal consequences of the decision;
b)        extent of impediments if removed;
c)        impact on Australian business interests.
Paragraph 7(2) provides that the primary considerations should generally be given greater weight than the other considerations and specifically provides that the primary consideration of the protection of the Australian community is generally to be given greater weight than other primary considerations.
Applicant’s Criminal Record
A complete statement of the Applicant’s criminal record as reported by the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission on 1 July 2024 was included in the G Documents.[11]
[11] G3 at pp. 39-42.
The offending documented in the record includes:
16 February 2023 – Burwood Local Court
a.common assault – convicted - 12 month conditional release order
27 June 2023 – Parramatta Local Court
b.contravene prohibition/restriction in AVO (Domestic) and common assault – convicted - 14 month intensive correction order
c.common assault – convicted - 18 month community correction order.
31 January 2024 – Burwood Local Court
a. Intentionally choke etc person without consent - Sexually touch another person without consent - Contravene prohibition/restriction in AVO (Domestic) - Common assault - Assault occasioning actual bodily harm (2 counts) – 19 months imprisonment with minimum parole period of 11 months –
b. Common assault – 3 year community corrections order
PRIMARY CONSIDERATIONS
Protection of the Australian Community
Paragraph 8.1(2) of Part 2 of Direction 110 requires decision-makers to give consideration to:
a) the nature and seriousness of the non-citizen’s conduct to date; and
b)the risk to the Australian community, should the non-citizen commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct.
Nature and Seriousness of the Applicant’s Conduct to Date
Magistrate Halburd described the offending for which the Applicant was convicted on 31 January 2024 in his sentencing remarks as follows:
The defendant has pleaded guilty on the day of the hearing to a series of charges, a common assault and a breach AVO which carries two years, sexual touching, assault occasioning actual bodily harm and a choke, each carries five years. He is fast becoming a recidivist domestic violence offender in the context of a criminal record that only starts in 2019. He assaulted his former partner and then was placed on a conditional release order, that was breached by the looks of it by a further assault on her, it’s turned into a community corrections order, that further assault occurred in contravention of apprehended violence order, he was given a gaol sentence for that by way of an intensive corrections order on 27 June last year. He was serving that order in the community at the time that he committed the current offences……
…The sentencing exercise is aggravated by virtue of the fact that he was on ICO and CCO for the same victim. The offence occurred in the home of the victim, a place where she should have been able to feel safe and all of the victims. The victim is his former partner, the other two victims are as I understand it his two young adult children. They came to the aid of their mother when the defendant, in breach of an AVO which says that he was not to contact that lady, was in her home, refused to leave and then assaulted her and sexually assaulted her touching her on the breasts and squeezing her buttocks. And when the boys tried to protect their mother the defendant assaulted them causing scratches to both of them, scratch marks around the upper chest of one of them and to his neck and that’s the one that was also choked[12].
[12] G4 at pp.47-48
The Applicant plead guilty to all offences on the day of the hearing and did not dispute the facts as stated by the Magistrate[13] .
[13] G5 at p.50
Magistrate Thompson described the offending to which the Applicant plead guilty and was convicted on 27 June 2023, in her sentencing remarks as follows:
The victim in this matter was his partner. At the time of the offence, he was subject to an apprehended violence order. On 11 November, he was observed to be moderately intoxicated. He followed the victim [his ex-wife] around the house and when opening the fridge door, swung his elbow into her arm. Later, he threw her phone and then when she said she would call the police, he pushed her in her chest, grabbed her hair and threw her to the ground. He punched her while she was on the ground a number of times and slapped her.
The victim screamed for witnesses to help. The witness, hearing his mother scream, came downstairs to find the offender assaulting her by kicking her in the head. He kicked her multiple times. The witness approached the offender and told him not to hit his mother and the victim was able to get her phone and call the police. He approached her and kicked her a further two times before leaving the house[14].
[14] G6 at pp.57-58
In relation to the Applicant’s conviction for common assault on 16 February 2023, the NSW Police Facts Sheet dated 30 January 2023 which was presented to the Court identified the victim as the Applicant’s partner and provided the following description of the alleged circumstances of the Applicant’s offending behaviour[15]:
About 9:00pm on either the Thursday 19th or Friday the 20th of January 2023, the accused entered the victim's bedroom while the victim was laying on her bed and using her mobile phone. The accused said, "Why do you want a divorce? Why don’t you give me a chance? We have been married for 22 years". The victim replied, "I already gave you a lot of chance to change, to be a good father, good husband, but no change".
The accused then sat on the bed beside the victim and the two continued to argue. The accused then grabbed both of the victim's arms with his hands and moved his body so that he was laying on top of the victim. The accused then proceeded to pull the victim's pants and then the victim's underpants using one hand, while he still used the other hand to hold the victim's arm.
The victim began crying and said "stop" about five or six times to the accused. The victim has then used both her feet to kick the accused off of her before getting up from the bed and running to the ensuite bathroom. The accused waited in the bedroom for a couple of minutes before walking downstairs. At no point did the victim given the accused permission to touch her or remove her clothing.
[15] RB1 at pp.4-5
The Police Facts Sheet notes that the Applicant participated in an electronically recorded interview with the assistance of a Mandarin interpreter on 30 January 2023 in which he claimed to have aggressively hugged the victim on the night in question and admitted that bruises on the victim’s arms and lower back could have been caused by the pressure of his hugging. The Brief further notes that:
When asked the victim was attempting to resist the accused, he stated he was holding her to prevent her from leaving the room. The accused was asked if he was aware that the actions of the victim to leave his grasp would be a revoke in consent to which he agreed, stating this was an action they have always carried out during an argument, then resulting in both parties conducting in sexual intercourse.
The Tribunal acknowledges that, given the absence of a proper record of the Court proceedings, it should adopt a cautious approach to findings of fact related to the Applicant’s convictions based on the Police Fact Sheets. The Tribunal cannot go behind the convictions or impugn the decision of the Court.[16]. However, the fact that the Applicant was convicted on the charge as alleged in the Fact Sheet and his failure to specifically address the offending when offered the opportunity to comment on his convictions in his oral evidence, satisfies the Tribunal that the offence for which he was convicted on 16 February 2023 involved conduct of a sexual nature toward his ex-partner.
[16] Singh v Minster for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2020] FCA 556; HZCP v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2019] FCAFC 202; Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Daniele (1981) 61 FLR 354; Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v SRT (1999) 91 FCR 234.
Paragraph 8.1.1(1) of Part 2 of Direction 110 provides a description of what is considered ‘very serious’ and ‘serious’ conduct. Paragraphs 8.1.1(1)(a)(i)-(iii) list certain crimes which are to be regarded as ‘very serious’ and include crimes of violence, crimes of a sexual nature against women and acts of family violence, regardless of whether there is a conviction for an offence or a sentence involved.
The Applicant’s offending was directed at his female partner and his adult children. It involved violence and in two incidents involved conduct of a sexual nature.
There can be no doubt that the Applicant’s offending is to be viewed as very serious conduct for the purpose of Direction 110.
The descriptions of serious crimes given in paragraphs 8.1.1(1) are not exhaustive, and paragraphs 8.1.1(1)(c)-(i) set out a range of factors decision-makers must consider in assessing the nature and seriousness of the criminal offending or other conduct to date. This includes, for relevant purposes in this case:
(d)the impact of the offending on victims and their family;
(e)the frequency of the Applicant’s offending; and
(f)the cumulative effect of any repeated offending.
In her sentencing remarks on 27 June 2023 Magistrate Thompson described the Applicant’s conduct as a very grave and serious nature, which took place in the home of the victim, where she is entitled to be safe and not subjected to acts of violence.[17]
[17] G6 at p.58
Paragraph 8.1.1(1)(c) requires that acts of family violence and crimes of violence and/or of a sexual nature against women are to be regarded as very serious irrespective of the sentence imposed and it is not appropriate for the Tribunal to have regard to the length of sentence in assessing its seriousness.[18]
[18] Minister for Home Affairs v Stower [2020] FCA 407 at [45]-[54]]
A clear indicator of the seriousness of the Applicant’s offending for which he was convicted on 31 January 2024 is that the offending was in breach of an apprehended domestic violence order[19] and while the Applicant was subject to an intensive corrections order and a community corrections order imposed as a result of his prior offenses against the same victim.
[19] RB at p.18
Paragraph 8.1.1(1)(e) of the Direction provides that the frequency of the Applicant’s offending and whether there is a trend of increasing seriousness must also be taken into account. In the Applicant’s case his record of convictions involves repeated offences over a twelve month period. Magistrate Halburd observed in sentencing him on 31 January 2024 that the Applicant …is fast becoming a recidivist domestic violence offender.[20]
[20] G4 at p.48
His most recent offending represented an escalation in the seriousness of his prior offending.
Having regard to these matters, the Tribunal is satisfied that the Applicant’s past criminal conduct was very serious.
The risk to the Australian community should the Applicant commit further offences or engage in other serious misconduct
Paragraph 8.1.2(2) of Part 2 of Direction 110 requires the decision-maker, in assessing whether the Applicant represents an unacceptable risk of harm to the Australian community, to have regard, cumulatively, to:
(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 available information and evidence on the risk of the applicant reoffending.
Nature of the Harm

The Applicant's offending included repeated acts of family violence against his ex-wife and sons notwithstanding court-imposed orders. The Applicant acknowledged in his oral evidence that his conduct had caused his three sons and his ex-wife to be afraid of him and the court records confirm that he inflicted physical injury on them as a result of the conduct for which he was convicted on 27 June 2023 and on 31 January 2024.
If this conduct is repeated it would expose members of the Applicant’s family to a significant risk of serious physical injury and psychological and emotional harm.
Likelihood of reoffending
In assessing the risk of reoffending, the Tribunal is mindful of the comments of the Full Court of the Federal Court in CKL21 v Minister for Home Affairs that in curial and administrative decision-making, the task of assessing the degree of likelihood of an event occurring in the future ‘must be based on a logical process of reasoning based on the known facts’.[21]
[21] (2022) 293 FCR 634 [74], citing the High Court’s decision in Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Guo (1997) 191 CLR 559 at 574–5.
Accordingly, the Tribunal has approached the assessment of risk having regard to a series of factors.
Nature of the Offending
It is relevant to an assessment of risk that the Applicant has been a repeat offender. He has continued to offend notwithstanding previous apprehension and conviction. He was not deterred from offending by the imposition of an AVO or correction orders under which he was subject to regular supervision by the NSW Dept of Corrections from 27 June 2023 to 26 September 2023[22]. He was warned by the sentencing Magistrate on 27 June 2023, "if you commit any further offences, that can see you go into gaol.[23] Despite this, the Applicant went on to commit more serious "family violence" offences involving the same victims.
[22] RB4 at pp.72-83
[23] G6 at p.58
Importantly, the Applicant was not deterred by the impact of his behaviour on his close family.
Remorse
The fact that the Applicant repeated his family violence offending suggests that he is not genuinely remorseful.
Independent sources have questioned whether he is genuinely remorseful.
a.A Case Note Report by NSW Department of Corrective Services dated 27 June 2023, noted that the Applicant "minimised his offending and accounted some of the blame to the victim, by stating that she was at fault for wanting to leave him and the family behind". He was found to have limited insight, noting that he was not ..able to demonstrate the impact of his actions towards the victim and family and claiming that there were no issues with his relationship with the victim[24].
b.The Applicant plead guilty to all charges when convicted on 31 January 2024. However, in his sentencing remarks Magistrate Halburd stated
It is said that he is remorseful, there is not the slightest evidence of that, a plea of guilty on the day of the hearing, nothing further[25].
[24] RB4 at p.72
[25] G4 at p.48
In the proceedings on 27 June 2023 the Applicant assured the Magistrate that "I will not do this again. I will walk off instead"[26] yet he subsequently offended more seriously only a few months later.
[26] G6 at p.56
In his oral evidence the Applicant denied that he had assaulted anyone and had only plead guilty to the charges against him because he had no witnesses and his lawyer had advised him to do so. He said that he had only sworn at his family and had been assaulted by his sons causing him to struggle to fight them off. He added that he did not want to challenge the convictions because it would implicate his sons and he was worried that they would be locked up.
The Tribunal does not accept the Applicant’s evidence in this regard. He did not present as a credible witness. His claims are inconsistent with the findings of the courts and inconsistent with his own prior statements in which he admitted his offending but blamed it on his consumption of alcohol.[27]
[27] G12 at p.105
The Tribunal is not satisfied that the Applicant fully accepts responsibility for his criminal conduct and his statements of remorse ring hollow without such acceptance.
Conduct in prison and detention
The Applicant’s conduct in prison and detention does not indicate any anti-social behaviour. He was assessed on 9 March 2024 by a Correction Services Officer who opined that the Applicant ..is not a behaviour management issue he is polite and compliant to staff requests and gets along well with other inmates[28]. However, the Applicant’s offending has been confined to the members of his immediate family rather than the community at large. Accordingly, the Tribunal gives limited weight to his record in custody.
Substance Abuse
[28] RB4 at p.122
The Applicant has acknowledged that his consumption of alcohol has been a factor in his offending.[29] He admitted when interviewed by the NSW Department of Corrective Services on 11 July 2023 that "he has some problems (mental health symptoms) when he drinks stating he gets aggressive and it effects his temper".[30]
[29] G12 at p.105
[30] RB4 at p.75
His counsel stated in putting submissions on sentencing at the trial on 31 January 2024 that
..the criminal record does show that there is an issue with alcohol and he that commenced earlier in 2023 when his relationship with his wife deteriorated and broke down and they separated. And the record does show that the offences towards his wife, although not unserious, are occurring after he’s consumed alcohol and he’s come to terms with the fact that he certainly does have an alcohol problem and on the last occasion when he was given - when an ICO orders were made he was not ordered to undergo alcohol rehabilitation and certainly he's asking for another chance in order to get his life in order, seek some rehabilitation, get some counselling. He does wish to put his life back together.[31]
[31] G4 at p.47
Magistrate Halburd observed
He has got an issue with alcohol it is said, well that would seem to be the case, he consumed a large quantity of alcohol prior to this, that of course is not a mitigating factor specifically it’s not a mitigating factor.[32]
[32] G4 at p.48
The Applicant has been in custody since October 2023[33] and claims to have been alcohol-free during this time. He also claims that he has undergone rehabilitation for his use of alcohol since he was imprisoned,[34] but when questioned about it in his oral evidence he gave no detail, merely asserting that he had listened to some courses recently while in detention.
[33] G4 at p.49
[34] G12 at p.105.
There is no corroborating evidence of him engaging in meaningful forms of rehabilitation to address his alcohol use or in relation to anger management. The evidence suggests that the Applicant may have been unable to engage in some educational programs whilst incarcerated due to his limited English.[35] There is no evidence he has engaged in rehabilitation generally to identify and address any underlying emotional, personality or psychological issues contributing to his domestic violence. The Applicant confirmed in his oral evidence that he has never received psychological assessment or treatment.
Protective Factors
[35] RB4 at pp.120 and 124
The Applicant provided a Personal Circumstances Form to the Department in support of his revocation application but it did not identify any family in Australia apart from his ex-wife and children, from whom he is estranged, and his brother-in-law.[36] The NSW Department of Corrections records of interview with the Applicant on 26 March 2024 note that his brother-in-law has been supportive of him in custody and regularly speaks with him. The Applicant is recorded as stating that he has not spoken to his children since being in custody and has no friends[37]. He confirmed this in his oral evidence.
[36] G12 at p.104
[37] RB at p.123
While the Applicant has very limited personal support he would be subject to court-ordered restrictions if released into the community. As part of his sentencing on 31 January 2024 he was placed on a community corrections order for three years with a condition that he abstain from alcohol[38] and he was made subject to an apprehended violence order (AVO) for 5 years requiring that he not assault or threaten his ex-wife and children, not to stalk, harass or intimidate them, not intentionally or recklessly destroy or damage any property or harm any animal that belongs to them or is in their possession, not approach or contact them in any way unless the contact is through a lawyer and not go within 200 metres of where they live or work.[39] The Applicant confirmed in his oral evidence that the AVO had recently been extended to include his youngest son until it expires on 30 January 2029.
[38] G4 at p.49
[39] G4 at p.50
While these orders do provide some disincentive for the Applicant to re-offend he has demonstrated in the past that he is not deterred by AVOs and other forms of corrections orders. He admitted in his oral evidence that he was aware of AVOs in place at the time of his offending in June and November 2023 and understood the restrictions they imposed and knew that he was breaking the law by breaching those restrictions. He even suggested that his family had contributed to the breaches by requiring him to attend their house to retrieve his possessions which they were threatening to throw out in the course of moving to a new residence.
It is also relevant that the Applicant remains connected to his immediate family at least emotionally and that he contemplates having contact with them in the future. In his oral evidence he said that if released he would reside, at least initially, with his ex-wife’s brother and that he would look to him as his former employer to assist him to find employment. He expressed an intention to take steps to try to have the AVO set aside so that he could resume contact with his sons. He also stated that if released he intends to work hard to earn money to give to his ex-wife. In this context, the Tribunal notes the evidence of the Applicant that money was the source of conflict with his ex-wife. He stated that no matter how much he earned she was not satisfied and that he was afraid that if he did not give her everything he earned she would report him to the police. A NSW Department of Corrective Services Case Note Report dated 26 September 2023 records that the Applicant's "main focus is making money, as it appears he believes this is the fundamental issue in why he offended, as the couple would argue constantly about money and he felt disconnected from the family due to not earning a sufficient amount.[40] There is no reason to assume that the Applicant’s financial circumstances would be materially different to that previously if he were now released into the community.
[40] RB4 at p.83
The Tribunal also notes the Applicant’s oral evidence that he was involved in a protracted and heated dispute with his family in Malaysia in 2012 to 2014 over the control of the family seafood business resulting in him being outcast by his family.
These matters suggest that the possibility of repeated conflict between the Applicant and members of his family is far from remote.
Consideration
While the Applicant has generally acted appropriately while in prison and in immigration detention since his most recent convictions the Applicant is untested in the community. He has a history of conflict with members of his family and he has engaged in repeated family violence offending for which he has demonstrated little or no genuine remorse. He has a history of not complying with court-sanctioned restrictions. He has not received any professional support to address the factors underlying his offending and specifically his alcohol consumption and anger management. He has limited support in the community.
Having regard to these matters the Tribunal is satisfied that the Applicant represents a substantial risk of re-offending in the form of family violence against his former partner and his children. This risk must be weighed against the nature of his past offending which was very serious and if repeated would threaten significant physical and psychological harm to members of the Australian community.
The protection of the Australian community is a primary consideration under Direction 110 and paragraph 8.1(1) identifies the safety of the Australian community as the highest priority of the Australian Government. Accordingly, the Tribunal gives this consideration substantial weight in favour of not revoking the cancellation of the Applicant’s Visa.
Family Violence
Paragraph 8.2(1) of Direction 110 states:
The Government has serious concerns about conferring on non-citizens who engage in family violence the privilege of entering or remaining in Australia. The Government's concerns in this regard are proportionate to the seriousness of the family violence engaged in by the non-citizen.
Paragraph 4(1) of Direction 110 defines family violence to mean 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 relevantly, includes, assault and sexual assault or sexually abusive behaviour. The Applicant's criminal history includes 11 convictions, for assaults against his ex-wife and sons. Two of the assaults against his ex-wife were of a sexual nature.
The Tribunal has not had access to any victim impact statements but it is reasonable to assume that the Applicant’s offending caused the victims to be fearful. The case notes of the NSW Department of Corrective Services on 18 July 2023 record the Applicant 's statements that his son was always timid and will always be afraid due to witnessing the first offence, and that... his wife will not talk to him in the future 'because she knows if I get upset something bad will happen.[41] In his oral evidence the Applicant acknowledged that his actions, which he claimed were no more than aggressive swearing, caused his three children and his ex-wife to be frightened of him when he was angry.
[41] RB4 at p.76
Accordingly, the Applicant has committed numerous acts of "family violence" as defined in Direction 110.
The Applicant’s conduct was frequent, involving three separate occasions of offending in a twelve-month period. There is no evidence that the Applicant has undertaken any rehabilitation for his family violence offending nor taken steps to address his issues with alcohol and anger management. The Applicant has demonstrated a limited understanding of the impact of his behaviour on the victims and has continued to attribute some responsibility for his offending to the victims. Accordingly applying the principles stated in paragraph 8.2(3) of Direction 110, the Tribunal assesses the family violence engaged in by the Applicant as very serious.
The commission of family violence is a primary consideration under Direction 110, and given the seriousness of the Applicant’s offending it weighs heavily against revocation in his case.
The Strength, Nature and Duration of Ties to Australia
Paragraph 8.3 of Part 2 of Direction 110 requires that decision-makers:
(1)… 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)… must also consider the strength, nature and duration of any other ties that the non-citizen has to the Australian community. In doing so, decision-makers must have regard to:
a)how long the non-citizen has resided in Australia, including whether the non-citizen arrived as a young child, noting that:
i.less weight should be given where the non-citizen began offending soon after arriving in Australia; and
ii.more weight should be given to time the non-citizen has spent contributing positively to the Australian community
b)the strength, duration and nature of any family or social links with Australian citizens, Australian permanent residents and/or people who have an indefinite right to remain in Australia.
The Applicant has immediate family in Australia, his ex-wife and three sons, aged 23, 21 and 7 who have a right to remain in Australia indefinitely. However, they are estranged from the Applicant who is subject to an AVO preventing him contacting any of them until 30 January 2029. The Applicant’s ex-wife and the two elder sons are the victims of the Applicant’s family violence offending. The Applicant acknowledged that the younger son has been adversely affected by that conduct. The Applicant confirmed in his oral evidence that he has not had any contact with any members of his immediate family since he was taken into custody in October 2023. He stated that he had no contact with his youngest son prior to that time.
In these circumstances the Tribunal is not satisfied that the removal of the Applicant from Australia would have a detrimental effect on any member of the Applicant’s immediate family. However, the removal of the Applicant would deny the members of the family and particularly the youngest son an opportunity to reconcile with the Applicant and in that sense a decision to revoke the cancellation of the Applicant’s Visa may have a positive impact on the family.
The Applicant has a relationship with his ex-wife’s younger brother, with whom the Applicant has previously been employed. While NSW Correction Services records indicate that the Applicant has maintained contact with his brother-in-law while in custody there is no evidence from the brother-in-law himself to indicate the strength and nature of their relationship.
The Applicant admitted in his oral evidence that he has no friends in Australia. He otherwise, has limited ties to the Australian community.
His formative years were in Malaysia. He first came to Australia in 2006 at the age of 28 on a visitor visa and travelled back to Malaysia regularly[42] spending three years living and working in Malaysia between June 2012 and June 2015. He remained in Australia after 2015 as the holder of temporary visas[43], and was on a bridging visa at the time of his offending. Principle 5.2(5) provides that Australia has a low tolerance of any criminal or other serious conduct by those holding a limited stay visa.
[42] G14 at pp111-112
[43] G2 at p.32 and RB4 at pp.126-127
He has been employed as a Gyprock installer and established his own business and worked intermittently in a grocery store. Prior to his incarceration he was the principal financial support for his immediate family. There is no evidence that he has otherwise made any positive contribution to the Australian community.
On the basis of this evidence, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the Applicant has strong and enduring ties to the Australian community. However, the Applicant’s limited ties to the Australian community do warrant some moderate weight in favour of revocation. This is a primary consideration under Direction 110.
Best Interests of Minor Children affected by the Decision
Paragraph 8.4(1) of Part 2 of Direction 110 requires that decision-makers must make a determination about whether refusal under section 501 or non-revocation under section 501CA is, or is not, in the best interests of a child affected by the decision.
In considering the best interests of the child, paragraph 8.4(4) requires specific factors to be considered. The consideration of the factors relevant in this case are set out below:
a)the nature and duration of the relationship between the child and the non-citizen. Less weight should generally be given where the relationship is non-parental, and/or there is no existing relationship and/or there have been long periods of absence, or limited meaningful contact (including whether an existing Court order restricts contact);
b)the extent to which the non-citizen is likely to play a positive parental role in the future, taking into account the length of time until the child turns 18, and including any Court orders relating to parental access and care arrangements;
c)the impact of the non-citizen’s prior conduct, and any likely future conduct, and whether that conduct has, or will have a negative impact on the child;
d)the likely effect that any separation from the non-citizen would have on the child, taking into account the child's or non-citizen’s ability to maintain contact in other ways;
e)whether there are other persons who already fulfil a parental role in relation to the child;
f)any known views of the child (with those views being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child);
g)evidence that the child has been, or is at risk of being, subject to, or exposed to, family violence perpetrated by the non-citizen, or has otherwise been abused or neglected by the non-citizen in any way, whether physically, sexually or mentally;
h)evidence that the child has suffered or experienced any physical or emotional trauma arising from the non-citizen’s conduct.

In his Personal Circumstances Form submitted to the Department in support of his revocation application the Applicant did not identify any biological or other minor children in his life. He described his children as 2 adult children.[44]
[44] G12 at pp.100-104
In his oral evidence the Applicant claimed to have one minor child, a son A, whom he thought was born in 2017. The Applicant’s evidence regarding A was vague. He said that he was currently unable to contact A because of an AVO which had been extended to cover him until 30 January 2029. The Applicant said that he had had no contact with A since he was taken into custody in October 2023 and that he had no contact with him prior to that time. He acknowledged in his oral evidence that his family violence conduct had adversely affected A.
The Applicant provided no further information regarding A.
In the circumstances the Tribunal is prepared to accept that the removal of the Applicant from Australia would make it very difficult for A to establish a relationship with his father at some time in the future should he wish to do so. On the other hand, the Tribunal is mindful that the Applicant has engaged in family violence which has had an adverse effect on A and there is a substantial risk that he may reoffend notwithstanding the existence of an AVO until 2029.
The current AVO effectively precludes the Applicant playing any parental role in relation to A at least until 30 January 2029. His evidence did not suggest that he played a parental role prior to October 2023 other than in providing financial support to the family. The views of the child and the Applicant’s ex-wife are unknown, although the Tribunal can deduce from the extension of the AVO to cover A until 30 January 2029 that the ex-wife at least would not see it as in A’s interests to maintain contact with the Applicant.
In the circumstances the Tribunal is not satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to draw any conclusion about the best interests of the minor child A and accordingly this consideration should weigh neutrally in relation to the question of whether there is another reason why the cancellation of the Applicant’s Visa should be revoked.
Expectations of the Australian Community
Paragraph 8.5 of Part 2 of Direction 110 provides:
(1)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 enter or remain in Australia.
(2)In addition, visa cancellation or refusal, or non-revocation of the mandatory cancellation of a visa, may be appropriate simply because the nature of the character concerns or offences is such that the Australian community would expect that the person should not be granted or continue to hold a visa. In particular, the Australian community expects that the Australian Government can and should refuse entry to non-citizens, or cancel their visas, if they raise serious character concerns through conduct, in Australia or elsewhere, of the following kind:
a) acts of family violence; or
b)causing a person to enter into, or being party to (other than being a victim of), a forced marriage;
c)commission of serious crimes against women, children or other vulnerable members of the community such as the elderly or disabled; in this context, 'serious crimes' include crimes of a violent or sexual nature, as well as other serious crimes against the elderly or other vulnerable persons in the form of fraud, extortion, financial abuse/material exploitation or neglect;
d)commission of crimes against government representatives or officials due to the position they hold, or in the performance of their duties; or
e)involvement or reasonably suspected involvement in human trafficking or people smuggling, or in crimes that are of serious international concern including, but not limited to, war crimes, crimes against humanity and slavery; or
f) worker exploitation.
(3)The above expectations of the Australian community apply regardless of whether the non-citizen poses a measureable [sic] risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community
Paragraph 8.5(4) states:
This consideration is about the expectations of the Australian community as a whole, and in this respect, decision-makers should proceed on the basis of the Government’s views as articulated above, without independently assessing the community’s expectations in the particular case.
The majority of the Full Court of the Federal Court has explained that paragraph 11.3 of the former Direction 65, which mirrors the wording of paragraphs 8.5(1) and (2) of Direction 110:
[75]… should be understood as expressing a deemed community expectation that all persons who have committed serious criminal offences giving rise to character concerns should have their visa applications refused. The nature of the character test is such that the deemed expectation will arise in most if not all cases falling for consideration under s 501(1) of the Act, having regard to the nature and seriousness of the non-citizen’s conduct, assessed in accordance with cl 11.1. The text of the clause emphasizes that it may be appropriate to act in accordance with that expectation, so anticipating a class of cases in which it may not be appropriate to do so.
[76]The question of whether it is appropriate to act in accordance with the deemed community expectation is in all cases left for the decision-maker to determine in the ultimate exercise of his or her discretion.[45]
[45] FYBR v Minister for Home Affairs (2019) 272 FCR 454 at [75]–[76]; see also Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs v HSRN [2023] FCAFC 68 at [31]–[35].
The Applicant has engaged in serious criminal conduct, including conduct specifically referred to in paragraph 8.5(2), namely family violence and crimes of a violent or sexual nature against women. It is conduct raising serious character concerns.
The deemed expectation of the Australian community as expressed in paragraph 8.5 of Part 2 of Direction 110 is that a non-citizen who engages in such conduct should not be allowed to remain in Australia. This expectation applies regardless of whether the non-citizen poses a measurable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community: paragraph 8.5(3). The Tribunal is satisfied that the expectation of the Australian community is that the cancellation of the Applicant’s Visa should not be revoked.
The expectation of the Australian community is a primary consideration under Direction 110. Whether or not it is appropriate to act in accordance with that expectation is a matter to be determined having regard also to each of the other considerations. In weighing each of the considerations the Tribunal attributes substantial weight to the expectation of the Australian community in favour of not revoking the cancellation of the Applicant’s Visa.
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS – PARAGRAPH 9 OF PART 2 OF DIRECTION 110
Legal Consequences of the Decision
Paragraph 9.1(1) requires decision-makers to be:
… mindful that unlawful non-citizens are, in accordance with section 198, liable to removal from Australia as soon as reasonably practicable in the circumstances specified in that section, and in the meantime, detention under section 189, noting also that section 197C(1) of the Act provides that for the purposes of section 198, it is irrelevant whether Australia has non-refoulement obligations in respect of an unlawful non-citizen.
Paragraph 9.1(3) states that international ‘non-refoulement’ obligations will generally not be relevant where the person concerned does not raise such obligations for consideration and the circumstances do not suggest a ‘non-refoulement’ claim.
Paragraph 9.1.2(1) provides that claims which may give rise to international ‘non-refoulement’ obligations can be raised by a non-citizen who is not the subject of a protection finding, and where such claims are raised, they must be considered by the Tribunal. This requires the Tribunal to "read, identify, understand and evaluate" them.[46]
[46] Plaintiff M1-2021 v Minister for Home Affairs (2022) 96 ALJR 497 at [9],
In this case the Applicant does not make any direct claim that his circumstances enliven Australia’s non-refoulement obligations and the circumstances do not suggest such a claim. The Applicant has travelled to Malaysia on six separate occasions since he first arrived in Australia in 2006, including remaining in Malaysia for almost three years between 2012 and 2015.
However, in his Personal Circumstances Form lodged with the Department as part of his revocation application the Applicant stated that:
I am in fear of being harmed in Malaysia[47]
In his oral evidence to the Tribunal the Applicant gave no further details regarding his claimed fear of being harmed although he mentioned that he owes money to unidentified people in Malaysia and that he has been involved in a protracted and bitter dispute with members of his family over the ownership of a family seafood business.
[47] G12 at p.108
Paragraph 9.1.2(2) provides that:
...where it is open to the non-citizen to apply for a protection visa, it is not necessary at the section 501/section 501CA stage to consider nonrefoulement issues in the same level of detail as those types of issues are considered in a protection visa application. The process for determining protection visa applications is specifically designed for consideration of nonrefoulement obligations as given effect by the Act and where it is open to the person to make such an application a decision-maker, in making a decision under section 501/section 501CA, is not required to determine whether nonrefoulement obligations are engaged in respect of the person. Having considered the person's representations, the decision-maker may choose to proceed on the basis that if and when the person applies for a protection visa, any protection claims they have will be assessed, as required by section 36A of the Act, before consideration is given to any character or security concerns associated with them.
The Applicant’s claim of fearing harm in Malaysia is essentially unsubstantiated and it is not clear to the Tribunal from the brief evidence given by the Applicant whether the claim could give rise to a legitimate nonrefoulement claim. Whatever the outcome of these proceedings the Applicant is able to apply for a protection visa and in doing so he would be able to fully articulate the basis for his claim. It is not necessary or appropriate for the Tribunal to consider nonrefoulement issues at this stage given the limited material before it. The preferrable course is to proceed on the basis that if and when the Applicant applies for a protection visa, any protection claims he has will be assessed, as required by section 36A of the Act, before consideration is given to any character or security concerns associated with them.
On the current facts, the immediate consequence of a decision not to revoke the cancellation of the Visa is that the Applicant will be liable for removal from Australia as soon as reasonably practicable, and pending removal, will remain in immigration detention under section 198 of the Act. The Tribunal also notes that once removed the Applicant will be subject to indefinite exclusion from Australia by operation of the Special Return Criteria in clause 5001(c) of Schedule 5 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth).[48]
[48] Rano v Minister for Home Affairs, Minister for Cyber Security [2024] FCA 1003 at [12]–[14] per Feutrill J.
The Applicant is able to apply for a protection visa and he would be liable to be held in immigration detention pending the finalisation of a decision on a protection visa (if an application is made).
If a protection visa is granted he would be released into the Australian community. If it were refused and no protection finding made the Applicant would then be liable to removal from Australia under s.198 of the Act.
If the Applicant applies for a protection visa it is possible that he may have a protection finding made but be refused a protection visa on character or other grounds. In that event he would be precluded from removal from Australia to his home country and liable to be held in immigration detention while other options are considered. It is possible that arrangements might be made for his removal to a third country or he might be released into the community on a bridging visa on restrictive conditions at a time when there is no real prospect of his removal from Australia becoming practicable in the reasonably foreseeable future.[49]
[49] NZYQ v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] HCA 37
The consequences of removal for the Applicant are matters which form the subject of other considerations under Direction 110. However, the legal consequences of deciding not to revoke the cancellation of the Applicant’s Visa do carry their own adverse impact on the Applicant. The Tribunal cannot say with any certainty how events may develop if revocation is refused. However, it can be expected that the Applicant will be subjected to a further period of immigration detention depriving him of his liberty. Depending on the legal processes that may ensue the period of detention may be extensive. Prolonged detention can be expected to have an adverse effect on the Applicant’s psychological health. If he is deported it is likely to exact a significant emotional toll.
These matters are considerations which favour revocation. While they are an expected consequence of the application of the law, they nevertheless warrant some moderate weight.
Extent of Impediments if Removed
Paragraph 9.2(1) of Part 2 requires that:
(1)Decision-makers must consider the extent of any impediments that the non-citizen may face if removed from Australia to their home country, in establishing themselves and maintaining basic living standards (in the context of what is generally available to other citizens of that country), taking into account:
a) the non-citizen’s age and health;
b) whether there are substantial language or cultural barriers; and
c)any social, medical and/or economic support available to them in that country.
The Applicant is 47 years old. He confirmed in his oral evidence that he has no diagnosed physical or mental health conditions. There is some evidence that the Applicant has had problems with alcohol use but he claims to have been abstinent since October 2023 when taken into custody. The evidence does not establish that his current circumstances involve a problem with alcohol which could not be addressed by access to suitable health services available in Malaysia.
He was born and raised in Malaysia and has regularly visited the country since coming to Australia in 2006, including returning to live in Malaysia for almost exactly three years between 2012 and 2015. There is no language or cultural barrier to him returning to Malaysia.
The Applicant has family in Malaysia. He gave evidence that he has a mother, a younger brother and three sisters in Malaysia as well as extended family. His evidence was that he was involved in a fight with his immediate family over the ownership of a seafood business when he returned in 2012-2015 and as a result he was thrown out by his family. He claimed that the disputed business was his and that he ran the business selling seafood for the period he was in Malaysia during 2012-2015. He also claimed that he subsequently returned to Malaysia to sell two parcels of land and stayed with acquaintances to whom he lent money.
The Tribunal is not in a position to properly assess the nature of the Applicant’s dispute with his family or to fully appreciate the scope of the disputed business. The Tribunal does accept from the Applicant’s oral evidence that he is not unfamiliar with matters of commerce in Malaysia and that he has the skills necessary to conduct a business. In addition, the Applicant’s evidence was that he had established a business in Gyprock installation in Australia and had worked in a grocery store. On the basis of this evidence the Tribunal is satisfied that the Applicant has sufficient skills and experience to enable him to establish himself and maintain basic living standards in the context of what is generally available to other citizens of Malaysia.
Nevertheless, the Tribunal accepts that the Applicant may face some initial difficulty in re-establishing himself in Malaysia, which is a consideration that weighs moderately in favour of revocation.
Impact on Australian Business Interests
Paragraph 9.3(1) of Part 2 of Direction 110 requires:
Decision-makers must consider any impact on Australian business interests if the non-citizen is not allowed to enter or remain in Australia, noting that an employment link would generally only be given weight where the decision under section 501 or 501CA would significantly compromise the delivery of a major project, or delivery of an important service in Australia.
The Applicant has a limited employment history in the retail and construction industries. He worked in Gyprock installation as an employee and later in his own business. The Tribunal has not been provided with details regarding this business but here is no evidence that it provided an extensive or important service. The Applicant has not been employed in the community since taken into custody in October 2023. His removal from Australia would have no material impact on Australian business interests.
There is no evidence that a decision not to grant the Applicant a Visa would compromise the delivery of a major project or important service in Australia.
Accordingly, the Tribunal gives this consideration minimal weight in favour of revocation.
Other Considerations
The considerations specifically referred to in paragraph 9 are not exclusive and the Tribunal is not limited in considering other relevant matters.
The Applicant has not raised any other specific consideration and the Tribunal is satisfied that all of the matters relevant to the Applicant’s application have been considered in the context of the considerations specified in Direction 110.
CONCLUSION
In Gaspar v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection,[50] North ACJ elaborated on how to approach the exercise of the discretion under section 501CA(4)(b)(ii) of the Act:
The preferable conclusion is that s 501CA(4)(b)(ii) requires the Minister to examine the factors for and against revoking the cancellation. If satisfied, following an assessment and an evaluation of those factors, that the cancellation should be revoked, the Minister is obliged to act on that view.
[50] [2016] FCA 1166 at [38].
Weighing the factors for and against revocation requires the Tribunal to give both primary and other considerations ‘appropriate weight’.[51] Paragraph 7 of Part 2 of Direction 110 provides guidance on how relevant considerations are to be assessed. It states that primary considerations should generally be given greater weight than the other considerations, but one or more primary considerations may outweigh other primary considerations.
[51] Suleiman v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 594 at [23].
The overwhelming weight is in favour of not revoking cancellation of the Applicant’s Visa.
The Applicant presents a significant risk of further serious offending and the protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct is a primary consideration. The Direction 110 makes it clear that the safety of the Australian community is the highest priority of the Australian Government[52]. The Applicant’s repeated conduct in engaging in family violence raises serious character concerns and paragraph 5.2(d) makes it clear that the Australian community expects the Australian Government to cancel the visas of non-citizens, if they engaged in conduct that raises serious character concerns regardless of whether the non-citizen poses a measurable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community. The expectation of the Australian community is that non-citizens who engage in criminal or other serious conduct should expect to forfeit the privilege of staying in Australia. These matters are all primary considerations under Direction 110.
[52] See paragraphs 5.2(b) and 8.1(1).

Of the other primary considerations, the Applicant has demonstrated that he has limited ties to the Australian community which warrant only moderate weight in favour of revocation, and there is insufficient evidence to draw any conclusion about the best interests of the minor child A. To this can be added the fact that the Applicant may face some initial difficulty in re-establishing himself in Malaysia, which weighs moderately in favour of revocation and the legal consequences of the Tribunal’s decision which may entail further immigration detention for the Applicant and the emotional toll of his forced removal from Australia.
In weighing up these considerations The Tribunal has also had regard to the principles in paragraphs 5.2(5) and (6) to conclude that the Applicant does not warrant a higher level of tolerance for his criminal behaviour. While the Applicant had been participating in, or contributing to, the Australian community for some 14 years[53] prior to his offending he was on a limited stay visa. He had not lived in Australia from a young age or for most of his life.
[53] Period 2006-2023 less 3 years in Malaysia between 2012-2015
Less tolerance is warranted having regard to the principles stated in paragraphs 5.2(7) and (8).
Principle 5.2(7) contemplates circumstances in which the nature of the non-citizen’s conduct is so serious or the harm that would be caused if it was repeated is so serious that even strong countervailing considerations may be insufficient to justify revocation. Principle 5.2(8) contemplates circumstances where the inherent nature of the conduct is so serious that even strong countervailing considerations may be insufficient to justify revocation even if the non-citizen does not pose a measurable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community. The Applicant’s family violence offending was very serious and raises serious character concerns.
Accordingly, the Tribunal is not satisfied that there is another reason why the discretion under section 501CA(4)(b)(ii) of the Act should be exercised to revoke the cancellation of the Applicant’s Visa. The correct and preferable decision is to affirm the decision under review.
DECISION
Pursuant to section 105(a) of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth), the Tribunal affirms the decision of the delegate of the Respondent of 26 March 2025 not to revoke the cancellation of the Applicant’s Class WA Subclass 010 Bridging A Visa.
Date(s) of hearing:  11 June 2025
Applicant:  Self-represented
Solicitor for the Respondent:  Ms Claire Campbell