Reid and Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (Migration) - [2025] ARTA 127

Reid and Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (Migration) [2025] ARTA 127 (24 February 2025)
Applicant/s:  Ricky Reid
Respondent:  Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs
Tribunal Number:                2024/10265

Tribunal:General Member Gallagher
Place:Perth
Date of Decision: 24 February 2025

Decision:The Reviewable Decision, being the decision of the Delegate dated 29 November 2024, to exercise the discretion not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant’s Special Category (Temporary) (Class TY) (Subclass 444) visa under section 501CA(4)(b)(ii) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) is affirmed.

..........[SGD]..............................................................
General Member
CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – decision of delegate of Minister not to revoke mandatory cancellation of visa – character test – Direction no. 110 – primary and other considerations – protection of Australian community – nature and seriousness of criminal offending – risk to the Australian community should the Applicant commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct – strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia – best interests of children – expectations of the Australian community – extent of impediments if removed – Applicant is a 39 year old citizen of New Zealand – extent of impediments if returned to New Zealand – Non-Revocation Decision is affirmed
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ss 15, 189, 196, 197C, 198, 499, 499(1), 499(2A), 500(1)(b), 500(6B), 501, 501(6), 501(6)(a), 501(7)(c), 501(3A), 501CA, 501CA(4), 501CA(4)(b)(i), 501CA(4)(b)(ii), 501E, 501F
CASES
AJL20 v Commonwealth of Australia [2020] FCA 1305
Bartlett and Minister for Immigration and Border Protections (Migration) [2017] AATA 1561
BHL19 v Commonwealth of Australia (No 2) [2022] FCA 313
BSJ16 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCA 1181
Cargill and Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (Migration) [2025] ARTA 50
CRNL v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FCAFC 138
Dalzell and Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (Migration) [2024] ARTA 17
FYBR v Minister for Home Affairs (2019) 272 FCR 454
Hambledon v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 7
HZCP v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2019) 273 FCR 121
Mayes and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2020] AATA 32
Minister for Home Affairs v HSKJ (2018) 266 FCR 591; [2018] FCAFC 217
QJYD and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2021] AATA 1
Re Harrison and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (2009) 106 ALD 666
Suleiman v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 594
VKTT and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2020] AATA 649
Wightman and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2021] AATA 1208
YNQY v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCA 1466
SECONDARY MATERIALS
Minister for Citizenship, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs, Direction No 99: Visa Refusal and Cancellation under Section 501 and Revocation of a Mandatory Cancellation of a Visa under Section 501CA (23 January 2023)
Minister for Citizenship, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs, Direction no. 110 — Visa refusal and cancellation under section 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under section 501C (21 June 2024) – paras 2, 3, 5.1, 5.1(4), 5.2, 5.2(2), 5.2(3), 5.2(4), 5.2(7), 5.2(8), 6, 7, 7(2), 8, 8.1(1), 8.1(2), 8.1(2)(b), 8.1.1, 8.1.1(1), 8.1.1(1)(a), 8.1.1(1)(a)(iii), 8.1.1(1)(b), 8.1.1(1)(b)(i), 8.1.1(1)(b)(ii), 8.1.1(1)(b)(iv), 8.1.1(1)(c), 8.1.1(1)(d), 8.1.1(1)(e), 8.1.1(1)(f), 8.1.1(1)(g), 8.1.1(1)(h), 8.1.1(1)(i), 8.1.2, 8.1.2(1), 8.1.2(2)(a), 8.1.2(2)(b), 8.2(3)(b), 8.2(3)(a), 8.2(3)(b), 8.2(3)(c), 8.2(3)(c)(i), 8.2(3)(c)(ii), 8.2(3)(c)(iii), 8.2(3)(d), 8.3(1), 8.3(2), 8.3(2)(a)(ii), 8.3(2)(b), 8.4(1), 8.4(2), 8.4(3), 8.4(4)(a), 8.4(4)(b), 8.4(4)(c), 8.4(4)(d), 8.4(4)(e), 8.4(4)(f), 8.4(4)(g), 8.4(4)(h), 8.5(1), 8.5(2), 8.5(2)(a), 8.5(2)(b), 8.5(2)(c), 8.5(2)(d), 8.5(2)(e), 8.5(2)(f), 8.5(3), 8.5(4), 9, 9(1), 9.1, 9.1(1), 9.2(1), 9.2(1)(a), 9.2(1)(b), 9.2(1)(c), 9.3
Statement of Reasons
THE APPLICATION

The Applicant seeks review of a decision of a delegate of the Respondent (the Delegate) dated 29 November 2024, not to revoke the cancellation of his Special Category (Temporary) (Class TY) (subclass 444) visa (the Visa) under s 501CA(4) of the Migration Act 1958 (the ‘MigrationAct’) (the Reviewable Decision).[1]
[1] Exhibit R2, G4, p 24.
The application for review was lodged with the Administrative Review Tribunal (the Tribunal) on 9 December 2024,[2] within the time prescribed by s 500(6B) of the Migration Act. The application for review of the Reviewable Decision is made in accordance with
[2] Exhibit R2, G2, p 4.
s 500(1)(b) of the Migration Act, which allows applications to be made to the Tribunal for review of decisions of a delegate under s 501 of the Migration Act.
BACKGROUND
The Applicant is a 39-year-old citizen of New Zealand.[3] The Applicant first arrived in Australia on 28 May 1993, at the age of 8.[4]
[3] Exhibit R2, G15, p 100.
[4] Exhibit R2, G12, p 86.
The Applicant’s offending history
The Applicant’s criminal history is set out in a Check Results Report by the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission run on 13 October 2022[5] and a History for Court Report by the Western Australian Police Force compiled on 3 January 2025.[6]
[5] Exhibit R2, G6, pp 40-4.
[6] Exhibit R3, S1, pp 1-13.
The Applicant’s offending history is compiled in Annexure A.
The Applicant has been convicted of over 90 offences between 2003 and 2021.[7] The offences include, but are not limited to, traffic offences, possessing firearms and ammunition, obstructing police officers, disorderly behaviour, common assault, assault occasioning bodily harm, criminal damage, possessing prohibited drugs, intent to sell prohibited drugs, domestic violence offending, and breaches of orders and bail undertakings.
[7] See Exhibit R2, G6, pp 40-4; Exhibit R3, S1, pp 1-13.
On 17 September 2021, the Applicant was convicted in the Albany Magistrates Court of the following offences and sentenced to a total of three years and 10 months imprisonment:[8]
(a)unlawfully assault and thereby did bodily harm with circumstances of aggravation and sentenced to two years imprisonment;
(b)three counts of impeded another person’s normal breathing or blood circulation by applying pressure to neck and sentenced to 15 months imprisonment on each count, to be served concurrently;
(c)impeded another person’s normal breathing or blood circulation by applying pressure to neck and sentenced to 18 months imprisonment, to be served cumulatively;
(d)three counts of common assault in circumstances of aggravation or racial aggravation and sentenced to eight months imprisonment on each count, to be served concurrently;
(e)common assault and sentenced to three months imprisonment, to be served concurrently;
(f)endanger life, health or safety of a person and sentenced to 18 months imprisonment, to be served concurrently;
(g)assault occasioning bodily harm and sentenced to four months imprisonment, to be served cumulatively; and
(h)threaten to kill and sentenced to 12 months imprisonment, to be served concurrently.
[8] Exhibit R2, G7, p 53. See also Exhibit R2, G6. This is the offending which led to the cancellation of the Visa.
The circumstances of these offences can be summarised as follows:[9]
(a)On 25 April 2020, the Applicant and his then partner, Ms M, began arguing after which the Applicant put Ms M in a bear hug and headlock, pushing into her neck/throat, and threw her into the passenger side of a vehicle. The Applicant hit Ms M on the head, causing bruising and swelling around her eyes and face. The Applicant began driving the vehicle whilst holding Ms M in a headlock. The Applicant then smashed Ms M’s head into the windscreen, ‘forcefully putting her through the windscreen such that the windscreen then smashed’.[10]
(b)On 30 April 2020, the Applicant entered into an altercation with two individuals who were unknown to the Applicant. The Applicant punched and then kicked the first victim to the head, and when the second victim came to assist the first victim, she was also then kicked in the head.
(c)On 26 February 2021, following a verbal argument with his then partner, Ms L, the Applicant struck Ms L on the side of her head and thereafter put his hands around her neck, applying pressure. The Applicant’s mother intervened, ceasing this assault.
(d)On 6 March 2021, the Applicant became upset with Ms L for talking to other men, and placed both hands around her neck and squeezed, and applied a fist to her jaw. The victim had a momentary loss of consciousness and was choked once more shortly after. The Applicant then threw Ms L against a vehicle.
(e)On 13 and 14 March 2021, the Applicant and Ms L entered into another altercation at a sports club, where the Applicant threw chairs, grabbed Ms L’s neck, pushed her head against a microwave and slapped her face. He then picked up scissors and threatened to stab her with them.
[9] As taken from the related sentencing remarks at Exhibit R2, G7, pp 47-9 and Exhibit R1 [10].
[10] Exhibit R2, G7, p 47.
On 17 September 2021, the Applicant was also convicted of a number of other offences, being drugs and weapons offences, breach of a Bail Undertaking, and breaches of Community Based Orders issued on 5 November 2019, and received fines for these offences.[11]
[11] Exhibit R1, G6, p 41.
Present proceedings
On 1 September 1994, the Applicant was granted the Visa.[12]
[12] Exhibit R2, G13, p 87.
On 26 November 2021, the Delegate cancelled the Applicant’s visa under s 501(3A) of the Migration Act on the basis that the Applicant had a substantial criminal record within the meaning of s 501(6)(a) and was serving a sentence of imprisonment on a full-time basis in a custodial institution, for an offence against a law of the Commonwealth, a state or territory (the Cancellation Decision).[13] The Applicant was notified by letter of the same date, which he received by hand delivery to Albany Regional Prison.[14]
[13] Exhibit R2, G13, p 87.
[14] Exhibit R2, G13, p 87.
On 20 December 2021, the Applicant made a request for revocation of the Cancellation Decision and made representations to the Delegate in support of his request for revocation of the Cancellation Decision under s 501CA of the Migration Act.[15]
[15] Exhibit R2, G14, p 94.
On 29 November 2024, the Delegate found that they were not satisfied that there was ‘another reason’ to revoke the Cancellation Decision, therefore the power under s 501CA(4) was not enlivened and the Delegate made the Reviewable Decision.[16] The Applicant was notified of the Reviewable Decision by letter dated 2 December 2024 which he received by hand delivery at Yongah Hill Immigration Detention Centre.[17]
[16] Exhibit R2, G4, p 24.
[17] Exhibit R2, G3, p 15.
On 9 December 2024, the Applicant lodged an application for review in the Tribunal, for review of the Reviewable Decision.[18]
[18] Exhibit R2, G2, p 4.
The Applicant is currently detained at Yongah Hill Immigration Detention Centre.
ISSUES
The issues before the Tribunal are:
(a)whether the Applicant passes the character test, as defined by s 501(6) of the Migration Act; and
(b)if the Applicant does not pass the character test, whether the Tribunal is satisfied that there is another reason why the Cancellation Decision should be revoked.[19]
LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK
[19] See Migration Act s 501CA(4).
Migration Act
The Migration Act provides special powers for the Minister to refuse or cancel visas on character grounds. In some circumstances, where a visa is cancelled on character grounds, the Minister can revoke that cancellation decision.
These powers generally involve consideration of whether a person passes the character test, and if they do not, consideration of whether there is another reason that the decision to cancel or refuse a visa should be revoked.
The character test is set out in s 501(6) of the Migration Act and provides that a person does not pass the character test if the circumstances listed in that subsection apply. Section 501(6)(a) of the Migration Act relevantly provides that:
(6)For the purposes of this section, a person does not pass the character test if:
(a)the person has a substantial criminal record (as defined by
subsection (7)); …
(Original emphasis.)
A ‘substantial criminal record’ is relevantly defined by s 501(7)(c) of the Migration Act as follows:
(7)For the purposes of the character test, a person has a substantial criminal record if: …
(c)the person has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of
12 months or more; …
(Original emphasis.)
Under s 501(3A) of the Migration Act, the Minister must cancel the visa of certain persons, if the Minister is satisfied that the person does not pass the character test because the person has a substantial criminal record as a result of being sentenced to a term of imprisonment of more than 12 months.
Additionally, under s 501(3A) of the Migration Act, the person must be serving a ‘sentence of imprisonment’, on a full-time basis in a custodial institution, for an offence against a law of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory.
If a visa is cancelled under s 501(3A) of the Migration Act, the Minister must give the person a written notice inviting them to make representations about revocation of the original decision.[20] If the person makes representations in accordance with the invitation, then under s 501CA(4), the Minister may revoke the cancellation decision if satisfied that the person passes the character test or that there is another reason why the original decision should be revoked.
[20] Migration Act s 501CA(3).
Making a revocation decision under s 501CA requires the decision-maker to first decide whether the person passes the character test under s 501CA(4)(b)(i) and, only if satisfied that the person does not, to then decide under s 501CA(4)(b)(ii) if there is ‘another reason’ why the cancellation decision should be revoked.[21]
[21] HZCP v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2019) 273 FCR 121, 136 [66].
THE HEARING AND THE EVIDENCE
The hearing was held 12 February 2025 at the Tribunal’s Perth Registry. The Applicant was self-represented and appeared in-person. The Respondent was represented by Ms Alina Ali of Minter Ellison and appeared via video link.
At the hearing, the Applicant gave evidence and was cross-examined. The Applicant’s son, Mr Isaiah Greeuw-Reid, gave evidence by telephone and was cross-examined.
The following documents were marked as exhibits:
(a)Statement of Horomona Moko Moko Marsh (the Applicant’s uncle), dated 24 January 2025, and filed 28 January 2025 (Exhibit A1);
(b)Statement of Isaiah Greeuw-Reid (the Applicant’s son), undated, and filed 28 January 2025 (Exhibit A2);
(c)Statement of Miss LR (the Applicant’s daughter), undated, and filed 29 January 2025 (Exhibit A3);
(d)Applicant’s Violence Prevention Program Certificate, filed 29 January 2025 (Exhibit A4);
(e)Applicant’s Statement of Attainment, filed 29 January 2025 (Exhibit A5);
(f)Photo of graduation of the Violence Prevention Program, filed 29 January 2025 (Exhibit A6);
(g)Respondent’s Statement of Facts, Issues, and Contentions, dated and filed 6 January 2025 (Exhibit R1);
(h)Respondent’s section 501G Documents, comprising 142 pages, labelled G1-G17, and filed 16 December 2024 (Exhibit R2);
(i)Respondent’s supplementary G-Documents, comprising 372 pages, labelled
S1-S87, and filed 28 January 2025 (Exhibit R3); and
(j)Respondent’s Supplementary Submissions, comprising 4 pages, dated and filed 4 February 2025 (Exhibit R4).
The Tribunal has taken into account the letters of support from the Applicant’s son, daughter, and uncle,[22] as well as the oral evidence provided by the Applicant and his son.
[22] See Exhibits A1, A2, and A3 respectively.
At hearing, the Tribunal provided the opportunity for the parties to respond to matters put by the Member, directed at matters relevant to ‘Direction no. 110 – Visa refusal and cancellation under section 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under section 501CA’ (Direction no. 110), in their oral closing submissions.
DOES THE APPLICANT PASS THE CHARACTER TEST?
As noted above, the character test is defined in s 501(6) of the Migration Act. Section 501(6)(a) of the Migration Act provides that a person does not pass the character test if they have a ‘substantial criminal record’, as defined by s 501(7).
Relevant to the Applicant’s case, a person has a ‘substantial criminal record’ if they have been ‘sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more’.[23] Failure to pass the character test arises as a matter of law.[24]
[23] Migration Act s 501(7)(c).
[24] Re Harrison and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (2009) 106 ALD 666, 685 [63].
As noted above, on 17 September 2021 the Applicant was convicted in the Albany Magistrates Court of the following offences and sentenced to a total of three years and 10 months imprisonment:
(a)unlawfully assault and thereby did bodily harm with circumstances of aggravation and sentenced to two years imprisonment;
(b)three counts of Impeded another person’s normal breathing or blood circulation by applying pressure to neck and sentenced to 15 months imprisonment on each count, to be served concurrently;
(c)impeded another person’s normal breathing or blood circulation by applying pressure to neck and sentenced to 18 months imprisonment, to be served cumulatively;
(d)three counts of common assault in circumstances of aggravation or racial aggravation and sentenced to eight months imprisonment on each count, to be served concurrently;
(e)common assault and sentenced to three months imprisonment, to be served concurrently;
(f)endanger life, health or safety of a person and sentenced to 18 months imprisonment, to be served concurrently;
(g)assault occasioning bodily harm and sentenced to four months imprisonment, to be served cumulatively; and
(h)threaten to kill and sentenced to 12 months imprisonment, to be served concurrently.
As the Applicant has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more, he does not pass the character test by operation of s 501(7)(c) of the Migration Act.
Accordingly, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the Applicant passes the character test.[25]
[25] Migration Act s 501CA(4)(b)(i).
CONSIDERATION OF REVOCATION
As the Tribunal is not satisfied that the Applicant passes the character test, the Tribunal must then determine whether, having regard to the primary and other considerations contained within Direction no. 110, there is ‘another reason’ why the Cancellation Decision should be revoked. The statutory power to revoke will only be enlivened if there is ‘another reason’ why the Cancellation Decision should be revoked.[26]
[26] Migration Act s 501CA(4)(b)(ii).
The Tribunal is required to form a state of satisfaction as to whether there is ‘another reason’ why the Cancellation Decision should be revoked, reasonably, and on a correct understanding of the law. By reason of s 499(2A) of the Migration Act, in doing so, the Tribunal must comply with written directions about the performance of its functions or the exercise of those powers which are given by the Minister pursuant to s 499(1) of the Migration Act.
Direction no. 110
On 7 June 2024, the Minister made Direction no. 110 under s 499 of the Migration Act, which commenced operation on 21 June 2024. This Direction replaced the previous Direction No. 99.[27]
[27] Direction no. 110 paras 2 to 3.

An objective of Direction no. 110 is to guide decision-makers in exercising powers under
ss 501 or 501CA of the Migration Act.[28] In exercising the power under s 501CA(4), the Tribunal must have regard to the primary and other considerations set out in Direction
[28] Direction no. 110 para 5.1(4).
[29] Direction no. 110 para 6.
no. 110 where relevant to the decision.[29]
Paragraph 5.1 of Direction no. 110 sets out ‘[o]bjectives’, including para 5.1(3) which provides that:
Under subsection 501(3A) of the Act, the decision-maker must cancel a visa that has been granted to a person if the decision-maker is satisfied that the person does not pass the character test because of the operation of paragraph (6)(a) (on the basis of paragraph (7)(a), (b) or (c) or paragraph (6)(e)) and the non-citizen is serving a sentence of imprisonment, on a fulltime basis in a custodial institution, for an offence against a law of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory. A non-citizen who has had their visa cancelled under section 501(3A) may request revocation of that decision under section 501CA of the Act. Where the decision-maker considering the request is not satisfied that the non-citizen passes the character test, the decision-maker must consider whether there is another reason to revoke the cancellation given the specific circumstances of the case.
Paragraph 5.2 of Direction no. 110 sets out ‘[p]rinciples’ which must be taken into account by decision-makers under ss 501 and 501CA of the Migration Act. These principles ‘provide the framework within which decision-makers should approach their task of deciding whether to … revoke a mandatory cancellation under section 501CA’ and are expressed as follows:
1Australia 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.
2The safety of the Australian Community is the highest priority of the Australian Government.
3Non-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.
4The 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 [sic] risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community.
5Australia 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.
6With 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.
7Decision-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.
8The 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.
In making a decision under s 501CA(4), the ‘primary considerations’ to be taken into account by the Tribunal are:[30]
1protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct;
2whether the conduct engaged in constituted family violence;
3the strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia;
4the best interests of minor children in Australia; and
5expectations of the Australian community.
[30] Direction no. 110 para 8.
The ‘other considerations’ that the Tribunal must take into account, insofar as they are relevant to the matter, include (but are not limited to):[31]
(a)legal consequences of the decision;
(b)extent of impediments if removed; and
(c)impact on Australian business interests.
[31] Direction no. 110 para 9.
Further guidance as to how a decision-maker is to apply the considerations in
Direction no. 110 can be found in para 7, which provides that:
1In applying the considerations (both primary and other), information and evidence from independent and authoritative sources should be given appropriate weight.
2The primary consideration at 8.1 below (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.
3One or more primary considerations may outweigh other primary considerations.
IS THERE ANOTHER REASON WHY THE CANCELLATION DECISION SHOULD BE REVOKED?
In his application for review, the Applicant claimed that the Reviewable Decision is wrong because ‘I have been here my hole (sic) life and my dad is Australin (sic) this place is all I know’.[32]
[32] Exhibit R2, G2, p 11.
The Tribunal understands the Applicant’s position to be that the Cancellation Decision should be revoked, and he ought to be permitted to remain in Australia given his mother, son, minor daughter, infant grandson,[33] and other family members reside here, he has lived here since he was child, and he has no ties to New Zealand.
[33] The Tribunal understands from the Applicant that his grandson was born in May 2024.
The Respondent, however, contended that there is not ‘another reason’ why the Cancellation Decision should be revoked because the primary considerations of the protection of the Australian community, family violence committed by the non-citizen and the expectations of the Australian community weigh heavily or very heavily against revocation,[34] and outweigh any weight in favour to be afforded to the strength, nature and duration of the Applicant’s ties to Australia, the best interests of the Applicant’s minor children, and the extent of impediments if removed.
[34] Indeed, the Minister contends that the protection of the Australian community consideration weighs determinatively against revocation of the Cancellation Decision (See Exhibit R1 [24]).
Protection of the Australian Community
The first primary consideration, paragraph 8.1(1), focuses on the protection of the Australian community.
Direction no. 110 requires decision-makers to keep in mind that ‘the safety of the Australian community is the highest priority of the Australian Government’ and to that end ‘the Government is committed to protecting the Australian community from harm as a result of criminal activity or other serious conduct by non-citizens’.[35] In this respect, 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.[36]
[35] Direction no. 110 para 8.1(1).
[36] Direction no. 110 para 8.1(1).
Paragraph 8.1(2) of Direction no. 110 then provides that decision-makers should also give consideration to:
(a)the nature and seriousness of the non-citizen’s conduct to date; and
(b)the risk to the Australian community should the non-citizen commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct.
As noted above, the Minister contends that the protection of the Australian community consideration weighs determinately against revocation of the Cancellation Decision.[37]
[37] See fn 34. The Applicant made no specific contention regarding this primary consideration.
Nature and seriousness of the conduct
The Tribunal must consider the nature and seriousness of the Applicant’s criminal offending and other conduct to date[38] by having regard to specific types of crimes or conduct which are ‘viewed very seriously’[39] by the Australian Government and the Australian community. The direction also provides that certain other crimes or conduct are considered to be ‘serious’.[40] While there are categories of conduct to be considered to be very serious or serious, it does not limit the range of conduct that may be so regarded.[41]
[38] Direction no. 110 para 8.1(2)(a).
[39] Direction no. 110 8.1.1(1)(a).
[40] Direction no. 110 para 8.1.1(1)(b).
[41] Direction no. 110 para 8.1.1(1)(a).
Paragraph 8.1.1(1) of Direction no. 110 provides:
1In 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 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 non-citizen does not pass an aspect of the character test that is dependent upon the decision-maker's opinion (for example, section 501(6)(c));
(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, , [sic] or an offence against section 197A 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.
When taken to records of his two ‘assault occasioning bodily harm’ offences, both of which occurred on 24 March 2005, and for which he was convicted on 4 December 2006 and received a 12 month intensive supervision order,[42] the Applicant said he ‘sort of remembers it’ and it related to something he heard someone say about his younger brother. The Applicant said that when he was younger, he thought it was his job to look after his younger brother, even if it meant breaking the law to do so. When asked why he could not comply with his supervision orders, he said he had no licence, so on a work day, he could not travel to where he needed to go. The Applicant said that he did not really care about anything when he lost his son and that the order meant nothing to him.
[42] Exhibit R2, G6, p 44; Exhibit R3, S1, p 11.
When taken to the sentencing judge’s summary of the facts of this offending as a prompt,[43] the Applicant said he would have been under the influence of alcohol at this time as he was ‘90% of the time’. As to the sentencing judge having ordered psychological counselling,[44] the Applicant said that he went to one or two sessions, but never did it for too long as they were hard to get to, and he could not recall exactly when he did them. When asked, the Applicant said he had not completed any other programs for drug or alcohol use.
[43] Exhibit R2, G9, p 77.
[44] Exhibit R2, G9, p 78.
The Applicant gave evidence that his drug offending in 2013[45] occurred when he decided to buy a large amount of methamphetamine for personal use, using compensation funds received from being run over at a pub in a fight a few years prior. The Applicant said he was caught in a hotel room with the drugs and sent straight to prison. The Applicant said that ‘nothing changes’ in prison, in that he was ‘using’ whilst in prison and it was ‘easy to get anything in jail’.
[45] Exhibit R2, G6, p 43; Exhibit R3, S1, pp 8-9.
When asked why he started dealing methamphetamine, the Applicant said he was of the view that the money he earned from working should go to his kids and that he decided to sell methamphetamine to ‘make money on the side’. The Applicant said that he did not realise how quickly this would ‘take him downhill’, he lost everything, and it wasn’t really worth it. The Applicant said he was very self-destructive at the time he lost his son,[46] he was addicted to methamphetamine and wouldn’t listen to anyone who tried to help him. The Applicant said that nothing changed for years, until he returned to prison again.
[46] The Tribunal understands that the Applicant lost his second child, a son, who passed away at 5 days old.
When asked about the effects of drugs on his behaviour and his life, the Applicant said he had a shorter temper, associated with the wrong people, became anti-social, and kept his children and their mother at a distance until they had no choice but to leave. The Applicant said the drugs ‘took everything from him’.
The Applicant said he felt ‘not good’ about selling drugs to others and aiding their drug use. The Applicant said he ‘got a lot of people addicted’ (to drugs) and his younger brothers, his mother, and his father have all used drugs, but not around him. The Applicant said he began using methamphetamine when he was 16 years old and used ‘any drug he could get his hands on’ to the point that drugs became a habit in his mid-20s, when he lost his son.[47] The Applicant said he was looking for a way to numb himself.
[47] See fn 46.
When asked why he continued to offend after his first term of imprisonment, the Applicant said it is ‘hard to change when the world stays the same’ and bumping into people everywhere ‘that use’ re-triggered his substance use.
The Applicant did not wish to comment on the psychologist’s comment in 2013 that she considers the Applicant presents a high risk of committing further substance related offences,[48] or the sentencing judge’s remark that:[49]
…you rationalised you regular and sustained use of methylamphetamine by claiming it enabled you to work when prescription medication for pain did not, that you refused to follow medical advice and rehabilitate yourself appropriately after you were injured, and instead chose to manage your own return to functioning with illicit substances suggests a level of ignorance and obstinacy which the psychologist says will likely continue to be problematic for you…
…
The psychologist has also said that you do not express any remorse for your offending, nor do you show any understanding of the damage that dealing in drugs causes in the community. The psychologist has recommended that you undertake a cognitive skills program so that you can see your actions in society from a different perspective.
[48] Exhibit R2, G8, p 66.
[49] Exhibit R2, G8, pp 66-7.
The Applicant confirmed he did not seek to undertake such a program upon his release.
When it was put to the Applicant that he was convicted of a further 16 drug offences following his release from prison after having served his first term of imprisonment, the Applicant noted he has been drug-free for over two years, he takes a monthly Buvidal injection, and has had no further charges in prison the second time around.
As to the circumstances of the Applicant’s offending for which he was convicted on 17 September 2021 that resulted in the term of imprisonment of three years and 10 months,[50] the Applicant gave evidence that:
(a)Regarding his offending in relation to Ms M on 25 April 2020,[51] he should never have let Ms M ‘get away’. Other than the kids, ‘Ms M was the best thing that happened to him and like everything, he found a way to f**k it up’. He accepted his conduct was serious and that it would have caused Ms M to fear for her life.
(b)Regarding his offending against Ms L in February and March 2021,[52] this period of time was ‘a big drug haze,’ Ms L ‘was just around for the drugs,’ it ‘was not really a relationship’ and there were ‘no feelings, no nothing’. He accepted his conduct against Ms L was serious and that it would have caused Ms L to fear for her life.
(c)He doesn’t like the person that he was at the time he committed these offences. He regrets everything he did to both women. He is a ‘really jealous person’, he ‘grew up with it [violence] every day’ as a kid and ‘it [violence] seemed normal to him’. He ended up being just the same as his father. He agrees with the sentencing judge’s remarks that ‘[t]he violence that was levelled against these two women was quite staggering’ and the circumstances in which the offending was committed ‘chilling’.[53] He agreed with the proposition that he has a problem managing his anger towards women with whom he is in a relationship with, and expressed his view that there should be ‘more things accessible to people in rural areas’.
[50] See [7]-[8] above.
[51] See [8(a)] above.
[52] See [8(c)-8(e)] above.
[53] Exhibit R2, G2, p 46.
As to his reckless driving offending in 2006, 2008, 2012, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, and 2019,[54] he had been driving since he was 12 or 13 years old, and would drive his parents home when they were drunk. He said if he wanted to go somewhere, he would just get in a car and go. He thinks he is a better driver than most people, but he should not have been doing it [driving recklessly]. When asked if his driving offending shows a disregard for road rules and the law, he said ‘not really’, because he is not putting anyone at risk, he never speeds, he doesn’t see the harm, and is not ‘methed off his head’.
[54] See Exhibit R3, S1, pp 3-12.

The Applicant made no specific contentions regarding the nature and seriousness of his conduct. The Tribunal understands from the Applicant’s oral evidence above that he accepts his offending behaviour is serious and regrets his violent offending behaviour.
The Respondent submitted that the Applicant’s offending should be considered as very serious, so much so that ‘even strong countervailing considerations are insufficient to justify revocation’ of the Cancellation Decision,[55] and should weigh ‘extremely heavily against revocation’ of the Cancellation Decision.[56]
[55] Exhibit R1 [26]; Direction no. 110, paras 5.2(7)-(8).
[56] Exhibit R1 [32].
The Tribunal has considered the evidence and the Respondent’s related submissions in relation to the nature and seriousness of the Applicant’s offending conduct[57] by reference to matters or considerations raised in paragraph 8.1.1 of Direction no. 110.
[57] Exhibit R1 [26]-[32].
The Tribunal has regard to the fact that violent crimes, crimes of a violent nature against women, and acts of family violence are viewed ‘very seriously by the Australian Government and the Australian community’.[58] The Applicant's offending against Ms M and Ms L constituted family violence and therefore should be viewed very seriously.[59] This is the case irrespective of the three years and 10 months sentence that was imposed.[60] This is also the view that has been taken by the Minister throughout Direction no. 110, and that has been consistently adopted by this Tribunal.[61]
[58] Direction no. 110, para 8.1.1(1)(a).
[59] Direction no. 110, para 8.1.1(1)(a)(iii).
[60] Direction no. 110, para 8.1.1(1)(c).
[61] Including the former Administrative Appeals Tribunal.
The Tribunal also notes the Applicant’s history of driving offences[62] and its repeated position that driving and traffic offences are serious crimes against other road users[63] that place the lives of other road users at risk. The Tribunal considers the Applicant’s view that his reckless driving did ‘not really’ shows a disregard for road rules and the law demonstrates a lack of insight into his offending.
[62] See Exhibit R2, G6, pp 41-4; Exhibit R3, S1, pp 3-12.
[63] See for example QJYD and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2021] AATA 1, [51]-[54] and Mayes and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2020] AATA 32, [50]-[51], referring within to Bartlett and Minister for Immigration and Border Protections (Migration) [2017] AATA 1561, [43]-[45].
In considering paragraph 8.1.1(1)(b) of Direction no. 110, the Tribunal is also to have regard to whether the Applicant has caused a person to enter into or be a party to a forced marriage,[64] whether the crimes were committed against vulnerable people, or government representatives or officials,[65] and any crime committed while in immigration detention.[66] The Tribunal also notes that the Applicant was convicted of ‘obstructing police officers’ in 2017, however the parties did not make any claims in this regard.
[64] Direction no. 110, para 8.1.1(1)(b)(i).
[65] Direction no. 110, para 8.1.1(1)(b)(ii).
[66] Direction no. 110, para 8.1.1(1)(b)(iv).
In relation to the terms of imprisonment to which the Applicant was sentenced to on 17 September 2021 and 14 October 2013, being three years and 10 months, and two years and four months respectively,[67] the Tribunal notes that sentences involving terms of imprisonment are the last resort in the sentencing hierarchy and reflects the objective seriousness of the offences involved.[68]
[67] Exhibit R2, G6, pp 41, 43; G7, p 52; G8, p 74.
[68] Direction no. 110, para 8.1.1(1)(c).
As to paragraph 8.1.1(1)(d) of Direction no. 110, the Tribunal has taken into account the available information as it relates to the Applicant’s offending, including the sentencing remarks. In particular, Magistrate Scaddan remarked in sentencing:[69]
The circumstances of the offences principally committed against the women with whom [the Applicant] was in a relationship…was chilling. The violence that was levelled against these two women was quite staggering. Whilst no victim impact statement has been provided to the court, the facts demonstrate, in my view, that notwithstanding [Ms M] may well have made contact with [the Applicant] following – at some point following the assaults committed on her, that at the time it is reasonable to infer that she would have been, or she must have been truly frightened, and [Ms L] must have been truly frightened at the level and extent of the violence committed against her.
…
It is of significant concern. This was serious, violent assaults committed on two separate women to whom he was in an intimate relationship of some sort with over a period of time. The need for women to feel safe, the need for…anybody who is in an intimate personal relationship to feel safe and protected, given the prevalence of family violence and given the detrimental effect that family violence has on people in the community cannot be overstated, in my view.
[69] Exhibit R2, G7, pp 46, 50.
The Applicant has a lengthy criminal history consisting of regular offending from 2003 to 2021 for a range of offences including assault occasioning bodily harm, drug possession with intent to sell or supply, numerous breaches of supervision orders and other orders, violent offending, and driving offending.[70] In the Tribunal’s view, the Applicant’s overall offending has been particularly frequent over time, with a trend of increasing seriousness culminating in the family violence offending.[71]
[70] See [4]-[9] above and Annexure A.
[71] Direction no. 110, para 8.1.1(1)(e).
The sentencing remarks regarding the cumulative effect of the Applicant’s repeated family violence offending[72] and his repeated offending generally (for example, breaches of bail conditions and failure to appear in accordance with his undertaking on numerous occasions)[73] further indicate the very serious nature of the Applicant’s conduct.[74]
[72] See [72] above.
[73] Exhibit R2, G6, 41-4.
[74] Direction no. 110, para 8.1.1(1)(f).
The Tribunal agrees with the Respondent’s contention that:[75]
the cumulative effect of repeated offending is serious and the frequency and nature of the Applicant's offending demonstrate a continuing disregard for the laws of Australia and the safety of the Australian community and has resulted in significant use of police and court resources.
[75] R1 [31], referring to Direction no. 110, paras 8.1.1(1)(e), 8.1.1(1)(f).
For completeness, there is no evidence or claims made that the Applicant provided false or misleading information to the Department,[76] was given a formal warning,[77] or committed an offence in another country.[78]
[76] Direction no. 110, para 8.1.1(g).
[77] Direction no. 110, para 8.1.1(h).
[78] Direction no. 110, para 8.1.1(i).
Overall, the Tribunal finds that, applying Direction no. 110, the Applicant has a significant criminal record as evidenced by the terms of imprisonment ordered, the total effective sentence imposed, and the timbre of the offences committed, some of which are identified as ‘very serious’ by Direction no. 110 by their very nature.
Therefore, having regard to the evidence of which paragraph 8.1.1 of Direction no. 110 are relevant, and the comments and assessment on the offending in sentencing and by the courts generally, the Tribunal considers the Applicant’s offending conduct to be very serious and weighs very heavily against revoking the Cancellation Decision.
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. Paragraph 8.1.2 of Direction no. 110 states, in part:[79]
1In 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.
2In 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).
[79] See also Direction no. 110, para 8.1(2)(b).
This requires an assessment of the nature of the harm should the Applicant engage in further criminal or other serious conduct.[80] It also requires an assessment of the likelihood of the Applicant engaging in such conduct.[81]
[80] Direction no. 110, para 8.1.2(2)(a).
[81] Direction no. 110, para 8.1.2(2)(b).
There is no statutory constraint on the way that risk is assessed by the decision-maker other than that there must be a rational and probative basis for the assessment.[82]
Nature of the harm
[82] See BSJ16 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCA 1181, [68] (Moshinsky J); Hambledon v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 7, [41] (Kenny J).
In order to determine the risk to the Australian community should the Applicant commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct, the Tribunal must consider the nature of the harm to individuals or the Australian community should the Applicant reoffend.[83]
[83] Direction no. 110, para 8.1.2(2)(a).
The Applicant made no specific contentions regarding the nature of the harm should he

reoffend. The Tribunal understands from the Applicant’s oral evidence that he has a limited appreciation of the harm caused to the victims of his violent offending, however made no particular comment regarding harm more generally.
In relation to the nature of the harm to individuals or the Australian community should the Applicant reoffend in a similar way, the Respondent contended that, having regard to the nature of the Applicant’s offending, any reoffending of a similar nature would expose the Australian community to significant physical and psychological harm.[84]
[84] Exhibit R1 [39], referring to Direction no. 110 para 8.1.2(2)(a).
In the Tribunal’s view, it is clear that, should the Applicant commit further similar offences, this would result in further very serious harm that may cause considerable and widespread physical, psychological, emotional, and economic harm to members of the Australian community.
Likelihood of the non-citizen engaging in further criminal or serious conduct
In order to determine the risk to the Australian community should the Applicant commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct, the Tribunal must also consider the likelihood of the Applicant reoffending if he were permitted to remain in the Australian community.[85]
[85] Direction no. 110, para 8.1.2(2)(b).
The Applicant gave evidence that he believes his risk or reoffending is ‘very low to non-existent’ and that, if released into the Australian community, he would undertake ‘a number of courses’ to help with his ‘drug and alcohol issues’ and to control his ‘emotions and temper’.[86]
[86] Exhibit R1, G15, p 109.
The Applicant said he had completed the Violence Prevention Program,[87] which he said was a high intensity course that ran for eight months, and the Stopping Family Violence Program, which had taken three months to complete. The Applicant said he learned things from these courses that he wished he knew 10 years ago.
[87] See Exhibits A4, A5 and A6.
When taken to the record of his having been assessed by the Department of Justice as a high level risk in the areas of ‘violent lifestyle, interpersonal aggression, emotional control and impulsivity’,[88] the Applicant disagreed with that assessment and remarked that the assessor ‘don’t know nothing’.
[88] Exhibit R3, S73, p 249.
When taken to his record of him having said about Ms L that ‘she was the last person he wanted to see “as she put me here” [in prison]’,[89] the Applicant said he no longer holds this view, that he ‘put himself there [in prison]’ and he holds ‘no blame, no grudges’.
[89] Exhibit R3, S73, p 252.
As to the Department of Justice facilitator’s comment that:[90]
[the Applicant] mentioned he would not engage with services to support his mental health as he viewed this as emasculating… [the Applicant’s] masculinity beliefs regarding supports when experiencing distress may exacerbate [sic] likelihood of recommencing substance use as a maladaptive coping strategy.
The Applicant responded that [engaging with services] ‘kicks off old memories and brings up s**t’ and it ‘almost feels worse going in there [to engage with services]’. The Applicant added that drugs are accessible in detention, and he has been in detention to five months and ‘hasn’t touched nothing’.
[90] Exhibit R3, S74, p 261
The Applicant was taken to the record in his parole review report which states:[91]
Although [the Applicant] has submitted a parole plan it lacks community support or protective strategies to help mitigate his offending behaviour. Furthermore, [the Applicant] does not have any proposed confirmed accommodation, stating he is facing deportation and wants to be housed at the Immigration Detention Centre.
The Applicant said that he wasn’t asking to go into the community, he was not a danger to the community, and wants to work to make money for his kids.
[91] Exhibit R3, S67, p 230.
When it was put to him that he had family as a protective factor in the past and yet continued to offend, and then asked what was different now, the Applicant said he is a grandfather now, he is missing the opportunity to bond with his grandson, this ‘kills him’ and he hasn’t yet met or held his grandson. The Applicant added that his own father died while he was in prison, he missed out on his son becoming a father, his daughter is ‘now a woman’ and you ‘can’t get that s**t back’.
As to the Respondent’s proposition that the supervision orders the Applicant has breached have had little, if any, effect in deterring him from offending, the Applicant said people do not take into account that it is hard to comply with these orders went you have no transport, no drivers licence, and rural areas present a lack of options in this regard.
The Respondent contended that that there remains a real ongoing, at least medium,[92] risk of the Applicant reoffending, and that any risk is unacceptable, having regard to the following:[93]
[92] Exhibit R4 [4].
[93] Extracted from Exhibit R1 [35]-[39] and R4 [4]-[7].
(a)The Applicant's offences and the harm that would be caused, if it were to be repeated, is so serious that any risk that it may be repeated is unacceptable.[94] Any reoffending would have the potential to cause physical or psychological harm to members of the Australian community, particularly to his ex-partners.[95]
[94] Direction no. 110, para 8.1.2(1).
[95] Direction no. 110, para 8.1.2(2)(a).
(b)The Applicant submits that challenges with alcohol and drugs have contributed to his offending.[96] In the personal circumstances form dated 5 December 2021, the Applicant states that methamphetamine and alcohol affected his behaviour, stating 'should I not have been under the influence I believe I would have acted far less inappropriately’.[97]
[96] Exhibit R2, G15, p 109.
[97] Exhibit R2, G15, p 109.
(c)The Applicant also submits that he accepts complete responsibility for his crimes and contends his risk of reoffending is 'very low to non-existent',[98] as he intended to complete a number of courses to help with addiction and controlling his emotions and temper. He also noted there is a ‘VRO in place to protect the victim' and he would not be visiting any places near her.[99] The Applicant has not provided any evidence of completing courses to assist with anger, alcohol or drug management since providing his personal circumstances form in 2021.
(d)In the sentencing remarks dated 17 September 2021, Magistrate Scadden noted:[100]
I can safely say that there have been a number of orders by the court over time, including intensive supervision orders, community based orders, imprisonment and suspended imprisonment orders, and they have had little, if any, deterrent effect upon [the Applicant] …
Thus reiterates the fact that, firstly, the record is not mitigating, but secondly, the need for personal deterrence is extremely high for this particular case.
(e)There is no evidence to suggest the Applicant has taken any steps in custody to address his behavioural issues or substance abuse issues. During the Applicant’s most recent period of incarceration, he was found to have engaged in misconduct, tested positive to unauthorised substances, and possessed contraband.[101] As indicated by the sentencing remarks, the Applicant has had various judicial orders and custodial sentences over time, however he has repeatedly continued to offend, at increasing severity. This indicates a continued disregard for the law.
(f)There is no evidence to suggest the Applicant will not reoffend in the community considering his extensive criminal record. Further, any rehabilitation efforts the Applicant may have taken have not been tested in the community and there remains a risk that the Applicant will reoffend.
(g)Additionally, there is a risk that the Applicant will reoffend, noting the escalating nature of his offending, and that, having regard to the nature of his offending, any reoffending of a similar nature would expose the Australian community to significant physical and psychological harm.[102]
(h)While the Tribunal acknowledges the Applicant is currently receiving Buvidal injections in detention for his opioid dependence, he shows little insight into his offending and little awareness of his offending behaviour. This is demonstrated by his numerous breaches of supervision orders, prison misconduct, the fact of his parole not being supported, evidence given regarding his victims, and a tendency for him to victim blame.[103] This indicates a serious likelihood he will reoffend in a similar manner in the future.
[98] Exhibit R2, G15, p 109.
[99] Exhibit R2, G15, p 109.
[100] Exhibit R2, G7, pp 49-50.
[101] See Exhibit R3, S65, pp 215-21.
[102] Direction no. 110, para 8.1.2(2)(a).
[103] See, for example [105] below.
The Tribunal has considered the available evidence and the parties’ submissions and makes the following comments and findings:
(a)Briefly, given the significant risk of harm from driving and traffic offending and violent offending including family violence, if the Applicant does engage in offending consistent with his previous offending, this would present a considerable risk of harm to the community.
(b)Regarding the risk of the Applicant reoffending in the future, the Tribunal considers the Applicant has significant unmet treatment needs in relation to substance abuse and his propensity for violence, particularly family violence. This is evident from the Applicant’s lack of empathy for his victims, lack of insight into the potential risks of his offending, including his traffic offending, and the related potential for future harm. There is no evidence before the Tribunal that the Applicant has made the effort to educate himself regarding the consequences of his conduct and, even more so, that he considers there is such a need to make this effort in any event.
(c)While the Tribunal accepts that the Applicant ‘does not feel good’ about his violent offending and wishes to be reunited with his children and build a relationship with his infant grandson, he falls short of genuine remorse for his offending conduct. Additionally, supervision orders and imprisonment have failed to serve as an effective deterrent to date. The Applicant did not seek out counselling as he did not see the need to, and, where it was arranged for him, he did not attend if it was inconvenient for him.
(d)While the Tribunal has considered the available view that the Applicant presents a high risk of committing further substance related offences, the Tribunal is without an expert opinion regarding the likelihood of the Applicant refraining from further violent offending.

In light of the above, the Tribunal is of the opinion that there is a real risk that the Applicant will reoffend in a similar manner, and that the presence of any such risk is unacceptable.
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 the protection of the Australian community consideration weighs very heavily against revocation of the Cancellation Decision.
Family violence committed by the non-citizen
Paragraph 8.2 of Direction no. 110 provides that decision-makers, such as the Tribunal, must have regard to family violence perpetrated by the non-citizen when deciding whether to revoke a visa cancellation decision:
1The Government has serious concerns about conferring on non-citizens who engage in family violence the privilege of entering or remaining in Australia. The Government's concerns in this regard are proportionate to the seriousness of the family violence engaged in by the non-citizen (see paragraph (3) below).
2This consideration is relevant in circumstances where:
(a)a non-citizen has been convicted of an offence, found guilty of an offence, or had charges proven howsoever described, that involve family violence; and/or
(b)there is information or evidence from independent and authoritative sources indicating that the non-citizen is, or has been, involved in the perpetration of family violence, and the non-citizen being considered under section 501 or section 501CA has been afforded procedural fairness.
3In considering the seriousness of the family violence engaged in by the noncitizen, the following factors must be considered where relevant:
(a)the frequency of the non-citizen's conduct and/or whether there is any trend of increasing seriousness;
(b)the cumulative effect of repeated acts of family violence;
(c)rehabilitation achieved at time of decision since the person's last known act of family violence, including:
(i)     the extent to which the person accepts responsibility for their family violence related conduct;
(ii)    the extent to which the non-citizen understands the impact of their behaviour on the abused and witness of that abuse (particularly children);
(iii)   efforts to address factors which contributed to their conduct; and
(d)Whether the non-citizen has re-offended since being formally warned, or since Otherwise being made aware by a Court, law enforcement or other authority, about the consequences of further acts of family violence, noting that the absence of a warning should not be considered to be in the noncitizen's favour. This includes warnings about the non-citizen's migration status, should the non-citizen engage in further acts of family violence.
‘Family violence’ is defined in para 4(1) of Direction no. 110 as:
violent, threatening or other behaviour by a person that coerces or controls a member of the person’s family (the family member), or causes the family member to be fearful. Examples of behaviour that may constitute family violence include:
(a)an assault; or
(b)a sexual assault or other sexually abusive behaviour; or
(c)stalking; or
(d)repeated derogatory taunts; or
(e)intentionally damaging or destroying property; or
(f)intentionally causing death or injury to an animal; or
(g)unreasonably denying the family member the financial autonomy that he or she would otherwise have had; or
(h)unreasonably withholding financial support needed to meet the reasonable living expenses of the family member, or his or her child, at a time when the family member is entirely or predominately dependent on the person for financial support; or
(i)preventing the family member from making or keeping connections with his or her family, friends or culture; or
(j)unlawfully depriving the family member, or any member of the family member’s family, or his or her liberty.
For the purposes of the definition of family violence in Direction no. 110, ‘member of the person’s family’ includes a person who has, or has had, an intimate personal relationship with the relevant person.[104] The Applicant’s ex-partners, Ms M and Ms L, therefore fall within this definition.
[104] Direction no. 110, para 4(1).
The Tribunal is required to consider whether family violence considerations arise on any of the submissions, materials or evidence before the Tribunal.
The Applicant’s offending in 2020 and 2021[105] constitute family violence under para 4(1) of Direction no. 110, as the victims were the Applicant’s partner at the respective times.
[105] See [7]-[8] above.
The Tribunal also notes a number of reports of domestic violence in material summonsed from the WA Police[106] for which the Applicant was not convicted nor charged, and a conviction for damaging property in November 2019 whereby the Applicant punched the door after punching his then-partner in the face,[107] which also serve to demonstrate the Applicant’s propensity to engage in violent or aggressive behaviour towards women and have restraining orders being made against him.
[106] Summarised at R4 [8].
[107] Exhibit R2, G6, p 43; G10, pp 80-1.
The Applicant gave evidence that while he regrets his violent offending against Ms M, whom he described as a great woman with whom he ‘f****d things up’, he does not regret his violent offending against Ms L, as their relationship ‘was always to end that way’ as ‘she was a bit of a nutter that’s all’.
When asked, the Applicant had ‘nothing to say’ about the police reports relating to his family violence offending, saying ‘police make s**t up like most people’.
In relation to the family violence consideration, the Respondent submitted that:[108]
[108] Extracted from Exhibit R1 [40]-[44].
(a)Although the Applicant states that he has taken responsibility for his offending, the nature of family violence that he engaged in was very serious., particularly in circumstances where the family violence was repeated, with two separate women, and demonstrated a propensity to engage in protracted physical violence against women.[109]
[109] Direction no. 110, paras 8.2(3)(b), 8.2(3)(d).
(b)The nature of the physical violence and the fear inflicted on his ex-partners was very serious, noting both women's breathing was obstructed, and in the case of Ms M, there was sufficient force when he threw her against the windscreen that it broke the windscreen.
(c)In the sentencing remarks, Magistrate Scadden commented that his ex-partners must have been 'truly frightened' and[110]
… the need for community safety, that is importantly the safety of women who are in relationships with [the Applicant], to the extent that it can be possible, also need to be protected. I can only urge that [the Applicant] reflect upon his behaviour towards women, and that, if possible, take steps whilst in custody to address some of the issues as to why he behaves in this way.
(d)There is no evidence that the Applicant engaged in family violence specific rehabilitation courses in custody or has otherwise taken steps to address or manage his behaviour.[111]
(e)While the Applicant has taken some responsibility for his conduct and pled guilty to the offending,[112] the Applicant largely blames his substance abuse for the offending[113] and has not demonstrated that he had understood the impact of his behaviour on his ex-partners.[114]
(f)The Applicant has a propensity for engaging in family violence against women with whom he is in a relationship, which increased in severity from 2019 to the offending in 2020, despite being made aware about the consequences of family violence through a community based order.[115]
(g)The Respondent agrees with the remarks of Magistrate Scadden that the Applicant
has a particular attitude towards women, an acknowledged violence towards women that appears to be made worse by alcohol and cannabis use, and him becoming possessive over who the particular women talk to what they are to do, or what he considers they are to do'[116]
and contends that this primary consideration weighs very heavily against revocation.
[110] Exhibit R2, G7, p 50.
[111] Direction no. 110, para 8.2(3)(c).
[112] Direction no. 110, para 8.2(3)(c)(i).
[113] Direction no. 110, para 8.2(3)(c)(iii).
[114] Direction no. 110, para 8.2(3)(c)(ii).
[115] Direction no. 110, paras 8.2(3)(a), 8.2(3)(d).
[116] Exhibit R2, G7, p 49.
It is not in dispute that the Applicant has committed family violence on a number of occasions,[117] against members of his family as defined.
[117] See [8], [104] above.
In assessing the seriousness of the Applicant’s family violence, the Tribunal has taken into consideration:
(a)The fact that the family violence offending was not a one-off incident. Rather, it was a cyclical pattern in his relationships involving objectively very serious incidents that incited fear in the victims, caused injuries and, in Ms L’s case, a momentary loss of consciousness.[118]
(b)The Applicant, even now, does not appear to be remorseful nor wholly apologetic for his conduct against his victims, nor has he sought to address his conduct in any way. Indeed, there is limited evidence regarding the extent to which he understands the impact of his conduct on his victims and his efforts to address the factors that contributed to his conduct, such as being under the influence of drugs, and disregard for supervision orders.[119]
(c)For completeness, it does not appear that the Applicant was formally warned or otherwise made aware about the consequences of further family violence, noting that the absence of a warning should not be considered to be in the Applicant’s favour.[120]
[118] Direction no. 110, paras 8.2(3)(a)-(b).
[119] Direction no. 110, para 8.2(3)(c).
[120] Direction no. 110, para 8.2(3)(d).
Having had regard to the various matters set out in para 8.2(3) of Direction no. 110, the Tribunal cannot ignore the Government’s serious concerns about those who have committed family violence entering or remaining in Australia. On this basis, the Tribunal considers the family violence consideration weighs very heavily against revocation of the Cancellation 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. Paragraph 8.3 of Direction no. 110 provides that:
1Decision-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.
2Where 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 told the Tribunal that he has a sister who lives interstate, who sends him money and is putting off her wedding until he and his brother can attend. The Applicant said his sister has three children, one of his brothers has three children and his other brother (also currently in immigration detention) has no children. The Applicant said it is ‘not good’ being away from loved ones.
The Applicant said that some of his best memories are of going fishing with his family. The Applicant said his parents have now ‘split’ and his father passed away while he was prison. The Applicant described his father as a perfectionist.
The Applicant said he talks to his mother two to three times per week (or once per week when he is working) and she cries when he hangs up the phone.
The Applicant told the Tribunal his adult son, currently 19 years of age, has his own house and car, partner and a young son (the Applicant’s grandson). The Applicant said she speaks to his son three to four times a week.
The Applicant’s son gave evidence that he lived with both the Applicant and his mother
until he was four of five years old, when his parents split up. The Applicant’s son said he went to live with his mother in Perth, then lived exclusively with the Applicant from when he was about six years old to seven years old. The Applicant’s son said that he then lived with his grandparents until he was 11 and ran away to live with the Applicant, who sought custody of him and loss. The Applicant’s son explained that he would see the Applicant every second weekend during the time between the Applicant’s two incarcerations. The Applicant’s son said the Applicant was a ‘changed man’ because he could hear it in the Applicant’s voice, that he always wanted to be with him, and it hurts not being with his dad.
The Applicant said if released, he will live with his mother and wants her to retire. The Applicant said his mother still sends him money, that she is 60 years old and still works in a shearing shed. The Applicant said that if released, he will go straight back to work in the shearing sheds and wants to fix the farm his parents left to the family.
When asked, the Applicant said he currently has no partner and is the happiest he has been for a long time.
The Respondent made the following observations and submissions underlying its position that the strength, nature and duration of ties consideration should be given limited weight in favour of revoking the Cancellation Decision:[121]
(a)The Applicant has resided in Australia for approximately 31 years, having arrived as an eight year old.
(b)The Applicant's entire immediate family appears to be in Australia, being his mother, father, three siblings, son (19 years old), and daughter (15 years old).[122]
(c)The Applicant stated in his personal statement that he maintains regular contact with his children, saying he saw them twice a month and spoke to them daily prior to incarceration and, since being incarcerated, continues to speak to them daily.[123]
(d)The Applicant has not provided any supporting statements from the mother of his children, or any friends (only his adult son), however it accepts that it is likely they would experience emotional hardship if he was removed given the length of time he has lived in Australia.[124]
(e)There is limited evidence that the Applicant has contributed positively to the community by way of community or charitable activities; however, the Applicant has had continuous employment in the shearing industry, and previously as a fishermen and plasterer, which demonstrates employment ties and contribution to the community through his employment.[125]
(f)As the majority of the Applicant's immediate family reside in Australia, and he has contributed positively to the Australian community through stable employment, the Minister therefore accepts that this factor weighs in favour of revocation.
(g)However, the Minister contends that the weight to be assigned to this consideration should be limited and should not outweigh the considerations that favour non-revocation.
[121] Exhibit R1 [51]-[54].
[122] Exhibit R2, G15, pp 104 and 108.
[123] Exhibit R2, G15, p 105.
[124] Direction no. 110, para 8.3(2)(b).
[125] Exhibit R2, G7, p 49 and G15, p 110; Direction no. 110, para 8.3(2)(a)(ii).
In relation to the strength, nature and duration of the Applicant’s ties to Australia, the Tribunal is required to consider any impact on the Applicant’s immediate family members in Australia, where those family members are Australian citizens, Australian permanent residents, or have an indefinite right to remain in Australia.[126] The Tribunal is also required to consider the strength, nature and duration or any other ties that the Applicant has to the community.[127]
[126] Direction no. 110, para 8.3(1).
[127] Direction no. 110, para 8.3(2).
The Applicant has presented limited evidence regarding his family and social ties to Australia, and the importance of him being present in Australia to care for his nieces and support his sister. The Tribunal has had regard to a number of matters pertinent to this evidence being:
(a)The Applicant arrived in Australia in 1993 at eight years of age.
(b)The Applicant spent his early childhood in New Zealand, however his adolescence, early adult life, and employment was undertaken in Australia.[128]
(c)The Applicant began offending in 2003, 10 years after he arrived in Australia.
(d)In the years that followed, other than the period from around 2009 to 2011 and 2014 to 2015, the Applicant offended continuously, consistently, and seriously.
(e)The Tribunal accepts that in the years the Applicant has lived in Australia, he has been employed and hence made positive contributions to the community.[129]
(f)However, the Applicant’s offending conduct has necessitated significant resources and expenditure in law enforcement, including police and the justice system more broadly.
(g)The Tribunal accepts the Applicant has family in Australia, noting the letters of support in this regard,[130] and had the benefit of hearing from the Applicant’s son as to the Applicant’s ties.
[128] Direction no. 110, para 8.3(2)(a).
[129] Direction no. 110, para 8.2(2)(a)(ii).
[130] Exhibits A1, A2 and A3.
Having considered the available evidence and the parties submissions, the Tribunal finds that the strength, nature and duration of the Applicant’s ties to Australia consideration weighs slightly in favour of revocation of the Cancellation Decision.
Best interests of minor children in Australia affected by the decision
Paragraph 8.4 of Direction no. 110 requires the Tribunal to consider the best interests of minor children in Australia affected by the decision. Under paragraph 8.4, the Tribunal ‘must make a determination about whether cancellation or refusal under s 501… is, or is not, in the best interests of’ children who are under the age of 18 at the time the decision is expected to be made.[131] 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’.[132]
[131] Direction no. 110, para 8.4(1)-(2).
[132] Direction no. 110, para 8.4(3).
Paragraph 8.4(4) of Direction no. 110 goes on to outline the factors that a decision-maker must consider when determining the best interests of a child affected by the decision where relevant. Those factors include:[133]
[133] Direction no. 110, paras 8.4(4)(a)-(h).
(a)the nature and duration of the relationship between the child and the non-citizen. Less weight should generally be given where the relationship is non-parental, and/or there is no existing relationship and/or there have been long periods of absence, or limited meaningful contact (including whether an existing Court order restricts contact);
(b)the extent to which the non-citizen is likely to play a positive parental role in the future, taking into account the length of time until the child turns 18, and including any court orders relating to parental access and care arrangements;
(c)the impact of the non-citizen’s prior conduct, and any likely future conduct, and whether that conduct has, or will have a negative impact on the child;
(d)the likely effect that any separation from the non-citizen would have on the child, taking into account the child’s or non-citizen’s ability to maintain contact in other ways;
(e)whether there are other persons who already fulfil a parental role in relation to the child;
(f)any known views of the child (with those views being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child);
(g)evidence that the child has been, or is at risk of being, subject to, or exposed to, family violence perpetrated by the non-citizen, or has otherwise been abused or neglected by the non-citizen in any way, whether physically, sexually or mentally; [and]
(h)evidence that the child has suffered or experienced any physical or emotional trauma arising from the non-citizen's conduct.

As noted above, the Applicant is 39 years old. While there is no evidence regarding any plan regarding the Applicant’s unmet treatment needs regarding his substance use, there is nothing to suggest that whatever treatment the Applicant may require in the future would not be available to him in New Zealand.[176]
[176] Direction no. 110, para 9.2(1)(a).
Having lived in New Zealand as a child, there is no evidence before the Tribunal that any language or cultural barriers exist in New Zealand should the Applicant be removed.[177]
[177] Direction no. 110, para 9.2(1)(b).
The Tribunal accepts that the Applicant has no strong family connections in New Zealand, that he has no present relationship with the relatives who do reside in New Zealand, that he has retained no social connections with any friends or other contacts in New Zealand, and that his support network is presently entirely in Australia.[178]
[178] Direction no. 110, para 9.2(1)(c)
While the Applicant may encounter some difficulties establishing himself and maintaining basic living standards in the context of what is generally available to other citizens of that country, if he were to return to New Zealand, the Tribunal regards these difficulties as temporary.[179]
[179] Direction no. 110, para 9.2(1)(c).
The Tribunal also accepts, however, that the Applicant’s removal, in particular his separation from his daughter, nieces and nephews and, in particular, his adult son, would see him face emotional and psychological hardship[180] and evade him of the opportunity to interact with his infant grandson face to face.
[180] Direction no. 110, para 9.2(1)(c).
If removed, the Applicant could maintain family contact by electronic means (although this is not his preference). There is no evidence that the Applicant’s family would be willing and/or able to travel to New Zealand to assist the Applicant to settle or to otherwise visit.
Overall, the Tribunal is satisfied that the extent of impediments if removed consideration weighs slightly in favour of revocation of the Cancellation Decision.
Impact on Australian business interests
Paragraph 9.3(1) of Direction no. 110 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.
The Applicant did not suggest that his removal from Australia would adversely impact Australian business interests.
There is also no evidence the Applicant is involved in the delivery of a major project or important service in Australia.
The Tribunal considers this consideration weighs neutral in the Applicant’s case.
CONCLUSION
The Applicant does not pass the character test under s 501(6) of the Migration Act.
The Tribunal has therefore considered whether there is ‘another reason’ why the Cancellation Decision should be revoked, having regard to the primary and other considerations in Direction no. 110.
Paragraph 7 of Direction no. 110 sets out the way in which the relevant considerations are to be taken into account and weighed.
There has been extensive judicial consideration of how the exercise of balancing and weighing the considerations contained in the relevant Ministerial Directions is to be undertaken (considering a number of Ministerial Directions preceding Direction no. 110).[181]
[181] See Suleiman v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 594, Minister for Home Affairs v HSKJ (2018) 266 FCR 591; [2018] FCAFC 217.
Relevantly, the Full Court of the Federal Court considered the operation of Direction No. 90 in CRNL v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs.[182] While the Court was considering Direction No. 90, it’s observations would apply to Direction no. 110. The Court found that the Tribunal must weigh the various primary and other relevant considerations outlined in the Direction (in this case Direction no. 110) against each other and undertake an evaluation of whether there was ‘another reason’ why the cancellation should be revoked.[183]
[182] [2023] FCAFC 138 (‘CRNL’).
[183] CRNL [35].
In determining the weight to be applied to each consideration, the Tribunal has considered all the primary and other considerations and weighed them in light of the evidence and findings and according to the guidance provided by Direction no. 110. The Tribunal has ascribed weight to each of the primary and other considerations under Direction no. 110 and explained the basis upon which it has assessed the weight to be given to each consideration.
The Tribunal has gone on to compare and balance all of the considerations to determine whether the Cancellation Decision should be revoked.
The Tribunal found that the protection of the Australian community weighs against revocation of the Cancellation Decision and affords the consideration very heavy weight in the Applicant’s circumstances.
The Tribunal found that the consideration of family violence weighs very heavily against revocation of the Cancellation Decision in the Applicant’s case.
The strength, nature and duration of the Applicant’s ties to Australia consideration weighs in favour of revocation. The Tribunal finds slight weight should be afforded to that consideration in the present matter.
The best interests of minor children identified as being impacted by the decision weigh in favour of revocation. Overall, the Tribunal considers slight weight should be afforded this consideration in the Applicant’s circumstances.
The expectations of the Australian community weigh against revocation and the Tribunal finds this consideration should be afforded very heavy weight in the Applicant’s case.
In relation to the relevant ‘other considerations’ identified in Direction no. 110, the Tribunal finds that the legal consequences of the decision consideration weighs neither for nor against revocation for the reasons given. The extent of impediments if removed consideration weighs slightly in favour of revoking the Cancellation Decision. The impact on Australian businesses weighs neutrally in the Applicant’s circumstances.
Having weighed the considerations, the Tribunal finds that:
(a)The first, second, and fifth primary considerations weigh very heavily against revocation of the Cancellation Decision.
(b)The third and fourth primary consideration, and the extent of impediments if removed consideration weigh slightly in favour of revocation of the Cancellation Decision.
(c)The remaining considerations, being legal consequences of the decision and the impact on Australian businesses, weigh neutral.
Paragraph 7(2) of Direction no. 110 states that primary considerations should generally be given greater weight than the other considerations. Further it states that primary consideration 8.1 (protection of the Australian community) is generally to be given greater weight than other primary considerations.
Nothing before the Tribunal would cause the Tribunal to find that that general principle should not apply in the Applicant’s case.
Having weighed the primary and other considerations against each other, the Tribunal is satisfied that appropriate weight has been assigned to each of them. Particularly, the Tribunal is satisfied that the circumstances of the Applicant’s case warrant the very heavy weight placed on the first, second and fifth primary considerations, respectively. Those circumstances being:
(a)the serious view taken by the Australian Government and the Australian community in relation to violent crimes generally, violent crimes against women, and in particular, family violence;[184] and
(b)that the Australian community expects the Australian Government to cancel the visas of those persons who do not obey Australian laws.[185]
[184] Direction no. 110, para 8.1.1(1)(a).
[185] Direction no. 110, para 8.5(1).
Therefore, while the considerations weighing in favour of revocation of the Cancellation Decision are equal in number to those weighing against revocation, the Tribunal is satisfied that the very heavy weight afforded to the first, second and fifth primary considerations give the result that they carry, overall, far greater weight than the considerations weighing in the favour of revocation.
In summary, having regard to all of the primary and other considerations in Direction no. 110, the Tribunal is not satisfied that there is ‘another reason’ why the Cancellation Decision should be revoked.
The correct or preferable decision is to affirm the Reviewable Decision.
DECISION
The Reviewable Decision, being the decision of the Delegate dated 29 November 2024, to exercise the discretion not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant’s Special Category (Temporary) (Class TY) (Subclass 444) visa under section 501CA(4)(b)(ii) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) is affirmed.

I certify that the preceding 192 (one hundred and ninety two) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of General Member L M Gallagher

............[SGD]............................................................
Associate
Dated: 24 February 2025

Date of hearing: 12 February 2025

Applicant: Self-represented

Solicitors for the Respondent: Ms Alina Ali, Minter Ellison
ANNEXURE A – TABLE OF THE APPLICANT’S OFFENDING HISTORY IN AUSTRALIA
Offending table details drawn from a Check Results Report by the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission run on 13 October 2022, and a History for Court Report by the Western Australian Police Force compiled on 3 January 2025.

Conviction Date	Court	Offence	Offence Date(s)	Court Result
1.	17 September 2021	Albany Magistrates Court	Threaten to Kill	13 March 2021	Imprisonment: 12 months concurrent
2.	17 September 2021	Albany Magistrates Court	Impeded another person’s normal breathing or blood circulation by applying pressure to neck	13 March 2021	Imprisonment: 18 months cumulative
3.	17 September 2021	Albany Magistrates Court	Common Assault in Circumstances of Aggravation or racial Aggravation	13 March 2021	Imprisonment: 8 months concurrent
4.	17 September 2021	Albany Magistrates Court	Common Assault in Circumstances of Aggravation or racial Aggravation	6 March 2021	Imprisonment: 8 months concurrent
5.	17 September 2021	Albany Magistrates Court	Impeded another person’s normal breathing or blood circulation by applying pressure to neck	6 March 2021	Imprisonment: 15 months concurrent
6.	17 September 2021	Albany Magistrates Court	Impeded another person’s normal breathing or blood circulation by applying pressure to neck	6 March 2021	Imprisonment: 15 months concurrent
7.	17 September 2021	Albany Magistrates Court	Impeded another person’s normal breathing or blood circulation by applying pressure to neck	6 March 2021	Imprisonment: 15 months concurrent
8.	17 September 2021	Albany Magistrates Court	Common Assault in Circumstances of Aggravation or racial Aggravation	26 February 2021	Imprisonment: 8 months concurrent
9.	17 September 2021	Albany Magistrates Court	Breach of Bail Undertaking	21 July 2020	Fine: $500
10.	17 September 2021	Albany Magistrates Court	Common Assault	30 May 2020	Imprisonment: 3 months concurrent
11.	17 September 2021	Albany Magistrates Court	Assault Occasioning Bodily Harm	30 May 2020	Imprisonment: 4 months cumulative
12.	17 September 2021	Albany Magistrates Court	Endanger life, health or safety of a person	25 April 2020	Imprisonment: 18 months concurrent
13.	17 September 2021	Albany Magistrates Court	Unlawfully assault and thereby did bodily harm with circumstances of aggravation	25 April 2020	Imprisonment: 2 years concurrent
14.	17 September 2021	Albany Magistrates Court	Cultivate a Prohibited Plant	18 December 2019	Order for Destruction
15.	17 September 2021	Albany Magistrates Court	Cultivate a Prohibited Plant	18 December 2019	Fine: $2000 (global)
16.	17 September 2021	Albany Magistrates Court	Possess a Prohibited Drug (Cannabis)	18 December 2019	Order for Destruction
17.	17 September 2021	Albany Magistrates Court	Possess a Prohibited Drug (Cannabis)	18 December 2019	Fine: $2000 (global)
18.	17 September 2021	Albany Magistrates Court	Possessed drug paraphernalia in or on which there was a prohibited drug or plant	18 December 2019	Order for Destruction
19.	17 September 2021	Albany Magistrates Court	Possessed drug paraphernalia in or on which there was a prohibited drug or plant	18 December 2019	Fine: $2000 (global)
20.	17 September 2021	Albany Magistrates Court	Unlicensed Person Possess Firearm/ Ammunition	18 December 2019	Forfeiture Order Fine: $2000 (global)
21.	17 September 2021	Albany Magistrates Court	Breach of Community Based Order (CBO)	8 June 2019	CBO Expired and Resentenced
22.	17 September 2021	Albany Magistrates Court	Breach of CBO	8 June 2019	Fine: $1200
23.	18 March 2020	Bunbury Magistrates Court	No authority to drive (fines suspended)	27 November 2019	Mdl Disqualified: 3 months cumulative Fine: $500
24.	5 November 2019	Katanning Magistrates Court	Damaging Property	8 June 2019	CBO: 6 months concurrent
25.	15 June 2019	Albany Magistrates Court	Breach of protective bail conditions	11 June 2019	Fine: $700
26.	5 March 2019	Katanning Magistrates Court	Breach of CBO	25 May 2018	CBO: 10 months concurrent
27.	5 March 2019	Katanning Magistrates Court	Breach of CBO	19 November 2017	CBO: 10 months concurrent
28.	5 March 2019	Katanning Magistrates Court	Breach of CBO	19 November 2017	CBO: 10 months concurrent
29.	5 March 2019	Katanning Magistrates Court	Breach of CBO	19 November 2017	CBO: 10 months concurrent
30.	5 March 2019	Katanning Magistrates Court	Person who breaches Conditional Release Order (CRO) or community order without reasonable excuse (4 counts)	19 November 2017	Fine: $300 (global)
31.	6 November 2018	Katanning Magistrates Court	No authority to drive (never held)	27 September 2018	Fine: $100
32.	7 August 2018	Katanning Magistrates Court	Possess a prohibited drug (Methylamphetamine)	25 May 2018	CBO: 8 months concurrent
33.	7 August 2018	Katanning Magistrates Court	Damaging property	19 November 2017	CBO: 8 months concurrent
34.	7 August 2018	Katanning Magistrates Court	Fail To Comply With Request To Give Police Personal Details	19 November 2017	CBO: 8 months concurrent
35.	7 August 2018	Katanning Magistrates Court	Obstructing public officers	19 November 2017	CBO: 8 months concurrent
36.	22 June 2018	Mandurah Magistrates Court	Carried (possessed) an article with intent to cause fear that someone	30 May 2018	Fine: $1000
37.	6 March 2018	Katanning Magistrates Court	No authority to drive (never held)	21 January 2018	Fine: $300 Mdl Disqualified: 3 months concurrent
38.	6 March 2018	Katanning Magistrates Court	Possession of stolen or unlawfully obtained property	6 September 2017	Fine: $450
39.	15 February 2018	Albany Magistrates Court	No authority to drive (never held)	25 November 2017	Fine: $250
40.	15 February 2018	Albany Magistrates Court	Exceed 0.02g alcohol per 100ml of blood; >0.02g/ 100ml but <0.05g/100ml	25 November 2017	Fine: $250 Mdl Disqualified: 3 months concurrent
41.	16 August 2017	Bunbury Magistrates Court	No authority to drive (fines suspended)	5 May 2017	Fine: $200
42.	16 August 2017	Bunbury Magistrates Court	Exceed 0.02g alcohol per 100ml of blood; >0.02g/ 100ml but <0.05g/100ml	5 May 2017	Fine: $300 Mdl Disqualified: 3 months concurrent
43.	5 July 2017	Bunbury Magistrates Court	Possess a Prohibited Drug (Cannabis)	14 March 2017	Fine: $400
44.	5 July 2017	Bunbury Magistrates Court	Possessed drug paraphernalia in or on which there was a prohibited drug or plant	14 March 2017	Fine: $400
45.	5 July 2017	Bunbury Magistrates Court	Driving with prescribed illicit drug	31 January 2017	Fine: $400 Mdl Disqualified: 3 months concurrent
46.	10 May 2017	Bunbury Magistrates Court	Used an unlicensed vehicle	31 January 2017	Fine: $150
47.	10 May 2017	Bunbury Magistrates Court	Provided false or misleading personal details	31 January 2017	Fine: $200
48.	10 May 2017	Bunbury Magistrates Court	No authority to drive (fines suspended)	31 January 2017	Fine: $250
49.	14 September 2016	Bunbury Magistrates Court	No authority to drive (never held)	26 July 2016	Fine: $500
50.	31 May 2016	Katanning Magistrates Court	Possess a Prohibited Drug (Cannabis)	4 May 2016	Fine: $400
51.	31 May 2016	Katanning Magistrates Court	Possess a Prohibited Drug (Cannabis)	4 May 2016	Fine: $400
52.	31 May 2016	Katanning Magistrates Court	Possess a Prohibited Drug (Methylamphetamine)	4 May 2016	Fine: $1000
53.	31 May 2016	Katanning Magistrates Court	Possessed drug paraphernalia in or on which there was a prohibited drug or plant	4 May 2016	Fine: $300
54.	31 May 2016	Katanning Magistrates Court	Possessed drug paraphernalia in or on which there was a prohibited drug or plant	4 May 2016	Fine: $300
55.	31 May 2016	Katanning Magistrates Court	Possessed drug paraphernalia in or on which there was a prohibited drug or plant	4 May 2016	Fine: $300
56.	3 May 2016	Katanning Magistrates Court	Possess a Prohibited Drug (Amphetamine)	7 March 2016	Fine: $1000
57.	2 February 2016	Katanning Magistrates Court	No authority to drive (never held)	11 September 2015	Fine: $400
58.	14 October 2013	Albany District Court of Western Australia	Breach of CRO	18 March 2013	Imprisonment: 1 month concurrent
59.	14 October 2013	Albany District Court of Western Australia	Possession of Prohibited Drugs with Intent to Sell or Supply	18 March 2013	Imprisonment: 1 year 10 months Destruction order
60.	14 October 2013	Albany District Court of Western Australia	Breach of Suspended Imprisonment Order (SIO)	18 March 2013	Imprisonment: 6 months 1 day cumulative
61.	14 October 2013	Albany District Court of Western Australia	Possess Drug Paraphernalia containing prohibited drug/plant	18 March 2013	Imprisonment: 2 months concurrent Destruction order
62.	14 October 2013	Albany District Court of Western Australia	Possess a Prohibited Drug (Cannabis)	18 March 2013	Imprisonment: 2 months concurrent Destruction order
63.	14 October 2013	Albany District Court of Western Australia	Breach of Intensive Supervision Order (ISO)	15 April 2012	Imprisonment: 2 months concurrent
64.	14 October 2013	Albany District Court of Western Australia	Breach of ISO	15 April 2012	Imprisonment: 3 months concurrent
65.	8 January 2013	Kojonup Magistrates Court	Possess a Prohibited Drug (Cannabis)	27 September 2012	Fine: $1000
66.	8 January 2013	Kojonup Magistrates Court	Possess a Smoking Utensil used for smoking prohibited drug	27 September 2012	Fine: $1000
67.	18 December 2012	Katanning Magistrates Court	Breach of Bail Undertaking	21 August 2012	Adult CRO: 6 months $100 undertaking
68.	18 December 2012	Katanning Magistrates Court	Carried (possessed) an article with intent to cause fear that someone	15 April 2012	SIO: 6 months 1 day concurrent suspended 6 months
69.	18 December 2012	Katanning Magistrates Court	Common Assault	15 April 2012	ISO: 10 months
70.	18 December 2012	Katanning Magistrates Court	Damaging property	15 April 2012	ISO: 10 months
71.	18 December 2012	Katanning Magistrates Court	Possess a Smoking Utensil used for smoking prohibited drug	15 April 2012	Fine: $50
72.	18 December 2012	Katanning Magistrates Court	No Authority to Drive – Never held and Disqualified	15 April 2012	Fine: $400 Mdl Disqualified: 9 months
73.	4 September 2012	Kojonup Magistrates Court	Possess a Prohibited Drug (Cannabis)	9 June 2012	Fine: $500
74.	4 September 2012	Kojonup Magistrates Court	Possess a Smoking Utensil used for smoking prohibited drug	9 June 2012	Fine: $500
75.	4 September 2012	Kojonup Magistrates Court	Possess a Smoking Utensil used for smoking prohibited drug	9 June 2012	Fine: $500
76.	4 September 2012	Kojonup Magistrates Court	Possess utensil in connection with manufacture/ preparation of prohibited drug/ plant	9 June 2012	Fine: $500
77.	7 October 2008	Kojonup Magistrates Court	Unlawful damage	6 September 2008	Fine: $1000
78.	5 August 2008	Kojonup Magistrates Court	No Driver’s Licence (Fines Suspension)	30 June 2008	Fine: $200
79.	5 August 2008	Kojonup Magistrates Court	Exceed 0.08g alcohol per 100ml of blood; >=0.11g/ 100ml but <0.12g/100ml	30 June 2008	Fine: $1000 Mdl Disqualified: 7 months concurrent
80.	1 July 2008	Kojonup Magistrates Court	Exceed 0.08g alcohol per 100ml of blood	30 April 2008	Fine: $800 Mdl Cancelled 75 RTA: 7 months concurrent
81.	1 July 2008	Kojonup Magistrates Court	No Driver’s Licence	30 April 2008	Fine: $100 Mdl Disqualified S51: 3 months concurrent
82.	1 July 2008	Kojonup Magistrates Court	Reckless Driving – Dangerous to the Public or any Person	30 April 2008	Fine: $100 Mdl Disqualified: 6 months cumulative
83.	5 June 2007	Kojonup Magistrates Court	Disorderly behaviour in public place	30 May 2007	Fine: $600
84.	5 June 2007	Kojonup Magistrates Court	Disorderly behaviour in public place	30 May 2007	Fine: $600
85.	24 January 2007	Kojonup Magistrates Court	No Motor Drivers Licence – Under Fines Suspension	12 September 2006	Fine: $300 Disq Hold/Obt Mdl: 3 months
86.	4 December 2006	Albany District Court of Western Australia	Assault Occasioning Bodily Harm	24 March 2005	ISO: 12 months
87.	4 December 2006	Albany District Court of Western Australia	Assault Occasioning Bodily Harm	24 March 2005	ISO: 12 months
88.	2 May 2006	Kojonup Magistrates Court	Excess 0.08%	-	Fine: $600 Disq Hold/Obt Mdl: 4 months
89.	2 May 2006	Kojonup Magistrates Court	No Motor Drivers Licence	-	Fine: $300 Disq Hold/Obt Mdl: 2 months concurrent sect 51
90.	3 February 2004	Kojonup Court of Petty Sessions	Drugs possess utensil for preparation	-	Fine: $300
91.	3 February 2004	Kojonup Court of Petty Sessions	Possess smoking implement	-	Fine: $300
92.	3 February 2004	Kojonup Court of Petty Sessions	Possess prohibited drug	-	Fine: $500
93.	6 January 2004	Kojonup Court of Petty Sessions	Possess prohibited drug (2 counts)	-	Count 1: Fine: $400 Count 2: Fine: $300
94.	16 December 2003	Kojonup Court of Petty Sessions	Assault common	-	CBO: 12 months 100 hours comm work
95.	16 December 2003	Kojonup Court of Petty Sessions	Criminal damage	-	CBO: 12 months 100 hours comm work
96.	16 December 2003	Kojonup Court of Petty Sessions	Breach of bail	-	CBO: 12 months 100 hours comm work

Date of hearing:	12 February 2025
Applicant:	Self-represented
Solicitors for the Respondent:	Ms Alina Ali, Minter Ellison