NKMX and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (Migration) - [2025] ARTA 1925

NKMX and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (Migration) [2025] ARTA 1925 (25 September 2025)
Applicant:NKMX
Respondent: Minister for Immigration and Citizenship
Tribunal Number: 2025/4266

Tribunal:General Member A. Maryniak KC
Place:Melbourne
Date:25 September 2025

Decision:The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and in substitution decides that the decision cancelling the Applicant’s visa is revoked.

......................[SGD]........................
General Member A. Maryniak KC
Catchwords
MIGRATION – mandatory visa cancellation – citizen of New Zealand – criminal record – failure to pass the character test – whether another reason to revoke the mandatory cancellation – Ministerial Direction no. 110 applied – Primary Considerations – protection of the Australian Community from criminal or other serious conduct – low risk of re-offending – family violence – strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia – best interest of minor children – expectations of the Australian Community – Other Considerations – legal consequences – extent of impediments if removed – decision set aside and substituted.
Legislation
Migration Act 1958 (Cth)
Cases
Katoa v Minister for Immigration Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2021] FCA 1000
Secondary Materials
Direction No. 110 – Migration Act 1958 – Direction under section 499: Visa refusal and cancellation under section 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under section 501CA
Statement of Reasons

The Applicant seeks review of a 24 June 2025 decision not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of her Special Category (Subclass 444) visa (‘the visa’) pursuant to section 501CA(4) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (‘the Act’).
BACKGROUND
The background to this Application is helpfully summarised by the Respondent as follows:[1]
The applicant, a 40-year-old…citizen of New Zealand, first arrived in Australia on 14 December 2013 and moved to Australia permanently on 16 July 2014 (G45). The applicant was the holder of a Special Category (Subclass 444).
On 30 June 2023, the applicant was sentenced in the County Court of Victoria at Melbourne in relation to seven offences, being two charges of intentionally cause injury and five charges of common law assault, and was sentenced to a total effective sentence of three years and two months imprisonment. The applicant was required to serve two years imprisonment before being eligible for parole with 8 days pre-sentence detention being reckoned as already served (G6).
The applicant was given notice on 9 July 2024 that her visa had been cancelled under s 501(3A) of the Act on the basis that the applicant has a substantial criminal record (s 501(6)(a) of the Act) and was serving a term of imprisonment on a full-time basis (G38).
The applicant sought revocation of the visa cancellation decision on 31 July 2024 and provided evidence in support (G8-G9).
On 30 August 2024, the department invited the applicant to comment on further information that the department would take into account in deciding whether to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the applicant’s visa. The further information was a New Zealand Police Criminal History Report dated 7 August 2024, Prisoner Conduct report from Corrections Victoria dated 6 August 2024 and incoming passenger cards dated 10 December 2019 and 10 August 2019 in which the applicant did not declare her criminal convictions (G44).
On 24 June 2025, a delegate of the Minister decided, under s 501CA(4) of the Act, not to revoke the visa cancellation decision (G2). The applicant was notified of the delegate’s decision on 4 July 2025.
On 8 July 2025, the applicant applied to the Tribunal for review of the non-revocation decision (G1).
[1] Respondent’s Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions dated 4 September 2025, [3]-[9].
CONSIDERATION
The hearing was originally scheduled for 2 days.[2] The Tribunal heard testimony from the Applicant, Ms JM (Support worker- Prison Network), Ms SF (the Applicant’s sister) Mr JS (the Applicant’s son), Ms KS (the Applicant's daughter) and Mr RT, Pastor. As a consequence, the matter was heard over 3 days. The Tribunal has also considered extensive documentary evidence comprising exhibits A1 and R1 to R6[3] and useful tables provided by the parties.
[2] Tribunal Direction (differently constituted) of 21 July 2025.
[3] Annexure to Applicant’s Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions and Applicant’s Reply lodged on 8 September 2025 (‘Exhibit A1’), Documents lodged pursuant to section 501G of the Act (‘Exhibit R1’), Supplementary G-Documents lodged on 26 August 2025 (‘Exhibit R2’), Further Supplementary G-Documents lodged on 9 September 2025 (‘Exhibit R3’), letter of the Adult Parole Board dated 9 April 2025 (‘Exhibit R4’), Annexures to the Respondent’s Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions (‘RSFIC’) dated 4 September 2025 (‘Exhibit R5’), and two videos of evidence dated 23 April and 24 April 2022 (‘Exhibit R6’).
With the Applicant having accepted that she does not pass the character test under s 501CA(4)(b)(i) of the Act, the sole issue for determination is whether there is another reason why the cancellation should be revoked under s 501CA(4)(b)(ii) of the Act, being guided by the principles and considerations set out in Direction No 110 – Visa refusal and cancellation under section 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under section 501CA (‘Direction 110’).
The Applicant has summarised the approach the Tribunal should take in applying Direction 110, which essentially the Respondent did not take issue with, as follows:[4]
The Tribunal is required by s 499(2A) to comply with the Direction. However, a direction given under section 499(1) of the Act is not an ‘exhaustive universe’ and does not confine what may be taken into account. Further, it cannot validly fetter the discretion of a decision-maker under section 501 or section 501CA(4).
Where the discretion to revoke cancellation of a visa under s 501CA is enlivened, the decision-maker must consider the specific circumstances of the case in deciding whether there is another reason to revoke cancellation.
Section 5.2 of the Direction sets out principles within which decision-makers ‘should’ approach their task of deciding whether to refuse or cancel a non-citizen’s visa or revoke cancellation. Among others, those principles include the expectation that non-citizens will be law abiding and that the safety of the community is the highest priority for the Australian Government. It is important to observe that these are matters the Tribunal ‘should’, but which it is not mandated to, take into account. There is a clear distinction in the Direction between these principles and the factors in ss 8 and 9, which a decision maker ‘must’ take into account where relevant.
The factors set out in ss 8 and 9 which the Direction requires to be considered are separated into ‘primary considerations’ and ‘other considerations’. The Direction provides that the primary consideration ‘protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct’ is generally to be given greater weight than other primary considerations. Otherwise, ‘primary considerations’ should generally be given greater weight than ‘other considerations’. The Direction makes clear that one or more primary considerations may outweigh other primary considerations.
As the Direction refers to how the primary considerations should ‘generally’ be taken into account, the Tribunal retains discretion as to how the primary considerations factor into its decision. The Federal Court of Australia has held that ‘other considerations’ are not always secondary to ‘primary considerations’ and that, in some cases, it can be appropriate to afford other considerations the greatest weight.
In applying the Direction to [the Applicant’s] circumstances, the Tribunal must also give real consideration to the consequences for her if the cancellation is not revoked. In Hands v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, Allsop CJ said:
where decisions might have devastating consequences visited upon people, the obligation of real consideration of the circumstances of the people affected must be approached confronting what is being done to people. This obligation and the expression of its performance is not a place for decisional checklists or formulaic expression. Mechanical formulaic expression and pre-digested shorthand expressions may hide a lack of the necessary reflection upon the whole consideration of the human consequences involved. Genuine consideration of the human consequences demands honest confrontation of what is being done to people.
[4] Applicant’s Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions dated 21 August 2025 (‘ASFIC’) [30]-[35].
At the outset the Tribunal notes a slight tension between the parties in the approach to be taken to documentary material before it in the nature of incident reports, charges, summaries of alleged facts (not agreed) and similar documents which for the most part are untested. Much of this material can be found within summonsed material. As the Respondent correctly pointed out:[5]
Material may tend to show that a non-citizen may have engaged in criminal, inappropriate or otherwise harmful conduct if it indicates that he or she has been charged with an offence. The non-citizen need not be convicted of or charged with an offence before the Minister may lawfully have regard to the alleged conduct. Section 501 “is not confined to prohibiting the entry or presence in Australia of persons who have been convicted of criminal conduct”: Ngaronoa v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 1565 at [51]-[53], [56], [58] per Jacobson J…
The Tribunal has considered this material and given it limited weight in the balancing exercise discussed below.
PRIMARY CONSIDERATIONS
[5] Katoa v Minister for Immigration Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2021] FCA 1000, [30] Nicholas J.
Protection of the Australian community
Paragraph 8.1(2) of the Direction requires Decision-makers to give consideration to:
a)the nature and seriousness of the non-citizen’s conduct to date; and
b)the risk to the Australian community, should the non-citizen commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct.
Nature and seriousness of conduct
A signed statement from the Applicant dated 21 August 2025 was lodged with the Tribunal and the Applicant was questioned extensively in chief about this. The Tribunal notes earlier statements from the Applicant dated 8 August 2024 and an undated one which are not inconsistent. The foundation offending and other aspects of this matter are confronting, disturbing and disgraceful. The Applicant quite properly has conceded that she does not pass the character test.
The Applicant had a dreadful childhood, with her mother and sisters abandoning her in Samoa when she was about 10 years old. She had a violent and drunk father who died around that time. Violence and fear were commonplace in the home. In between the ages of 10 to about 15 she did not see or hear from her family, who had moved to New Zealand. Her schooling was severely impacted by the families she was living with, and she was forced to sell vegetables on the streets to earn money for them. If she did not sell enough vegetables, often being out after sunset, she “would be bashed”.
The Applicant managed to migrate to New Zealand when about 15 or 16 years old. She did not speak English and was very behind in her schooling, even without the language barrier. Her family were devout Christians, and she drifted from school and started smoking marijuana. She left school and found some purpose in working at Wendy’s Hamburgers for about a year. She grew distant from her family because of her smoking and then drinking and then moved in with a friend.
At 17 she married her then husband, having met him at a nightclub a few months earlier. Her husband gradually increased his drinking and became violent towards her as they had more children. He would not help her around the house in bringing up all the children. He would bash the Applicant when he was drunk. She could not work, had no income and was trapped in the house trying to bring up all her children whilst he would work and sometimes would “be gone for two days, and I wouldn’t know where he was”.
The Applicant would involve the police when he bashed her but ultimately would withdraw the charges because he was the only income earner for her ever growing family. Her husband then had an affair with her former best friend, and the Applicant attempted suicide. She also increased her own consumption of alcohol around this time. It was during this time on 21 July 2012 she assaulted him resulting in a guilty plea to Injuries Intent to Injure/Reckless Disregard (Stabbing/Cutting Weapon)(Family Violence) on 16 April 2013, when she was convicted and sentenced to a 3 month Intensive Supervision Order (the July 2012 Offending).
Later in 2012 or early 2013 the Applicant’s husband moved to Australia with his mistress leaving the Applicant in New Zealand with 9 children. The affair did not last and her husband convinced her to move to Australia with their children in 2014. At that time the Applicant’s sister SF lived close by and she helped the Applicant a lot with the children until she moved far away in about 2017. Between 2014 to 2017 the Applicant’s husband resumed his drinking but his violent behaviour was curtailed until around the time the Applicant’s sister moved away. Again, police were involved but the Applicant would ultimately withdraw the charges. In 2017 her husband and his family pressured her to adopt his twin nieces from Samoa (‘the Twins’). She then had 13 children to raise. The arrival of the Twins seemed to be ‘the final straw’. The Applicant’s alcohol abuse continued at this time.
The Applicant pleaded guilty and was convicted of 5 charges of common law assault committed on the Twins sometime between 28 September 2017 and 5 November 2020. Further, the Applicant pleaded guilty and was convicted of two charges of intentionally causing injury on 6 November 2020 to each of the Twins. The offending is despicable and is abhorrent and a serious breach of trust, against vulnerable children in the Applicant’s care.
The Applicant had difficulties remembering specific details of the very serious offending she was involved with against the Twins. The Tribunal has relied upon such details as set out in the Sentencing Judge’s comments, which are based upon facts agreed to by the Applicant around the time of sentencing. The detail of the offending is disgusting and deplorable. Despite memory difficulties the Applicant accepts she committed the offending as outlined by the Sentencing Judge.
The aspects of the victim impact statements referred to by the Sentencing Judge are compelling and underscore the serious nature of the offending and its impact. The Twins were only 11 years old when they were subjected to the Applicant’s offending. The Tribunal agrees with the finding of the Sentencing Judge that the “abuse would appear to be regular and, on occasion, particularly sadistic. It occurred in the family home, an environment in which both [LS] and [IS] were entitled to feel safe and to be safe”.[6] The Twins will likely carry the burden of the abuse, to varying degrees, for the rest of their lives.
[6] Exhibit R1, 50 [54]-[55].
The Tribunal is to keep in mind in applying Direction 110 that the Australian Government is committed to protecting the Australian community from harm as a result of criminal activity or other serious conduct by non-citizens. Remaining in Australia is a privilege and there is an expectation that non-citizens be law abiding, respect important Australian institutions and not cause or threaten harm to the Australian community.
A combined sentence of 3 years and 2 months imprisonment was imposed and the Applicant has only recently became eligible for parole, subject to the outcome of this review application. The Sentencing Judge considered that the offending was serious[7], involved multiple acts of violence against the Twins over a number of years and that the Applicant’s moral culpability was high.[8] The Applicant quite properly concedes, the Respondent contends, and, the Tribunal finds that as discussed above the Applicant’s offending is very serious.[9]
[7] Ibid [52].
[8] Ibid 56 [10].
[9] Direction 110, 8.1.1(1)(ii).
The Tribunal notes other unrelated past offending by the Applicant. On 10 March 2003 the Applicant committed disorderly behaviour and received the equivalent of a 1 year good behaviour bond. The Tribunal views this as an isolated offence. The Tribunal also notes the July 2012 Offending, as discussed above. Whilst this is an offence of some seriousness, in the circumstances the Tribunal does not view it in the same category of family violence offending or with the same level of seriousness as the Twins offending. Further, the four historical traffic offences committed by the Applicant years ago in New Zealand and the mistakes made on incoming passenger cards are noted by the Tribunal, but given little weight for present purposes
On 10 June 2025 the Applicant was charged in respect of two videos she posted on her Facebook page in April 2022, nearly a year before being sentenced for the Twins offending. The two charges of producing child abuse material and two counts of distributing child abuse material are serious and are to be considered by the Tribunal despite such only being charges at this stage: Direction 110 8.1.1 (1)(a)(iii). These pending charges were the subject of some analysis during the testimony of the Applicant.
It is not for this Tribunal to attempt to pre-determine the guilt or innocence of the Applicant apropos of such charges but in light of the general findings as to the credibility of the Applicant in giving her evidence to this Tribunal and its assessment of her testimony specifically relating to these events, the Tribunal places only measured weight upon them in assessing the Applicant’s conduct overall. They depict the Applicant’s ex husband allegedly being physically abusive towards three of their children, hence the Applicant is also charged with (complicit) 3 charges of common law assault. For present purposes the Tribunal accepts the Applicant’s evidence that she posted these videos out of desperation (albeit with great ignorance) to draw her ex-husband's conduct (as depicted therein) to family members out of concern for the children involved and that it had been her intention to put crying face emojis with those videos and that she had attempted to (and thought she had) taken them down from her Facebook page, but inadvertently locked herself out of it instead.
Finally, noting that the Applicant was not cross-examined on them, the Tribunal simply notes without more the Corrections Victoria incident reports containing unproven (and untested) allegations against the Applicant. Requiring greater scrutiny are the fact summaries from Child Protection Victoria regarding the Applicant’s conduct in respect of her children which the Applicant was cross examined on. The Tribunal incidentally acknowledging that the cross examination conducted by the Respondent’s advocate of all witnesses was firm, fair and thorough. As noted above, conduct particularly involving alleged family violence which does not result in charges/conviction must also be considered by the Tribunal within the bounds of Direction 110. In light of the essentially consistent denials by the Applicant of each critical allegation within the Corrections Victoria material the Tribunal places only incidental weight upon such allegations.
The Tribunal notes that Direction 110 provides that in assessing risk to the Australian community from the Applicant, the Australian community’s tolerance for any risk of future harm becomes lower as the seriousness of the potential harm increases. Whilst serious, in light of the maximum sentences available for the relevant offending, the Tribunal is satisfied the Twins offending is not of such seriousness that any possible risk of re-offending would be intolerable. In assessing likelihood (or not) of re-offending the Tribunal is to take into account material relating to such risk and evidence of rehabilitation achieved up to the time of this decision, giving weight to time spent in the community since her most recent offence, that period here being 6 November 2020 to 30 June 2023, being over two and a half years.
Risk to the Australian community

The Applicant was the subject of a psychological assessment a couple of years ago for the purposes of sentencing by Ms Fleming, Forensic Psychologist, on 18 November 2022. The Tribunal had initial reservations regarding the relevance of such an assessment in light of its date. However, Counsel for the Applicant put a credible argument supported by the evidence before the Tribunal that at worst the Applicant remains at low risk of re-offending, as Ms Fleming had concluded but, more likely consistent with her rehabilitation as discussed below she is now at even lower risk of re-offending. The Tribunal accepts that argument.
As at the time of sentencing in June 2023 the Applicant was already well advanced on the road to rehabilitation, with her efforts outlined by the Sentencing Judge.[10] Critically, the Applicant separated from her ex-husband in July 2022 and was working 5 days per week.[11] Understandably the Sentencing Judge stated that it was difficult to assess the Applicant’s prospects for rehabilitation as at June 203 but importantly stated the circumstances of the Twins offending “were particular to the relationships [with ex-husband] at that time and your circumstances [struggling to bring up so many children] at that time”.[12]
[10] See Exhibit R1, 55-56 [97]-[102].
[11] See Exhibit R1, 57 [107]-[113].
[12] Exhibit R1, 57 [114].
As observed by the Sentencing Judge the Applicant had a history of low mood in relation to feeling overwhelmed meeting the needs of her many children and feeling unsupported by her children but that as of June 2023 the Applicant was making attempts to minimise her offending in respect of the Twins. Ms Fleming assessed the Applicant as being a low risk of recidivism. Whilst the Sentencing Judge observed that the Applicant’s “learnings otherwise are very much (as at June 2023 pre-incarceration) in their infancy” it is apparent that such learnings have advanced whilst the Applicant has been in prison and that the deterrent effect of imprisonment has been effective upon the Applicant.
Whilst there may have been some wrinkles in the Applicant’s testimony, overall, with both questioning by the Tribunal and cross-examination the Tribunal is satisfied that the Applicant is not only genuinely remorseful but that she now has insight into the grave nature of the offending and its impact. It is apparent on the evidence that during the time of the Twins offending, in particular, the Applicant was in a very ‘dark place’, struggling to bring up a very large number of children with a non-supportive drunk violent now ex-husband.
The Applicant’s difficulties in this regard were compounded by the fact that her sister SF moved far away from the Applicant and was not as easily available to provide support to the Applicant, that the Applicant was reluctant to ask for because of the distance and the fact that her sister had children of her own and their sick mother to look after. In an unfortunate sense, the Applicant was caught in an internal ‘perfect storm’ during this period. The Applicant was self-medicating through alcohol abuse for at least some of the time during the offending period but probably not by the time of intentionally causing injury to the Twins on 6 November 2020. The Applicant has not had a drink since at some point during this period, her last drink being as she recalls it a red label whisky and orange juice.
In addition to the extensive range of courses the Applicant has completed and the counselling she has had and continues to have, as agreed in a table provided by the parties, the Applicant’s life circumstances and insight have changed and if she is permitted to return to the Australian community she will be embraced by a close knit, loving, informed and supportive family who will look after her and look out for her, moving forward. The evidence of her older sister SF was compelling particularly in that she held no fear or concern that the Applicant would re-offend and put her own children in danger of any potential abuse.
As best it can assess, the Tribunal is satisfied that it is unlikely that the Applicant will commit offences in the nature of the Twins offending or at all in the future. The Applicant has made genuine and real efforts to better herself, has fully engaged in treatments since being charged, has divorced her ex-husband, will return to the workforce (giving her a sense of purpose, self-esteem and independence) and will return to and become involved in whatever permissible capacity in her Mormon Church, consistent with the supportive testimony of Mr RT, her local Pastor, who also will assist her in reintegrating into the Australian community should she be permitted to re-enter it. Significantly, she has a job awaiting her if she is permitted to stay, as discussed below.
In light of the above, the Tribunal finds this Primary Consideration weighs slightly against revocation.
Family violence committed by the non-citizen
As is clear from the consideration above, the Twins offending engages the primary consideration of family violence committed by the non-citizen. In addition to the aspects of family violence considered above, the Tribunal accepts that the Applicant’s abuse was the worst on 6 November 2020 so in that sense it has increased in seriousness during the window of offending since 28 September 2017: Direction 110 8.2.3(b) and the Applicant did at the time of the Fleming assessment in 2022 seek to minimise and had less insight in respect of the Twins offending: Direction 110 8.2.3(c)(i).
In considering the body of evidence before the Tribunal, aspects of which are discussed above, the Tribunal finds that the Primary Consideration weighs moderately against revocation.
The strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia
As to ties to Australia, the Applicant has lived here for 11 years since July 2014, when she was 29 years old. She has 13 children living in Australia, 8 of them being Australian citizens and 10 being under 18 years of age. The majority of the Applicant’s family live in Australia including her frail elderly mother, her five sisters and their families (including 32 nieces and nephews), her brother, her aunts, uncles and cousins. The evidence establishes that her large family is very close and essentially there are no relevant family members living in either New Zealand or Samoa. Whilst the Tribunal accepts that many of the family members are not aware of the detail of the Twins offending they remain supportive of the Applicant nonetheless.
The testimony from the Applicant’s eldest son JS was compelling and credible. The removal of the Applicant would have a very negative effect upon him and his interests in continuing his life in Australia.
The testimony of the Applicant’s eldest daughter KS was a little troubling in that she is of the view that her mother has been unfairly treated by the conviction and sentence. KS also appeared to testify that she did not really accept that the Twins offending had in fact occurred. Perhaps unsurprisingly KS probably wanted to give the best impression of her mother when giving evidence so the Tribunal treats her evidence with some caution. Nonetheless, on balance, the Tribunal is satisfied that the Applicant’s removal from Australia will have a negative impact on KS’s interests, going forward.
The testimony and documentary evidence from the Applicant’s sister SF and her eldest son and daughter (and documentary evidence from other of the Applicant’s children) satisfy the Tribunal that the Applicant will incrementally add caring and support as a mother to the lives of each of her children, so far as she is permitted to, if she was permitted to re-enter the Australian community. The Applicant’s mother will also be advantaged significantly in her daily life should the Applicant be permitted to stay.
Further, where circumstances have allowed in the past, the Applicant has gained employment and worked in Australia. Two letters from her former employer J Pack Industries not only endorses her as a most reliable and hardworking employee but confirms that a job is waiting for her, if she is permitted to stay in Australia.
The Tribunal finds that the Applicant has very well established and strong ties to the Australian community and her removal would have serious adverse impacts upon each of her children, her mother and other members of her immediate and extended family. The Tribunal finds that this factor weighs heavily in favour of revocation.
The best interests of minor children in Australia
In determining best interests of each of the Applicant’s minor children the Tribunal is to consider the factors set out in paragraph 8.4 (4) of Direction 110. Relevantly there are 10 minor children. Obviously, removing a mother from Australia, where each of her 10 minor children reside will have a significant impact on each of them and this proposition is made out on the evidence. This is not a case where each of the children are either disinterested or against an outcome which results in the Applicant being permitted to stay here and the evidence before the Tribunal underscores this
Substantial documentary evidence is before the Tribunal, consistent with the evidence from the Applicant, that each of her minor children will be best served if she is permitted to remain in Australia. In the context of the low risk of re-offending, the Tribunal recognises the irreplaceable bond between mother and child and the importance of that bond to each of the Applicant’s minor children. The testimony before the Tribunal supports this view.
There is sufficient evidence before the Tribunal to satisfy it that the best interests of RS aged 17 will be served if the Applicant is permitted to remain in Australia.
There is sufficient evidence before the Tribunal to satisfy it that the best interests of NS aged 16 will be served if the Applicant is permitted to remain in Australia.
There is sufficient evidence before the Tribunal to satisfy it that the best interests of HS aged 13 will be served if the Applicant is permitted to remain in Australia.
There is sufficient evidence before the Tribunal to satisfy it that the best interests of KS aged 12 will be served if the Applicant is permitted to remain in Australia. This child has disabilities.
There is sufficient evidence before the Tribunal to satisfy it that the best interests of FS aged 10 will be served if the Applicant is permitted to remain in Australia.
There is sufficient evidence before the Tribunal to satisfy it that the best interests of ES aged 9 will be served if the Applicant is permitted to remain in Australia.
There is sufficient evidence before the Tribunal to satisfy it that the best interests of AS aged 8 will be served if the Applicant is permitted to remain in Australia.
There is sufficient evidence before the Tribunal to satisfy it that the best interests of WS aged 7 will be served if the Applicant is permitted to remain in Australia.
There is sufficient evidence before the Tribunal to satisfy it that the best interests of KS aged 4 will be served if the Applicant is permitted to remain in Australia.
There is sufficient evidence before the Tribunal to satisfy it that the best interests of SM aged 2 will be served if the Applicant is permitted to remain in Australia.
Against this, the Respondent, inter alia, quite properly drew the Tribunal’s attention to the fact that the Applicant’s children were removed from her care by Child Protection Services in November 2020 for about 1 to 2 months and in about August 2021 her seven youngest children were removed from her care, leaving only the 5 eldest children in her care. Further, none of the Applicant’s children have been in her care since she was imprisoned on 30 June 2023. This disruption to care has not, however, broken strong mother/child bond between the Applicant and each of her children, on the evidence before the Tribunal. Also, the Respondent put a credible submission which suggested that the Twin offending, having occurred in the family home may have been witnessed by some of the Applicant’s children, as contemplated by paragraph 8.4(4)(g) of Direction 110. The Tribunal finds there is insufficient evidence to support that submission.
On balance, the Tribunal is satisfied that it is in the best interests of each of the Applicant's 10 minor children that she be permitted to remain in Australia and this Primary Consideration weighs heavily in favour of revocation.
Expectations of the Australian community
The expectations of the Australian community that, as a norm, the Government will not allow a non-citizen to remain in Australia where that person has engaged in serious conduct (as here) in not obeying the law or there is an unacceptable risk that further such conduct may occur in the future, is another Primary Consideration. Of particular relevance here are the specific concerns regarding “acts of family violence” and “commission of serious crimes against… children” paras 8.5(2)(a) and (c).
The Respondent submits and the Tribunal accepts that the Applicant should not be permitted to hold a visa on account of her serious offending. However, this must be considered in the context of the finding above regarding the low risk of the Applicant re-offending. The Tribunal finds that this Primary Consideration weighs moderately against revoking the mandatory cancellation decision.
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
Legal consequences
The Other Consideration of legal consequences of the decision under paragraph 9.1(1) of Direction 110 must also be considered. Without a visa, the Applicant will be an unlawful non-citizen, subject to detention and removal from Australia: ss 189 and 198 of the Act. She would become a “removal pathway non-citizen" liable to mandatory imprisonment for at least 12 months if she did not comply with particular directions regarding facilitating her removal. As a consequence there would be international family separation and all the negative impacts that go with that.
The Tribunal finds that this Other Consideration weighs slightly in favour of revocation.
Extent of impediments if removed
The Applicant’s family and life are based in Australia. She has not lived anywhere else since 2014. She has no friends or family or other known supports to rely upon in New Zealand and her situation would be essentially similar if she were to go to Samoa. At either destination she would be on her own and whilst she would have no significant language barriers, with no one ‘on the ground’ she would be impeded, in that sense, in attempting to establish herself and maintain basic living standards at either destination. There is a real risk of homelessness, mental health decline and poverty if she was separated from her large caring family here and had to try to make it on her own in either New Zealand or Samoa.
The Tribunal is satisfied that this Other Consideration be given moderate weight in favour of revocation.
Impact on Australian business interests
It was agreed by the parties and the Tribunal accepts that the Other Consideration of Impact on Australian Business Interests is not relevant to this review application.
Other considerations
The Applicant submitted that her removal may ‘cause tension’ in Australia’s relationship with New Zealand. The Tribunal finds that this is not made out on the material before the Tribunal and therefore is not satisfied that this is a relevant Other Consideration.
CONCLUSION
In balancing the respective weights allocated to each of the Primary Considerations and Other Considerations above the Tribunal finds that those collectively in favour of revocation outweigh those against revocation.
The correct or preferable decision is to set aside the decision under review and substitute a decision to revoke the cancellation.

1. I certify that the preceding 63 (sixty-three) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of General Member A. Maryniak KC

...........................[SGD]..................................
Senior Tribunal Officer
Dated: 25 September 2025

Date of hearing: 11, 12 and 15 September 2025

Advocate for the Applicant: Mr Nick Mutton

Solicitors for the Applicant: Farrell Rose Lawyers

Advocate for the Respondent: Mr Christopher Orchard

Solicitors for the Respondent: Sparke Helmore Lawyers

Date of hearing:	11, 12 and 15 September 2025
Advocate for the Applicant:	Mr Nick Mutton
Solicitors for the Applicant:	Farrell Rose Lawyers
Advocate for the Respondent:	Mr Christopher Orchard
Solicitors for the Respondent:	Sparke Helmore Lawyers