Manyok and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Migration) - [2025] ARTA 31

Manyok and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Migration) [2025] ARTA 31 (24 January 2025)
Applicant/s:  Malual Manyok Monyjok Manyok
Respondent:  Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs
Tribunal Number:                2024/9238

Tribunal:General Member S. Fenwick
Place:Melbourne
Date:24 January 2025

Decision:The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

...........[SGD]................................................
General Member S. Fenwick
Catchwords
MIGRATION – visa refusal – Return (Residence) (Class BB) visa – national of South Sudan – serious violent offending – various other offending – failure to pass character test – whether discretion to refuse visa should be exercised – Ministerial Direction No 110 applied – Applicant in community on Bridging R (subclass 070) visa – protection of the Australian community – decision affirmed
Legislation
Migration Act 1958 (Cth)
Cases
HZCP v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2019] FCAFC 202
Secondary Materials
Minister for Citizenship, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs, Direction no. 110 — Visa refusal and cancellation under section 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under section 501C (21 June 2024)
Statement of Reasons
BACKGROUND

Mr Manyok applied on 12 November 2024 for review of the decision of a delegate of the Respondent Minister dated 11 November 2024 to refuse to grant him a Return (Residence) (Class BB) visa. This decision was made under s 501(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act) which provides for the discretionary refusal of a visa on character grounds.
Mr Manyok was born in what is now South Sudan in 1986 and lived from 2002 in a refugee camp in Kenya. He first arrived in Australia in 2004 aged 17 on an Offshore Humanitarian (Class XB) (Subclass 202) visa, in the company of family members, but his mother and a sibling remain in a camp. Mr Manyok completed high school after arrival, and has since lived, worked and studied in two different states and in the Northern Territory.
Following a brief overseas trip in 2014 for his work as a Disc Jockey, Mr Manyok’s humanitarian visa was replaced with a Border (Temporary) (subclass 773) visa, which expired after 30 days. This visa appears to have been granted because Mr Manyok’s humanitarian visa does not permit travel overseas after five years. He therefore became an unlawful non-citizen.
Mr Manyok entered immigration detention in 2022 following release on parole. He had been serving a sentence of imprisonment of 7 years which was imposed due to conviction on a charge of wound with intent to cause grievous bodily harm in 2018. This charge arose from an incident with a former partner in 2016 in which she was stabbed multiple times, and during which incident Mr Manyok also came to be stabbed. He has a record of other convictions commencing in late 2009.
Mr Manyok originally applied for the visa the subject of the refusal decision in 2020. He succeeded in an application before the then Administrative Appeals Tribunal, differently constituted, which decided in 2022 that he satisfied certain criteria for the grant of his residence visa. However, a delegate of the Minister notified Mr Manyok in 2024 that this visa may be refused. Later in 2024, he was represented for the purposes of responding to this notification by the Asylum Seeker Resource Centre.
In November 2024, Mr Manyok was granted a Bridging visa E (BVE) by the Minister administering the Act, exercising power under s 195A of the Act. In December the Minister granted Mr Manyok a Bridging R (subclass 070) visa (BVR). That is, since later 2024, Mr Manyok has been resident in the community and subject to certain conditions attaching to his visa.
Mr Manyok represented himself before the Tribunal and did not lodge any material or written submissions. The Respondent lodged documents pursuant to s 500 of the Act (G), a Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions (RSFIC), and a tender bundle (TB) being documents relating to Mr Manyok’s bridging visa.
LEGISLATION
Section 501 of the Act provides for refusal or cancellation of a visa on character grounds and subsection (1) establishes a discretionary power to refuse a visa if a person does not pass the ‘character test’. Subsection (6)(a) provides that a person fails the character test by reason of having a substantial criminal record, which is defined in subsection (7)(c) as having been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more.
Direction 110 has been made under s 499 of the Act (the Direction) and provides considerations that must be taken into account when deciding to exercise the discretion under s 501(1) of the Act. The Direction provides that the specific circumstances of a case must be taken into account when deciding whether to exercise the discretion to refuse a visa (5.1(2)). Specific considerations under the Direction will be cited in my reasons below.
The Direction also sets out Principles that provide a framework for making a decision to refuse a visa (5.2):
(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 noncitizen poses a measureable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community.
(5)    Australia has a low tolerance of any criminal or other serious conduct by visa applicants or those holding a limited stay visa, or by other non-citizens who have been participating in, and contributing to, the Australian community only for a short period of time.
(6)    With respect to decisions to refuse, cancel, and revoke cancellation of a visa, Australia may afford a higher level of tolerance of criminal or other serious conduct by non-citizens who have lived in the Australian community for most of their life, or from a very young age.
(7)    Decision-makers must take into account the primary and other considerations relevant to the individual case. In some circumstances, the nature of the non-citizen's conduct, or the harm that would be caused if the conduct were to be repeated, may be so serious that even strong countervailing considerations may be insufficient to justify not cancelling or refusing the visa, or revoking a mandatory cancellation.
(8)    The inherent nature of certain conduct such as family violence is so serious that even strong countervailing considerations may be insufficient to justify not cancelling or refusing the visa, or revoking a mandatory cancellation, even if the information available at the time of consideration suggests that the noncitizen does not pose a measureable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community.
ISSUES
The first issue that arises is whether I am satisfied that Mr Manyok fails the character test. I have considered the national criminal history check (G5/A), as well as the materials more broadly, and I am satisfied that Mr Manyok has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more.
Accordingly, I find that the statutory discretion is enlivened, and I must now determine whether or not to exercise it in favour of refusal of the visa.
PRIMARY CONSIDERATIONS
Protection of the Australian community
Nature and seriousness of the applicant’s offending
As noted, Mr Manyok’s criminal record spans between 2009 and 2018. His record includes appearances in three different states or territories on ten occasions, but this must be understood as including matters arising on appeal and as breaches of prior court outcomes. A summary is included in the RSFIC at [7] which reduces the critical number of appearances to five:
(a)a County Court imposed a suspended one month sentence of imprisonment in 2010 on a charge of driving while suspended;
(b)a Magistrates Court imposed a one month sentence of imprisonment in 2011 to be served by way of Intensive Corrections Order (ICO) on a charge of aggravated assault and breach of intervention order, upon Mr Manyok’s second breach of the original court outcome from 2009;
(c)Mr Manyok was found guilty and discharged in a Magistrates Court in 2014 on two charges of drunk and disorderly;
(d)a Magistrate’s Court in 2015 imposed a sentence of an 18 month Community Corrections Order (CCO) on a suite of charges comprising handle stolen goods, fail to answer bail, resist police, intentionally cause injury, and hinder police; and
(e)a Supreme Court in 2018 imposed the sentence of 7 years which led to the refusal of Mr Manyok’s visa.
I summarise as follows from the sentencing remarks of the Supreme Court (G5/B):
(a)Mr Manyok was found by a jury not guilty on a charge of attempted murder, but guilty on a charge of doing grievous bodily harm with intent to do grievous bodily harm, and he had previously plead guilty to a third charge of grievous bodily harm;
(b)the offending occurred in Brisbane and the victim was a former partner of Mr Manyok and they had lived together in Melbourne previously, but accounts by the victim of extreme violent behaviour in the past did not form part of the circumstances of this offending, and the judge considered her prone to exaggeration;
(c)nonetheless, the charge on which Mr Manyok was found guilty was endorsed as family violence offending;
(d)the circumstances were found to accord largely with the account given by the victim which was that both parties were visiting the house of mutual friends and Mr Manyok attempted to engage with the victim who rebuffed him;
(e)while she was sitting on the couch talking on the phone, Mr Manyok went to the kitchen and obtained a knife with which he stabbed the victim in the abdomen and then several more times (six in total) and, at some point Mr Manyok was also stabbed in the leg;
(f)the first wound involved the liver and was life threatening, and the other wounds were serious but not life-threatening, and the judge considered the physical and psychological impact on the victim to be significant;
(g)the judge considered Mr Manyok’s attempt to claim self-defence on the basis that it was the victim who brought the knife and attempted to stab him was inconsistent with Mr Manyok’s initial guilty plea but, in any event, any self-defence was excessive;
(h)the attack was not spontaneous and Mr Manyok attempted to take the victim by surprise in hiding the knife behind his back, and the judge did not consider he showed any remorse;
(i)in sentencing Mr Manyok to imprisonment, the offence was also declared a serious violent offence.
Mr Manyok unsuccessfully appealed the severity of his sentencing (G5/D), the appeal being based upon alleged undue regard to the nature and circumstances of his relationship with the victim when living in Melbourne.
When he first raised the 2016 offending at the hearing, Mr Manyok described it as the ‘incident that happened to me’, which he explained was an act of self-defence. When invited to described the circumstances in cross-examination, Mr Manyok said it was a matter of his word of her word, as there were no witnesses. He stated there was a dispute between them at a friends house after they had been drinking, and Mr Manyok denied being drunk. He stated the dispute arose due to the victim being concerned about women appearing on Mr Manyok’s social media feed, and that she was drinking heavily and ‘kept going on’ about the issue. Mr Manyok stated that the victim went to the kitchen and obtained a knife, then sat next to him on the couch and stabbed him in the leg. He stated that the injuries to the victim occurred when he accidentally stabbed her upon withdrawing the knife from his leg.
I sought Mr Manyok’s views about the specific findings of the sentencing judge, and the Applicant sought to challenge the outcome on the basis that it consisted of ‘lawyers words’, insisting the sentencing remarks were ‘not worded right’. Mr Manyok continued to maintain that he did not intend to cause injury to the victim because this carried the connotation that he meant the attack to happen.
Mr Manyok was asked about the intervention order forming part of his sentencing record. Ultimately this passage of evidence was somewhat confused as Mr Manyok appeared unable to identify any reason for the order. He did recall, however, the circumstances of its alleged breach, which included a charge of aggravated assault. In short, Mr Manyok did not identify any conduct that he considered justified the charge, explaining it as a disagreement about the return of a laptop by his former partner.
Mr Manyok stated that he believed the charge of driving while suspended arose from the accumulation of demerit points. Mr Manyok denied being drunk when charged with drunk and disorderly. He also stated, essentially, that he did not conduct himself in a way that justified accompanying charges of intentionally cause injury, and hinder and resist police. Mr Manyok was unable to explain why he was charged with handle stolen goods, stating that he had simply purchased an electronic item from a person in a van near a shopping centre.
The Respondent contends that Mr Manyok’s criminal history is very serious, that its cumulative impact be considered, and that it demonstrates increasing severity of offending. Mr Manyok stated that he accepted he had been convicted of a serious violent offence, which he considered to have been ‘downgraded’ from attempted murder.
I will deal further, below, with the implications of Mr Manyok’s evidence about the circumstances of his very serious offending. It is important to note, that as an administrative body, this Tribunal cannot make a finding that is inconsistent with essential facts that underpin the conviction which has enlivened jurisdiction in a character matter such as this (HZCP v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2019] FCAFC 202, [63], [77]). For this reason, I cannot accept those parts of Mr Manyok’s evidence that are contrary to the facts reported in the sentencing remarks.
Aside from its official characterisation by the sentencing judge, I consider that as it involved a violent attack on a woman, Mr Manyok’s 2016 offending must be characterised as very serious offending (8.1.1.(1) a)). This offence attracted a substantial sentence, but otherwise, Mr Manyok has – generally – received what I consider to be quite modest sentences for his wider offending, including frequent non-custodial outcomes (8.1.1(1) c)).
In respect of the 2016 offending, I accept that the impact on the victim was considered significant (8.1.1(1) d)). I give weight to what I consider to be both repeat offending, including breach conduct, to a clear trend of increasing significance, and to its cumulative impact (8.1.1(1) e), f)).
Risk of reoffending
In a written submission responding to the notification to refuse his visa (G4/P) Mr Manyok expresses remorse for his serious offending, and states that he has spent ten years turning his life around. Similarly, in an earlier domestic violence statement, which I understand to be associated with his visa application (G4/Q1), Mr Manyok expresses remorse and takes full responsibility for suffering and damage he has caused. He also states here that he believes that all his charges are related to alcohol and PTSD. Mr Manyok also identifies here the large number of courses he has undertaken while incarcerated, to his good conduct, and to various letters of support.
In his evidence at the hearing, Mr Manyok again expressed remorse, and indicated that he considered he had served his time. He stated that he considered himself a changed man, and observed that he had been unable to undertake offence specific rehabilitation (being violence and family violence related programs) as they were not available in prison. Mr Manyok stated that he intends to undertake relevant programs now that he is in the community, subject to determining availability, cost and compatibility with is bridging visa conditions.
Mr Manyok stated that he has worked in a number of fields over the years including the music industry, and in factory roles and at an abattoir. He explained that he has started working evenings in the music industry and successfully sought the variation of his curfew in order to do so. Mr Manyok described his past experience of assisting with South Sudanese community events in a variety of roles, as well as being quite heavily engaged with a community basketball team, as well as himself playing. He gave evidence that he has a strong interest in working in future for the good of the South Sudanese youth, passing on his experience and knowledge.
Mr Manyok stated that earlier in his time in Australia he lived with his cousin, with whom he had travelled to Australia. He is close to her and her children and they attend church together. He stated that since being released on a bridging visa he has had accommodation in three different motels or hotels, had recently been granted ‘special benefits’ (a social security payment) and was soon to engage with a job services provider. Mr Manyok considers that his future accommodation options are dependent upon income, and he occupied government housing prior to incarceration. He gave evidence that he is strongly motivated to have his visa granted so as to enable him to progress to permanent residency in order that he may assist his mother to come to Australia.
When asked about his alcohol use and PTSD, Mr Manyok stated that he had never drunk to excess in the past. However, he has not consumed alcohol for ten years and does not consider it part of his life anymore. Mr Manyok denied ever using drugs. He also stated that given his background of trauma he needs to get ‘checked out’ for PTSD.
Mr Manyok demonstrated in his evidence and submissions a high level of awareness of the conditions under which his BVR has been granted. I understand from the materials (TB) that Mr Manyok is not prevented from undertaking training and education (a restriction that applied under his brief BVE). He is clearly aware of his monitoring by an ankle bracelet, which he wishes to apply to be removed, and of the curfew and general monitoring framework that applies to his BVR. I note that by the terms of the BVR, breaches of numerous specified conditions are offences under the Act.
As extensive list of vocational courses undertaken by Mr Manyok while in prison is in the materials (G4/Q3), as is a comprehensive bundle of certificates of achievement (G4/Q6). Another highly relevant source of information is the Parole Suitability Assessment report which was undertaken in 2022 (G4/G). This documents an extensive range of employment by Mr Manyok during imprisonment and there is nothing in the accompanying analysis that contradicts evidence given my Mr Manyok. The report states that he provided an achievable release plan with respect to employment and accommodation. The writer notes that Mr Manyok would benefit from an extended period of supervision in the community during which engagement with alcohol and family violence rehabilitation can be monitored.

Mr Manyok completed a Relapse Treatment Plan in late 2021 as part of a treatment program in prison. It identifies relationships and support network goals, self-management tips, and statements of values.
There are numerous letters of support in the materials (G4/Q4). These include letters from Mr Manyok’s cousin and his brother, as well as from a long-term friend. Relevantly there are several letters that confirm Mr Manyok’s record of contributing to the South Sudanese community in the past, including two from experienced community sector workers.
The Respondent submits that significant harm could arise should Mr Manyok commit further violent offences. It is also contended that there is a real risk of further offending for the following reasons:
(a)Mr Manyok’s lengthy criminal history;
(b)the fact that he has not responded in the past to community-based sentencing outcomes;
(c)the lack of insight and real remorse demonstrated in Mr Manyok’s evidence at the hearing;
(d)his tendency to minimise instances in his wider offending record;
(e)the lack of reliable evidence that alcohol or PTSD played any role in his offending; and
(f)the lack of participation in any offence-specific rehabilitation.
The Respondent specifically contends that the risk of further offending is unacceptable, and that significant weight be afforded protection of the community in favour of refusal. Mr Manyok put significant emphasis at the hearing on his remorse and upon his good record in prison. He emphasised that he had undertaken any and every program that he was able to, and that the lack of offence specific rehabilitation programs was due to their unavailability. Mr Manyok impressed upon me that he is not a bad individual.
The Direction provides that some future offending may be so serious that any risk of its occurrence should be considered unacceptable (8.1.2(1)). Consideration must also be given to the nature of likely future harm (8.1.2(2) a)). As Mr Manyok has been convicted of a very serious offence of violence, it is reasonable to conclude that any repeat of such conduct would carry potentially serious risk of harm.
Consideration must also be given to the likelihood of such further offending with particular reference to evidence of rehabilitation undertaken by the time of a decision (8.1.2(2) b)). Typically, the authorities require that consideration be given to the nature and circumstances of offending in order that account can be taken of factors relevant to offending that may have been addressed in rehabilitation, or which can be addressed through pro-social behaviour.
There is no clear evidence in this matter that Mr Manyok’s offending, including his very serious offending, was a result of any specific and identifiable dysfunction. That is, substance abuse or mental health conditions are not of apparent relevance. However, I take note of Mr Manyok’s willingness to manage these issues which is likely to have some positive impact on his life in general, and possibly mitigates risk to some extent.
It is abundantly clear that Mr Manyok has made the best of his time while imprisoned. He impressed as a witness with his positive attitude and drive to make a difference in the community. He already has a relevant work history and has amassed a range of additional skills and qualifications. I am satisfied that Mr Manyok has a number of personal and community contacts that will form a positive and supportive social environment for him. These are all factors that can further mitigate the risk of reoffending.
The greatest concern arising from the evidence is Mr Manyok’s failure to openly accept the nature of his most serious offending, and his apparent reluctance to accept his wider criminal record as being indicative of poor conduct. I will deal further below with family violence conduct, but I note here that Mr Manyok deflected responsibility for his offending against women. Moreover, he has continued to seek to rely on an account of his serious offending that is broadly inconsistent with the findings of the sentencing judge, and lacks credibility. Mr Manyok clearly feels aggrieved by his sentence despite presenting with a veneer of remorse.
For these reasons, I accept the Respondent’s submissions that there remains a real risk of further offending that may cause significant harm. I also agree that this risk is unacceptable, a finding reinforced by the apparent absence of any exculpatory factors behind his offending.
Summary finding
I have given weight to the range of length of Mr Manyok’s criminal record, to its increasing severity, and to his lack of response to more lenient community based court outcomes. I have also identified his record as including an instance of very serious offending. I have also found there to be a real risk of reoffending, and that this risk is unacceptable.
Accordingly, I find that this primary consideration weighs heavily in favour of refusal.
Family violence committed by the non-citizen
This consideration expresses the Government’s serious concerns about family violence conduct, a concern proportionate to its seriousness (8.2(1)). This consideration is clearly engaged due to Mr Manyok’s very serious offending which was designated family violence offending, and also due to the earlier conduct and breach related to a family violence intervention order (8.2(2)).
The Respondent contends that although not frequent, Mr Manyok has engaged in multiple acts of increasing frequency. It is contended that he demonstrates little insight, does not accept responsibility for some of his conduct, and has not undertaken relevant formal rehabilitation. It is submitted this consideration be given significant weight in favour of refusal.
I noted above Mr Manyok’s written and oral statements concerning his offending, including those made in a domestic violence character declaration (G4/Q1). He also noted in his closing submissions his frequent involvement in community events with women in attendance. I have also noted his commitment to participating in programs, albeit at the hearing Mr Manyok also described this as a ‘tick-the-box’ exercise to help him respond to questions about risk and safety.
In considering the specified factors (8.2(3)) I accept the Respondent’s contentions that while infrequent, the family violence engaged in by Mr Manyok exhibits a serious increase in severity. I do not put any particular weight on the earlier conduct relating to a charge of aggravated assault. I do, however, put considerable weight on the fact that Mr Manyok had been exposed to family violence issues through an intervention order and that he breached that order. I also consider that Mr Manyok demonstrates extremely limited insight into his very serious offending, as identified above. This reflects limited relevant rehabilitation, which is only very marginally remedied by his express commitment to engagement in the future with programs.
For these reasons I find that this consideration weighs heavily in favour of refusal.
Strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia
I must consider the impact of a decision on Mr Manyok’s immediate family members in Australia (8.3(1)).
I have already identified a number of relevant family members including two brothers, a cousin and her children. In her statement, the cousin provides a list of seven relatives.
The Respondent contends that there is limited evidence of the extent of Mr Manyok’s relationship with the named family members or the affect of his removal from Australia. Given his presence in the community, it is contended that there is at present no likelihood of his removal, further reducing the significance of this consideration.
As there is supporting evidence from family members and because of the particular relationship with his cousin, I do afford some weight to this consideration. However, for the reason identified by the Respondent, Mr Manyok is not presently facing removal and therefore, overall, I assign only limited weight against refusal to this consideration.
Best interests of minor children in Australia
This consideration requires an assessment of whether refusal is in the best interests of children under 18 at the time of the decision (8.4(1)). The written and oral evidence demonstrate that Mr Manyok has a relationship with twin minor children of his cousin. He described in evidence his active engagement with this family group prior to his incarceration. In her statement, his cousin states that Mr Manyok used to look after her children, and that his absence has changed their lives.
The Respondent submitted that, given Mr Manyok’s presence in the community on a BVR, it could be argued that these minor children would benefit from the Applicant not being under specified visa conditions. Otherwise, the consideration has no great impact because of the BVR.
Certain specific factors are identified in the Direction (8.4(4)). In the circumstances of this matter, Mr Manyok does not fulfil a parental role in respect of his nieces and is unlikely to be separated from them by removal in the event of a decision in the negative.
On balance, I find that this consideration weighs neutrally.
Expectations of the Australian community
Reflecting the Principles in the Direction, this consideration is a normative statement of the expectation that non-citizens who are not law abiding should not expect to hold a visa (8.5(1)). Acts of family violence or of serious violence against women are identified as raising the kinds of character concerns that enliven the consideration, regardless of whether there is a measurable risk of harm (8.5(2)-(3)).
The Respondent contends that, having regard to Mr Manyok’s very serious offending and unacceptable risk of harm, this consideration weighs significantly in favour of refusal.
The consideration is enlivened due to the nature of Mr Manyok’s offending and his conduct is of a kind reflecting the identified character concerns. Accordingly, I find that this expectation weighs heavily in favour of refusal, particularly in the face of the unacceptable risk that I have found arises in Mr Manyok’s case.
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
There is no evidence in this matter indicating that the consideration Impact on Australian business interests is engaged, and therefore this weighs neutrally.
Legal consequences of a decision
This consideration is framed in the context of Australia’s obligations not to return a person to a place where they face a particular kind of harm (non-refoulement), understood in the sense carried by ‘protection obligations’ in the Act. I must be mindful that an unlawful non-citizen is liable to detention until removal as soon as reasonably practicable (9.1(1)).
Mr Manyok is not covered by a protection finding, and therefore the Direction relevantly provides that consideration be given to any representations as to harm that are made, but that a decision about non-refoulement obligations may be deferred to be undertaken via a protection visa application (9.1.2(1)-(2)).
Claims that Mr Manyok fears harm in South Sudan are raised in the submission by the Asylum Seeker Resource Centre (G5/S2). These are that he would face persecution as a man of Dinka ethnicity, being of military age, and arising from his lack of support networks. It is also submitted here that Mr Manyok is stateless. This submission contends further that Mr Manyok’s removal to South Sudan is not reasonably practicable in the foreseeable future.
The Respondent contends that due to the issue of a BVR, the requirement in the Act to remove Mr Manyok as an unlawful non-citizen is not presently engaged. Further, should he be convicted of breaches of his BVR, Mr Manyok would be subject to prosecution and imprisonment for at least 12 months. It was also contended in oral submissions that the onerous reporting conditions under the BVR could be given weight in Mr Manyok’s favour, but that this consideration does not merit more than limited weight against refusal.
It appears to me to be an almost unavoidable conclusion that Mr Manyok is presently in the community on a BVR because there is little or no prospect of him being returned in the near future to South Sudan. Whether this is due to the kinds of harm said by him to pertain is unclear. His claims of harm, while generally credible are quite broad and, I consider, require the more detailed consideration that would occur in a protection visa application.
The most relevant and immediate legal consequence in Mr Manyok’s circumstances are, as noted by the Respondent, the fact that he is subject to strict conditions on his BVR and faces imprisonment for their breach. I also understand the BVR to have no specified end date. Accordingly, while I am unable to speculate about a range of possible future decisions with respect to his disposition, a real degree of uncertainty arises about what outcomes might emerge for Mr Manyok over time.
For these reasons, I give this consideration moderate weight against refusal.
Extent of impediments if removed
This consideration requires assessment of the extent of any impediments to Mr Manyok establishing himself to a relatively modest local standard in circumstances where he is returned to South Sudan (9.2(1)).
In addition to confirming his Dinka ethnicity in evidence, Mr Manyok stated that he is fluent in this language and Swahili.
The Respondent contends that this consideration weighs inly neutrally in circumstances where removal is not in prospect due to Mr Manyok’s BVR.
There remain a number of unresolved and indeed, unexplored, dimensions to this consideration. However, in circumstances where removal is not likely in the foreseeable future, I find this consideration weighs neutrally.
CONCLUSION
Of the primary considerations I have found the Protection of the Australian community, Family violence committed by the non-citizen and Expectations of the Australian community all weigh heavily in favour of refusal. I have also found that The strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia weighs moderately against refusal, and the Best interests of minor children weighs neutrally.
Of the other considerations, I have found that Legal consequences of a decision weighs moderately against refusal, and the other considerations weigh neutrally.
The Direction provides that the primary consideration Protection of the Australian community should generally be given greater weight than other primary considerations, and the Principles recognise public safety as the highest priority for the Government. The Principles also note the importance of matters raising serious character concerns, which I have found are engaged in this matter. I do not consider Mr Manyok has lived in Australia from a very young age, and he therefore does not attract any higher level of tolerance that might otherwise be afforded under the Direction.
I consider that Mr Manyok’s past behaviour alone is a matter of serious concern, but also that there is a real risk of further reoffending. I have not identified any particular countervailing considerations about his offending or circumstances to justify grant of his visa, and in any event, the impact of any countervailing considerations would be substantially reduced by his family violence conduct.
Accordingly, I find that the correct or preferable decision is to refuse to grant Mr Manyok a Return (Residence) (Class BB) visa.
DECISION
For the reasons given above the Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

Date of hearing: 20 January 2025

Applicant: Self-Represented

Solicitor for the Respondent: Mr Keith Sypott

Solicitors for the Respondent Australian Government Solicitor

Date of hearing:	20 January 2025
Applicant:	Self-Represented
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Mr Keith Sypott
Solicitors for the Respondent	Australian Government Solicitor