Razwantee and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (Migration) - [2025] ARTA 795

Razwantee and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (Migration) [2025] ARTA 795 (19 June 2025)
Applicant/s:  Rakesh Razwantee
Respondent:  Minister for Immigration and Citizenship
Tribunal Number:                2025/3063
Tribunal:Senior Member A Murphy
Place:Melbourne
Date:19 June 2025
Decision:The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

.....................[SGD]..............................
Catchwords
MIGRATION - decision of delegate of Minister to refuse to grant the applicant a bridging visa - character test – s 501(1) - 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 – whether the power to refuse the visa on the basis of the same criminal offending previously relied upon by the Minister to cancel the applicant’s temporary graduate visa is a spent power- reviewable decision affirmed
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
Hambledon v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 7
Kamal v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FCA 200
Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v Makasa [2021] HCA 1; 270 CLR 430
CRNL v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FCAFC 138
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 under section 501CA (dated 7 June 2024)
Statement of Reasons

The applicant seeks review of a decision made on 26 March 2025 to refuse to grant him a Bridging (Class WE) visa on the basis that the applicant does not pass the character test: s 501(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).
The application was heard on 3 and 4 June 2025 during which the Tribunal heard oral evidence from the applicant, his wife Usha Razwantee and their two daughters, who as minor children are not named in these reasons in accordance with the Tribunal’s Guideline on the Disclosure and Non-Disclosure of Personal Information in Tribunal decisions.
For the following reasons, I have decided to affirm the decision under review.
ISSUE IN THE REVIEW
In considering this matter, I must decide if the applicant passes the character test; and, if he does not, whether to exercise the discretion to refuse to grant the applicant the bridging visa under section 501(1) of the Act, having regard to the 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 (the Direction).
BACKGROUND
The applicant is a 47-year-old male citizen of Mauritius. He arrived in Australia on 20 October 2007 aged 29 as the holder of a student visa. On 13 April 2022 he was granted a Temporary Graduate (class VC) (Subclass 485) visa which allowed him to stay in Australia up to 13 October 2023.[1]
[1] Hearing Book at HB94
On 17 March 2023, the applicant was convicted in the District Court of Western Australia of ‘used electronic communication with intent to expose a person under the age of 16 years, to indecent matter’ for which he was sentenced to 18 months imprisonment.[2]
[2] Hearing Book at HB52
On 2 May 2023, the applicant’s Temporary Graduate visa was cancelled under 501(3A) of the Act because he did not pass character test. This was because he had a ‘substantial criminal record’ as a result being sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more and he was serving a sentence of imprisonment on a full-time basis in a custodial institution for an offence against the law of Western Australia.[3] A delegate of the Minister subsequently decided not to revoke the cancellation of the visa under s 501CA(4).
[3] s 501(7)(c) of the Act
The applicant sought a review of that decision from the former Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the first Tribunal). On 15 February 2024, the first Tribunal set aside the decision not to revoke the cancellation of the visa and substituted it with a decision that the cancellation be revoked under s 501CA(4)(b)(ii) of the Act.[4] By that time the Temporary Graduate visa had ceased through the effluxion of time and so when the applicant was released from prison at the end of his sentence on 18 September 2024 he was taken directly into immigration detention.
[4] Hearing Book at HB90
While it is not set out in the materials before this Tribunal, the parties were in broad agreement at hearing that in December 2024 the applicant was granted a bridging visa associated with his application for a medical treatment visa and released from immigration detention for three weeks in December 2024. He was taken back into detention on or around 18 January 2025, when the application for a medical treatment visa was deemed to be invalid. A further valid application for a medical treatment visa was made by the applicant, which was refused by a delegate and is currently the subject of a separate review before this Tribunal that was not determined at the time of the hearing in the current review.
The applicant applied for the bridging visa that is the subject of the current review on 18 January 2025 and a delegate of the Minister refused to grant the visa on 26 March 2025.
DOCUMENTS IN THE REVIEW AND THE TWO DAY RULE
At a directions hearing on 24 April 2025, programming orders were made which among other things required the applicant to provide signed statements from each witness to be called at the hearing by 9 May 2025 and to provide any other documents intended to be relied upon at the hearing by 23 May 2025.
No witness statements or other documents were provided in accordance with those orders. On Thursday 29 May 2025 the applicant provided a witness statement from his wife Usha Razwantee and letters from his daughters Child A and Child B, indicating that they would give evidence at hearing. A number of other supporting documents were also submitted to the Tribunal on that date.
On 30 May 2025, the representative for the applicant telephoned the Tribunal and advised that she wanted to refer to some of the G-documents in matter 2023/9008 Razwantee and Minister for Immigration, being the matter determined by the first Tribunal on 15 February 2024. A letter in support from Rakesh and Disha Padaruth was also provided to the Tribunal and the Minister on that date.
In email correspondence dated 30 May 2025, the respondent objected to the Tribunal having regard to any of the documents submitted on 29 and 30 May 2025 or hearing oral evidence from the applicant’s wife and daughter at hearing, arguing that Wednesday, 28 May 2025 was the last permissible day for filing further evidence pursuant to section 500(6J) and s 500(6H). The Minister further objected to the applicant’s intention to rely on the G-documents in matter 2023/9008 on the basis that they comprised 251 pages and were provided on the last business day before the hearing commenced. The respondent argued the applicant’s late attempt to introduce these documents was procedurally unfair to the respondent, noting that the applicant had not identified which of those documents it intended to rely upon.
Section 500(6H) of the Migration Act provides that in an application made to the Tribunal for a review of the decision under section 501, the Tribunal must not have regard to any information presented orally in support of the person’s case unless the information was set out in a written statement given to the Minister at least two business days before the ART holds a hearing. Section 500(6J) similarly provides that the Tribunal must not have regard to any documents submitted in support of the person’s case unless a copy of the document was given to the Minister at least two business days before the Tribunal hearing.
At the commencement of the hearing, the applicant’s representative clarified that the only parts of the G-documents that the applicant sought to rely on were those specifically referenced in the submissions in reply lodged 29 May 2025. Each of the documents referenced was attached to her email of 29 May 2025 except for two, being the letter from Patrick Quigley dated 15 August 2023 and the letter from Karen Quigley Sosa dated 8 May 2023.
I consider it appropriate that the Tribunal have regard to those letters in view of the respondent’s acknowledgement that they are not technically caught by s 500(6J), being already in possession of the Minister from the earlier proceeding. As well the whole of the G-documents were provided to the respondent by the Tribunal on 30 May 2025. In circumstances where the documents from Mrs Quigley Sosa and Mr Quigley comprised two relatively short letters, I considered that the respondent had sufficient time to consider those documents in accordance with procedural fairness requirements.
No written statement from the applicant was given to the respondent or otherwise contained in the materials available to the Tribunal. At the commencement of the hearing the applicant’s representative said that the applicant wished to give evidence, but that it had not been possible to obtain a written statement from him because he had been in a poor mental state since the hearing of the related review of a decision to refuse him in medical treatment visa that had been heard by this Tribunal (differently constituted) approximately 10 days earlier. I noted that the materials before the Tribunal did not include any written statement from the applicant at any stage of these proceedings or the related proceedings and queried how it was intended that the Tribunal hear the applicant’s oral evidence in light of s 500(6H). The applicant’s representative told the Tribunal that the applicant had not provided a written statement in the related review of the refusal of the medical treatment visa but had been able to give evidence by responding to questions put to him by the member and they wished that to occur in these proceedings.
The representative for the Minister advised the Tribunal she wished to cross examine the applicant, but did not object to the Tribunal questioning him or maintain her earlier objection to the applicant’s wife and daughters giving oral evidence. She submitted this could only happen on day two of the hearing and that the documents submitted by the applicant on 29 May could not be admitted into evidence until day two of the hearing. The Minister’s representative maintained that the letter from Rakesh and Disha Padaruth provided to the Minister on Friday 30 May 2025 did not comply with the requirements of s 500(6J) and the Tribunal must not have regard to that letter.
Section 500(8) defines business day for the purposes of s 500 to mean a day that is not a Saturday, a Sunday, a public holiday in the Australian Capital Territory or a public holiday in the place concerned. It was not in dispute that Monday 2 June 2025 was a public holiday in Perth, Western Australia (being the location of the parties) and the ACT, but not in Melbourne, Victoria (being the location of the Tribunal).
The applicant argued that documents submitted to the Tribunal on Thursday, 29 May 2025 complied with the two-day rule set out in s 500(6H) and s 500(6J) because the hearing was taking place in the location of the Tribunal, in this instance Melbourne, and therefore the two clear days prior to the hearing were Friday 30 May 2025 and Monday 2 June 2025. However I accept the respondent’s submission to the effect that while this would be the case had Monday 2 June 2025 not been a public holiday in the ACT, the fact that it was means that Monday 2 June 2025 was not a business day for the purposes of s 500 even though neither the parties nor the Tribunal were located in the ACT.
In order to comply with the two-day rule and also ensure that the documents submitted on 29 May 2025 were able to be considered by the Tribunal, the oral evidence of the applicant’s wife and daughters was rescheduled to the second day of the hearing and the admission of the documents submitted by the applicant on 29 May 2025 into evidence occurred at the commencement of the second day of the hearing rather than the first. In respect of the letter of support from Rakesh and Disha Padaruth which was given to the Minister on Friday, 30 May 2025, I concluded that letter could not comply with s 500(6J) on either of the days the matter was listed for hearing and that consequently the Tribunal must not have regard to that letter.
On Tuesday, 3 June 2025 the following documents were admitted into evidence:
·R1– Hearing book Pages 1-582 Volume 1 and Volume 2
On Wednesday, 4 June 2025 the following documents were admitted into evidence, with the exception of A8, which was marked for identification only:
·A1 - Witness statement Usha Razwantee
·A2 – Letter from Child A
·A3 - Letter from Child B
·A4 - Letter from Park Medical Group 22 May 2025
·A5 - Letter from Pastor Maxwell Abrahams 29 May 2025
·A6 - Article Study finds fathers are key to girls’ well-being
·A7 - SafeCare Men’s Group Application Form
·A8 - Letter from Rakesh and Disha Padaruth (marked for identification only)
·A9 - Letter from Patrick Quigley 15 August 2023
·A10 - Letter from Karen Quigley Sosa dated 8 May 2023
LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK
Under s 501(1) of the Act, the Minister may refuse to grant a visa to a person if the person does not satisfy the Minister that the person passes the character test.
Subsection 501(6)(a) provides that a person does not pass the character test if the person has a substantial criminal record as defined by subsection (7). 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). This applies no differently for a sentence imposed for two or more offences (s 5AB of the Act).
On 17 March 2023 the applicant was sentenced to 18 months imprisonment for the offence of ‘used electronic communication with intent to expose a person under the age of 16 years, to indecent matter’. It is not in dispute that the applicant has a substantial criminal record and does not pass the character test.
Therefore the issue in the review is whether the Tribunal should exercise the discretion to refuse to grant the applicant the Bridging Visa under s 501(1) of the Act, having regard to the 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 (the Direction).
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 Appeals Tribunal in making a decision under s 501 or s 501CA of the Act, and the Tribunal must comply with the Direction.
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.[5]
[5] 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.[6]
[6] Ibid cl 7.
THE PRIMARY CONSIDERATIONS
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.[7]
[7] The Direction, 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.[8]
[8] 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.[9]
[9] Ibid.
The Direction requires that when considering the need to protect the Australian community, the Tribunal must also consider the risk to the Australian community should the Applicant commit further offences. 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 a decision-maker assesses risk, other than the matters they take into account must be logical and rational there must be a rational and probative basis for their assessment of risk.[12]
[10] The Direction 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] (per Moshinsky J); Hambledon v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 7 [41] (per Kenny J).
Nature and seriousness of the conduct
The Direction sets out factors the Tribunal must consider when examining the nature and seriousness of the criminal offending or other conduct to date.[13]
[13] Ibid cl 8.1.1(1)(a).)
8.1.1. The nature and seriousness of the conduct
a) In considering the nature and seriousness of the non-citizen's criminal offending or other conduct to date, decision-makers must have regard to the following:
a)without limiting the range of conduct that may be considered very serious, the types of crimes or conduct described below are viewed very seriously by the Australian Government and the Australian community:
i. violent and/or sexual crimes;
ii. crimes of a violent and/or sexual nature against women or children, regardless of the sentence imposed;
iii. acts of family violence, regardless of whether there is a conviction for an offence or a sentence imposed;
b)without limiting the range of conduct that may be considered serious, the types of crimes or conduct described below are considered by the Australian Government and the Australian community to be serious:
i. causing a person to enter into or being party to a forced marriage (other than being a victim), regardless of whether there is a conviction for an offence or a sentence imposed;
ii. 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;
iii. any conduct that forms the basis for a finding that a noncitizen does not pass an aspect of the character test that is dependent upon the decision-maker's opinion (for example, section 501(6)(c));
iv. where the non-citizen is in Australia, a crime committed while the non-citizen was in immigration detention, during an escape from immigration detention, or after the non-citizen escaped from immigration detention, but before the non-citizen was taken into immigration detention again, or an offence against section 197 A of the Act, which prohibits escape from immigration detention;
c) with the exception of the crimes or conduct mentioned in subparagraph (a)(ii), (a)(iii) or (b)(i) above, the sentence imposed by the courts for a crime or crimes;
d) the impact of the offending on any victims of offending or other conduct and their family, where information in this regard is available and the non-citizen whose visa is being considered for refusal or cancellation, or who has sought revocation of the mandatory cancellation of their visa, has been afforded procedural fairness;
e) the frequency of the non-citizen's offending and/or whether there is any trend of increasing seriousness;
f) the cumulative effect of repeated offending;
g) whether the non-citizen has provided false or misleading information to the Department, including by not disclosing prior criminal offending;
h) whether the non-citizen has re-offended since being formally warned, or since otherwise being made aware, in writing, about the consequences of further offending in terms of the non-citizen's migration status (noting that the absence of a warning should not be considered to be in the non-citizen's favour).
i) where the offence or conduct was committed in another country, whether that offence or conduct is classified as an offence in Australia.
The 2022 offending
As noted above, the Applicant has been convicted of ‘used electronic communication with intent to expose a person under the age of 16 years, to indecent matter’ for which he was sentenced to 18 months imprisonment.[14] He had previously been convicted of a number of traffic offences between 2008 and 2010 being ‘no authority to drive’ on 10 September 2008 for which he was fined $150 and disqualified from driving for three months; ‘unauthorised driving by learner drivers’ on 18 May 2010 for which he was fined $150 and ‘unlicensed vehicle (owner/driver) on 18 May 2010 for which he was fined $50.[15]
[14] Hearing Book at HB52
[15] Hearing Book at HB52, HB349 and HB351
The Tribunal has had regard to the sentencing remarks of Her Honour Justice Barone of the District Court of Western Australia dated 17 March 2023.[16] In summary, those remarks reflect that:
·The applicant pled guilty to the charge of ‘used electronic communication with intent to expose a person under the age of 16 years, to indecent matter’ and that the indictment was framed as occurring between 12 June 2022 and 16 June 2022;
·The facts of the offending were not largely in dispute and included electronic messages sent over Facebook to a child who was at the time a 13-year-old girl known to the applicant as a friend of his daughter and the daughter of family friends;
·The applicant sent numerous messages to the child from 29 March 2022 using a false name or profile of a person called Dylan and that the applicant persisted in these communications despite the child indicating that she didn’t know who Dylan was;
·On 12 June 2022 the applicant took photos of his penis and sent them to the child‘s phone with a message in which he said “do you like my dick?” and there were also other types of chat in relation to sexual matters;
·The applicant also had a conversation with the child about meeting up although it turned out that the child had contacted her mother and told her about the communications and that her mother was, at the time of the messages involving the images of the applicant’s penis, already in control of the mobile phone. It was noted however that from the applicant’s perspective, he believed that he was communicating with the child whom he knew to be only 13 years of age at a time when he was a grown man of 44 years of age;
·There were also other sexualised communications sent by the applicant to the child including a message in which he asked her to send him a picture of her vagina; another message in which he asked if she would have sex with one of her friend’s parents who had a crush on her if he was good-looking and asked her to do so and a further message in which he said he would buy her anything if she was nice to him and did not tell anyone about them and kept it secret;
·On 15 June 2022 the communications turn into discussions about meeting up and the applicant again asked her for a photo and sent her another image of his penis. He asked her if she had had sex with another guy and if she had a condom with her because he wanted to have sex with a virgin;
·The applicant was arrested by police in his car at the library park/ car park area where he had arranged to meet up with the child.
[16] Sentencing Remarks made by District Court of Western Australia, 17 March 2023 in The State Of Western Australia v Rakesh Razwantee Matter No 1120 of 2022, Hearing Book at HB54
DCJ Barone stated that the applicant’s communications reveal that this was a serious example of this type of offending, noting that the communication occurred not just on one day but over a period of time and the applicant had time to reflect or stopping to consider his communication. She accepted however that the communications occurred over a relatively short period of time, not months or years.
The judge noted that the offending involved a real child known to the applicant, using information he learned from that real child’s life to try and ingratiate himself. It was noted the offending involved a breach of trust as the child was known to the applicant through family friendships. It was noted that the subterfuge in terms of creating the fake account of a child around the same age was more serious than if that had not been the case, because the child was more likely to want to communicate with the young boy aged 15 who apparently knew her.
The judge further noted that the fact the applicant had turned up to meet the child demonstrates somebody who is more likely to pose a real risk to children of sexual offending. She stated that while she was not satisfied that the applicant posed a risk to all children generally, he certainly posed a substantial risk of committing an offence against that particular child. She later stated that she was satisfied that there was a substantial risk that on the day of the meet up, the applicant was prepared to escalate his offending if possible, if the child was willing to engage in a sexual encounter with him. She concluded that while his risk of reoffending might be low, if he were to form a sexual interest in another child there would be a substantial risk that it might escalate to something more serious.
The sentencing judge recorded that she was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the applicant’s intention to meet up with the child was to meet up for the purpose of seeing if that child would engage in sexual activity, stating that in her view that was the only reasonable inference to be drawn based on the nature of the communications. Her Honour stated that she was prepared to accept that the applicant was remorseful and that he had been honest with his children as to the extent and nature of the offending.
There was no victim impact statement before the sentencing Court, but the judge noted that she did not need one to know that this the victim would have been scared by what had occurred, that she may potentially mistrust older men in the future and she may come to look at men in a very discerning way that is misplaced because she cannot just take at face value how people might treat her including those around her who should be worthy of trust.[17]
[17] Ibid at HB 67,74-5
The applicant’s other criminal offending
It is not in dispute that the applicant was convicted of driving offences in 2008 (no authority to drive) and 2010 (unauthorised driving by learner driver and unlicensed vehicle (owner/driver) and those records are contained in the hearing book.[18] He has also been fined for exceeding the speed limit in 2008, 2015 and 2022, for which demerit points were also imposed.[19]
[18] HB52, HB349 and HB351
[19] HB485
Assessment of the nature and seriousness of the applicant’s conduct
In the Statement of Issues Facts and Contentions submitted on behalf of the applicant, it is conceded that the applicant’s offending is serious. However it is submitted that the first Tribunal, considering the same offending, determined that while the offending was serious and, as a sexual crime, must be taken to be viewed very seriously by the Australian government and the Australian community, it was nonetheless at the lower end of seriousness for sexual crimes because it was effectively a one-off and did not involve any physical contact with the child. It was submitted that the first Tribunal determined that the applicant’s conduct was not very serious but considered the conduct serious.[20]
[20] At paragraph 5.19 – 5.20 of the applicant's Statement of Issues Facts and Contentions dated 14 May 2025
By contrast the respondent contends that the applicant’s offending should be viewed as very serious for the following reasons:
a)That it took place over a period of time which means the applicant had the opportunity to reflect on and stop the communication;
b)That the offending involved a real child, someone whom the applicant knew to be a real child and using information that the applicant had learned from that child’s life;
c)That the applicant knowingly sent explicit images of himself to the child, the conversation was sexualised and he requested that the child sent explicit images to him;
d)That the offending involved a breach of trust is the applicant knew the child through family friendships;
e)That the applicant engaged in subterfuge by creating a fake account of the child around the same age as the victim;
f)That the applicant attempted to meet the child for the purpose of seeing if the child would engage in sexual activity;
g)That it involved the grooming of the child so that if she did attend meet up she had already considered the idea of sexually engaging with someone’s parent or an older person.[21]
[21] Paragraph 30 of the Respondent’s Statement Of Facts Issues And Contentions
The respondent also submits that the applicant’s 2022 offending represents a trend of increasing seriousness that commenced with the historic convictions for traffic offences. I do not accept the respondent’s submission in that regard, because there was an intervening period of more than 12 years in which the applicant has no criminal convictions and the 2022 offending was of an entirely different nature than the earlier traffic offending and cannot in my view accurately be described as a trend. Nor do I consider there to be any cumulative effect of repeat offending and I note the applicant’s criminal offending was disclosed by him to the Department in the bridging visa application. There is no evidence before the Tribunal that he has reoffended since the 2022 offending or committed any offence in another country.
It is clear from the sentencing remarks that the applicant was arrested by police while waiting at the park to meet up with the child. At hearing the applicant gave evidence that he did not know what would have happened if the child, rather than the police, had attended the park to meet him. As noted above, the sentencing judge found beyond reasonable doubt that the applicant’s intention to meet up with the child was to meet up for the purpose of seeing if that child would engage in sexual activity and on that day, the applicant was prepared to escalate his offending if possible.[22]
[22] Hearing Book at HB 67,74-5
The applicant was sentenced to a period of 18 months imprisonment for his 2022 offending, but I note that consideration of the sentence does not apply to crimes of violence against women and children or acts of family violence.
The Tribunal considers that the offending should be regarded as very serious pursuant to clause 8.1.1(1)(a) of the Direction both because the offending involves a crime of a sexual nature against a child and also because the findings of the sentencing judge indicate that the offending was objectively very serious. The fact that there may be more serious examples of such crimes does not mean that the applicant’s offending should be regarded as less than very serious for the purposes of 8.1.1(1)(a) of the Direction.
The Tribunal does not regard the applicant’s other offending (as set out in paragraph 47) should be regarded as very serious, or serious offending.
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. The materials before the Tribunal did not indicate 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 non-citizen 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:[23]
[23] See also the Direction, cl 8.1(2)(b).
(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);
iii.    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 and compassionate reasons for granting a short stay visa.
This requires an assessment of the nature of the harm should the Applicant engage in further criminal or other serious conduct.[24] It also requires an assessment of the likelihood of the Applicant engaging in such conduct.[25]
Nature of the harm
[24] The Direction, cl 8.1.2(2)(a).
[25] Ibid cl 8.1.2(2)(b).
In considering the nature of the harm to individuals, or the Australian community should the Applicant reoffend I have had regard to the facts of the applicant’s 2022 offending, being that it involved a crime of a sexual nature against a child that took place over a number of days and included the applicant sending sexually explicit images of himself to the child and engaging in other sexualised chat and requesting that the child to do the same.
The conduct involved a breach of trust because the child was a real child known to the applicant and also involved an element of subterfuge because the applicant created a fake account in which he represented himself as a 15-year-old boy at the same school as the child for the purposes of communicating with the child. The sentencing judge found beyond reasonable doubt that the applicant’s intention to meet up with the child was to meet up for the purpose of seeing if that child would engage in sexual activity and the applicant gave evidence he did not know what would have happened if the child attended the meet up. She also noted that the applicant was arrested at the time and location he had arranged to meet the victim and observed that “turning up . . . demonstrates somebody who is more likely to pose a real risk to children of sexual offending.”[26]
[26] Hearing Book at HB63
In a report dated 2 March 2023, Dr James McCue, clinical and forensic psychologist, stated that the applicant’s online sexual conversations with the victim were persistent and frequent over the period of approximately one month, after the victim responded to his persistent requests to initiate communication via Facebook Messenger. He noted that the applicant’s sexual online behaviour did not escalate but his communication was sexual in nature early in the conversation and he made comments regarding the victim sending pictures and the two of them meeting relatively early in their communication. While Dr McCue considered that the applicant had not employed acts of psychological or physical coercion, he considered the applicant’s offending behaviour to be highly manipulative due to his decision to use an alias who he made a similar age to his victim.[27]
[27] Hearing Book at HB526

In light of the circumstances of the applicant’s offending as set out in DCJ Barone’s sentencing remarks and Dr McCue’s report, the Tribunal assesses that should the applicant engage in similar conduct in the future, there is a significant risk of harm to members of the Australian community. The Tribunal finds that the risk of harm extends beyond merely using an electronic communication to transmit indecent material, in circumstances where the sentencing judge was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the applicant’s intention to meet up was for the purposes of seeing if the child would engage in sexual activity and noted that turning to the meeting demonstrated he was somebody more likely to pose a real risk to children of sexual offending.
Likelihood of the non-citizen engaging in further criminal or serious conduct
The applicant’s Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions submits that the likelihood of the applicant engaging in future conduct of the kind for which he was convicted in 2023 is non-existent, as his previous behaviour was due to alcohol consumption and external stress factors. It is submitted that the applicant is sincerely remorseful for his conduct; that many of his family, friends and church family are aware of his offending and will be able to monitor, assist, encourage and motivate the applicant; that he has participated in a sex offenders’ program while incarcerated and undertaken counselling sessions and that Dr McCue found he is unlikely to reoffend.
In a report dated 2 March 2023, Dr McCue recorded that he did not conduct psychological testing with the applicant because there are no relevant psychometric tools available that have been validated on a Mauritian population and that he had evaluated the applicant’s risk of sexual violence using the Risk for Sexual Violence Protocol – Version 2.[28] Dr McCue reported that the applicant denied and minimise some aspects of offending, but did not appear to present with entrenched or stable attitudes that support or condone sexual violence although he noted it was difficult to assess this factor given the applicant’s difficulty in fully assessed discussing his offending. He stated that it could not be concluded that the applicant has enduring paedophilic or hebephilic sexual interests.[29]
[28] Hearing Book at HB525
[29] Hearing Book at HB527
In assessing the future risk, Dr McCue noted that the circumstances of the applicant committing a similar offence in the future would involve him meeting an adolescent female, likely through his children or a family friend and interpreting the child's behaviour in a sexual way and perceiving them as a sexual being. He would likely develop a sexual fantasy involving his victim and be more inclined to act on this fantasy if he experienced heightened personal stress and failed to address the source of his stress or employ functional coping strategies. If he were to employ dysfunctional strategies, such as increased alcohol use, he could make attempts to act on his sexual fantasy. This would involve him contacting the focus of his fantasy and potential victim and causing the victim psychological harm.
Dr McCue also considered a scenario in which the applicant’s offending escalated, being that after the applicant had made contact with his victim online his behaviour could escalate to him having physical contact with his victim. Dr McCue noted that if this scenario were to occur it would likely cause both physical and psychological harm to his victim.
In Dr McCue’s opinion, both scenarios are unlikely to occur given the consequences of the applicant’s current offending and the likelihood that his future online behaviour will be monitored by the WA police sex offender management squad. Overall Dr McCue concluded that the applicant’s risk of offending in a similar manner to his 2022 offending, or sexual offending with physical contact and escalated violence, is unlikely. Dr McCue recommended that the applicant engage in forensic psychological treatment to increase his insight into his motivation to offend sexually and to address the cognitive distortions that enable his offending. He stated that psychological treatment is also required to assist in to develop more functional strategies to manage his stress and emotional discomfort.
The respondent contends that the applicant presents an unacceptable risk of reoffending for a number of reasons including that Dr McCue’s report should be viewed with caution and given little weight; that the Treatment Assessment Report dated 7 July 2023 from the Department of Justice records that the applicant presents an average risk for sexual reoffending, moderate risk for future generalist offending, and a high risk/ need on the alcohol/ drug profile; that the factors behind the applicant’s offending identified in the treatment assessment report and Dr McCue’s report have not been adequately addressed, that the applicant has not engaged in an addiction offending Pathways program; that the Sex Offender Medium Intensity Program Completion report identifies multiple factors that are likely to perpetuate the applicant’s risk of offending; that the applicant’s claim of remorse and insight should be viewed cautiously and that to the extent he relies on protective factors such as his family, friends or church community, those factors existed during his periods of offending and did not deter him from offending.
I am concerned by the inconsistencies in the applicant’s statements about the way he perceived the child victim at the time of his 2022 offending:
(a)Dr McCue reported that the applicant told him that he sexualised and fantasised about the victim because of his perception that she had behaved provocatively in his company, including sitting in an improper way in which he was able to see her underwear and deliberately standing close to him.[30]
(b)At hearing before this Tribunal the applicant gave evidence broadly consistent with his statements to Dr McCue, describing an occasion when the child was at his house with her parents and she was sitting with her leg up so that he could see everything inside.
(c)However at the first Tribunal hearing the applicant denied that he ever saw the victim in the way he had previously described to Dr McCue or this Tribunal, rather he gave evidence that he said those things to Dr McCue because Dr McCue had pushed him to give him a good reason for his behaviour so that Dr McCue’s report had a good ground, otherwise the applicant would have to go back to prison.
[30] Report by Dr James McCue, clinical and forensic psychologist, 2 March 2023 at paragraph 18 (hearing book at page 522)
When asked to explain the apparent inconsistency the applicant said he was upset and not himself, he was scared of what he was saying, that his English was a bit weak and he sometimes makes mistakes. When pressed under cross-examination he said that his evidence to the first Tribunal that he had not seen the child sitting in the manner described in Dr McCue’s report was inaccurate, while his statements to Dr McCue and this Tribunal were true.
I note the evidence regarding the applicant’s mental health, including that he suffers from anxiety and depression. However I do not accept that any difficulty with the English language or other innocent confusion can explain the inconsistency in the applicant’s evidence on this point, noting the evidence given by the applicant to the first Tribunal is set out in full in that Tribunal’s reasons and it is apparent that he was taken directly to his earlier, contradictory statements as recorded in Dr McCue’s report. The applicant did not suggest that Dr McCue had misunderstood the applicant’s statements to him, rather he suggested that Dr McCue had pushed the applicant to provide a good reason for his offending or else he would go back to prison and so the applicant made up an explanation that he had seen the girl sitting in a manner that he considered improper.[31] I consider the applicant’s willingness to give incorrect information to either Dr McCue or the first Tribunal on such a significant matter reflects poorly on his credibility.
[31] Hearing Book at HB112 - 113
Nonetheless I give weight to Dr McCue’s report, noting that report was written after two face-to-face interviews conducted with the applicant relatively close in time to the offending in November 2022 and January 2023 and was substantially relied upon by the sentencing judge. However I give less weight to Dr McCue’s assessment of risk of reoffending than I would have otherwise done, given it was based on what the applicant told Dr McCue about the reasons for his offending and the applicant later told the first Tribunal that some of those statements were not true. Whether this would have changed Dr McCue’s assessment of the applicant’s risk of reoffending is not known because he was not called to give evidence.
Dr McCue’s report is not the only evidence before the Tribunal relevant to an assessment of the likelihood of the applicant reoffending. The Treatment Assessment Report dated 7 July 2023 from the Department of Justice assessed that the applicant presents an average risk for sexual reoffending, a moderate risk for future generalist offending, and a high risk/ need on the alcohol/ drug profile after applying the LS/RNR-Offline, Static 99R and Stable assessment tools.
The Sex Offender Medium Intensity Program Completion report for the program dated 5 March 2024 which was written after the applicant completed a program that commenced on 26 September 2023 and was completed on 6 February 2024. The report states that it is based upon information contained in the Treatment Assessment Report, pre-program clinical interviews, court history, reports on the Total Offender Management System (TOMS) and the participants engagement within the program.
That report identifies multiple factors as likely to perpetuate the applicant’s risk of offending, assessing that overall the applicant was in the early stages of contemplation, due to his maintained minimisation and avoidance of responsibility taking:
Of concern is his lack of ability to engage in helpful problem-solving when experiencing emotional distress and life stressors. His pattern of engaging in avoidant behaviours as a response to conflict in his marriage results in ongoing stressors which may likely perpetuate offending behaviours. An additional perpetuating factor may be his problematic use of alcohol and abuse of prescription medication as a coping mechanism which may have contributed to his offending behaviours due to lowered inhibitions and poor emotional management. Mr Razwantee’s cognitive distortions that enable him to seek out emotional support during times of distress and empathising with children may continue to perpetuate sexualised offending behaviours . . .[32]
[32] Hearing Book at HB427 - 428
The report also noted that while the applicant had explored his risk factors throughout his engagement in the program, he sustained the belief that substance misuse attributed to his offending which restricted his ability to critically reflect on his responsibilities regarding not reoffending:
Mr Razwantee explored his risk factors throughout the program, however, sustained the belief his offending behaviours were a result of his substance misuse. As a result of his sustained belief, Mr Razwantee lacked the ability to clearly link his risk factors to his offending behaviours. Mr Razwantee demonstrated consistency in lacking the ability to develop a conceptual understanding of his risk areas, negative emotionality, sexual preoccupation, impulsiveness, poor problem solving, significant social influences, and general social rejection due to the inability to link them directly with his sexual offending through the use of minimisations and justifications. Mr Razwantee developed insight into his use of sex as coping, however, despite this insight, maintained the belief his sexualised behaviours were a result of intoxication. Overall, Mr Razwantee has developed little awareness into his sexual offending behaviours and how risk could be perpetuated through his risk factors.
Mr Razwantee was provided the opportunity to produce a risk management plan that identified his high-risk situations, thoughts and beliefs and emotions linked with his risk of relapse and recidivism. Mr Razwantee's high risk situations, thoughts and beliefs were focused on his engagement with substance misuse and therefore did not effectively address his offending behaviours. As a result, Mr Razwantee's identified risk mitigation techniques pertained predominantly to spending time with his family, seeking support from his religious community, and seeking professional support. In addition to this, Mr Razwantee would benefit from revising the goals outlined in his risk management plan, in order to identify some realistic and attainable goals that would reduce his external stressors. Mr Razwantee is encouraged to engage in further exploration of his sexualised behaviours involved in his index offences without the sustained belief regarding substance misuse. Mr Razwantee has been recommended to engage in a Pathways, this would be beneficial for further understating regarding the use of substances. Professional and personal support to explore his ongoing risk factors would provide the opportunity for further risk mitigation.[33]
[33] Hearing Book at HB432
At the hearing before this Tribunal the applicant continued to maintain that his offending was due to alcohol misuse and external stressors. He gave evidence that at the time of his offending he was very depressed and stressed about his family and finances. He said he was using alcohol to cope but also taking prescribed medication for his depression and pills for sleeping which affected him a lot and he didn’t realise what he was doing. He said he had learned from his mistakes in his time in prison and detention and that his family had suffered a lot because of his offending.
Dr McCue observes that while it is possible that alcohol may have had a disinhibited effect on the applicant’s behaviour, causing him to act in less restrained ways, it does not explain his desire to want to engage in sexual conversations with his victim. He assessed that the applicant had sexualised his victim as a result of cognitive distortions he held in relation to her behaviour. Dr McCue recommended the applicant engage in forensic psychological treatment to increase his insight into his motivation to offend sexually and to address the cognitive distortions that enabled his offending and psychological treatment is to assist him to develop more functional strategies to manage his stress and emotional discomfort.[34]
[34] Report by Dr James McCue, clinical and forensic psychologist, 2 March 2023 Hearing Book at HB522 [16], [51], [55]
Similarly the Sex Offender Medium Intensity Program Completion report states that it is the applicant’s ‘cognitive distortions that enable him to seek out emotional support during times of distress and empathising with children may continue to perpetuate sexualised offending behaviours’.[35]
[35] Hearing Book at HB427 - 428
While the Tribunal accepts that alcohol may have played a part in the applicant’s offending, it considers the cognitive distortions referred to by both Dr McCue and the Sex Offender Medium Intensity Program Completion report drove his offending and that his risk factors for reoffending are as set out in the Sex Offender Medium Intensity Program Completion report and extend significantly beyond the applicant’s use of alcohol.
I have considered the evidence of rehabilitation achieved by the time of the decision, giving weight to time spent in the community since his most recent offending. In this case the applicant has only spent three weeks in the community since being sentenced for his offending in April 2023, being the period in December 2024/ January 2025 when he was released from immigration detention on a bridging visa associated with his application for a medical treatment visa.
Under cross-examination the applicant agreed that other than booking an appointment with Clear Health Psychology in February 2025 which he was unable to attend because he was in detention, he had not engaged in any psychological counselling with that practice because he wanted to undertake that counselling in person. He acknowledged however that it was possible to participate in that counselling online.
I accept that the applicant undertook six sessions of counselling prior to his sentencing in 2023. I further accept that he made an application to join a men’s group treatment program called Safe Care, although he has not been able to join that program because of his ongoing incarceration and detention. I accept the applicant’s evidence that he has had some counselling while in prison through a service available to all prisoners and that he has also participated in some online family counselling conducted by his church. I also accept the applicant would have undertaken the Pathways Addiction program as recommended had it been available to him in prison.
I have had regard to the letter from Pastor Maxwell Abrahams, Senior Pastor, Encounter Global Church dated 29 May 2025 who states that he has known the applicant and his family for 10 months as they attend his church and counselling sessions, both face-to-face and online. However there is no evidence before the Tribunal as to the nature of the counselling, the topics discussed or the qualifications of the counsellor in respect of either the church or prison-based counselling undertaken by the applicant, and I am not satisfied that counselling constitutes the forensic psychological treatment recommended by Dr McCue.
Overall I am not satisfied that that the applicant has engaged in the forensic psychological treatment recommended by Dr McCue in order to increase his insight into his motivation to offend sexually and to address the cognitive distortions that enable his offending. To the extent that the Sex Offender Medium Intensity Program Completion report might constitute such treatment, I note that report describes him as being ‘in the early stages of contemplation’. It is of significant concern that the report indicates that even after completion of the program in February 2024, the applicant lacks the ability to conceptually understand his risk areas or link them directly with his sexual offending and has developed little awareness into his sexual offending behaviours and how risk could be perpetuated through his risk factors.[36]
[36] Hearing book at HB427 - 428
I have had regard to the letters of support in which a number of persons indicated to the sentencing judge and the Prisoners Review Board that they were prepared to support, mentor and otherwise check in with the applicant to reduce his risk of reoffending. I note however that at hearing the applicant gave evidence that he did not seek support from those people or others at the time of his 2022 offending. I have also had regard to the various statements recounted later in these reasons from persons who say they have no concerns regarding the applicant’s behaviour towards or contact with their own children. I accept those statements to be made in good faith, but it is not apparent from those statements that they are aware of the full circumstances of the applicant’s offending.
I have had regard to whether the risk of harm may be affected by the duration and purpose of the applicant’s intended stay, noting that he has applied for a bridging visa which is by its nature a temporary visa, and noting the presence of his family in Australia (discussed later in these reasons) suggests there are strong and compassionate reasons for granting a short stay visa.
Having regard to Dr McCue’s assessment that the applicant is ‘unlikely’ to reoffend, which I approach with some caution for the reasons set out above, as well as the Treatment Assessment Report dated 7 July 2023 which assessed that the applicant presents an average risk for sexual reoffending and a moderate risk for future generalist offending and the conclusions of the Sex Offender Medium Intensity Program Completion report to the effect that the applicant has developed little awareness into his sexual offending behaviours and his risk factors, I assess that the applicant’s likelihood of reoffending lies between low and moderate.

For the reasons already stated, the Tribunal has assessed that should the applicant engage in similar conduct in the future, there is a significant risk of harm to members of the Australian community and that the risk of harm extends beyond merely using an electronic communication to transmit indecent material.
Conclusion on the protection of the Australian community
Having regard to 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, the Tribunal finds that this primary consideration weighs strongly against the grant of the visa.
Family violence committed by the non-citizen
Clause 8.2 of the Direction sets out that the Government has serious concerns about conferring on non-citizens who engage in family violence the privilege of entering or remaining in Australia. It records that the Government’s concerns are proportionate to the seriousness of the family violence engaged in by the non-citizen.[37]
[37] The Direction, cl 8.2(1).
There is no evidence that the applicant has committed any family violence and this factor is not relevant to my decision.
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. The first part of the consideration applies to members of the applicant’s immediate family:
(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.
The applicant’s immediate family members in Australia are his wife and two daughters, whom I will refer to as Child A and Child B. Child A and Child B are Australian citizens aged 16 and 12 respectively. At hearing they each read out letters describing the impact upon them of the applicant’s offending and ongoing detention and I accept the contents of those letters to be true, as well as earlier letters they wrote to the sentencing court and the first Tribunal. I have assessed their best interests later in these reasons.
The applicant’s wife Mrs Razwantee holds a Temporary Activity visa (subclass 408) which will cease on 10 August 2025. As such she is not currently an Australian citizen, permanent resident or a person who has a right to remain in Australia indefinitely for the purposes of 8.3(1). However I do not consider it appropriate to disregard the impact of my decision on Mrs Razwantee, noting that my consideration is not confined to the matters mentioned in the Direction. Although Mrs Razwantee is not currently an Australian citizen or permanent resident, she has received advice to the effect that she may be eligible for another visa type and as the mother of two Australian citizen children, I consider she may have options for remaining in Australia indefinitely should she decide to remain in Australia with her daughters. Even if that is not the case, I consider it is necessary that I consider the impact of the decision upon Mrs Razwantee and it is most convenient to do it here.
I accept Mrs Razwantee’s evidence as to the impact the applicant’s offending and his subsequent imprisonment and detention has had on her and her daughters. I accept that Mrs Razwantee has struggled financially and emotionally since the applicant was first imprisoned and later detained in immigration detention, that she works long hours to support the family, that she is concerned about her children and that the whole family is struggling with their ongoing separation and the possibility the applicant may be deported. I accept her evidence that she considers her family to be a close one, that she remains supportive of her husband and that she wishes him to be granted the visa so that they can resume their family life in Australia.
Mrs Razwantee’s evidence about what she and her daughters would do if the applicant is not granted a visa and is removed from Australia has changed over time. In a statement dated 9 May 2023 Mrs Razwantee stated that if the applicant were deported, she and her daughters would also have to leave Australia to return to Mauritius because she would be financially and emotionally unsupported.
In the current review she said that her earlier statement was accurate at the time it was made, but she now thinks that if her husband has to return to Mauritius she and her daughters will probably stay in Australia. She gave evidence that she had been advised that she was eligible for a skilled visa allowing her to remain in Australia, that she believes her children will have a better education here in Australia, that their first language is English and they don’t speak French and that Australia is their home. I note that her evidence was consistent with that of the applicant and I accept it to be true. It follows that I accept that if the applicant is removed from Australia to Mauritius, it is likely that his wife and daughters will remain in Australia and the ongoing separation will have a significant emotional and financial impact on the applicant’s wife and daughters.
I note that that any decision to grant the applicant a bridging visa will not obviate that situation for the applicant’s wife or daughters except in the short term because of the temporary nature of the bridging visa. The applicant’s evidence to this Tribunal is that he understands the short-term nature of the bridging visa, including that he presently has no pathway to a visa that would allow him to remain in Australia permanently and that it is his intention to depart Australia and return to Mauritius after receiving medical treatment for his mental health conditions. His evidence at hearing was in direct contrast to his statements in the bridging visa application, in which he stated that his reason for applying for the bridging visa was to make an application for a substantive visa, that he wishes to remain living in Australia with his family and that he intends to apply for a partner visa.[38]
[38] Hearing Book at HB180
When the apparent inconsistency was put to him at hearing, the applicant maintained that he wished to be granted the bridging visa only so that he could receive medical treatment in the Australian community for his trauma and mental health conditions after which he intended to depart Australia and return to Mauritius. He attributed the contrary statements in the visa application to stress and his confusion about what to write in the visa application which he had completed without legal assistance. He said that he now understood it would be really hard for him to get a visa to stay in Australia because of his crimes and that he would rather live freely in Mauritius than in detention in Australia. He maintained that his purpose for seeking the bridging visa now was to allow him to receive medical treatment before returning to Mauritius and that he is a genuine temporary entrant into Australia. He told the Tribunal that he wishes to spend whatever short time he has remaining in Australia living with his wife and his daughters before he returns to Mauritius. I accept his evidence in that regard.
Other ties with to the Australian community
The second part of the consideration requires the Tribunal to consider the applicant’s other ties with the Australian community:
(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.
The applicant has been in Australia for 17 years, arriving on 20 October 2007. I note that the applicant’s convictions for traffic offences occurred relatively soon after his arrival, with convictions in 2008 (no authority to drive) and 2010 (unauthorised driving by learner driver and unlicensed vehicle (owner/driver).[39] He was fined for exceeding the speed limit in 2008, 2015 and 2022, for which demerit points were also imposed.[40] However his much more serious offending took place in 2022, some 15 years after his arrival.
[39] Hearing Book at HB52, HB349 and HB351
[40] Hearing Book at HB485
The evidence before the Tribunal is that for most of the period of the applicant’s residence in Australia he has contributed positively to the Australian community by working as a cook, although there was some interruptions to his employment due to his loss of employment in 2019 and later COVID19 restrictions. I note however that the remarks of the sentencing judge indicate that he had returned to work at the time he was sentenced for his offending in March 2023.
It is submitted that the applicant has other close ties to Australia through his work and close personal friendships with Australian citizens who have provided letters of support in the Tribunal’s previous decision. It is also submitted that many of the applicant’s family, friends and church family are aware of his offending and have stated that they will be able to monitor, assist, encourage and motivate the applicant.
The documents submitted to the Tribunal in support of this submission are described earlier in these reasons and in significant part they comprise letters of support drafted for the purposes of the applicant’s sentencing and/ or parole hearings in 2023 and 2024:
·Letters dated 5 March 2023 and 6 March 2023, each addressed to the sentencing judge, from the applicant’s sisters-in-law Meenakshi Bhaugeerothee and Mrs Roopnah Anjou Devi, both of whom describe themselves as Mauritian. Those letters are essentially character references and requests that the judge think of the applicant’s wife and daughters. As was noted in the respondent’s closing submissions, both Ms Bhaugeerothee and Mrs Roopnah Anjou Devi appear to be residents of Mauritius and not Australia and for that reason the letters are not relevant to my assessment of the applicant’s ties to the Australian community;
·A letter dated 21 May 2023 from the applicant’s niece, Hansee Bhaugerrothee, who provides an address in Mauritius. As Ms Bhaugerrothee is a resident of Mauritius her letter is not relevant to my assessment of the applicant’s ties to the Australian community;
·A letter dated 6 November 2018 from Pastor Cheryl Flynn of the Riverview Church. That letter speaks to the involvement of the applicant and his family in that church and describes them as consistent and committed to the church programs. That letter is now more than six years old and was written prior to the applicant’s offending and I give it little weight other than as evidence of his church attendance in 2018;
·A letter from PTE Deo Ramaya dated 10 March 2023 addressed to the sentencing judge stating that he has been close to the applicant for more than 17 years since they worked together in a hotel in Mauritius and also at a café in Perth. Mr Ramaya talks about the applicant’s good character, his helpfulness to the community and the church and the impact of the applicant’s offending on his wife and daughters and their permanent residency;
·A letter dated 8 May 2023 from Karen Quigley Sosa who does not identify her relationship to the applicant but appears to be known to him through his church. That letter speaks to the applicant’s remorse and shame for his offending, the author’s assessment that he has taken full responsibility for his offending and the impact on his wife and children;
·A letter dated 15 August 2023 from Patrick Quigley addressed to the Prisoners Review Board of Western Australia, who states he has known the applicant for approximately five years through the Riverview Church. He says that he is aware that the applicant was convicted of a serious offence against a child and that crime was totally out of character for the applicant. He speaks of the applicant’s remorse for his crime and says that he would have no hesitation in allowing the applicant’s to be around his family members, including his seven-year-old daughter. He states that he and his family will continue to support the applicant through his rehabilitation, including through informal counselling and prayer; ongoing mentoring and guidance; regular family visits and providing positive role models to reinforce good values and behaviour;
·A letter dated 30 August 2023 from Wah Pui Tang which appears to be written for the Prisoners Review Board. Mr Tang describes himself as an Australian citizen and family friend of the applicant who is aware of his criminal charges. He describes the applicant as a gentle and loving person who will not be a risk to the community and states that his family and the people who know him are hoping he will get parole at the end of the year and he is willing to be his mental and supporter and he is released;
·A letter dated 11 January 2024 from Sabita Rijal, addressed the Prisoners Review Board of Western Australia. Ms Rijal states that she has known the applicant for approximately five years through his wife and is aware that he was found guilty of a severe offence against a minor. She describes him as a gentle, caring and loving father to his two daughters and says that she has not noticed him engaging in inappropriate behaviour or language. She says she wants to emphasise the support network that the applicant will find if released from prison where she, together with other members of the family, close friends and community organisations are committed to creating a supportive atmosphere that will enable his successful rehabilitation;
·A letter dated 11 January 2024 from Sarah Malicari addressed to the Department of Home Affairs. She states she is known the applicant for approximately six years, having met him when their daughters began school together in 2017. She states she is aware that he was convicted of a serious offence against a child and is writing to provide a reference of his character in relation to how reacted with her children over the years. She notes that her three young daughters have spent time in the applicant’s household and he has always acted appropriately, and it would be a benefit to the applicant’s wife and children if he was granted a visa to remain in Australia;
·A letter from Pastor Maxwell Abrahams, Senior Pastor, Encounter Global Church dated 29 May 2025, discussed earlier in these reasons.
I note the respondent’s submission to the effect that the authors of the above letters of support have not provided evidence of their residency status and indeed it is clear that the first three are in fact resident in Mauritius. In respect of the remaining letters described above I proceed on the basis that their authors may be persons described in paragraph 8.3 (2)(b) of the direction and I have considered the contents of the statements. I give those statements some weight as evidence of the applicant’s social links and ties with members of the Australian community, however the weight I attribute to them is limited by the fact that most of those statements are now around one to two years old and none of the authors attended the hearing or made themselves available to be cross examined by the respondent. Pastor Abrahams statement is more recent and I accept its contents to be true, however Pastor Abraham indicates that he has known the applicant and his family for the relatively short period of 10 months in his professional capacity.
There were also references in the applicant’s evidence and submissions to other more distant family members including on his wife’s side, including his wife’s cousins who are Australian citizens, but no further information is available to the Tribunal.
Overall I find that the applicant has strong family ties in the Australian community and lesser ties to members of the Australian community through his church and social circle. I give this factor moderate weight in favour of the grant of the bridging 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 which include:[41]
·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.
[41] The Direction, cl 8.4(4)(a)-(h).
The applicant submits that it is in the best interests of his two minor children in Australia that he be granted the bridging visa and that this factor should be afforded paramount weight in the Tribunal’s assessment. The respondent accepts that the best interests of the applicant’s daughters weigh in favour of granting visa, however contends that any weight to be given to their interest should be tempered by the fact that:
·The relationship between the applicant and his daughters has been marked by a lengthy absence given that he has been in custody or immigration detention since 17 March 2023 apart from a brief period in the community following his release from prison;
·Child A turns 18 in less than two years;
·The children are cared for by their mother who fulfils the parental role;
·The applicant can maintain a relationship with his children via telephone or video;
·The nature of the bridging visa means that it is of a temporary nature such that granting the visa does not result in the applicant’s indefinite presence with his children; and
·Any financial difficulty the applicant’s wife may be facing as a result of the applicant’s immigration status is unlikely to be resolved by the grant of a temporary bridging visa.

In view of the nature of the applicant’s offending, I note firstly that the sentencing judge recorded that there had been an investigation by the Department of Communities or at least a consideration of the applicant’s home life and that there were no concerns in respect of offending against his daughters.[42] On that basis I accept there is no evidence that either Child A or Child B have been abused or neglected by the applicant although it is apparent that they have experienced some level of emotional trauma as result of his criminal offending.
[42] Hearing Book at HB 69
I accept that both Child A and Child B are aware of the nature of their father’s offending and have been deeply hurt by it. I accept that the applicant has discussed his offending with his daughters and that he has expressed to them that he is ashamed. I accept that he has explained to them that he was drinking and taking medication for his depression when the offending occurred, but that he acknowledges it should never have happened and that he has let down his family.
I accept that the applicant’s wife and daughters have attended family counselling which they have found helpful and that they have been referred for psychotherapy to help them manage their distress.[43] I accept that both the nature of their father’s offending and the ongoing separation from their father has affected both daughters deeply, causing them difficulties at school and making it difficult for them to participate in activities they used to enjoy.
[43] Hearing Book at HB 158, 159
I accept also that the applicant’s daughters are also worried about their mother who now has to work much longer hours to support the family and that they can see her stress and sadness. I accept that they miss their father greatly and that there are activities that they can no longer undertake because he is not available to drive them or pick them up while their mother is working.
The applicant, his wife, Child A and Child B have each given evidence about the close and loving relationship between the applicant and his daughters. This is also referred to in many of the letters of support cited above and I accept it to be true. I accept the applicant’s relationship with each of Child A and Child B is a parental one, that he has in the past been actively involved in their lives and that the period of separation caused by his imprisonment and detention is of relatively minor significance in the context of the close parental relationship throughout their lifetimes.
I have had regard to the letter from Dr Manikkuwanhandi Niroshi Suiriwardana dated 18 February 2025 stating that Child A meets the criteria for a diagnosis of depression, that she will be obtaining a referral for psychotherapy and family therapy and will need ongoing support in managing this difficult time. On the same date Dr Manikkuwanhandi Niroshi Suiriwardana also assessed Child B, recording her shock and sadness after being separated from her father again in January after his return in December and stating that she would also benefit from psychotherapy and family therapy. I accept the contents of each of those letters.
It is clear that the applicant’s criminal offending has had a deeply hurtful impact on each of both children, not just because of the upheaval, financial stress and forced separation that followed but also because of the nature of the offending which involved a sexual crime against a child who was known to the family. Child A and Child B’s feelings of hurt and anger towards their father are set out in the letters that they read out to the Tribunal.[44]
[44] Exhibits A2 and A3
Notwithstanding that, I accept their evidence that they miss their father deeply, that they are saddened and worried by the stress his offending and incarceration has caused their mother and it is their sincere wish that he be allowed to return to live with them in the family home. I also accept that it would be beneficial for Child A and Child B if the family counselling they currently attend with their mother included the applicant and that it would be preferable for that counselling to occur in person, although it is also possible for the applicant to participate online.
I have had regard to the article submitted on behalf of the applicant titled “Study Finds Fathers Are Key To Girls’ Well-Being” dated 24 August 2016.[45] That article reports on a program run by University of Newcastle researchers which aimed to improve the participation of young girls in sports by providing fathers with evidence-based parenting strategies to optimise their daughter’s physical and mental health and engage them in a variety of fun and active games and challenges. It reports that the program had a positive impact on both the girls and their fathers in a host of incomes including increased physical activity, improve parenting practices and improved relationships. While it is not suggested that the applicant and his daughters were involved in this program, I understand the purpose for which the article is submitted to the Tribunal is to demonstrate the importance of the relationship between girls and their father and I accept that to be true.
[45] Exhibit A6 – “Study finds fathers are key to girls’ well-being” 24 August 2016
All of the evidence before the Tribunal indicates that Mrs Razwantee is a good mother to her daughters who works extremely hard to meet their financial and emotional needs and fulfil a parental role. While I have no doubt that is true, I also accept that if the applicant is not granted the visa and is removed from Australia, the prolonged separation that will necessarily follow will have a significant negative impact on Child A and Child B.
In that regard I have accepted the evidence of Mrs Razwantee to the effect that if the applicant returns to Mauritius, she and her daughters are likely to remain in Australia. I note that the applicant confirmed this in his own evidence, saying that while in the past his wife had stated she and the children would return to him with Mauritius she now understood that the kids would really struggle and be in trouble.
While it will be possible for the applicant and his daughters to remain in contact by telephone and video and perhaps occasional return trips to Mauritius, I accept that relationship will necessarily be very different than if the applicant were able to remain in Australia and live with them in the family home.
I find that it is in the best interests of the children that the bridging visa be granted, noting however that the short term and temporary nature of the bridging visa even if granted means that the applicant would not be able to remain in Australia with his daughters indefinitely. I give significant weight to this factor.
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 would 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 serious crimes against children.[46]
[46] 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.
This consideration will, in most 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.
In weighing this consideration, the Tribunal is guided by the principles in cl 5.2 of the Direction. I have found that the Applicant is at low to moderate risk of reoffending and that if he were to engage in similar conduct in the future, there is a significant risk of harm to members of the Australian community and the risk of harm extends beyond merely using an electronic communication to transmit indecent material. I consider that the nature of his offending, involving a sexual crime against a child, is such that the Australian community would expect that he should not be granted a visa.
I weigh this consideration moderately in favour of refusing to grant the visa.
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.
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.[47] The applicant does not claim that Australia’s non-refoulment obligations apply in his case, rather his evidence is that if the bridging visa is granted he intends to use the visa period to obtain medical treatment for his mental health conditions and then return to Mauritius voluntarily at the end of the visa period.
[47] Ibid cl 9.1.
There are a range of legal consequences of a decision not to grant the applicant the bridging visa:
·     He will continue to be detained under s 189 of the Act and he will be liable for removal from Australia as soon as practicable under s198 of the Act. There are no obvious barriers to his removal and the applicant gave evidence that he would rather be free in Mauritius than in detention in Australia and in these circumstances I do not consider any period of detention will be lengthy;
·     He will face a prohibition on applying for most other types of visa while he remains in the migration zone, the exceptions being a protection visa and a bridging visa R;[48]
·     Any other visa application made by the applicant will be taken to have been refused and all other visas held by the person will be taken to have been cancelled.[49] This would include the applicant’s application for a medical treatment visa that is currently being reviewed by this Tribunal, as the only exception is for a protection visa;
·     He faces exclusion from Australia pursuant to s 503, and he may be subject to special return criteria.[50]
[48] Ibid s 501E
[49] s 501F
[50] Ibid s 503, special return criteria (SRC) 5001
The applicant’s removal from Australia and the visa limitations which result from a decision to refuse the visa are all intended consequences of the operation of s 501. Even so, the effect of their legal consequences of any decision to refuse the applicant the bridging visa are significant, because it involves not only his detention and removal from Australia but his ability to return to the country where his wife and children are likely to continue to reside and where he has lived and worked for 17 years.
I accept that the legal consequences of a decision not to grant the bridging visa will have a significant negative impact on the applicant. For the reasons set out earlier, I have also accepted it would have a significant negative impact on his wife. and daughters.
If on the other hand the applicant is granted the bridging visa, he will be permitted to live in the community with his family for the duration of the visa period. Given the temporary nature of the bridging visa, it’s grant will not enable him to live with them on a permanent basis.
I give this factor some weight in favour of granting the bridging visa.
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 their country.
Age and health
As noted above the applicant is a 47-year-old male. A letter from the applicant’s GP dated 22 May 2025 indicates the applicant has received treatment for anxiety and depression since July 2019 in the form of medication and counselling. It states that he will need ongoing treatment for these conditions in the form of both pharmacotherapy and psychotherapy and that without continued treatment his health would deteriorate significantly and he may experience self-harm or suicidal thoughts. I accept the contents of the medical evidence provided.
There is no other evidence before the Tribunal that would suggest the applicant presently experiences any other health issues. I have considered the applicant’s evidence that he will not be able to obtain medical treatment for his mental health conditions in Mauritius, but I note that no evidence has been produced to the Tribunal in support of this assertion and I am not satisfied that is the case. At hearing he acknowledged that as a citizen of Mauritius, he will have the same access to health care as other citizens of Mauritius.
Language or cultural barriers
The applicant grew up in Mauritius and gave evidence that he was educated to year 11 of high school. It is not suggested that he would experience any language or cultural barriers on return and at hearing the applicant accepted that he had strong cultural roots in Mauritius.
Any social, medical and/or economic support available to the Applicant in their country
At hearing the applicant gave evidence that his parents, two sisters and one brother live in Mauritius. He and his family returned to Mauritius for approximately three months in 2016, staying with his wife’s mother. He said he didn’t have a house or land on which to build a house in Mauritius and it would be very difficult for him to return because his family have their own issues and their own families to take care of. He acknowledged that he would be able to obtain employment in Mauritius given his work history, but he maintained that it would be difficult for him given that he had been away for 17 years.
I accept that the applicant may face some difficulties re-establishing himself in Mauritius after an absence of 17 years. However I am satisfied that he will be able to obtain employment and accommodation in order to maintain basic living standards and that he will have the same access to health care as other citizens of Mauritius. I give this factor only minor weight in favour of granting the bridging visa.
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.
While I accept the applicant’s account of his employment history, there is no other information before me to show that Australian business interests will be affected by this decision. I assess that this consideration does not weigh in favour of or against granting the visa.
Other relevant matters
It is not in dispute that the applicant’s 2022 offending that triggered the application of the character test and the refusal of the applicant’s bridging visa in this review is the same offending which led to the mandatory cancellation of the applicant’s temporary graduate visa. The first Tribunal’s review of the cancellation of the applicant’s temporary graduate visa this was determined in the applicant’s favour on 15 February 2024. As I understand the applicant’s submissions, it is argued that because the first Tribunal has assessed and considered the applicant’s offending and circumstances in its previous decision, this Tribunal is either bound by or should not otherwise depart from the first Tribunal’s assessment and therefore it should exercise its discretion to grant the applicant the bridging visa.[51]
[51] Applicant’s Statement of Issues, Facts and Contentions and Submissions in Reply
The current proceeding concerns the review of a decision made on 26 March 2025 to refuse to grant the applicant a Bridging (Class WE) visa on the basis that he does not pass the character test under s 501(1) of the Act, which deals with the refusal or cancellation of a visa on character grounds. The first Tribunal was reviewing a separate decision not to revoke the cancellation of the applicant’s temporary graduate visa after it was mandatorily cancelled under s 501(3A), which concerns the cancellation of the visa of a person serving a term of imprisonment.
The High Court of Australia has held that once a delegate of the Minister (or the Tribunal on review) has made a decision not to cancel a visa made in the exercise of the power conferred by s 501(2) of the Act, that decision is final in the exercise of the specific power conferred by s 501A (subject only to ministerial override).[52] In that sense there cannot be successive exercises of a single statutory power to cancel a visa based on the same factual situation, once that power has been spent.
[52] Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v Makasa [2021] HCA 1; 270 CLR 430
However that is not what has occurred in the applicant’s case. Rather the power to refuse the applicant the bridging visa under s 501(1) of the Act is a separate statutory power to the power previously exercised to cancel the applicant’s temporary graduate visa s 501(3A). The refusal of the bridging visa under s 501(1) was not a re-exercise of the power in s 501(3A), rather it is the exercise of a different statutory cancellation power which was not spent.[53]
[53] Kamal v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FCA 200 at [91]-[92]
The applicant’s submissions also seek to invoke the principles of equitable estoppel and res judicata, arguing that the applicant has relied to his detriment upon a clear representation made by a public authority, being the Department. It is argued that the first Tribunal considered the same issues as between the same parties and its revocation of the applicant’s visa cancellation required the department to act or make a new decision as per the Tribunal’s instructions or recommendations as an independent merits review body.
This Tribunal has no power to grant the equitable remedies sought by the applicant, rather as a creature of statute it has only the powers bestowed on it by its governing legislation. Section 105 of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (the ART Act) provides that in relation to a reviewable decision, the Tribunal must affirm, vary or set aside the reviewable decision.
While the first Tribunal’s decision is not binding on this Tribunal, I have had regard to the principal of comity and the desirability of consistency in administrative decision-making. I note however that the relevant facts and law in this review are not identical to those considered by the first Tribunal as suggested by the applicant.

The first Tribunal was considering the cancellation of a substantive visa, being the applicant’s temporary graduate visa. This Tribunal is considering the refusal of a bridging visa, which is not a substantive visa but rather a visa granted to a person while their application for a substantive visa is being processed. The applicant’s evidence to this Tribunal is that if a bridging visa is granted to him, he intends to return to Mauritius at the end of the visa period.
More significantly, there has been a change to the Ministerial Direction that must be considered by the Tribunal since the first Tribunal’s decision on 15 February 2024. On 21 June 2024, the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs issued Ministerial Direction No 110, which revoked the earlier Ministerial Direction No 99 that was in effect at the time of the first Tribunal’s decision.
Direction 110 differs in significant respects from the previous Direction 99 considered by the first Tribunal. Of relevance to this review, those changes include:
·     The insertion in the list of Principles a new paragraph 5.2(2) which states that the safety of the Australian community is the highest priority of the Australian government, also reflected in the amended 8.1(1);
·     The amendment of Clause 7(2) to provide that the protection of the Australian community is to be given greater weight than other primary considerations;
·     Amendments to the consideration of the strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia, removing the requirement in Direction 99 to give more weight to a non-citizen’s ties to their children, instead requiring that when considering any other ties, decision-makers must have regard to how long the non-citizen has resided in Australia including whether they arrived as a young child, giving less weight where the non-citizen began offending soon after arriving in Australia; and more weight to be given to the time the non-citizen has spent contributing positively to the Australian community.
The obligation of this Tribunal is to make the correct or preferable decision having regard to the objectives set out in section 9 of the ART Act. For the reasons I have set out, I have determined that the correct and preferable decision in the current review is to affirm the decision to refuse the bridging visa.
CONCLUSION
The applicant does not pass the character test under s 501 of the Act, and I must consider whether he should be refused the bridging visa, having regard to the primary and other considerations in the Direction.
Clause 7 of the Direction sets out the way in which the relevant considerations are to be taken into account and weighed. It requires that greater weight should generally be given to the protection of the Australian community than other primary considerations, and also that greater weight should generally be given to primary considerations as opposed to the other considerations. In CRNL v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs, the Full Court held that greater weight should be given in the manner specified in the direction unless there is some reason why that general approach should not be adopted.[54] In the circumstances of this case I consider the general approach should be adopted so that greater weight is given to the protection of the Australian community, and to the primary considerations.
[54] CRNL v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FCAFC 138, [23], [27].
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.
The applicant grew up and spent the first part of his adult life in Mauritius but I have accepted he now has strong family ties in Australia, being his two Australian citizen children and his wife and I have given this factor some weight in favour of the grant of the visa. I have found that it is in the best interests of the children that the applicant remain living in Australia with them and have given this significant weight in favour of the grant of the visa, but I have also that the temporary and short-term nature of the bridging visa together with the applicant’s evidence that he intends to return to Mauritius at the conclusion of the visa period means that the grant of the visa will allow him only limited time with his family in Australia.
I have given some weight to the legal consequences of the decision in favour of granting the bridging visa noting that while they are each intended consequences of the operation of s 501, their effect on the applicant is significant because it involves not only his detention and removal from Australia but his ability to return to the country with his wife and Australian citizen children are likely to continue to reside. I have considered the impediments to his removal, but given that factor only small weight in favour of granting the visa.
I have assessed that the family violence is not relevant to my decision and that the impact on Australian business interests and the other matters raised by the applicant do not weigh in favour of or against granting the visa.
I have found that the applicant’s offending is to be considered very serious as it involved a sexual crime against a child, that he is at low to moderate risk of reoffending and that should he engage in similar conduct in the future, there is a significant risk of harm to members of the Australian community which extends beyond merely using an electronic communication to transmit indecent material.
Overall I consider that the weight attached to the protection of the Australian community and the expectations of the Australian community, outweighs the applicant’s ties to Australia, the best interests of his minor children, the legal consequences of the decision and the extent of impediments if removed.
I have therefore affirmed the decision to refuse the bridging visa.
DECISION
The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

Dates of hearing:

2 and 3 June 2025

Solicitor for the Applicant: Ms D Naidu
Waterbrook Legal

Solicitors for the Respondent:

Ms D Jones-Bolla,
Sparke Helmore Lawyers

Dates of hearing:	2 and 3 June 2025
Solicitor for the Applicant:	Ms D Naidu Waterbrook Legal
Solicitors for the Respondent:	Ms D Jones-Bolla, Sparke Helmore Lawyers