Sareooka and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (Migration) - [2025] ARTA 2083

Sareooka and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (Migration) [2025] ARTA 2083 (15 October 2025)
Applicant:Haitham Hanna Sareooka
Respondent: Minister for Immigration and Citizenship
Tribunal Number: 2025/4503
Tribunal:General Member J Cipolla
Place:Sydney
Date:15 October 2025

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

Statement made on 15 October 2025 at 12:07pm
Catchwords
MIGRATION – mandatory visa cancellation under s 501(3A) of the Migration Act 1958 - where applicant does not pass the character test – citizen of Iraq - applicant has a substantial criminal record – whether the decision should be revoked under subsection 501CA(4) – consideration of Ministerial Direction 110 – family violence - best interests of children – reviewable decision-revoked
Legislation
Migration Act 1958 (Cth)
Secondary Materials
Direction no. 110 – Visa refusal and cancellation under section 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under section 501CA
Statement of Reasons
INTRODUCTION

Mr Haitham Sareooka (the Applicant) is a 50 year-old citizen of Iraq, who seeks review of a decision of a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (the Respondent) not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of his Class XB Subclass 202 Global Special Humanitarian visa (the visa) pursuant to subsection 501CA(4) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).
For the reasons that follow, the Tribunal has decided to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant’s visa.
BACKGROUND
The evidence before the Tribunal indicates that the Applicant was born in Iraq in 1975. The Applicant and his family applied for Class XB Subclass 202 Global Special Humanitarian visas. The Applicant and his family, consisting at that time of his wife and two older children, were granted the visas and arrived in Australia in March 2020. The Applicant and his estranged wife had a third child, a daughter, who was born in Australia in 2021. The evidence indicates that the Applicant’s estranged wife’s parents were also granted Global Special Humanitarian visas and arrived in Australia with the Applicant and his family.
CANCELLATION DECISION
On 29 January 2025, the Applicant’s visa was mandatorily cancelled under s501(3A) of the Act as he did not pass the character test because of the operation of s501(6)(a) as he had a substantial criminal record because he was serving a sentence of imprisonment, on a full-time basis, for an offence against a law of the Commonwealth, a State or Territory.
On 30 January 2025, the Applicant made representations seeking revocation of the mandatory cancellation of his visa. On 28 July 2025, a delegate of the Minister decided not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant’s visa.
Evidence of the Applicant to Department Seeking Revocation
The Applicant provided a statement to the Department seeking revocation of the cancellation of his visa. The statement which is dated 13 June 2025 is located in the G documents at pages 103-105.
The applicant states that he understands the seriousness of the circumstances that led to the cancellation of his visa. The applicant states that he accepts full responsibility for the crimes for which he has been convicted and understands that his previous actions are serious and have no place in the Australian community.
The applicant states that he is sorry for the fear and distress that he caused his wife and father-in-law with respect to his offending behaviour and the negative impact that his actions have had upon his children and family. The applicant also understands that his actions have broken the trust that the Australian Government put in him when he was given a visa to Australia. The applicant stated that he respects Australian law, and the orders issued by the court and there is no excuse to justify his actions. The applicant states that he is not attempting to excuse the way that he acted with respect to his offending claims and that at the time of his offending he had a significant problem with alcohol. The applicant stated that he was a different man at the time of his offending and that his actions were out of character and not part of his values. The applicant stated that he had never had issues with anybody in the past and he had never caused problems with the police or caused any issues during the term of his imprisonment.
The applicant stated that at the time of his offending, he struggled to control his behaviour. The applicant stated that he first started consuming alcohol when he was in his early 20s in Iraq. The applicant stated that over the years drinking became a problem for him without him realising it. The applicant stated in 2017 he was diagnosed with diabetes and that drinking alcohol was not helping his condition and led to irritability and anger issues. The applicant stated that alcohol made him a different person and he was too deep into his addiction to see this for himself because alcohol clouded his judgement and made him act in ways that he would not act when he was not under the influence of alcohol.
The applicant stated that spending time in prison and subsequently in immigration detention had been a very difficult experience. He used this period to reflect on his life, his children, and his actions, leading him to his current predicament. The applicant stated that being locked away and separated from his family really forced him to confront the person that he had become because of his alcohol abuse and claims that the period has served as a turning point in his life. The applicant stated that he has learned his lesson, he has given up alcohol, which he notes is freely available in immigration detention. The applicant stated that since he was convicted and sentenced, that this is the longest period in his life that he has been without alcohol since he started drinking in his early 20s. The applicant stated that withdrawal from alcohol initially was difficult, however he now feels much better and feels like a new person.
The applicant stated that since he has been in immigration detention that he has been trying to engage in courses dealing with alcohol rehabilitation and has enrolled in a course. The applicant stated that he is remorseful for how he allowed alcohol to take control of his life and that he would never let alcohol have that power over him again. The applicant stated that he promised for the sake of his three children that he would not let this happen again. The applicant stated that his wife means a lot to him and is the mother of his three children. He stated that they had been through a lot together. He understands the pain and hurt that he has caused her. He feels deep regret and shame that he made his wife feel fearful for her safety. The applicant stated that in the future he hopes that one day he will be able to ask his wife for forgiveness, saying that his biggest wish is to prove to his wife that he is a changed man. The applicant stated that he would like to get back together with his wife and family but could completely understand and respect her decision if she did not agree to this.
The applicant stated that since committing his criminal offending, that he had become more responsible and wiser and that he is thinking more clearly and functioning at a higher level. The applicant stated that his two older children were supportive of him and do not want him to drink alcohol anymore. The applicant claims that he respects his older children’s wishes and acknowledges the difficulty that his behaviour and subsequent incarceration caused them.
The applicant stated that he is a religious man, and that faith has been an important part of his life and the way that he behaved in the past was against his religious sensibilities.
The applicant stated that he is aware of the comments made by the sentencing judge, noting that he had been given opportunities in the past that could have reduced his sentence and that he had shown complete disregard for those opportunities and claims that he had no insight into the serious nature of his ongoing domestic violence. The applicant claims that his behaviour was not a true reflection of himself and was more a reflection of a version of him fully controlled by an addiction to alcohol.
The applicant states that he hopes to be given an opportunity to prove that he is committed to going forward in a respectful way and being a law-abiding member of the Australian community. The applicant stated that his three children mean everything to him. The applicant stated that the potential of being apart from his children, particularly his infant daughter who at the time of this statement was only 3 years old, is a reality that he cannot stand to think about. The applicant stated that he had always been a part of his children’s life and acknowledges his past actions have caused him much distress. The applicant claims that if he is forced to leave Australia it will be devastating for his children, especially his youngest child Jessica, who was an infant. The applicant stated that he understands that the expectation of the Australian community is for him to obey the law, respect others and be peaceful and acknowledges that his past actions failed to meet these community standards.
The applicant claims to be committed to remaining sober, to understanding his past mistakes and living a respectful life going forward. The applicant stated that he wanted to make a positive contribution to the lives of his children.
The applicant stated that if he was forced to return to Iraq, that he believes that he would experience serious harm in that country, that he arrived in Australia in 2020 with his family as the holder of a Global Humanitarian visa because he had a well-founded fear of persecution in Iraq and needed protection. The applicant stated that he believed that if he went back to Iraq he would be killed.
On 31 July 2025 the Applicant applied to have the delegate’s decision reviewed by the Tribunal.
OFFENDING HISTORY AND SENTENCING COMMENTS
The Tribunal has before it a copy of the Applicant’s national criminal history record, which was printed on 24 January 2025, indicates that the Applicant’s conviction history is referable, to family violence related convictions, in 2024.
The history check indicates that the Applicant was the subject of an apprehended violence order (AVO). The evidence indicates that the Applicant contravened the AVO.
The evidence indicates that on 25 July 2024 the applicant appeared in the Fairfield Local Court on two counts of contravening a prohibition/restriction with respect to an AVO, one count of stalk/intimidate intense fear of physical harm and one count of common assault. The applicant was convicted of this offending and made the subject of a conditional release order (CRO) commencing on 25 July 2024 and concluding on 24 January 2025. The order required the applicant to report to Fairfield Community Corrections within seven days and noted that the CRO would be the subject of supervision by community corrections in Fairfield.
The evidence indicates that the applicant contravened the CRO and was bought back before Fairfield Local Court with respect to the breach on 30 October 2024. The evidence indicates that on 30 October 2024, the applicant was convicted of a number of charges of stalk/intimidate intense fear of physical harm (domestic), contravene a prohibition/restriction in AVO (domestic) and common assault. For this offending and the breach of the CRO, the applicant was the subject to an aggregate term of imprisonment of 12 months commencing on 24 September 2024 and concluding on 23 September 2025, with a non-parole period of 6 months commencing on the 24 September 2024 and concluding on 23 March 2025.
The evidence indicates that the applicant initiated a severity appeal from the decision of the Fairfield Local Court to the Parramatta District Court, however the appeal was withdrawn by the applicant and did not proceed. The evidence indicates that the withdrawal came about when the District Court Judge, Justice Hanley, advised the Applicant that if he was to proceed with the severity appeal there would be an increase in sentence, the Judge gave the Applicant an opportunity to withdraw which he did.
SENTNCING COMMENTS FAIRFIELD LOCAL COURT.
The Applicant appeared before Magistrate Manea in the Fairfield Local Court on 30 October 2024 with respect to his breach of the conditional release order (CRO) imposed by that court on 25 July 2024.
Magistrate Manea’s sentencing comments can be found at pages 45-53 of the G documents.
Her Honour states that the applicant had been given two opportunities for leniency with respect to his offending given his age, his circumstances and the fact that he had no criminal antecedents prior to his 2024 offending. It was noted that the applicant had shown a complete disregard for those opportunities and had no insight into the serious nature of his ongoing domestic violence evidenced over the 20 years of his marital relationship. It was noted that the facts before the court indicated that there were “two instances where you pushed your wife, and she lost balance. Another where you grabbed her around the wrist, and then there is two other occasions where you spat at her.” It was noted that the applicant wished to plead guilty to these matters. Her Honour noted “he seems to be attributing some of his offending to alcohol,” but then said, “consuming alcohol is like drinking water”, and then he said, “he acknowledges it has destroyed his life.”
The applicant’s representative in the sentencing proceedings made submissions on behalf of the applicant noting that he accepted responsibility for his offending behaviour and that he feels remorseful and shameful. It was submitted on behalf of the applicant that “he also can see the role the drinking has played in his offending behaviour, tells me that that it took place out of boredom. He tells me he doesn’t have any mental health issues, understands that he will need to engage in some form of intervention to deal with his drinking problem and that he seeks the forgiveness of the court.”
Her Honour noted the ongoing imposition of an apprehended violence order stating that “he is not to do anything to make Mufafa Noorad Sarwan, or anyone he has a domestic relationship with, fearful or frightened. He cannot assault or threaten them, stalk, harass or intimidate them, and that also applies to his ex-wife, or his former wife, Ms Sarwan. He cannot approach either of them or contact them in any way, unless the contact is through a lawyer. He cannot go within 200 metres of any place they live or work. Does he understand if he does that he can be arrested and charged? In relation to the matters, I’m going to revoke the CRO’s. In relation to them, I’m going to deal with the first matter, which is-apologies-the H ending in 530 of which I gave him a non-conviction for the threats to kill. It is now a conviction, and he is imposed a CCO for that for a period of 12 months. The breach is proven. Supervision with Community Corrections to do with alcohol, counselling, report within seven days of release, and in relation to the common assault, he is also now convicted. I convicted him and gave him a six-month CRO. It is now a 12-month CRO for that as well. In relation to the other matters, I am of the view that section 5 is crossed now on that, and it is revoking the CRO, and I am imposing a sentence-a fixed-term sentence of six months. That is in relation to the matters of which I gave him non-convictions. Alcohol is an issue with him. He needs supervision in the community. Based on the current offending, that is committed, whilst he is on those two bonds. The offences I’m going to deal with, I’m going to impose a term of imprisonment of 12 months, with a non-parole period of six months. They are objectively serious offences. They include threats to kill her, threats to kill her and her daughter. The conduct includes spitting on her at least on two separate occasions. The violence escalated over the days that they had been committed, and in my view, there is no other penalty other than full-time imprisonment to send a very specific deterrent message to him that he cannot speak this way or treat women in this way. He has made derogatory comments on her, spat on her, “I will kill you slowly”, “I will bash you”. “If you report the incident to police, I will kill you and your daughter. If you say anything, I will get you.””
In conclusion, her Honour wished the applicant all the best upon his release from prison and suggested that he get some help for his alcohol addiction and that if he failed to do that, he would end up remaining in custody for a long period of time. It was noted that the applicant had pled guilty to the offending at the earliest opportunity and that upon release from prison that he had to report to the Fairfield Community Corrections Centre.
APPLICANTS STATEMENT 17 September 2025
The Applicant notes that he was born in 1975 in Iraq and that he had a very unstable upbringing because of conflict, killings, murders, bombings and church attacks in that country. The applicant fled to Jordan in 2017 because of claimed threats to his life.
The applicant arrived in Australia on 7 March 2020 as the holder of the global humanitarian visa. The applicant stated that he and his family lived with his sister-in-law for one month before moving into their own residence in Prairiewood.
The applicant stated that when he arrived in Australia, he was 45 years old and did not speak any English. Soon after arriving in the country the global pandemic occurred. The applicant stated that he found it very difficult to find work after the onset of the pandemic and he became a carer for his mother-in-law.
The applicant stated that in around 2023, he worked as an Uber driver for about 12 months for 15 hours per week which was limited because of his caring responsibilities to his mother-in-law.
The applicant stated that after a year of working that he had a problem with the police and Uber prevented him from working because he was under investigation because he had a court case in July 2024 (referable to the domestic violence offending). The applicant lost his job with Uber. The applicant claims that losing his job made him depressed and that his drinking increased, his health declined, and he had conflicts at home.
The applicant stated that he had not consumed alcohol since July 2024 when he went into custody and that he now regularly takes his diabetes and cholesterol medication. The applicant stated that he had also completed alcohol and domestic violence courses which had helped him to learn and change.
The applicant advised that he had three children a daughter aged 22, a son aged 17 and a daughter aged 4. The applicant stated that apart from the time that he had spent in prison and immigration detention he had always lived with his wife and children.
The applicant stated that his wife and children are now living in Smithfield with his father-in-law. The applicant stated that there is an apprehended violence order in place against him in relation to his wife. As a consequence, the applicant stated that he had no contact with her, but he did speak with his children. The applicant stated that he is still married to his wife, and they have not divorced. The applicant stated that if his wife wanted to divorce him, she could have sent him divorce papers through their church, or through court and she had not done this. The applicant noted that the apprehended violence order was made final in October 2024 for a period of two years.
The applicant stated that he felt sorry for the pain that his offending had caused his loved ones. The applicant stated that his imprisonment and immigration detention had caused physical and mental health issues for him which he was learning to manage better.

The applicant stated that he now knows that alcohol is not the answer to stress or sadness and states that he is committed to living a sober, healthier, and more responsible life for the sake of himself and his family.
The applicant stated that if he is released into the community, he will stay with a friend or with his cousin’s son until such time as he can arrange permanent accommodation. The applicant stated that a primary goal is to find stable employment and he has been looking at jobs such as cleaning because he does not have the capacity to engage in heavy physical work. The applicant states that he will continue with regular exercise in the community and engage in reading and activities such as fishing with friends.
The applicant stated that he does not have any plans to contact his wife to avoid problems and to avoid a breach of the apprehended violence order.
The applicant stated that he plans to improve his English and hopes to be able to undertake English language studies upon his release into the community.
The applicant stated that he came to Australia for a safe future for he and his family. The applicant stated that he had no criminal history prior to coming to Australia.
The applicant stated that despite having completed courses in custody that he knows it is important to speak to his doctor about appropriate counselling and treatment when he is released into the community.
The applicant described feeling shame and regret for his behaviour and the impact that it has had upon his family.
The Applicant stated that he cannot return to Iraq because he is a Chaldean Christian. The applicant stated that as a member of a religious minority group that his life would be at serious risk in Iraq and that Christians are targeted. The applicant stated that he has a genuine fear of persecution if he was sent back to Iraq believing that he could be attacked or even killed.
APPLICANTS STATEMENT OF FACTS ISSUES AND CONTENTIONS
The applicant’s solicitor provided a statement of facts issues and contentions which has been duly considered.
The submission notes that the applicant was born in Iraq on 30 June 1975 and arrived in Australia on 7 March 2020 and that he has resided continuously in Australia for the past five years and six months apart from one departure from 20 November 2021 to 28 December 2021 a period of just over one month.
The submission makes reference to the applicant’s offending history.
The submission makes reference to the considerations that a decision maker must have regard to with respect to Direction 110.
Having regard to the protection of the Australian community and the nature and seriousness of the applicant’s conduct, the submission notes that the applicant’s criminal offending commenced in July 2024 and the applicant accepts that his offending is very serious. The submission notes that violent offences particularly those involving domestic violence and those committed against women are regarded as being very serious due to the significant threat that they pose to the safety of individuals and to the broader Australian community.
The submission refers to the applicant’s conviction history from July 2024. With respect to the applicant’s breach of his conditional release order imposed in July 2024 the submission makes reference to the sentencing remarks of the sentencing Magistrate who noted that the seriousness of the applicant’s offending warranted a term of imprisonment. Further that, the Magistrate noted the objective seriousness of the offences and considered that the offender had an issue with alcohol and required supervision in the community. The submission notes that the applicant lodged a severity appeal in the District Court of New South Wales which was subsequently withdrawn on the basis that the appeal may have led to the imposition of a more significant sentence of imprisonment.
It was submitted that the applicant pled guilty to the breach of the conditional release orders on 30 October 2024 which was indicative of genuine contrition and remorse. The applicant’s criminal offending commenced in 2024, some four years after he first arrived in Australia and that prior to this offending the applicant did not have an offending history in Australia. The applicant did not provide misleading information on his incoming passenger card and the applicant has no criminal record in Iraq or in any other country. It is also noted that the applicant has not previously been formally warned about the consequences of offending and that he has not provided misleading information to the Department.
In addressing risk to the Australian community, the submission concedes that should the applicant reoffend in a similar manner that his offending would cause harm to the Australian community and could be deemed as very serious.
The submission notes that the evidence before the Tribunal should lead the Tribunal to be satisfied that the applicant has demonstrated genuine insight and accountability for his offending behaviour.
It is noted that the applicant had submitted a request to participate in a course addressing alcohol rehabilitation and addressing family violence. The applicant provided a letter from his treating doctor noting that he had a history of alcohol abuse and anger issues and that he suffered from depression and anxiety.
The applicant is cognisant of the fact that if he was to reoffend, he is at risk of losing access to his family on a permanent basis and that this consideration is an important factor when assessing his chances of rehabilitation and the likelihood of future offending.
It is conceded that this primary consideration weighs against the applicant.
Having regard to primary consideration 2, family violence, the submission acknowledges that the applicant had engaged in family violence and that it should be deemed to be very serious. Once again it is noted that the applicant has demonstrated insight and remorse with respect to his offending and has undertaken steps towards rehabilitation.
The applicant has accepted responsibility for his offending and exhibited an understanding of the impact on his victims. It is submitted that the applicant has taken concrete steps to change his behaviour and reduce the risk of reoffending, completing programs in domestic violence, anger management and substance abuse. The applicant is also taking positive steps in his daily routine such as exercise, study, and religious reading which has supported his rehabilitation and personal growth. It is noted that the applicant has not reoffended since the incident nor engaged in any further conduct of concern.
It is conceded that this primary consideration weighs against revocation of the cancellation of the applicant’s visa.
Having regard to primary consideration 3, the strength, nature and duration of the applicant’s ties to Australia, the submission notes that the applicant arrived in Australia on 7 March 2020 and has resided in Australia on a permanent basis since that time. It is noted that the applicant’s immediate family are resident in Australia, consisting of his wife, and three biological children.
It is noted that the applicant’s elder daughter, aged 21 has provided a letter of support for her father noting that his absence would disrupt family stability and create issues for his children’s well-being, their future and overall development.
It is noted that the applicant has established strong ties within the Chaldean Catholic Church and has received a letter of support from his local parish priest Father Gurges.
The applicant was employed in Australia as an Uber driver for approximately 12 months and was a carer for his mother-in-law. It is submitted that this consideration weighs heavily in favour of revocation of the visa cancellation.
Having regard to primary consideration 4, best interests of minor children in Australia it is noted that the applicant has three biological children a daughter aged 21, a son aged 17, and a daughter aged 4. The applicant has provided evidence with respect to his concerns about being removed from the lives of his children and believes that this will have a devastating impact on them and cause lifelong pain.
The submission notes that the applicant has played an important and active role in his children’s lives. The submission noted the age of the applicant’s youngest daughter (4) and the importance of the applicant being a continued presence in her life as she grows up to support her well-being and development.
It is noted that given safety concerns in Iraq, it is not feasible for the applicant’s children to travel there to visit their father, nor is relocation an option for them. It is submitted that this consideration weighs heavily in favour of revocation of the visa cancellation.
Having regard to primary consideration 5, expectations of the Australian community submission concedes that this consideration weighs in favour of non-revocation. However, some moderate weight against revocation could be given based on the applicant’s social connections, and employment history in Australia.
Having regard to other considerations, the submission addresses legal consequences of the decision. The submission notes that under section 198 of the Act that unlawful non-citizens are subject to removal from Australia as soon as reasonably practicable and that until their removal they are liable to be detained in immigration detention under section 189 of the Act.
The submission notes the following issues given the Applicant has been issued with a Global Humanitarian visa by the Australian Government.
Under section 198 of the Act, unlawful non-citizens are subject to removal from Australia as soon as reasonably practicable in the circumstances specified within that section. Until their removal, they are liable to be detained under section 189. Additionally, section 197C(1) states that Australia’s nonrefoulement obligations are irrelevant when considering removal under section 198.
71.However, section 197C(3) stipulates that section 198 does not authorise or require the removal of an individual to a country where a ‘protection finding’ has been made during the assessment of a protection visa application, except under the conditions specified in section 197C(3)(c). A ‘protection finding,’ as defined under section 197C(3), indicates that Australia is prohibited from forcibly returning, deporting, or expelling a person to a location where they face a risk of a specific type of harm. This provision reflects Australia’s interpretation and commitment to fulfilling its non-refoulement obligations under international law.
72.Under section 197D, a protection finding can be reassessed if relevant circumstances change. Should it be determined that the individual no longer meets the criteria for a protection finding, Australia’s non-refoulement obligations would cease to apply, and section 197C(3) would no longer be relevant to that individual.
73.The Applicant has expressed serious concerns about being returned to Iraq. He arrived in Australia on a Global Special Humanitarian visa, seeking protection due to threats to his life and the safety of his family. He states that if he is forced to return to Iraq, he fears he will suffer serious harm, and that he would be at risk of being killed and would not survive [GD105].
74.The nature of these claims suggests that Australia’s international nonrefoulement obligations could potentially be engaged in the Applicant’s case. Given the serious risks involved, including potential exposure to harm if returned, it is imperative that these obligations are carefully considered to ensure compliance with international human rights standards and protection guidelines.
75.We concede that the Applicant retains the option to apply for a Protection visa, which would involve a formal and detailed assessment of his non-refoulement claims. This assessment will evaluate the validity of the Applicant’s claims that returning to Iraq would expose him to a risk of serious harm, consistent with Australia’s obligations under the Refugee Convention and international human rights law.
76.Regardless of whether the Applicant’s claims are capable of engaging Australia’s non-refoulement obligations, it is submitted that he faces a real risk of serious harm if returned to Iraq
The submission having regard to the extent of impediments if removed to Iraq, notes that the applicant is 50 years old and has been diagnosed with a number of medical conditions and deficiencies and that the applicant’s access to health services and treatment in Iraq is of a lesser standard than that available to him in Australia. The submission notes that if the applicant were removed to Iraq that his mental health condition would likely worsen exacerbated by the significant distress caused by his separation from his three children.
The submission notes that the applicant holds the view that he would face considerable hardship if removed to Iraq, as he fled to Jordan in 2017 to escape the harm and threats that he experienced in Iraq. The applicant has also expressed significant concern about the inherent risks and safety concerns if his children wish to travel to Iraq to visit him.
The submission notes that the applicant would experience financial hardship and employment barriers if he returned to Iraq, noting country information reports from DFAT which document unemployment in Iraq being high and labour force participation amongst the lowest in the world.
In conclusion, the submission notes that the primary considerations of strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia, as well as best interests of minor children, along with the extent of impediments if removed collectively weighed in favour of the revocation of the cancellation of the applicant’s visa.
RESPONDENTS STATEMENT OF FACTS ISSUES AND CONTENTIONS
The Tribunal received a copy of the respondent’s statement of facts, issues and contentions dated 26 September 2025, which the Tribunal has duly considered.
The submission makes reference to the applicant’s immigration history noting that he arrived in Australia as the holder of a Global Humanitarian visa along with his family on 7 March 2020.
With respect to the applicant’s offending, the submission notes that the applicant committed domestic violence offences between the 15 and 17 February 2024, involving both his estranged wife, and his father-in-law. The offending involved the applicant verbally abusing his victims, attempting to hit his estranged wife, spitting in the direction of his estranged wife, and throwing a shoe at his father-in-law which struck him in the chest. In addition to this he threatened to kill his victims as he was taken away by the police. As a consequence of the offending, the applicant was made the subject of two apprehended domestic violence orders listing his wife and father-in-law as the protected persons.
As a consequence of these offences, the applicant was sentenced in the Fairfield Local Court to conditional release orders imposed on 25 July 2024. The applicant breached these orders.
On 30 October 2024, the Applicant was brought back before the court with respect to these breaches. The applicant was convicted of a number of domestic violence offences in the Fairfield Local Court. These included stalk/intimidate intense fear of physical harm in a domestic setting, five counts; common assault in a domestic violence setting three counts; and contravene prohibition/restriction in apprehended violence order domestic, two counts.
As a consequence of the convictions for breaches of the conditional release orders, and the apprehended domestic violence order, the Fairfield Local Court on 30 October 2024 imposed an aggregate term of imprisonment of 12 months. The conditional release order imposed by the court on 25 July 2024 was revoked, and the applicant was also given a community corrections order for a period of 12 months.
The submission notes that the applicant’s visa was cancelled under s 501(3A) of the Act on 29 January 2025. The applicant applied for revocation of the cancellation decision and provided statements in support of revocation. On 28 July 2025, the Departmental delegate decided not to revoke the cancellation of the applicant’s visa.
The submission notes that the issues in the review are whether the applicant passes the character test and if not, whether there is another reason why the mandatory cancellation of the visa should be revoked having regard to the relevant considerations in Ministerial Direction 110.
The submission makes reference to the principles governing the operation and application of Direction 110.
In terms of contentions, the submission addresses the considerations set out in Direction 110.
In regard to protection of the Australian community, the submission notes the nature and seriousness of the applicant’s conduct, the fact that he was made the subject of apprehended violence orders and conditional release orders by the Fairfield Local Court in July 2024 which he completely disregarded and breached. This led to him being sentenced for the breaches by the court in October 2024. The submission notes that the applicant had displayed a complete disregard for the Australian legal system and that the cumulative impact of his offending on his victims was apparent from the evidence of the court and that his victims would have held significant fear for their safety. The submission notes that the applicant’s criminal conduct was extremely serious.
With respect to the risk to the Australian community, the submission contends that if the applicant were to commit similar offences it would be likely to cause physical and emotional harm to his victims as well as those persons who lived with the victims. It is further noted that the applicants’ offences were committed in front of his children. The submission posits that there is a moderate risk of the applicant committing similar offences in the future based on a number of factors. Firstly, there is a sentencing assessment report from 28 October 2024 in which the author formed the view that the applicant was at a ‘medium risk’ of reoffending. Further that the applicant has a view, with respect to his attitude towards women, alleging that all women are liars, indicative of limited insight and personal responsibility for his offending behaviour. Further the applicant’s breach of the apprehended domestic violence order and the community release order imposed by the courts in July 2024. The submission contends that protection of the Australian community weighs very heavily against revocation.
Having regard to family violence, the submission notes that the Australian government has serious concerns about allowing non-citizens who engage in family violence to remain in Australia. The applicant’s criminal offences clearly constitute family violence. The family violence engaged in by the applicant was very serious in nature. The cumulative effect of the applicant’s frequent offending in this respect was apparent based on the evidence. The applicant caused his victims to fear for their safety and the applicant’s children have been exposed to family violence. The evidence suggests that on one occasion the applicant’s eldest daughter placed herself between the applicant and his estranged wife so that he did not hit her mother.
The submission notes that there is very little evidence of rehabilitation addressing domestic violence and alcohol consumption by the applicant. The submission contends that this consideration weighs very heavily against revocation.
Having regard to the strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia the submission notes that the applicants three children are in Australia and his estranged wife also lives in Australia. The evidence indicates that the applicant is estranged from his wife and her family. The applicant’s eldest daughter is an adult, and his son a 17-years-old and notes the claim that the applicant has provided emotional support and a sense of security to them and that the cancellation of their father’s visa would be impactful upon them.

The submission notes that the applicant has only resided in Australia since 2020, a little over five years during which time he spent 12 months in prison and immigration detention. In terms of a work history, he had only worked as an Uber driver for about 12 months on a part time basis and had also received a carers pension with respect to his mother-in-law. The applicant also provided a letter from his local Chaldean Catholic Church indicating he had some connection to the church. The submission notes that some weight should be given to this consideration in favour of revocation.
The submission notes that the applicant’s son is currently 17 years old and will turn 18 in 5 months, and that the weight that should be given to the applicant’s son is tempered by the fact that he will become an adult very shortly. With respect to the applicant’s youngest daughter Jessica, who is four years old, it is noted that the applicant claims to have a good relationship with his youngest child, however the evidence indicates that since her birth the applicant has committed numerous crimes against the child’s mother and grandfather and has made a limited financial contribution to her well-being. The submission contends that overall, it is open to the Tribunal to give some weight to this consideration in favour of revocation.
Having regard to expectations of the Australian community the submission notes that given the nature and seriousness of the applicant’s offences which involve family violence perpetrated against his wife and his elderly father-in-law that the Australian community would expect that the applicant’s visa remains cancelled. The submission contends that this consideration weighs heavily against revocation.
Having regard to the legal consequences of the decision the submission notes that the applicant claims that he would face harm in Iraq by reason of his religion if he was returned there. The Minister contends that it is open to the applicant to make an application for a protection visa during which time his claims for protection and Australia’s non-refoulement obligations will be tested. The submission notes that if the applicant does in fact apply for a protection visa that he would not be liable for removal from Australia until such time as his protection visa application is finally determined. The submission further notes that if there was a positive protection finding made with respect to the applicant that he would not be liable for removal unless one of the events in section 197(C)(3)(c)of the Act take place.
The submission notes that because the applicant has not yet applied for a protection visa that section 197C(3) of the Act is not presently engaged and hence the immediate legal effect of the Tribunal’s decision to affirm the cancellation would be that the applicant is liable for removal from Australia as soon as reasonably practicable, having regard to s 198 of the Act.
The submission notes that if the Tribunal affirmed the decision that the applicant is prohibited from applying for another visa other than a protection visa or a Bridging R visa.
The submission contends that this consideration should be given neutral weight.
Having regard to the extent of impediments if the applicant was removed from Australia the submission notes that the applicant is 50 years of age, suffers with diabetes, does not appear to require significant medical intervention, and that whilst country information reports indicate that access to medical services is limited in Iraq, the consideration requires the Tribunal to consider what is generally available to other citizens of that country. The submission notes that there are no obvious language or cultural barriers which would prevent the applicant’s reintegration into Iraqi society given that he had been living in that country until 2017 at which time he and his family travelled to Jordan. The submission contends that this consideration should be given little weight in favour of revocation.
Having regard to Australian business interests the submission notes that this consideration does not apply and should be given neutral weight.
In conclusion the submission notes that protection of the Australian community, family violence committed by the applicant, the expectations of the Australian community are considerations that collectively, weigh heavily in favour of cancelling the applicant’s visa.
On the other hand, the submission contends that strength, nature and ties to Australia along with best interests of minor children in Australia should be given some weight having regard to the evidence before the Tribunal in favour of revocation. With respect to legal consequences of the decision, the impact on Australian business interests and the extent of impediments if the applicant was removed from Australia that these other considerations should be given neutral weight by the Tribunal.
The submission contends that overall, the evidence indicates that the correct or preferable decision is to affirm the decision under review.
Character references
The Applicant’s Parish Priest Father Maher Gurges from St Thomas the Apostle Chaldean Catholic Diocese of Australia and New Zealand provided a reference on behalf of the Applicant which is dated 11 May 2025 located in the G documents at page 109.
Father Gurges noted that the Applicant was a member of the Australian Chaldean Catholic Community and that he attended Sunday mass at his church with his family and that on occasion he participated in church activities.
Father Gurges advised that he had spoken to the Applicant since he had been in immigration detention. Father Gurges noted that the Applicant openly shared that excessive alcohol consumption had negatively affected his relationship with his family. Father Gurges noted the Applicant had expressed that he deeply regretted his alcohol use and was remorseful for the impact that it had on his family. Father Gurges noted that “if the Applicant was stripped of his residency, it would have devastating consequences for him, as he had no country where he can seek safe refuge. He notes that “his family is eager to welcome him back into their lives, believing that everyone deserves a second chance”. Father Gurges stated that the Applicant is committed to “improving his life and living in harmony with others”. Father Gurges opined that the Applicant had made mistakes for which he was remorseful and has expressed a determination to become a responsible and upstanding citizen”.
The Applicant’s elder daughter, Jusleen Hanna, wrote a statement on 10 May 2025 in support of her father.
Ms Hanna explains that in her statement she wanted to express how the potential removal of her father would impact herself, and her younger siblings, especially her youngest sibling Jessica.
Ms Hanna explains that her father had always been involved in her life, driving her before she had a licence, offering advice and providing solutions to problems. She describes going fishing, shopping and attending church as a family.
Ms Hanna states that her father gave her emotional support during difficult times, for example, when Ms Hanna did not get an offer of a place at university.
Ms Hanna describes the impact of her father’s imprisonment and immigration detention upon her. The lack of physical touch, engaging only via telephone, occasional visits and through exchanging messages. Ms Hanna describes she and her father talking about daily routines, checking on each other’s welfare and describes the period of separation as strengthening their relationship.
Ms Hanna states that her father is a very important person in her life and that despite everything she still loves him. Ms Hanna states that she values her father’s presence as he provides her with security and stability. Ms Hanna states that her father was an important person in her younger sister Jessica’s life and that Jessica misses him a lot and asks when he is coming home.
Ms Hanna states that when she found out that her father’s visa had been cancelled, she felt both sad and afraid and was anxious about being apart from her father and not knowing what may happen next. Ms Hanna states that the absence of her father had been very difficult and that she missed his support. Ms Hanna states that she is sad and anxious at the thought of her father’s permanent removal from Australia. The impact that this has had upon her has included trouble focusing and at times feeling overwhelmed. Ms Hanna stated that it had impacted on her friendships and that she had been more isolated, and lonely, since her father was removed from her life.
Ms Hanna states that she believes that her father should be allowed to stay in Australia because he has worked very hard in an attempt to build a stable life for the family. Ms Hanna states that nobody can replace the presence of her father in her life and the life of her siblings.
Ms Hanna states that her father is a good man, especially when he is not under the influence of alcohol and when he was not drinking. Ms Hanna states that her father had struggled to cease alcohol consumption and had failed to get professional help which led him to struggle. Ms Hanna states that her father has advised her that since his imprisonment and detention that he has abstained from alcohol and no longer feels attached to alcohol. Ms Hanna states that if her father returns to the community that she had discussed a plan with his general practitioner for him to be monitored and supported in the community. Ms Hanna states that she is committed to ensuring that her father obtains the professional support he needs going forward.
In conclusion, Ms Hanna states that she wants to be given an opportunity to have her father being a presence in her life. Ms Hanna states that she believes her father has learned his lesson by his imprisonment and immigration detention. Ms Hanna also provided some photographs of her father mother and siblings in happier times.
REVIEW HEARING 1 and 2 October 2025
The Tribunal conducted an in person hearing in Sydney on 1 and 2 October 2025. The Applicant attended along with his legal representative Ms Mamarot. The Applicant and the Tribunal were assisted by an accredited Arabic interpreter. The Applicant confirmed that he had no problem understanding the interpreter. The Minister was represented by Mr Gao special counsel.
At the outset of the hearing the Tribunal went into considerable detail about the process of merits review, the respective issues in the review, the prospective outcomes of the review. The Tribunal also outlined how the hearing would be conducted.
The Tribunal noted its receipt of the Applicant’s tender bundle, the Respondents tender bundle, the G documents, the Applicant and the Respondent’s statement of facts, issues and contentions and the joint tender bundle and confirmed its consideration of these documents.
Neither the Applicant’s representative or the Minister’s representative elected to make an opening statement and advised the Tribunal that they were both reliant on their statement of facts, issues and contentions.
The applicant advised that he was born and raised in Iraq, a country he fled in 2017. The applicant stated that he worked as a taxi driver in Iraq. He advised that he and his family consisting of his wife and two children fled to Jordan in 2017. The applicant claimed the family fled because the Iranian militias were threatening. The applicant stated that his family had lived in Kirkuk.
The Applicant stated that he returned to Iraq from Australia in 2021. The applicant stated the reason was that his mum was dying. The applicant advised that he did not return to Kirkuk but to Erbil in the north of Iraq. The applicant stated that he received an exemption from Centrelink to travel and that he was receiving a carers benefit, with respect to his mother-in-law. The applicant advised the Tribunal that he was in Iraq for one month and seven days. The applicant stated that if he had of returned to Kirkuk, he would have been threatened but there were no such threats in Erbil. The applicant advised that his parents purchased a residence in Erbil.
The applicant stated that during the three years that he and his family resided in Jordan between 2017 and 2020 that his sister Houda, a Swedish citizen, would send the family $US300 per month to survive on. The applicant advised that he had another two sisters, resident in Iraq, residing with his parents in Erbil.
The applicant advised that apart from his ex-wife and three children in Australia that he had three first cousin’s resident in Australia. He advised that his ex-wife’s sister had sponsored his family to Australia along with his ex-wife’s parents.
The Tribunal noting that the applicant and his family arrived on global humanitarian visas in 2020 asked what assistance the applicant and his family derived from the Australian government helping them settle in. The applicant stated that soon after arriving in Australia the Coronavirus (COVID -19) hit. The government offered the family English language lessons, they provided them with access to Centrelink, they provided the family with furniture when they located rental accommodation in Prairiewood. The applicant stated that because his ex-wife’s parents resided with him and his family, and that Centrelink paid benefits for six people. The applicant stated that the Centrelink benefits would be used to cover the payment of rent and food. The applicant stated that the government also provided the family with Opal cards for free travel.
The applicant was questioned about his three children. It was noted that the applicant had not had much contact with his family since his imprisonment and immigration detention. The applicant stated that he could not call his family because of the existence of an apprehended violence order. The applicant was asked whether the order extended to his children, and he advised it was only to protect his ex-wife. The applicant confirmed that his eldest daughter and son had visited him in immigration detention on one occasion. They did not visit him in prison. The applicant stated that the last time that he spoke to his son was about one month ago. The applicant’s recollection of his son and daughter visiting him in detention was that it occurred in May 2025. The applicant stated that his son was affected by seeing his father in a detention facility that impacted him psychologically and he did not call any more after that. The applicant stated that his elder daughter advised that his son was suffering with depression and had been adversely impacted by seeing his father in detention.
The applicant was asked how often he spoke to his eldest daughter. The applicant advised that he cannot talk to her because she works and studies and that he did not want to bother her, and they would just exchange text messages normally on a Saturday or Sunday. The applicant stated it depended how he was feeling and that if he felt unwell psychologically, he did not message her.
Reference was made to paragraph 26 of the applicant’s statement stating that he wanted to study, work and live a stable life in Australia. The applicant stated that in the one year that he had been in prison and immigration detention that he had given up drinking because alcohol was overwhelming him and controlling his brain. The applicant stated that if he leaves prison that he needs to learn a trade or go fishing or take up sport. The applicant stated that when he was convicted for his offending, he was prevented from working as an Uber driver. The applicant stated that he was very sad about the loss of employment because he was very happy in the Uber job. The applicant stated because of his Centrelink carer benefit he was limited to working 15 hours a week for Uber.
Reference was made to paragraph 27 of the applicant’s statement. The applicant stated that he felt shame and regret for his behaviour and the trouble that he caused his family and himself and the applicant stated that he accepted that his actions created problems.
The applicant was asked why the Tribunal should believe that he has changed. The applicant advised that what he did ruined his life, and it was all because of his drinking. The applicant claimed that drinking caused the problems between himself and his ex-wife. The applicant stated that when he was in prison, he witnessed humiliation. The applicant stated that he was 50 years old, he was ashamed for what he had done, he was also remorseful.
Mr Gao questioned the applicant. The applicant advised that he was a citizen of Iraq. He confirmed that he lived in Jordan from 2017 until 2020. He advised that his parents and two sisters resided in Erbil in northern Iraq. He advised his parents do not work and they managed to buy a property as a result of an inheritance. The applicant stated that one of his sisters looks after his parents, the other sister is married and has moved back in with them. He noted she had been married for seven years and had no children. The applicant stated that his sister in Sweden came to visit the family in Northern Iraq from time to time and would bring them clothes and presents and money. The applicant stated that his parents survived financially because his father received a pension and that both his sister’s worked.
The applicant was asked whether there was any reason that he could not live with his parents in Iraq if he had to return. The applicant stated that it would be very hard because he is used to life in Australia. The applicant stated that he had made an effort to bring his ex-wife and children to Australia for a better future. The applicant stated that in addition to this he was a sick person. The applicant stated that when he spoke to his mother on the phone that she advised him to look after his family and stated that it was lucky that he moved away to a better place.
The applicant was asked whether he could drive a taxi in Erbil and he advised that he cannot live there because he is used to life in Australia and that if he was to leave, he believed his heart would stop and he would be finished. In addition, the applicant stated that his family were in Australia.
The applicant gave evidence about the inception of his relationship with his ex-wife noting they married in 2002. He advised his eldest daughter was born in 2004 that his son was born in either 2008 or 2009 and that his youngest daughter was born in Australia in 2021.
The applicant was questioned about travelling to Iraq in 2021 for one month and seven days. It was noted that the applicant was very specific about the time that he was away. The applicant stated that the travel agent that arranged the ticket specified the period, the applicant stated that around that time his mother was dying, and he remembered the date.
The applicant was questioned about the early period of his marriage to his ex-wife. The applicant stated that the marriage was good. The couple travelled to his grandparents after the wedding. He and his wife lived with his parents for 10 years because they could not afford a place of their own. The applicant stated that he worked as a taxi driver and also did some trading, selling birds.
The applicant was asked whether he was aware that his ex-wife was wanting to divorce him, and he stated that she is seeking a divorce and that his eldest daughter had told him about this. The applicant was asked whether there had been a discussion about divorce prior to May 2025 and the applicant stated that when he argued with his ex-wife and his ex-wife was nervous, she would mention divorce, but when they reconciled, she was not serious.
The applicant was asked whether the arguments between he and his ex-wife occurred in Australia or in Iraq and the applicant stated mainly in Australia. The applicant confirmed that he had not spoken to his ex-wife since his incarceration. The applicant was asked whether his wife threatened to get a divorce at any time between 2020 and 2025. The applicant stated that between 2020 and 2022 he and his ex-wife were fine, however, the divorce arguments happened between 2023 and 2024. The applicant stated that they would talk about divorce when his ex-wife was agitated or anxious. The applicant identified that the reasons for arguments with his ex-wife was his daily drinking and the fact that he was not working.

The applicant was asked when he first started using alcohol and he advised when he was 18 and conscripted into the Iraqi military. The applicant stated that he only drank a little in Iraq because it was not appropriate to drive a taxi with your breath affected by alcohol.
The applicant confirmed that he spent four years in the military in Iraq and that he never saw active conflict.
The applicant advised that he would drink twice a week in Iraq and his drinking would depend on his mood and that he would drink beer and mastiha. The applicant stated that he did not get drunk, that it was shameful to be drunk in front of his family and that he only drank at dinnertime. The applicant stated that he drank more in Australia. The applicant stated that he did not take drugs. The applicant reiterated that it was shameful to get drunk in front of his family and was socially unacceptable to do so in Iraq. The applicant stated that in 2020 he and his father-in-law would drink daily in small quantities but did not get drunk. The applicant stated that during 2021 he would drink at home and that as it was lock down because of the global pandemic that his father-in-law would drink with him. The applicant stated that over 2021 he would drink on a regular basis but when he returned to Iraq to visit his family he did not drink. The applicant advised that in 2022 he would drink at celebrations and drank less than in 2021. The applicant stated that the coronavirus in 2020 did impact his drinking because of the lockdowns and that it led to him experiencing minor depression. The applicant claimed that in 2023 he made an attempt to give up drinking, he saw a doctor and cut down. The applicant stated that as a result of medical tests at this time, he learnt that his cholesterol was high and that he had fat on the liver, and he was advised by his doctor to cut down on alcohol. The applicant stated that he did not give up alcohol at this time but cut down considerably.
The applicant stated that in 2024 he started drinking more heavily. The applicant stated that his wife would hassle him with respect to his health, the applicant stated that he was bored, he was not able to find a job and was not in a good mood. The applicant stated that he believed that he started working for Uber in around July 2023 but could not remember the exact date. The applicant stated that he believed that his memory had been compromised since his imprisonment. The applicant stated that he worked for Uber for around six months.
The applicant was taken to the New South Wales police fact sheet from February 2024. The police fact sheet noted that the victims of the applicant’s offending were his ex-wife, and his father-in-law and that the offending was witnessed by his eldest daughter. The offending that led to an argument between the applicant and his ex-wife was about a broken chair. The applicant confirmed that this was the case, and he stated that he remembered raising his voice. The applicant was asked whether he raised his hand and attempted to hit his wife. The applicant advised that he did not hit her that he pushed her and that his eldest daughter pushed him away. The applicant stated that this was an old case and that he only pushed his ex-wife. The applicant stated that he did not want to have a fight with his ex-wife and was arguing with his father-in-law. The applicant stated that his father-in-law was screaming at him and that his father-in-law was drunk. The applicant was asked whether he threw a slipper at his father-in-law and he advised that he did not recall, then added “it was a long distance and it did not hit him and he threw it back at me”.
The applicant stated that he recalled the police attending his residence in February 2024 the applicant stated that when the police arrived, he was outside, and the police were inside. The applicant was asked whether he could recall saying that he would kill his father-in-law. The applicant stated, “I was angry and nervous it came out of my mouth I would not do that he was swearing at my mum and dad, and I was sick, I did not take my diabetes tablet, I was nervous and hungry”.
The applicant confirmed that he was detained at the police station and released the next day. The applicant advised he was given a number of documents by the police. The applicant was asked whether the police explained the operation of an apprehended violence order with respect to his ex-wife and father-in-law. The applicant stated that when he was released from prison, he was told about the apprehended violence order. The applicant stated that after being released from police custody he attended the family residence in Smithfield, he advised that his wife would not let him into the house, that he kissed his father-in-law, apologised and left. The applicant stated that he did not stay home that night. The applicant confirmed that he did not return the next day because the police had contacted him.
The applicant noted that this was his first problem in Australia, that he would not engage in this conduct again, that he was remorseful and that he does not drink. The applicant claimed that he did not know about the operation of the apprehended violence order until it was explained to him by a judge. The applicant conceded that what he did to his father-in-law was wrong. The applicant stated that he had become nervous. The applicant was asked whether he apologised to his wife, and he advised there was no issue between himself and his wife and reiterated that he did not hit her, and that the incident of February 2024 was between himself and his father-in-law.
The applicant was asked about his recollection of going to court in July 2024. The applicant stated that he was accompanied by his ex-wife, his father-in-law and his eldest daughter. The applicant stated that it was an application to revoke the apprehended violence order and to allow him to go back home. The applicant stated that he was sentenced to a community order and a two-year apprehended violence order. The applicant claimed that he did not understand the order. The applicant was asked whether he returned to the family address after the court appearance in July 2025 and he advised that he did.
It was put to the applicant that when he interacted with Fairfield Community Corrections on 25 July 2024, he advised them that he was residing at an address in Fairfield not at the family address in Smithfield. It was put to the applicant that he lied to community services. The Tribunal asked the applicant whether he was legally represented in the Local Court proceedings on 25 July 2024. The applicant stated that he was legally aided and that he had an Arabic interpreter assisting him in court. The applicant confirmed that the apprehended violence order was explained to him and the applicant added “my wife let me move back to Smithfield she lay a trap for me”.
The applicant was asked about his behaviour in February 2024. The applicant stated that he was drinking alcohol because of the loss of his Uber job. The applicant stated that he would drink 5 to 6 cans of beer every two days. The applicant stated that it depended on his mood, the alcohol would make him a bit dizzy, and the sugar would also make him dizzy.
The applicant was questioned about offending in September 2024 at which time he berated his ex-wife when she confronted him about his drinking and the applicant stated this was correct. The applicant was taken to the police fact sheet at JTB 74. This related to a breach of the applicant’s apprehended violence order on 22 September 2024 at which time the applicant had been drinking, that he behaved in a menacing way towards both his ex-wife and his father-in-law. His ex-wife attempted to get between the applicant and her father to defuse the situation and the applicant pushed his ex-wife aside from the shoulders causing her to lose balance. The applicant ex-wife called the police and the applicant shouted “I will show you” and fled the scene. The applicant returned to the family home later that evening and swore and spat at his ex-wife. The applicant was asked to comment. The applicant stated “I was impacted by what I had drunk the night before. I said this to the police. I was drunk and I was very upset. I was still under influence from the night before. I wanted to scare her only. She is my wife, and I love her there were problems, but we would reconcile after, if she says this happened, she needs to provide photos”. The applicant conceded that he grabbed his ex-wife’s wrist.
It was noted that the orders of 25 July 2024 did not preclude the applicant from being within 200 metres of his ex-wife. The applicant stated that he was asking for one more chance and that all of his problems have been caused by alcohol. The applicant confirmed that he pushed his wife with an open hand across her chest. The applicant stated that it was the day after drinking heavily, that he asked for forgiveness, that he was in a bad mood and very nervous, that he was choking internally and regardless of the behaviour he still loved his ex-wife and respected her. The applicant conceded that he did strike his ex-wife’s chest with an open hand he stated that he was drunk, his sugar was up, he was not taking his medication at the time, that his ex-wife agitated him, and the applicant stated that this was the first time that he had given up alcohol and asked for forgiveness.
The applicant again confirmed that on 21 September 2024 he grabbed his ex-wife’s left wrist and then struck her chest with an open hand. When asked why he did this, the applicant stated that his ex-wife was insulting him verbally, that she was swearing at him and she was not acting properly. The applicant stated, “as a man I could not take that she spat at me that is why I got upset my sugar was going up I was upset”.
The applicant was asked what he did to his ex-wife to make her swear at him. The applicant stated that he had a room at the back of the property with pigeons. The applicant stated that his ex-wife came towards him and started insulting him about his drinking. He advised that in this room he had planted a flower that was dear to him and that she lifted the vase that the flower was in and smashed it on the floor. The applicant advised that his four-year-old daughter Jessica was behind her mother at the time and was scared. The applicant told his daughter to calm down.
It was noted that the applicant had claimed on day one of the hearing that he was not able to give a clear account of the offending history but on the second day of hearing he had given a clear account. The applicant was asked what had changed. The applicant stated “yesterday I was scared and could not concentrate. I have a diary at home which I recorded events. I had a look at it yesterday. She has an issue with her thyroid which makes her very nervous”.
The applicant was asked whether he admitted striking his wife’s chest with an open hand and grabbing her left wrist. The applicant stated that he admitted to this offending that he has not lied and that because of the time in prison he is exhausted and psychologically ‘done’. The applicant stated that he did not feel comfortable, that he wanted to see his daughter and go back to his wife.
The applicant was asked why he verbally abused his wife when she retreated to the bedroom during the September 2024 offending. The applicant stated that he was nervous.
The applicant confirmed that the September 2024 offending led to a breach of the apprehended violence order that had been put in place. The applicant was referred to JTB 76 which noted that on 24 September 2024 that he and his father-in-law engaged in a verbal argument regarding missing money. During this incident the applicant stated to his father-in-law that he would kill him and his daughter. The applicant’s ex-wife witnessed this exchange, and he turned to her and stated that if she said anything he would hit her. This incident caused both victims to fear for their safety and they retreated to the front yard of the house and called the police. The applicant advised that this paragraph was correct. The applicant was interviewed by police with respect to the breach and the police fact sheet indicates that the applicant denied the allegations and stated that verbal arguments occurred between himself his ex-wife and his father-in-law.
The applicant was taken to JTB 96 in which a community corrections officer from Fairfield noted in an interview on 9 October 2024 that the applicant believed all women were liars and that the government only believed women. The applicant was invited to comment. The applicant stated that he was nervous and that his ex-wife had acted in such a way to get him in trouble. In the same interview the applicant denied grabbing his wife’s wrist and spitting on her face and claimed that this was a lie. Further that with respect to pushing his wife in the chest the applicant explained that this was a lie and that he put his hands out to move past his wife and father-in-law. The applicant was invited to comment. The applicant conceded that he pushed his ex-wife and that he grabbed her wrist.
The Ministers representative noted that it was stressful when inconsistencies were being put to the applicant however, he was doing so to give the applicant an opportunity to explain them. The applicant stated “I am guilty of everything the pushing I did all that, that is the truth. I leave it to you to make a decision. I did all these things”.
The applicant was asked to comment on the claim that all women were liars, and that the government only believes women. The applicant stated that no one gave him help or any chance as a man. The applicant was asked what lies his ex-wife told. The applicant stated “she made up things against me. Whatever story she made up the police believed her”.
The applicant was given a warning against self-incrimination. The Ministers representative noted that the evidence before the Tribunal indicated that the applicant’s ex-wife had spoken with a community corrections officer and expressed that her 20-year marriage to the applicant had been characterised by physical, verbal, and emotional abuse. The applicant stated that he reserved his right not to answer this question adding “every marriage has problems these are personal/family issues”.
The applicant was asked when he was taken into immigration detention, and he advised on 23 March 2025. The applicant was asked why he had such a clear recollection of that day. The applicant stated that he had it written on a piece of paper in his notebook. The applicant also stated that the Bathurst Correction Centre gave inmates an iPad to record dates.
The applicant was asked how many months he had been alcohol free in March 2025 when he went into immigration detention. The applicant stated that during the six months that he was in prison he did not consume alcohol and that he had been subject to testing which was clear. The applicant stated that alcohol was available in immigration detention, but he had not consumed alcohol and had been the subject of three blood tests.
The applicant was asked whether he was worried that he might be tempted to drink alcohol again in immigration detention. The applicant responded that alcohol is a poison or a toxin, that it ruined his family and stated that until death he will not touch it and that in prison, he only smoked cigarettes.
The applicant stated that when he first went into immigration detention there were no courses dealing with alcohol abuse available, however, such a course did become available between June and August 2025. The applicant stated that he undertook two courses in the detention centre, one about drugs and alcohol, and the other about domestic violence. The applicant stated that he had also undertaken Google searches with respect to the problems caused by alcohol and drug abuse.
The applicant was asked to express in his own words what domestic violence is. The applicant stated that he had learnt a lot from YouTube and that the main reason for his domestic violence was alcohol. The applicant stated that you should not swear at your wife or bash her, that she is the mother of your children, and you should speak to her quietly and have mutual understanding. The applicant stated that life is not about having family problems and that a person needed to work to provide food for the family and not to drink alcohol.
The applicant was asked what made him engage in domestic violence in February and September 2024. The applicant stated that “the devil manipulated me, I would scream at her, she would scream at me, I did not work, she told me to find a job, I was drinking alcohol, and the problem is exacerbated and both of us lost control”.
The Tribunal asked the applicant whether things got out of control in Jordan. The applicant expressed having a good life in Jordan, he stated that the family was struggling, however, they received support from charities, and that the family were taken on a trip to the Dead Sea. The applicant stated that his son and daughter were able to attend school, he derived support from the church in Jordan, he attended the United Nations to arrange for a possible visa to come to Australia.
The Tribunal asked the applicant whether he lost control in Iraq. The applicant stated that he did not own his own home in Iraq and that he lived with his parents. The applicant stated that he and his family lived in one room for 10 years and they lived well. He advised that they were travelled together, however when Daesh rose up in Iraq that the family decided to flee.
It was noted that the applicant had given some reasons as to why he committed domestic violence offences the applicant was asked whether one of the reasons that he committed domestic violence was that he did not see his wife as an equal. The applicant was invited to comment. The applicant stated that “one of the main reasons is I am older than her, I am seven years older than her”.
The Ministers representative noted again that the applicant had committed domestic violence offences in February 2024 and September 2024 and asked the applicant whether he did these things because he did not see his wife as being an equal and on the same level as him, namely, that he was superior to his wife. The applicant was asked whether he agreed or disagreed. The applicant stated ‘no’ that he loved his wife, that he respected his wife, that she managed money, that he loved her and respected her views, and that she was the mother of his children.
The Ministers representative stated, “you feel that despite calling her a slut, whore and spitting at her”.
The applicant stated that he did not say ‘whore’. The applicant stated that he and his ex-wife used to swear at each other. The applicant stated that half an hour later they would reconcile. The applicant stated that in Iraqi culture it is not uncommon for spouses to use these words. The applicant stated, “by saying ‘kill you’ is just to scare them not to kill them”.
The applicant was asked whether he believed it was okay to tell a child or a wife that you wanted to kill them to scare them. The applicant stated that this was common in an argument in Iraq and that he did not know it would be a problem in Australia.
It was noted that if the applicant was released from immigration detention that he would be residing back in the community. The Minister stated hypothetically if the applicant did get back with his ex-wife what he would do when they had an argument. The applicant stated that if he was released into the community, he would change his life. He would live with his first cousin. He would look for a place to rent. He would leave his ex-wife alone. He will see his children “a legal way”. The applicant stated that his parish priest advised that he would attempt to reconcile the applicant with his ex-wife. The applicant stated that he would not breach his apprehended domestic violence order. The applicant stated that he would also see a psychiatrist if he was released. The applicant stated that he would also engage in English-language lessons.

On 23 September 2024, the applicant and his ex-wife engaged in an argument with the applicant calling his ex-wife derogatory names such as “slut” and “whore”. During the argument the applicant spat at his ex-wife with the spit landing on her chin. The applicant also threatened to hit his ex-wife.
As a consequence of the continued violence, the applicant’s ex-wife attended Fairfield Courthouse to request a variation of the original apprehended domestic violence order on the basis that she felt increasingly unsettled by the applicant’s behaviour. The applicant’s ex-wife gave a statement to police noting that the applicant frequently threatened her saying things like “I will take revenge on you”, “I will kill you slowly, slowly” and “I will bash you”. She reported to the police that these threats occurred regularly, particularly when the applicant was under the influence of alcohol.
The police fact sheet indicates that on 24 September 2024 the applicant and his father-in-law engaged in a verbal argument regarding missing money. The applicant swore at his father-in-law and told him, “if you report the incident to the police I will kill you and your daughter”. The police fact sheet notes that this caused both the applicant’s ex-wife and his father-in-law to fear for their safety and they left the residential premises and called the police. The evidence indicates that police arrived at the scene a short time later and placed the applicant under arrest.
As a consequence of the breach of the CRO the applicant appeared before the Fairfield Local Court on 30 October 2024. The Tribunal has made extensive reference to the Local Court Magistrates sentencing comments. Her Honour Judge Manea noted that the applicant had been given to opportunities for leniency with respect to his offending given his age, his circumstances and the fact that he had no criminal antecedents prior to his 2024 offending. Judge Manea noted that the applicant had shown a complete disregard for those opportunities and had no insight into the serious nature of his ongoing domestic violence, conduct evidenced over the course of his marital relationship. Judge Manea made reference to the violence that occurred over successive days in September 2024 along with the derogatory comments and threats made by the applicant to his ex-wife. Judge Manea determined that as a consequence of this offending and the breach of the CRO that she had no other option but to sentence the applicant to a term of imprisonment for 12 months with a 6-month non-parole period.
The evidence before the Tribunal indicates that the applicant initiated a severity appeal with respect to the conviction with the New South Wales District Court. The evidence before the Tribunal indicates that when the applicant appeared before the District Court, he was told by the District Court Judge, having regard to the offending and the breach of the CRO, that he was mindful of imposing a more significant sentence. The Judge gave the applicant an opportunity to withdraw the severity appeal or risk a more significant sentence. The applicant withdrew the appeal.
The evidence indicates that there was an escalation in the seriousness of the Applicant’s offending, with the September 2024 offences resulting in physical injury to his ex-wife (redness to her wrist) and significant threats made to both his ex-wife and his father-in-law. Crimes of a violent nature against women are considered very serious.
Overall, the Tribunal finds that the Applicant’s offending must be viewed very seriously.
The risk to the Australian community should the non-citizen commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct
Paragraph 8.1.2 of the Direction provides in part:[2]
In considering the need to protect the Australian community (including individuals, groups or institutions) from harm, decision-makers should have regard to the Government's view that the Australian community's tolerance for any risk of future harm becomes lower as the seriousness of the potential harm increases. Some conduct and the harm that would be caused, if it were to be repeated, is so serious that any risk that it may be repeated may be unacceptable.
In assessing the risk that may be posed by the non-citizen to the Australian community, decision-makers must have regard to, cumulatively:
a) the nature of the harm to individuals or the Australian community should the non-citizen engage in further criminal or other serious conduct; and
b) the likelihood of the non-citizen engaging in further criminal or other serious conduct, taking into account:
i.information and evidence on the risk of the non-citizen 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).
[2] Direction 110, paragraph 8.1.2.
The potential harm caused by further acts of violence by the Applicant is significant and there has been no opportunity for the Applicant to reside in the community and abstain from his long-term alcohol addiction. The Applicant claims that his long-term alcohol problem has been addressed though his abstinence in the last 12 months during his imprisonment and his immigration detention and by his engagement in a course in detention. The Applicant has advised that alcohol is freely available in immigration detention and that he has not consumed it. However, the ability of the Applicant to refrain from its use in a community setting, given the duration of his habit, remains to be tested. The evidence also indicates that the consumption of alcohol was a contributor to the Applicant engaging in domestic violence offending against both his ex-wife and his father-in-law. The Applicant has also made serious threats to his ex-wife. The evidence indicates that his ex-wife does not intend to reconcile with the Applicant and is seeking a divorce. The Applicant’s ex-wife and her parents have not given any support to the Applicant in these proceedings.
The applicant was the subject of a sentencing assessment report completed by Corrective Services New South Wales on 28 October 2024 a document located at JTB 77-81. The evidence indicates that the report was compiled based on interviews with the applicant, recourse to the police fact sheet and the applicant’s criminal history, Corrective Services New South Wales records and telephone contact with the applicant’s estranged wife. The report indicates that “all family members are allegedly scared of Mr Sareooka due to his violent behaviour since they were first married”. The report notes that the applicant claimed that there had been no physical altercations that had occurred, and the police facts were false, but he did admit during the assessment to engaging in verbal arguments. The applicant was assessed as being at a medium risk of reoffending according to the Level of Service Inventory-Revised (LSI-R).
The evidence before the Tribunal indicates that the applicant appeared in the Local Court at Fairfield on 25 July 2024 with respect to his not guilty plea pertaining to domestic violence offending that he entered on 21 February 2024. The evidence indicates that the applicant was legally aided in these proceedings and was assisted by an Arabic interpreter. Despite the Magistrate placing the applicant on a six-month conditional release order without conviction, the applicant went on to breach the order with his offending in September 2024.
The failure of the applicant to adhere to the conditions of the CRO suggests that the applicant was contemptuous of the judicial process and that he failed to take the order with any degree of seriousness. The evidence indicates that the CRO was fully explained to the Applicant by community corrections, so he clearly understood how it operated.
The Tribunal notes that the applicant has attended a course in anger management techniques and a course in understanding drug and alcohol abuse which involved a total of 12 contact hours. The Applicant states that he is committed to engaging with health care professionals upon release into the community to address his history of alcohol abuse and to address anger management.
Conclusion as to the protection of the Australian community
The Applicant’s offending is very serious and offending of a similar nature in the future may cause significant harm to the Australian community. The evidence before the Tribunal indicates that the Applicant lacks insight into his offending behaviour. An example of this is when the Applicant stated that when he had made threats to kill his wife that they were merely threats and only used to scare her, not threats that he would act upon as the mother of his children.
The Applicant as discussed appeared before a Magistrate with respect to his offending in July 2024 and was placed on a conditional release order. The CRO replaced the good behaviour bond and is given to an offender to give them a meaningful opportunity to be of good behaviour in the community on the provision that if they breach the order they will be brought back before the sentencing Magistrate to be sentenced for the breach. The CRO was implemented in July 2024, by September 2024 the Applicant was in breach of the order. As a consequence, in October 2024, the Magistrate determined that she had no other option than to sentence the Applicant to a term of imprisonment.
The Respondent has argued that the Applicant’s lack of insight and his characterisation of elements of his offending, along with the breach of the CRO are factors which lead to risk with respect to the Applicant engaging in further offending.
The Applicant’s representative argues that risk has been mitigated by a number of significant factors. These factors are that the Applicant as a consequence of the breach of his CRO was imprisoned for 12 months with a 6-month non-parole period and that he served 6 months in prison. Upon release the Applicant was transferred directly to the Villawood Immigration Detention Centre where he has spent the past 6 months detained.
The Applicant claims that being imprisoned and removed from his children and the community have had a profoundly sobering impact upon him. The Applicant has not consumed alcohol since his incarceration, and this is corroborated by negative tests for alcohol and illicit drugs conducted whilst in prison and immigration detention.
The Applicant gave sworn testimony to the Tribunal at hearing that he does not intend to drink alcohol going forward and that his health has improved as a consequence of his abstinence from alcohol. As discussed, his willpower and resilience to do so remains to be tested in the community.
The Tribunal finds on the basis of the evidence before it that the Applicant’s imprisonment has had a profound impact on him. This is clearly indicated in the prison notes made during the period of his imprisonment. Prior to the 2024 offending he had no interaction with the criminal justice system, no criminal antecedents and no experience of being deprived of his liberty. He has now spent 12 months locked up and the Tribunal finds given his history that this factor should act as a strong form of deterrence and risk mitigation with respect to future offending. The Applicant would be under no illusion that further family violence offending in any way shape or form will not be tolerated and as noted by Magistrate Manea in her sentencing comments “I do wish you all the best upon your release. Get some help for your alcohol addiction. Please make sure that you do that otherwise you are going to end up remaining in custody for a very long time”. He has been directly warned by the judicial officer who jailed him of the outcome of continued family violence offending and the evidence is suggestive that this has resonated with the Applicant.
The Tribunal also finds that there is another factor that will act as a strong risk mitigation factor and that is that the Applicant and his family sought, and were granted, Global Special Humanitarian visas. These visas are issued on the basis that a person or their family face substantial discrimination or human rights abuses in their home country.
The evidence indicates that the Applicant is Assyrian and a Chaldean Christian and hence part of an ethnic and religious minority in Iraq that have been subject to well documented evidence of persecution. The Tribunal finds that the circumstances that the Applicant confronted in 2024 as a result of his offending and the subsequent cancellation of his visa are factors that will act as a very strong incentive to ensure that he does not engage in future offending.
He has now experienced incarceration and is aware that the Australian Government and the Australian community have zero tolerance for family violence and that it is viewed so seriously that it can lead to a term of imprisonment. The Applicant has also faced the prospect of being removed from Australia and has expressed his concerns about facing persecution if he was returned to Iraq. The Tribunal also finds that the Applicant faces the prospect of being permanently removed from his three children and that due to his close relationship with them this will act as a strong risk mitigation factor going forward. Given the Applicant would be removed to Iraq, the prospect of the children ever physically interacting with their father is significantlylow, given the volatile conditions that prevail in Iraq. The Tribunal finds that these elements should collectively act as significant risk mitigation factors going forward.
The Tribunal considers that this primary consideration weighs strongly against revoking the cancellation of the Applicant’s visa on account of his offending to date, however the weight apportioned to this consideration is tempered by the significant risk mitigation factors discussed above.
Primary consideration 2: Family Violence committed by the non-citizen
Paragraph 4(1) of Direction 110 defines family violence as violent, threatening or other behaviour by a person that coerces or controls a member of the person’s family or causes the family member to be fearful. Paragraph 8.2(2) provides that this consideration is relevant where a non-citizen has been convicted of an offence involving family violence or there is information or evidence from independent and authoritative sources indicating the non-citizen is or has been involved in the perpetration of family violence.
The Applicant has convictions relating to a physical and verbal assaults on his ex-wife, and with respect to his father-in-law and for breaching ADVOs. The Tribunal finds that the Applicant has engaged in conduct which meets the definition of family violence provided in the Direction.
The family violence conduct occurred in separate incidents, and the sentencing of the Applicant reflects conduct which escalated when he breached the conditional release order in September 2024. The Tribunal notes that the family violence included incidents in the presence of the Applicant’s adult and minor children. There is no doubt that both his ex-wife and his father-in-law and his children would have been in fear because of that conduct.
The family violence conduct is very serious. The Applicant remains estranged from his ex-wife. Since the Applicant went into prison and then immigration detention his eldest daughter and son visited him on only one occasion. He has some phone contact with the older two children since his imprisonment and no contact at all with his youngest daughter, who is only 4 years old, and is clearly under the care and control of her mother.
The Tribunal finds that the primary consideration of family violence committed by the Applicant weighs heavily against exercising the discretion to revoke the cancellation of the visa.
Primary Consideration 3: The strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia
The Tribunal is required to consider the impact of the decision on the Applicant’s immediate family members in Australia, where those family members are Australian citizens, Australian permanent residents, or people who have a right to remain in Australia indefinitely. The Tribunal is also required to consider the strength, nature and duration of any other ties that the Applicant has to the Australian community having 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’s ex-wife is in Australia. The evidence indicates that the Applicant and his ex-wife remain estranged, and the evidence indicates that his ex-wife is seeking a divorce from the Applicant.
However, despite the animosity that exists between the Applicant and his ex-wife, the Applicant’s ex-wife is supportive of the Applicant maintaining contact with his children going forward. This is evidenced at JTB 86-87 a letter from the Family Law section of Legal Aid NSW from May 2025 demonstrating the Applicant’s ex-wife’s willingness to facilitate ongoing contact between the Applicant and his children as part of a parenting plan.
The evidence indicates that the Applicant’s adult daughter and minor son (aged 17) and minor daughter (age 4) all reside in Australia on a permanent basis having been granted Global Special Humanitarian visas in 2020. The Applicant is estranged from his ex-wife’s parents and as discussed some of the Applicant’s family violence offending was perpetrated against his father-in-law. The Applicant claims to have a number of first cousins in Australia. There is no evidence before the Tribunal of the extent of the Applicant’s relationship with them. None of the Applicant’s cousins provided testimony or statements on behalf of the Applicant at the review hearing. The Applicant did express at hearing that if he is released into the community he will reside with his first cousin and re-establish his life apart from his ex-wife, whilst hopefully maintaining ongoing contact with his three children. He also expressed a desire to hopefully return to working as an Uber driver which would enable him to contribute to the costs associated with his children and their care.
The Applicant submits he has made a contribution to Australia through his employment with Uber. The evidence indicates that the Applicant only worked for 12 months for Uber and no more than 15 hours per week due to the fact that he was in receipt of a career benefit for his mother-in-law and as a recipient of this benefit his ability to work was restricted. The Applicant has had some connection with the Chaldean Catholic Church since he arrived in Australia as confirmed by his Parish Priest in a written statement.
The Tribunal acknowledges that the Applicant’s residence in Australia has been relatively short, having permanently entered the country in March 2020 when he was 45 years old. His first offence occurred in 2024, within 4 years of his arrival in Australia.
The strongest ties to the Australian community are his 3 children. His adult daughter gave evidence about her close and meaningful relationship with her father. She also expressed in her evidence to the Tribunal the close relationship that the Applicant had with his youngest daughter prior to his incarceration and that she asks about her father and misses him.
The Applicant’s son is 17 years old and hence a minor. The Applicant’s son gave a comprehensive statement to the Tribunal about his closeness to his father which is located at JTB 10-13. The Applicant’s son expressed that “my father (sic) absence has been incredibly hard on me. I miss his presence and the support he provides, especially during different (sic) times, it’s affected my sleep, and I often feel sad and anxious about the possibility of him being permanently removed from Australia. I’ve struggled to concentrate, and at times the uncertainty becomes overwhelming. Lately I haven’t felt myself”.

The Applicant’s ties to the Australian community are most strongly evidenced by the fact that he has three Australian permanent resident children who are members of that community and have been offered, through their Global Special Humanitarian visas, safety and protection in this country. If the Applicant was removed to Iraq, the prospect of them having meaningful engagement with him in the future is highly remote at best.
The Applicant’s ties to the Australian community are given heavy weight in favour of revocation.
Primary Consideration 4: Best interests of minor children affected by the decision
Paragraph 8.4 of the Direction requires decision-makers to decide whether the cancellation is, or is not, in the best interests of minor children in Australia affected by the decision.[3] This consideration applies only if the child is under 18 years old at the time of the decision. In considering the best interests of each child, the factors that must be considered where relevant include:[4]
(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;
(h) evidence that the child has suffered or experienced any physical or emotional trauma arising from the non-citizen's conduct.
[3] Direction 110, para 8.4.
[4] Ibid.
The Applicant has an adult daughter with whom he has a close relationship.
The Applicant’s eldest daughter has given compelling written and oral evidence to the Tribunal about the closeness of her relationship with her father and the support that he has provided to her throughout her life and since the family relocated to Australia.
The Applicant has a minor son who is aged 17. The Applicant’s minor son has given evidence about the closeness of his relationship with his father, and this is well documented in his statement at JTB 10-13. In his statement which is referenced above he noted that “if my father’s visa isn’t given back to him and he’s removed from Australia permanently my biggest worry is the emotional (sic) it will have on my sibling’s and myself. There are also worries about my general and mental health while I’m separated from him for a long time”.
The Applicant also has a minor daughter aged 4. The evidence provided to the Tribunal by the Applicant’s eldest daughter and from the Applicant himself is indicative of the closeness of the relationship between them. Clearly, because the Applicant was not working full time and did not have ongoing work during his youngest daughters infancy, they had an opportunity to spend a lot of time together and they clearly bonded. The Applicant became very emotional at the hearing when asked about his youngest daughter and was very distressed by the fact that he had not had interaction with her during the 12 months of his incarceration.
As noted with respect to this consideration of significance for the Tribunal is the fact that the Applicant’s ex-wife supports the Applicant maintaining contact with his children going forward and this sentiment is expressed in the evidence at JTB at 86-87 though his ex-wife’s contact with Legal Aid NSW and her wanting the Applicant to be involved in a parenting plan.
The evidence indicates that the Applicant’s eldest daughter as an adult, will continue of her own volition, to have a relationship with her father going forward. She has also expressed the impact of him being removed from Australia upon her and her siblings.
The Applicant’s son is currently a minor but will turn 18 in 5 months’ time and as an adult it is apparent that he will maintain contact and a relationship with his father going forward.
The Minister’s representative noted that the Applicant’s eldest daughter and son had only visited him in detention on one occasion. However, the Applicant’s eldest daughter expressed that to see their father in this environment was very distressing for them both and indeed for their father.
The evidence indicates that the applicants three children currently reside with their mother. The evidence indicates that the applicant’s ex-wife has had care and control of the applicant’s minor children since he has been incarcerated.
Evidence was provided by the applicant’s eldest daughter at hearing that the applicants incarceration had a profound impact on the mental health of her brother who had been depressed as a consequence of the applicants offending, and subsequent imprisonment. He spends most of his free time alone in his room with his PlayStation.
The evidence indicates that the children of the Applicant would be adversely impacted by their father’s removal from Australia and the impact of removal has been felt by them since his incarceration. The Tribunal finds that this consideration weighs heavily in favour of revoking the cancellation of the visa.
Primary Consideration 5: Expectations of the Australian community
Paragraph 8.5 of the Direction relevantly provides:[5]
(1) The Australian community expects non-citizens to obey Australian laws while in Australia. Where a non-citizen has engaged in serious conduct in breach of this expectation, or where there is an unacceptable risk that they may do so, the Australian community, as a norm, expects the Government to not allow such a non-citizen to enter or remain in Australia.
[5] Ibid, paragraph 8.5.
Paragraph 8.5(3) of Direction 110 states that these expectations apply regardless of whether the non-citizen poses a measurable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community.
It is not for the Tribunal to determine for itself the expectations of the Australian community by reference to an applicant’s circumstances or evidence about those expectations. Rather the Tribunal must give effect to the ‘norm’ stipulated in the Direction.
This consideration is about the expectations of the Australian community as a whole, and in this respect, decision-makers should proceed on the basis of the Government's views as articulated in the Direction, without independently assessing the community's expectations in the particular case.
The Applicant has failed to meet the Australian community’s expectation that visa holders obey its laws.
Having regard to the Direction and the Applicant’s offending, this consideration weighs heavily against revocation.
OTHER RELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS
Legal consequences of decision under section 501 or 501CA
Paragraph 9.1 of Direction 110 states that decision-makers should be mindful that unlawful non-citizens are, in accordance with section 198 of the Act, liable to be removed from Australia as soon as reasonably practicable, and in the meantime, detention under section 189, noting also that section 197C(1) of the Act provides that for the purposes of section 198, it is irrelevant whether Australia has non-refoulement obligations in respect of an unlawful non-citizen.
The Applicant has stated in relation to his removal that if he was returned to Iraq, he would face persecution in that country.
As discussed at hearing there is nothing to preclude the Applicant from lodging a protection visa application in Australia and having his claims for protection properly tested. In addition to this if the Applicant pursues this pathway, he can make an application for a Bridging R visa with respect to consideration being had to him residing in the community.
The Tribunal notes again that the Applicant was issued with a Global Special Humanitarian visa along with his ex-wife and two eldest children. As noted, this visa is judiciously issued to people who face substantial discrimination or human rights abuses in their home country, in this case in Iraq.
Iraq has for many decades now been a large refugee producing country and there is compelling country information that has been provided to the Tribunal at review about the challenging prevailing conditions in that country, especially for religious and ethnic minorities, a category in which the Applicant squarely falls.
If the Applicant’s visa remained cancelled, and he lodged a protection visa application, the process of primary determination, merits review, potential judicial review and then potential Ministerial Intervention has the potential to drag out for an extended period. The Applicant’s status in Australia during this period will be tenuous until an ultimate determination is made on any prospective application lodged.
The Tribunal finds that the legal consequences of the decision for the Applicant are highly impactful.
For these reasons the Tribunal finds that this consideration should weigh heavily in favour of revocation.
Extent of impediments if removed
Paragraph 9.2 of the Direction provides:
(1)   Decision-makers must consider the extent of any impediments that the non citizen may face if removed from Australia to their home country, in establishing themselves and maintaining basic living standards (in the context of what is generally available to other citizens of that country), taking into account:
a)   the non-citizen's age and health;
b)    whether there are substantial language or cultural barriers; and
c)    any social, medical and/or economic support available to them in that country.
The Applicant suffers from multiple health conditions and there is evidence of underlying mental health conditions including depression, anxiety and PTSD.
The Applicant stated that if he returned to Iraq that the quality of health care is inferior to that available in Australia. It was submitted that aside from a number of physiological conditions that the Applicant suffers with anxiety and depression reflected in evidence from his general practitioner. The Applicant submits that if he was returned to Iraq the standard of care available to him for his physiological and mental health conditions would not be at Australian standards and that his mental health would likely worsen. This would no doubt be exacerbated by the applicant’s removal from his three children in Australia.
Overall, the Tribunal finds that this consideration weighs moderately in favour of revocation.
CONCLUSION
The primary considerations of the protection of the Australian community and family violence weigh strongly in favour of the cancellation decision.
However, as discussed, the Tribunal finds there are a number of risk mitigation factors in play that should act as a mechanism for the Applicant to desist in any family violence or indeed offending behaviour going forward. The Applicant has experienced prison and immigration detention and hence the loss of liberty. The Applicant has faced the prospect of his permanent removal from Australia to Iraq, a country in which he holds a fear of persecution. The Applicant has also faced the prospect of permanent removal from his three children and the evidence is such that this will have a profound impact on the Applicant and indeed an adverse impact upon them.
The Applicant has had a forced opportunity to refrain from alcohol use and gave evidence of the improvements in his overall health as a result of his sobriety. The Applicant has engaged in a course on alcohol and drug abuse and claims to be committed to abstinence in the community and to seeking ongoing help for his past addiction to alcohol. The Applicant was warned by a judicial officer during sentencing, Magistrate Manea, about the adverse impact of future offending. These factors, in the view of the Tribunal, collectively serve to mitigate the weight afforded to these primary considerations.
The Tribunal finds that the expectations of the Australian community weighs heavily against revocation.
The Applicant’s ties to the Australian community weigh strongly in favour of revocation and are afforded considerable weight owing to the impact that his removal would have on his three children who all have the right to permanently reside in Australia.
The best interests of the Applicant’s children weigh heavily in favour of revocation for the reasons discussed.
The legal consequences of the decision for the reasons articulated weigh heavily in favour of revocation. The impediments the Applicant would be expected to face weigh in favour of revoking the cancellation of his visa and are afforded moderate weight.
This is a finely balanced decision. The Tribunal has considered the evidence of rehabilitation at the time of the decision. The Applicant has used the period during his incarceration to address his alcohol abuse by attending a course whilst in detention and he has also attended a course with respect to anger management. This is a start. The period of imprisonment and detention has led to a forced period of abstinence from alcohol. The Applicant has committed to ongoing counselling and support in the community and claims that he will not return to alcohol upon release.
The impact of the Applicant’s removal from his one adult child and two minor children would have a profound impact on the Applicant and on each of them. The Applicant’s ties to the Australian community are strongly tethered by his three children and his relationship with them. The Applicant’s ex-wife appears to support the Applicant maintaining contact with his children and Legal Aid requested the Applicant’s signature on a parenting plan. The Applicant’s ties to the Australian community through his children are given heavy weight in favour of revoking the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant’s visa.
The best interests of the Applicant’s minor children are also given heavy weight in favour of revoking the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant’s visa.
The Tribunal on balance finds that the correct and preferable decision is to revoke the cancellation of the Applicant’s visa.
DECISION
For the reasons outlined above, the Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and in substitution decides that the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant’s visa is revoked.

Date of hearing: 1 and 2 October 2025

Solicitors for the Applicant:

Ms M Maramot

Solicitors for the Respondent: Mr Gao, Special Counsel

Date of hearing:	1 and 2 October 2025
Solicitors for the Applicant:	Ms M Maramot
Solicitors for the Respondent:	Mr Gao, Special Counsel