Malwal and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (Migration)
[2025] ARTA 1553
•22 August 2025
Malwal and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (Migration) [2025] ARTA 1553 (22 August 2025)
Applicant/s: Luka Gnowb Malwal
Respondent: Minister for Immigration and Citizenship
Tribunal Number: 2025/4013
Tribunal:Senior Member A Murphy
Place:Melbourne
Date:22 August 2025
Decision:The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and in substitution decides that there is another reason to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant’s visa.
……………..[sgd]……………………
Senior Member A Murphy
Statement made on 22 August 2025
Catchwords
MIGRATION – decision of delegate of Minister not to revoke mandatory cancellation of a Class XB Subclass 200 Global Humanitarian visa – character test – Direction no. 110 – primary and other considerations – protection of Australian community – nature and seriousness of criminal offending – risk to the Australian community should the Applicant commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct – strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia – best interests of children – expectations of the Australian community – legal consequences of decision – extent of impediments if removed – Non-Revocation set aside and substituted with the decision not to cancel the Applicant’s visa
Legislation
Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth)
Migration Act 1958 (Cth)
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth)Cases
BSJ16 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCA 1181
CRNL v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FCAFC 138
DPP v Kennedy [2023] VCC 1225
Hambledon v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 7
Minister for Home Affairs v HSKJ [2018] FCAFC 217; (2018) 266 FCR 591
RCLN v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2024] FCA 876
Suleiman v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 594
2406618 (Refugee) [2024] AATA 3017Secondary Materials
Direction no. 110 – Migration Act 1958 – Direction under section 499: Visa refusal and cancellation under section 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation under section 501CA (dated 7 June 2024)Statement of Reasons
INTRODUCTION
The applicant seeks review of the decision by a delegate of the Minister (the respondent) dated 4 June 2025 not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the applicant’s Global Special Humanitarian (Subclass 200) visa (the visa) under s 501CA(4) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).
BACKGROUND
Mr Malwal (the applicant) is a 24-year-old national of South Sudan who arrived in Australia on 3 March 2007.
On 5 September 2024, the applicant was notified that his visa had been cancelled under s 501(3A) of the Act on the basis that he had a ‘substantial criminal record’ within the meaning of s 501(6)(a) of the Act and was serving a sentence for imprisonment on a full-time basis in a custodial institution, for an offence against a law of the Commonwealth, a state or territory (the cancellation decision).
On 3 October 2024, the applicant requested that the cancellation decision be revoked, making representations in accordance with an invitation given to him under s 501CA(3)(b). In his reasons for requesting revocation, he acknowledged the seriousness of his criminal offending but raised factors in mitigation including his young age at the time of the offending; his lack of significant prior criminal history; his time served; his rehabilitation efforts including addressing his drug and alcohol dependence; his good behaviour in custody; his strong family and community support; the potential hardship if deported; mental health considerations; his contribution to Australian society; his expression of remorse; challenging personal and family relations and his employment opportunities.
On 4 June 2025, a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (the respondent) decided not to revoke the cancellation decision under s 501CA(4) (the non-revocation decision) and that decision is the subject of the current review.
The Tribunal hearing was held on 15 and 18 September 2025 at the Tribunal’s Melbourne Registry where both parties were represented. The Tribunal heard evidence from the applicant and his witnesses, Ms Kira Malwal (the applicant’s wife) and Ms Abok Kwot (the applicant’s mother).
LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK
Under s 501(3A) of the Act, the Minister must cancel a visa that has been granted to a person if, among other things:
(a)the person does not pass the character test because of a substantial criminal record; and
(b)the person is serving a sentence of imprisonment on a full-time basis in a custodial institution for an offence against a law of the Commonwealth, a State or Territory.
A person has a ‘substantial criminal record’ in the circumstances set out in s 501(7) of the Act. These circumstances include that the person has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more (s 501(7)(c) of the Act).
On 14 July 2023, the applicant pleaded guilty to 5 criminal charges arising out of an incident that took place on 30 December 2019 for which he was sentenced to a total effective term of imprisonment of 3 years and 8 months, with a non-parole period of 3 years.
It is not in dispute that the applicant has a ‘substantial criminal record’ and was serving a sentence of imprisonment at the time of the cancellation. It is conceded that he does not pass the character test.
The only remaining issue for the Tribunal is whether there is another reason to revoke the cancellation decision. In considering this issue, the Tribunal is bound by s 499(2A) to comply with Direction No 110 – Visa refusal and cancellation under section 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under section 501CA (the Direction).
For the following reasons, I have decided to set aside the decision under review and substitute a decision not to cancel the applicant’s visa.
THE DIRECTION
Under s 499(1) of the Act, the Minister may give written directions to a person or body having functions or power under the Act, and a person or body must comply with any direction given by the Minster (s 499(2A)).
The Minister has issued Direction 110, Visa refusal and cancellation under s 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under section 501CA (‘the Direction). It is expressed to apply to the Administrative Review Tribunal in making a decision under s 501 or s 501CA of the Act, and the Tribunal must comply with the Direction.
Principles to guide decision making
Clause 5.2 of the Direction provides principles to provide a framework to approach decision making. These are:
(1) Australia has a sovereign right to determine whether non-citizens who are of character concern are allowed to enter and/or remain in Australia. Being able to come to or remain in Australia is a privilege Australia confers on non-citizens in the expectation that they are, and have been, law-abiding, will respect important institutions, such as Australia’s law enforcement framework, and will not cause or threaten harm to individuals or the Australian community.
(2)The safety of the Australian Community is the highest priority of the Australian Government.
(3)Non-citizens who engage or have engaged in criminal or other serious conduct should expect to be denied the privilege of coming to, or to forfeit the privilege of staying in, Australia.
(4)The Australian community expects that the Australian Government can and should refuse entry to non-citizens, or cancel their visas, if they engaged in conduct, in Australia or elsewhere, that raises serious character concerns. This expectation of the Australian community applies regardless of whether the non-citizen poses a measureable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community.
(5)Australia has a low tolerance of any criminal or other serious conduct by visa applicants or those holding a limited stay visa, or by other non-citizens who have been participating in, and contributing to, the Australian community only for a short period of time.
(6)With respect to decisions to refuse, cancel, and revoke cancellation of a visa, Australia may afford a higher level of tolerance of criminal or other serious conduct by non-citizens who have lived in the Australian community for most of their life, or from a very young age.
(7)Decision-makers must take into account the primary and other considerations relevant to the individual case. In some circumstances, the nature of the non-citizen’s conduct, or the harm that would be caused if the conduct were to be repeated, may be so serious that even strong countervailing considerations may be insufficient to justify not cancelling or refusing the visa, or revoking a mandatory cancellation.
(8)The inherent nature of certain conduct such as family violence is so serious that even strong countervailing considerations may be insufficient to justify not cancelling or refusing the visa, or revoking a mandatory cancellation, even if the information available at the time of consideration suggests that the non-citizen does not pose a measurable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community. [1]
[1] Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs (Cth), Direction no. 110 – Visa refusal and cancellation under section 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation under section 501CA (dated 7 June 2024) cl 5.2 (‘the Direction’).
The Direction also sets out matters to be considered in refusing or not revoking the cancellation of a visa. It requires certain primary and other considerations to be considered in making a decision, and states that in taking these into account that:
(1) In applying the considerations (both primary and other), information and evidence from independent and authoritative sources should be given appropriate weight.
(2) The primary consideration … (protection of the Australian community) is generally to be given greater weight than other primary considerations. Otherwise, primary considerations should generally be given greater weight than the other considerations.
(3) One or more primary considerations may outweigh other primary considerations. [2]
[2] Ibid cl 7.
The Direction does not limit the matters the Tribunal can consider in deciding if there is another reason the cancellation of a visa should be revoked.
THE PRIMARY CONSIDIERATIONS
The Direction contains five primary considerations, which are:
(1) protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct;
(2) whether the conduct engaged in constituted family violence;
(3) the strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia;
(4) the best interests of minor children in Australia;
(5) expectations of the Australian community. [3]
[3] Ibid cl 8.
I have considered each one in turn, keeping in mind the principles in cl 5.2 of the Direction.
The protection of the Australian community
The Direction requires decision-makers to keep in mind that the safety of the Australian community is the highest priority of the Australian Government, and that the Government is committed to protecting the Australian community from harm as a result of criminal activity or other serious conduct by non-citizens.[4]
[4] Ibid cl 8.1(1).
The Tribunal is directed to have particular regard to the principle that entering or remaining in Australia is a privilege that Australia confers on non-citizens in the expectation that they are, and have been, law abiding, will respect important institutions, and will not cause or threaten harm to individuals or the Australian community.[5]
[5] Ibid.
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. [6]
[6] Ibid cl 8.1(2).
Nature and seriousness of the conduct
Criminal offending
The applicant’s history of criminal offending is set out in a results check from the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission.[7]
[7] Hearing Book [39].
Prior to the offending that led to the visa cancellation, the applicant’s relevant criminal offending is recorded as follows:
·On 4 September 2019 the applicant was convicted of dishonestly assist in the retention of stolen goods, theft from shop (three charges), carjacking, robbery (two charges), theft of a motor vehicle (two charges), commit indictable offence whilst on bail (two charges), fail to stop upon police direction, reckless conduct endanger serious injury, unlicensed driving, theft, assault emergency worker on duty (two charges), resist emergency worker on duty and contravene a conduct condition of bail. He was sentenced to 140 days imprisonment and a community corrections order for 12 months and suspended from driving for one month;
·On 14 October 2022, at the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court the applicant was found to have contravened a community corrections order and the order was confirmed. He was also convicted of fail to stop vehicle upon police direction, unlicensed driving, drive at speed dangerous, refuse or fail to state name and address, fail to answer bail, robbery (two charges), theft from shop, deposit litter and pedestrian travel on road/ footpath adjacent. A Community Correction Order was imposed for 24 months and the applicant was ordered to perform 50 hours of community work;
·Various other charges are recorded as dismissed, appeal allowed or without conviction and the Tribunal has had no regard to those matters.
On 14 July 2023, the applicant was sentenced in the County Court of Victoria at Melbourne in relation to five offences, being one charge of aggravated home invasion with an offensive weapon, two charges of recklessly cause injury, theft of a motor vehicle and theft, and was sentenced to a total effective sentence of three years and eight months imprisonment with a non-parole period of three years with 32 days pre-sentence detention being reckoned as already served.
The circumstances of the applicant’s offending are set out in the sentencing remarks of the County Court of Victoria. In summary:
·On 30 December 2019 at 1:30 am, the applicant along with seven other offenders attended a residential home occupied by three adults and a three-year-old child, smashing the laundry door to enter the house;
·The applicant was armed with a metal baseball bat and another offender was armed with a wooden garden stake. The female occupant barricaded herself in her child’s room to protect him. The applicant and the co-offenders screamed at the men, demanding the keys to a vehicle parked in the driveway. The applicant swung the baseball bat around moving towards the male victims, one of whom suffered a fracture in his hand while trying to deflect the bat while the other suffered a minor laceration to his hand;
·The applicant and his co-offenders obtained the keys to the vehicle and some of the group stole the car while others escaped in a nearby waiting vehicle. A laptop computer was stolen from the house during the raid and the applicant dropped his iPhone and the baseball bat when leaving the property;
·The applicant was arrested on 13 April 2020 but denied any involvement in the offending and gave a false alibi, saying he had passed his phone on to an associate. The applicant’s DNA was analysed and found inside the stolen vehicle and the home where the offending took place. The applicant was arrested and interviewed again on 19 November 2021. After first denying any involvement, he later made full admissions as to the offending and expressed comprehensive remorse for the effect of his offending on the victims.[8]
[8] Hearing Book [48]
Paragraphs 8.1.1(1) of the Direction sets out factors that the Tribunal must have regard to in considering the nature and seriousness of the applicant’s criminal offending and other conduct. In summary:
·Without limiting the range of conduct that may be considered very serious, violent and/ or sexual crimes; crimes of a violent and/ or sexual nature against women or children regardless of the sentence imposed and acts of family violence, regardless of whether there is a conviction for an offence or a sentence imposed are considered very serious, and viewed very seriously by the Australian Government and the Australian community: cl 8.1.1(1)(a);
·Without limiting the range of conduct that may be considered serious, the following types of crimes or conduct are considered by the Australian Government and the Australian community to be serious: causing a person to enter into or being party to a forced marriage (other than as a victim); crimes committed against vulnerable members of the community (such as the elderly and the disabled), or government representatives or officials due to the position they hold, or in the performance of their duties; any conduct that forms the basis for a finding that a non-citizen does not pass an aspect of the character test that is dependent upon the decision-maker's opinion (for example, section 501(6)(c)) and crimes committed while the non-citizen was in, during an escape from or after an escape from immigration detention, or an offence against section 197 A of the Act, which prohibits escape from immigration detention: cl 8.1.1(1)(b);
·With the exception of crimes of a violent and/or sexual nature against women or children; acts of family violence or crimes relating to forced marriage, the sentence imposed by the courts for the criminal offending: cl 8.1.1(1)(c);
·The impact on any victims of the offending or conduct and their family, where this information is available in the applicant has been afforded procedural fairness: cl 8.1.1(1)(d);
·The frequency of offending and/or whether there is any trend of increasing seriousness: cl 8.1.1(1)(e);
·The cumulative effect of repeat offending: cl 8.1.1(1)(f);
·Whether the non-citizen has provided false or misleading information to the Department: cl 8.1.1(1)(g);
·Whether the non-citizen has re-offended since being formally warned or otherwise being made aware in writing of the consequences of further offending: cl 8.1.1(1)(h);
·Where the offence was committed in another country, whether the offence or conduct is classified as an offence in Australia: cl 8.1.1(1)(i).
There is no dispute that the applicant’s offending includes violent offences, which are viewed very seriously by the Australian government and the Australian community: cl 8.1.1(1)(a). Three of the charges for which the applicant was convicted on 4 September 2019 constituted crimes committed against a government official in the performance of their duties being: assault emergency worker on duty (two charges), and resist emergency worker on duty. Such crimes are considered by the Australian Government and the Australian community to be serious: cl 8.1.1(1)(b).
On 14 July 2023 the applicant was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of three years and eight months imprisonment with a non-parole period of three years. The sentencing remarks record that he would have been sentenced to six years imprisonment, with a non-parole period of four years, had he not pleaded guilty and that the maximum penalty that can be imposed for the offence of aggregated home invasion is 25 years imprisonment. The sentencing judge stated that ‘The objective seriousness of the crimes is obviously high. This is a serious example of these crimes.’ While the penalty imposed on the applicant falls significantly short of the potential maximum sentence, it nonetheless indicates the seriousness of the applicant’s offending: cl 8.1.1(1)(c).
The sentencing remarks record that the adult occupants of the home did not make victim impact statements, because even three and a half years after the event they were not psychologically or emotionally ready to revisit the terror of that night: cl 8.1.1(1)(d).
The applicant’s criminal history reflects a trend of increasing seriousness, with his most serious offending occurring on 30 December 2019: cl 8.1.1(1)(e). I note that the applicant further offended on 10 October 2020 (deposit litter, pedestrian travel on road footpath adjacent) and that this offending is objectively less serious than his earlier offending. However I consider that the overall trajectory of the applicant’s offending is one of increasing seriousness.
The Minister contends that the Tribunal should consider the cumulative effect of repeated offending but does not identify what that effect might be. The materials before the Tribunal do not suggest that the offending occurred on more than one occasion against the same victims and I am not satisfied as to any cumulative effect: cl 8.1.1(1)(f).
The Minister does not contend, and the material before the Tribunal does not otherwise indicate that the applicant has provided false or misleading information to the Department or failed to disclose prior criminal offending (cl 8.1.1(1)(g)) or that he has reoffended after being warned about the consequences for his immigration status: cl 8.1.1(1)(h).
Other conduct
The Direction specifies at cl 4(2) that serious conduct includes behaviour or conduct of concern that does not constitute any criminal offence. It is not suggested that the applicant has engaged in serious conduct including behaviour or conduct of concern that does not constitute any criminal offence.
Risk to the Australian community should the Applicant commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct
The Tribunal must also consider the risk to the Australian community should the applicant commit further offences. Clause 8.1.2 of the Direction states, in part:
(1)In considering the need to protect the Australian community (including individuals, groups or institutions) from harm, decision-makers should have regard to the Government’s view that the Australian community’s tolerance for any risk of future harm becomes lower as the seriousness of the potential harm increases. Some conduct and the harm that would be caused, if it were to be repeated, is so serious that any risk that it may be repeated may be unacceptable.
(2)In assessing the risk that may be posed by the non-citizen to the Australian community, decision-makers must have regard to, cumulatively:
a)the nature of the harm to individuals or the Australian community should the non-citizen engage in further criminal or other serious conduct; and
b)the likelihood of the non-citizen engaging in further criminal or other serious conduct, taking into account:
i. information and evidence on the risk of the noncitizen re-offending; and
ii. evidence of rehabilitation achieved by the time of the decision, giving weight to time spent in the community since their most recent offence (noting that decisions should not be delayed in order for rehabilitative courses to be undertaken).
c)where consideration is being given to whether to refuse to grant a visa to the non-citizen — whether the risk of harm may be affected by the duration and purpose of the non-citizen's intended stay, the type of visa being applied for, and whether there are strong or compassionate reasons for granting a short stay visa. [9]
[9] See also the Direction, cl 8.1(2)(b).
This requires an assessment of the nature of the harm should the applicant engage in further criminal or other serious conduct.[10] It also requires an assessment of the likelihood of the applicant engaging in such conduct.[11] There is no statutory constraint on the way that risk is assessed by the decision-maker other than that there must be a rational and probative basis for the assessment.[12]
Nature of the harm
[10] Ibid cl 8.1.2(2)(a).
[11] Ibid cl 8.1.2(2)(b).
[12] See BSJ16 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCA 1181, [68]; Hambledon v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 7, [41].
In order to determine the risk to the Australian community should the applicant commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct, the Tribunal must consider the nature of the harm to individuals, or the Australian community, should the applicant reoffend.[13]
[13] The Direction, cl 8.1.2(2)(a).
As detailed above, the applicant has been convicted of a number of violent offences, some of which are considered to be very serious and others serious. In particular the aggravated home invasion with an offensive weapon represents very serious offending. The Tribunal considers that if the applicant were to reoffend in a similar manner to his past serious offending, there is a significant risk of harm to members of the Australian community.
Likelihood of the non-citizen engaging in further criminal or serious conduct
The applicant contends that the available information as to the risk that he may reoffend, and evidence of his rehabilitation, suggests that it is highly unlikely that he will reoffend and therefore that he poses a low level of risk. It is contended that:
(a) the Tribunal should place very moderate weight against revocation of the mandatory cancellation of the visa with respect to this primary consideration;
(b) although the protection of the Australian community is generally to be given the greatest weight, the circumstances of this case are such that it is outweighed by other considerations.
The Minister contends that the seriousness of the applicant’s past offending means that any risk that may be repeated is unacceptable. It is also contended that the applicant remains at risk of reoffending for reasons including that the applicant initially denied his offending when questioned by police; that at the time of the applicant’s offending, he was subject to a Community Corrections order and that there is no evidence that the applicant has undertaken any violent offending specific programs and therefore undertaken any rehabilitation to address his offending.
The Minister also points to the applicant’s illicit drug use as being a major contributor to his offending and refers to incident reports from Corrections Victoria suggestive of ongoing drug use in prison, the possession of home-made weapons and physical assaults on other prisoners as well as the applicant’s history of failing to comply with Court orders.
I have had regard to the remarks of the sentencing judge dated 14 July 2023, including that the applicant was a very young man (19 at the time of offending) and the judge considered that he had a great deal more psychological and emotional growing to do. The judge considered that the applicant had developed insight into the wrongfulness of his actions and the fear he caused the occupants of the house and considered that his expressions of remorse were genuine and his young age meant that he was more likely to be making bad judgement calls because of his immaturity. In relation to the applicant’s rehabilitation, it was stated that the evidence of the stability he had achieved in his life in the years since he was released on bail gave the sentencing judge confidence that he could rehabilitate.[14]
[14] Hearing Book [61].
I have also had regard to the various risks assessments available to the Tribunal:
· The Static-99R risk assessment dated 6 September 2023 placed the applicant in the above average risk level;[15]
· The VRS-S5 Scoring Justification Form dated 6 September 2023 places the applicant at the moderate risk level;[16]
· The psychological report of Dr Aaron Cunningham dated 11 April 2023 advises that applying the HCR-20 risk assessment test, the applicant presents a low to moderate risk of future violent offending;[17]
· The psychological report of Ms Gina Cidoni dated 2 October 2024, which assesses that the applicant remains a moderate risk of re-offending, indicating a significant but not overwhelming chance of future violent behaviour. [18]
[15] Hearing Book [957].
[16] Hearing Book [957].
[17] Hearing Book at [962].
[18] Hearing Book at [143].
Each of those assessments was undertaken after the applicant’s most serious offending and each indicates that the applicant poses some level of risk of re-offending, variously assessed as ‘above average’, ‘low to moderate’ or ‘moderate’.
I consider that Ms Cidoni’s report is the most comprehensive and recent assessment as to the applicant’s risk of reoffending. She reports that the applicant’s offending can be traced to a combination of early trauma, family instability, substance abuse and age-related immature brain development. She records several protective factors currently mitigating the applicant’s risk of reoffending including his commitment to sobriety, the stability and support provided by his wife and her extended family, his willingness to work and his employment history and his insight into and remorse for his past behaviour.
Ms Cidoni assesses that the applicant’s prospects for rehabilitation are good and recommends that he engage in trauma-informed counselling and targeted interventions focusing on emotional resilience, peer relationships and long-term planning to support his recovery and reduce his risk of reoffending.
I have also considered the applicant’s history of drug and alcohol use, which began in his mid-teens and appears to have been a major contributing factor to his criminal offending. Ms Cidoni stated in her report dated 2 October 2024 that clinical evaluation indicated that he met the criteria for substance use disorder in sustained remission since early 2020, indicating a positive shift in his behaviour and lifestyle.[19]
[19] Ibid.
Since that time there have been two occasions in June 2025 when buprenorphine was found in the applicant’s cell.[20] The applicant acknowledges using buprenorphine on those occasions, giving evidence of his increasing anxiety regarding the upcoming Tribunal hearing, the seriousness of his situation and the possibility of deportation to Sudan. Such relapses are common during recovery from substance use disorder and I accept that the applicant is genuinely regretful and remains committed to maintaining abstinence from illicit drugs. In circumstances where the evidence otherwise indicates that the applicant was abstinent from illicit drugs between early 2020 and mid-2025, I do not consider those relapses significantly change the progress he has made towards sobriety from illicit drugs or the trajectory of his recovery.
[20] Hearing Book at [949].
The Tribunal heard evidence about the applicant’s alcohol use during the period in which he was on bail and abstinent from illicit drugs, indicating that it caused his wife some level of concern for the applicant’s own safety, but that she never herself felt unsafe around the applicant when he was drinking. Her evidence was that the applicant had learned his limits and she did not have ongoing concerns.
I have considered that the applicant has been involved in some incidents in prison and that he has in the past failed to comply with his Community Corrections orders and bail conditions. An incident report in relation to an incident that occurred on 4 February 2019 indicates that the applicant became abusive towards an officer, that he was interviewed, during which he was apologetic and then returned to his unit.[21]
[21] Hearing Book at [77].
Another incident report indicates that while searching the applicant’s cell on 1 July 2019, staff found a pair of prisoner issue track pants which had been cut into pieces and the matter was finalised on the basis that the applicant was required to pay restitution of $14.00.[22] A further incident report in relation to an incident that occurred on 18 July 2019 suggests that the applicant was among a group of 5 prisoners alleged to have assaulted a fellow prisoner.[23] An incident report in relation to an incident that occurred on 24 June 2024 indicates that staff found a homemade weapon in the applicant’s cell. That report states that a charge was issued and a GMDH was to follow but does not otherwise record the basis on which the matter was finalised.[24] The applicant gave evidence that he was charged and fined $10.00 in respect of this incident.
[22] Hearing Book at [66].
[23] Hearing Book at [143].
[24] Hearing Book at [75].
I accept that the incident reports should be treated with some caution given the allegations have not been tested and the applicant has not been convicted of any offences arising out of those incidents. I note also that three of the four incidents took place during an earlier period of imprisonment, prior to the applicant’s rehabilitation in 2020. I note that the applicant spent approximately 3.5 years after commencing his rehabilitation living in the community without any serious reoffending before he was jailed on 11 July 2023.
I consider that the applicant was very young during the period of his serious offending and his first period of imprisonment. Almost six years have since passed during which time he has found and maintained employment, commenced a committed relationship with his now wife and married. I consider there to be strong evidence of the applicant’s sustained abstinence from illicit drugs between 2020 until his brief relapse in mid-2025. The applicant has undertaken a drug and alcohol course while in prison, as well as vocational courses which enabled him to obtain a bobcat license and an elevated work platform licence. He has not yet been able to participate in the Violent Offenders Program, because it will only be available to him as his parole date gets closer. I am satisfied that he has a genuine commitment to rebuilding his life on release from prison, including remaining abstinent from illicit drugs and undertaking employment as a painter’s apprentice with his wife’s uncle while he obtains further qualifications as a rigger.
I also consider that the unwavering practical and emotional support the applicant has received from his wife and her extended family is a very significant protective factor, as is her belief that the applicant should take any opportunity to engage with professional supports and interventions that may be available to him, notwithstanding her personal conviction that he will not reoffend. It is apparent that the applicant relies a great deal on his wife’s guidance, and I consider her support for professional supports and interventions increases the likelihood that the applicant will seek those out and participate in them. While the applicant and his wife had a long friendship prior to the commencement of their relationship in early 2020, I accept their evidence that they were not in a relationship at the time of the applicant’s offending in 2019 and I consider that the support the applicant receives from his wife and her family is of a different nature than it was at the time of his offending.
I consider too that the applicant’s proposed engagement with Afri-Aus Care Inc, a non-profit organisation specialising in culturally appropriate mental health support for African Australians in contact with the justice system, is a protective factor that will reduce his risk of reoffending. I accept the documentary and oral evidence of Ms Selba-Gonzalez Luca as to her engagement with the applicant, including that he has committed to participating in counselling, volunteering, GP and psychology referral as well as their social night and soccer programs.
I accept Ms Selba-Gonzalez Luca’s oral evidence as to the content of those programs and that it is her experience that participants in that program have reduced risks of reoffending. I consider that the kinds of support that the applicant will receive from his engagement with Afri-Aus Care Inc to be aligned with the trauma-informed counselling and targeted interventions recommended by Ms Cidoni to support the applicant’s recovery and reduce his risk of reoffending.
In view of all the evidence before me, I assess the applicant’s risk of reoffending as being in the low to the lower end of moderate range. I consider that if the visa cancellation is revoked there remains some level of risk to the Australian community, and if the applicant’s more serious reoffending were to reoccur, the consequences are potentially very serious.
Conclusion on the protection of the Australian community
Given the nature and seriousness of the applicant’s offending and conduct, and to the risk to the Australian community should the applicant commit further offences or other serious conduct, I weigh this primary consideration weighs strongly in favour of not revoking the cancellation of the visa.
Family violence committed by the non-citizen
Clause 8.2 of the Direction provides that decision-makers, such as the Tribunal, must have regard to family violence perpetrated by the non-citizen when deciding whether to revoke a visa cancellation decision.
The Direction states that 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 are proportionate to the seriousness of the family violence engaged in by the non-citizen.[25]
[25] The Direction, cl 8.2(1).
The parties agree that there is no evidence that the applicant has committed any family violence and this factor is not relevant to my decision.[26]
[26] Respondent’s Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions [42]; Applicant’s Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions [31].
The strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia
This consideration requires the Tribunal to have regard to the strength, nature and duration of the applicant’s ties to Australia. Clause 8.3 of the Direction provides that:
(1)Decision-makers must consider any impact of the decision on the non-citizen’s immediate family members in Australia, where those family members are Australian citizens, Australian permanent residents, or people who have a right to remain in Australia indefinitely.
(2) Where consideration is being given to whether to cancel a non-citizen’s visa or whether to revoke the mandatory cancellation of their visa, the decision-maker must also consider the strength, nature and duration of any other ties that the non-citizen has to the Australian community. In doing so, decision-makers must have regard to:
a) how long the non-citizen has resided in Australia, including whether the non-citizen arrived as a young child, noting that:
i. less weight should be given where the non-citizen began offending soon after arriving in Australia; and
ii. more weight should be given to time the non-citizen has spent contributing positively to the Australian community
b)the strength, duration and nature of any family or social links with Australian citizens, Australian permanent residents and/or people who have an indefinite right to remain in Australia.[27]
[27] The Direction, cl 8.3.
The applicant contends that this consideration weighs strongly in favour of revocation of the visa cancellation. The Minister accepts this factor weighs in the applicant’s favour but contends that the weight given to this consideration should be diminished in circumstances where the applicant has declared only sporadic employment in Australia and has only made minimal positive contributions to the Australian community.
The applicant has been resident in Australia for 18 years since his arrival in 2007 as a young child with his mother and siblings. He lived in Australia for approximately nine years before his offending commenced. I am prepared to accept that he has, broadly speaking, made a positive contribution to the Australian community since commencing his rehabilitation in early 2020, including by maintaining employment both inside and outside prison.
The applicant’s immediate family members are his wife, his parents (who have been separated for some time) and seven siblings. The applicant’s evidence is that he has little contact with his father. He has been friends with his wife for approximately 10 years, although their relationship commenced in early 2020. The applicant’s wife is an Australian citizen who spoke frankly about the history of their relationship and marriage, the ultimatum she gave him in early 2020 that instigated his rehabilitation and her deep commitment to the marriage, whatever the outcome of the applicant’s migration proceedings.
I note her evidence that if the applicant is deported to South Sudan she will travel there to live with him despite the fact she has no connection to that country, she is deeply embedded in her own family in Australia and the obvious dangers of such a course. While such evidence might from another witness appear engender scepticism, I found her to be a very credible witness and I accept her evidence to be true. I note that her many family members who were present at the hearing exhibited distress at that point in her evidence.
The applicant’s mother is a permanent resident of Australia as are his father and siblings. The applicant’s mother gave evidence which I accept about the applicant’s traumatic childhood, the family violence she experienced and her struggles to care for an adult daughter with a significant mental health condition and a teenage son with autism. I accept the consistent evidence of the applicant and his mother as to the assistance that he provided his mother with his siblings prior to his incarceration and her fears for his safety should he be returned to Sudan. I find that if the visa cancellation is not revoked, it will have a severe and far-reaching impact on both the applicant’s wife and mother.
A large number of other people wrote letters of support to the Department and the Tribunal on behalf of the applicant and his wife. They include each of the applicant’s wife’s parents as well as her brother, sister and a number of aunts, uncles (one of whom has offered the applicant employment), cousins and friends. It is clear that the applicant and his wife are much loved members of a large and close extended family and the applicant also has support from his own family and friends. I consider the presence of a great many members of his extended family and friends throughout the duration of the two-day Tribunal proceedings is an indicator both of their support for the applicant and their knowledge of his history of criminal offending.
I find that the applicant has very strong family ties in this country as well as significant ties to other members of the Australian community. The strength, nature and duration of his ties to Australia weigh strongly in favour of revoking the decision to cancel his visa.
Best interests of minor children in Australia affected by the decision
Clause 8.4 of the Direction requires the Tribunal to consider the best interests of minor children in Australia affected by the decision. Under cl 8.4, the Tribunal must make a determination whether cancellation or refusal under s 501 of the Act, is or is not, in the best interests of children who are under 18 at the time the decision is expected to be made. Where there are two or more relevant children, the best interests of each child should be given individual consideration to the extent that their interests might differ.
Clause 8.4(4) of the Direction goes on to outline the factors that a decision-maker must consider when determining the best interests of a child affected by the decision where relevant. Those factors include:
·The nature and duration of the relationship between the child and the non-citizen, noting 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;
·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;
·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;
·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;
·Whether there are other persons who already fulfil a parental role in relation to the child;
·Any known views of the child (with those views being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child);
·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; and
·Evidence that the child has suffered or experienced any physical or emotional trauma arising from the non-citizen’s conduct.[28]
[28] The Direction, cl 8.4(4)(a)-(h).
The applicant contends that this consideration weighs significantly in favour of revocation of the cancellation, because of the particular circumstances of the applicant’s family. The Minister contends that any weight afforded to this factor in favour of revocation of the cancellation should be reduced because the applicant does not play a parental role to his siblings; that any risk of reoffending would diminish the extent to which he is likely to play a positive parental role in the future; that the applicant could maintain contact with his siblings via electronic means and that he has spent considerable amount of time away from his siblings due to his periods of incarceration.
The applicant has four minor siblings in Australia. The eldest is currently 17 and will turn 18 in November 2025, while the younger three are aged 15, 13 and 8. The applicant’s mother is separated from the applicant’s father and the applicant’s 15-year-old brother lives with autism. The Tribunal heard evidence from the applicant and his mother as to the assistance the applicant provided to his mother in relation to his younger siblings prior to his incarceration and I accept that evidence to be true.
There is no evidence before the Tribunal about the views of the applicant siblings, nor any impact of his prior conduct on those siblings. Their primary carer is their mother and there is no evidence that any of those children have been abused or neglected by the applicant in any way. I accept however that the applicant’s relationship with those siblings has been diminished during the period in which his behaviour was influenced by his substance use and criminal offending and his subsequent incarceration.
I note however that the applicant’s wife continues to visit the applicant’s mother to provide her with support and I consider that the applicant is likely to play a positive role in the lives of his younger siblings in the future. I find that their permanent separation from the applicant if he is removed to South Sudan will have a negative effect upon his minor siblings.
I find that the best interests of the applicant’s minor siblings are served by the revocation of the visa cancellation. Given my finding that the applicant’s relationship with those siblings has been diminished during the period in which his behaviour was influenced by his substance use, offending and subsequent incarceration, I weigh this factor moderately in favour of revoking the decision to cancel his visa.
Expectations of the Australian Community
The fifth primary consideration requires the Tribunal to weigh the expectations of the Australian community. Clause 8.5(1) of the Direction provides that the Australian community expects non-citizens to obey Australian laws while in Australia. The Direction goes on to state that where a non-citizen has engaged in serious conduct in breach of this expectation, or where there is an unacceptable risk that they may do so, the Australian community, as a norm, expects the government to not allow them to enter or remain in Australia.
Clause 8.5(2) directs that visa cancellation or refusal, or non-revocation of the mandatory cancellation of a visa, may be appropriate simply because the nature of the character concerns or offences is such that the Australian community would expect that the person should not be granted or continue to hold a visa. This includes an expectation that a visa should be cancelled if they raise serious character concerns because of acts of family violence.[29]
[29] The Direction, cl 8.5(2).
Clause 8.5(3) of the Direction further confirms that the stated expectations apply regardless of whether the non-citizen poses a measurable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community. Clause 8.5(4) of the Direction requires the Tribunal to proceed on the basis of the government’s views as to the expectations of the Australian community as expressed in paragraph 8.5.
As acknowledged by the applicant’s counsel at hearing, the Australian courts have held that the assessment of community circumstances is not a matter of evidence and does not turn on the personal circumstances of the individual non-citizen. Rather the Court held that a decision-maker can take into account the personal circumstances of an individual in so far as they are relevant to another primary consideration or one of the other considerations and adjust the relative weight to be given to each of the considerations accordingly.[30] It follows that this consideration will, in all cases, weigh against revocation of a cancellation decision if that expectation has been breached or if there is an unacceptable risk that it may be breached in the future.
[30] RCLN v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2024] FCA 876 [56].
I have had regard to the principles in cl 5.2 of the Direction which direct that the safety of the Australian community is the highest priority. While I have found that the applicant’s risk of reoffending is low to the lower end of moderate, the seriousness of his offending must be considered regardless of the level of risk he poses to the Australian community.
I weigh this consideration moderately against revocation of the visa cancellation.
Other considerations
Clause 9 of the Direction states:
(1)In making a decision under section 501(1), 501(2) or 501CA(4), the considerations below must also be taken into account, where relevant, in accordance with the following provisions. These considerations include (but are not limited to):
a)legal consequences of the decision;
b)extent of impediments if removed;
d)impact on Australian business interests.[31]
[31] The Direction, cl 9.
Legal consequences of decision under section 501 or 501CA
The Tribunal is required to consider the legal consequences of a decision on a non-citizen, including having regard to Australia’s non-refoulement obligations in respect of unlawful non-citizens.[32]
[32] Ibid cl 9.1.
If the mandatory visa cancellation is revoked, the applicant will remain on the Global Special Humanitarian (Subclass 200) visa and will be released back into the community at the end of his custodial sentence.
If the mandatory cancellation of the applicant’s visa is not revoked, the applicant will become an unlawful non-citizen immediately after cancellation. Under s 189 of the Act, the applicant must be detained and removed as soon as reasonably practicable under s 198.[33] He will face a prohibition on applying for most other kinds of visas and special return criteria will apply to prevent his return to Australia.[34]
[33] Ss 189 and 198 of the Act
[34] Ibid s 501E s 503, Special Return Criteria (SRC) 5001.
While it is submitted that the applicant’s Global Special Humanitarian (Subclass 200) visa ‘anticipates protection obligations’, that visa subclass is not included in the class of visas identified as ‘protection visas’ in s 35A and any findings that may have been made in the processing of that visa application (which are not in any event before this Tribunal) will not constitute a ‘protection finding’ for the purposes of s 197C.
The applicant has not to date applied for any visa of a class identified as a protection visa in s 35A. As discussed with the parties at hearing, I am of the view that the Tribunal does not have the power to make a protection finding in respect of the applicant in the context of these proceedings, because s 197C(3) envisages that any protection finding be made in the course of considering a valid application for a protection visa.
Even if that were not the case, I do not consider I have sufficient evidence available to me to make (or decline to make) a protection finding. While the country information submitted to the Tribunal indicates that citizens of Sudan face a range of unquestionably very severe circumstances that may well engage Australia’s non-refoulement obligations, the making of a protection finding requires consideration not just of generalised country information, but of evidence and issues specific to the applicant that are not covered in the materials available to me.
Non-citizens such as the applicant who are not the subject of the protection finding may make claims which give rise to international non-refoulement obligations, but the Direction provides that those claims need not be considered in the same level of detail in these proceedings as those types of issues considered in protection visa applications.[35]
[35] Ibid cl 9.1.1(2)
In Plaintiff M1/2021 and Minister for Home Affairs [2022] HCA 17 the High Court held that:
In deciding whether there was ‘another reason’ to revoke the Cancellation Decision pursuant to s 501CA(4)(b)(b)(i) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), where the plaintiff remained free to apply for protection visa under the Migration Act:
(1) the Delegate was required to read, identify, understand and evaluate the plaintiff’s representations made in response to the invitation issued to him under section 501CA(B)(b) that raised a potential breach of Australia’s international non-refoulement obligations;
(2) Australia’s international non-refoulement obligations unenacted in Australia were not a mandatory relevant consideration; and
(3) to the extent Australia’s international non-refoulement obligations are given effect in the Migration Act, one available outcome for the Delegate was to defer assessment of whether the plaintiff was owed those non- refoulement obligations on the basis that it was open to the plaintiff to apply for protection visa under the Migration Act.[36]
[36] Plaintiff M1/2021 and Minister for Home Affairs [2022] HCA 17 at [69].
In reading, identifying, understanding and evaluating the applicant’s representations that seek to engage Australia’s non-refoulement obligations, I have had regard to the submission that Sudan has a history of human rights violations, including acts of torture, cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment. It is submitted that the applicant’s removal would result in significant adverse effects on his personal safety and his mental and emotional well-being and his wife and mother fear for his life if he is removed.
The applicant states that is very scared about the possibility of being deported to South Sudan which is experiencing war and famine and where he does not know anyone. His mother states that she is so afraid to think about her son being sent to Sudan where there is currently a civil war. She states her son was born in Khartoum which is now a war zone and there is a famine ravishing through the country. Many people in Sudan have fled into neighbouring countries and she fears for her son’s safety due to his Christian faith. She states he will not be seen as a member of the Sudanese community, that he does not speak Sudanese fluently and that he is also at risk of being recruited into the Sudanese army or the militia as a soldier.[37]
[37] Exhibit A20.
Country information submitted to the Tribunal indicates that:
·Since April 2023, Sudan has experienced fighting between the Sudan Armed Forces (SAF) and the independent military force Rapid Support Forces (RSF), killing at least 9000 people (likely a significant under-estimation) and displacing around 5.4 million. Both the SAF and the RSF have used heavy explosive weapons in densely populated areas in the capital Khartoum, killing thousands of civilians, damaging critical infrastructure and leaving millions without access to necessities. Nearly 1 million people have fled Sudan to neighbouring countries;[38]
·Heavy fighting persisted in many regions throughout Sudan during 2024 as the parties continue to mobilise civilians for combat. The proliferation of weapons meant that weapons are increasingly available to the parties in the conflict and their allied militias, thereby fuelling the conflict. There is a pattern of arbitrary arrests and detention of civilians by the joint security forces as well as reports of disappearances and missing persons. The conflict has also led to an unprecedented food crisis with an estimated 25.6 million people expected to experience high levels of acute food insecurity in 2024;[39]
·As of May 2025, humanitarian access across Sudan remained severely constrained by ongoing fighting between the SAF and the RSF;[40]
·As of July 2025, half of the population of South Sudan was officially classified as food insecure, including more than 83,000 facing catastrophic levels of food insecurity.[41]
[38] Human Rights Watch World Report 2024 at pages 591-597.
[39] United Nations General Assembly Situation of human rights in the Sudan: Report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Human Rights Council Fifty-eighth session 24 February–4 April 2025.
[40] Unocha.org (2025) Sudan:Humanitarian Access Snapshot (May 2025). [online] Available at: UN News. (2025) Food lifeline fading for millions in South Sudan hit by conflict and climate shocks. [online] Available at: >
The material before the Tribunal indicates that as a citizen of South Sudan, the applicant’s circumstances may well engage Australia’s non-refoulement obligations, although as I have noted above the applicant’s particular claims for protection have not been articulated in the materials before the Tribunal.
As the applicant is not the subject of a protection finding, the legal consequences of any decision not to revoke the visa cancellation are that the applicant will be placed into immigration detention at the end of his sentence and removed to a country experiencing war and famine. He will face statutory bars on applying for most other classes of visas before his removal and Special Return Criteria will prevent his return to Australia if he is removed. I weigh this factor strongly in favour of revoking the visa cancellation.
Extent of impediments if removed
Clause 9.2 of the Direction provides that taking into account the matters identified in sub-clauses 9.2(1)(a), (b) and (c) of the Direction, the Tribunal must consider the extent to which the applicant would face an impediment or impediments in establishing himself and maintaining basic living standards in the context of what is generally available to other citizens of that country. The matters identified under sub-clauses 9.2(1)(a), (b) and (c) are:
- the applicant’s age and health;
- whether there are substantial language or cultural barriers; and
- any social, medical and/or economic support available to the applicant in that country.
In this case the applicant is a 23-year-old male and there is no evidence that he suffers from any mental or physical health conditions other than substance use disorder which prior to June 2025 was considered to be in sustained remission since early 2020.
There can be no doubt that the applicant would experience substantial language and cultural barriers in South Sudan, having left that country with his family members at the age of two. The country information referred to earlier indicates that the country is experiencing widespread conflict and an unprecedented food crisis and that humanitarian access remains severely constrained by ongoing fighting between the SAF and the RSF. In such circumstances I consider it unlikely that any meaningful social, medical and/or economic support would be available to the applicant.
I assess that this factor weighs strongly in favour of revoking the visa cancellation.
Impact on Australian business interests
Clause 9.3 of the Direction states:
(1)Decision-makers must consider any impact on Australian business interests if the non-citizen is not allowed to enter or remain in Australia, noting that an employment link would generally only be given weight where the decision under section 501 or 501CA would significantly compromise the delivery of a major project, or delivery of an important service in Australia.[42]
[42] The Direction, cl 9.3.
It is not suggested by either party that the cancellation of the applicant’s visa would compromise the delivery of any major project or important service in Australia and I weigh this consideration as neutral.
CONCLUSION
The applicant does not pass the character test under s 501 of the Act, and I must consider whether there is another reason why the decision to cancel his visa should be revoked, having regard to the primary and other considerations in the Direction.
Clause 7 of the Direction sets out the ways in which the relevant considerations are to be taken into account and weighed.
There has been extensive judicial consideration on the exercise of balancing and weighing considerations contained in the relevant Ministerial Directions (considering a number of Ministerial Directions preceding the Direction).[43]
[43] See Suleiman v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 594; Minister for Home Affairs v HSKJ [2018] FCAFC 217; (2018) 266 FCR 591.
The Full Court of the Federal Court in CRNL v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs (‘CRNL’) described the exercise of balancing and weighing considerations contained in the relevant Ministerial Directions as follows:
‘[t]he real burden of the task to be undertaken by a decision-maker who must comply with the Direction [being the precursor to Direction 110] is to bring together the considerations as part of a single evaluation of their relative significance thereby weighing them all together.’[44]
[44] [2023] FCAFC 138, [23].
In determining the weight to be applied to each consideration, I have considered the primary and other considerations and weighed them in light of the evidence and findings using the guidance provided by the Direction.
Greater weight must generally be given to the protection of the Australian community than other primary considerations. Greater weight will also generally be given to primary considerations. In examining what this requires, the Full Court in CRNL states that this means greater weight will be given unless there is some reason why that general approach should not be adopted.[45]
[45] Ibid [27].
In bringing together the considerations in the manner required by CRNL, I give the primary consideration of the protection of the community greater weight than other primary considerations. I have assessed the applicant as being at low to the lower end of moderate risk to the Australian community but that risk is appreciable and I have weighed this factor strongly against revocation of the visa cancellation. I have found that the Australian community expects that the cancellation of the applicant’s visa is not revoked and I have weighed this factor moderately against revocation of the visa cancellation.
I have found that the strength, nature and duration of the applicant’s ties to Australia weigh strongly in favour of revocation of the visa cancellation, and that the best interests of the applicant’s my siblings weigh moderately in favour of revocation. Similarly, I have found that the legal consequences of the decision weigh strongly in favour of revocation of the visa cancellation, as do the extent of the impediments on return. I have assessed the considerations relating to family violence and the impact on Australian business interests to be neutral.
Although I have given the consideration of the protection of the Australian community greater weight than the other primary considerations, I conclude that the combined weight of the considerations that weigh in favour of revocation of the visa cancellation outweigh those that favour cancellation of the applicant’s visa. I consider that the primary considerations of the strength, nature and duration of the applicant’s ties to Australia, the best interests of his minor siblings, together with the consideration of the legal consequences of the decision and impediments on return, cumulatively weigh in favour of revocation of the visa cancellation.
DECISION
The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and in substitution decides that there is another reason to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the applicant’s visa.
I certify that the preceding 112 (one-hundred and twelve) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Senior Member A. Murphy
.................................[SGD].......................................
Associate
Dated: 22 August 2025
Date(s) of hearing: 15 and 18 August 2025 Counsel for the Applicant
Mr P O’Bryan-Gusah Solicitors for the Applicant: Mr D Ajak
Ajak & Associates LawyersSolicitors for the Respondent:
Ms S Liddy
Speake Helmore
0
7
0