Singh and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (Migration) - [2025] ARTA 820

Singh and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (Migration) [2025] ARTA 820 (25 June 2025)
Applicant:Mr Mandeep Singh
Respondent:  Minister for Immigration and Citizenship
Tribunal Number:                2025/3086
Tribunal:General Member K Thornton
Place:Melbourne
Date:25 June 2025
Decision:The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

...................[SGD].....................................................
General Member K Thornton
Catchwords
MIGRATION – Non-revocation under s 501CA(4) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) of the mandatory cancellation of Applicant’s Partner (subclass 801) visa – where the Applicant does not pass the character test – whether there is another reason to revoke the mandatory cancellation – serious driving offences – decision under review affirmed
Legislation
Migration Act 1958 (Cth)
Cases
CRNL v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FCAFC 138
FYBR v Minister for Home Affairs (2019) 272 FCR 454
Plaintiff M1/2021 v Minister for Home Affairs (2022) 275 CLR 582
Siale v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2025] FCA 608
Secondary Materials
Direction No. 110 – Migration Act 1958 – Direction under section 499: Visa refusal and cancellation under section 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under section 501CA
Statement of Reasons
INTRODUCTION

The Applicant is a 37-year-old citizen of India. He seeks review of a decision made by the delegate of the Respondent not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of his Partner (subclass 801) visa under s 501CA(4) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (‘the Act’).
The Tribunal hearing was conducted by video at the Melbourne Registry on 17 and 18 June 2025. The Applicant was represented by Ms Alice Wang, a Migration Agent from Migration Downunder. The Respondent was represented by Mr Matthew Kenneally of counsel, instructed by Mr Triston Qian, from Mills Oakley.
For the following reasons, the Tribunal affirms the decision under review.
LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK
Section 501(3A) of the Act provides that the Minister must cancel a visa that has been granted to a person if:
(a) the Minister is satisfied that the person does not pass the character test because of the operation of:
(i) paragraph (6)(a) (substantial criminal record), on the basis of paragraph (7)(a), (b) or (c); or
(ii) paragraph (6)(e) (sexually based offences involving a child); and
(b) the person is serving a sentence of imprisonment, on a full‑time basis in a custodial institution, for an offence against a law of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory.
Section 501(6)(a) provides that, for the purposes of this section, a person does not pass the character test if the person has a ‘substantial criminal record’ (as defined by s 501(7)). Section 501(7)(c) provides that a person has a ‘substantial criminal record’ if the person has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more.
Section 501CA of the Act applies if the Minister makes a decision under s 501(3A) to cancel a visa that has been granted to a person. Section 501CA(4) provides that the Minister may revoke the original decision if:
(a) the person makes representations in accordance with the invitation; and
(b) the Minister is satisfied:
(i) that the person passes the character test (as defined by section 501); or
(ii) that there is another reason why the original decision should be revoked.
Section 500(1)(ba) provides that an application may be made to the Tribunal for review of decisions of a delegate of the Minister under s 501CA(4) not to revoke a decision to cancel a visa.
DIRECTION 110
Section 499(1) of the Act provides that the Minister may give written directions to a person or body having functions or powers under this Act if the directions are about: (a) the performance of those functions; or (b) the exercise of those powers. Section 499(2A) provides that a person or body must comply with a direction under subsection (1).
Such a direction has been given under s 499 of the Act, namely Direction 110 – Visa refusal and cancellation under section 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under section 501CA (‘Direction 110’). The purpose of Direction 110 is to guide decision-makers in performing functions or exercising powers under s 501 and s 501CA of the Act.[1]
[1] Direction No. 110 – Migration Act 1958 – Direction under section 499: Visa refusal and cancellation under section 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under section 501CA, 5.1(4) (‘Direction 110’).
Principles
Paragraph 5.2 of Direction 110 contains the principles which provide the framework within which decision-makers should approach their take of deciding whether to refuse or cancel a non-citizen’s visa under s 501, or whether to revoke a mandatory cancellation under s 501CA. Those principles are:
(1) Australia has a sovereign right to determine whether non-citizens who are of
character concern are allowed to enter and/or remain in Australia. Being able to
come to or remain in Australia is a privilege Australia confers on non-citizens in
the expectation that they are, and have been, law-abiding, will respect important
institutions, such as Australia's law enforcement framework, and will not cause
or threaten harm to individuals or the Australian community.
(2) The safety of the Australian Community is the highest priority of the
Australian Government.
(3) Non-citizens who engage or have engaged in criminal or other serious
conduct should expect to be denied the privilege of coming to, or to forfeit the
privilege of staying in, Australia.
(4) The Australian community expects that the Australian Government can and
should refuse entry to non-citizens, or cancel their visas, if they engaged in
conduct, in Australia or elsewhere, that raises serious character concerns. This expectation of the Australian community applies regardless of whether the non- citizen poses a measureable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian
community.
(5) Australia has a low tolerance of any criminal or other serious conduct by
visa applicants or those holding a limited stay visa, or by other non-citizens who
have been participating in, and contributing to, the Australian community only
for a short period of time.
(6) With respect to decisions to refuse, cancel, and revoke cancellation of a visa,
Australia may afford a higher level of tolerance of criminal or other serious
conduct by non-citizens who have lived in the Australian community for most of
their life, or from a very young age.
(7) Decision-makers must take into account the primary and other
considerations relevant to the individual case. In some circumstances, the nature
of the non-citizen's conduct, or the harm that would be caused if the conduct
were to be repeated, may be so serious that even strong countervailing
considerations may be insufficient to justify not cancelling or refusing the visa,
or revoking a mandatory cancellation.
(8) The inherent nature of certain conduct such as family violence is so serious
that even strong countervailing considerations may be insufficient to justify not
cancelling or refusing the visa, or revoking a mandatory cancellation, even if the
information available at the time of consideration suggests that the noncitizen
does not pose a measureable risk of causing physical harm to the
Australian community.
Paragraph 6 of Direction 110 provides that informed by the principles in paragraph 5.2, a decision-maker must take into account the considerations identified in sections 8 and 9, where relevant to decision.
Paragraph 7 provides guidance in taking the relevant considerations into account. It states:
(1) In applying the considerations (both primary and other), information and
evidence from independent and authoritative sources should be given appropriate
weight.
(2) The primary consideration at 8.1 below (protection of the Australian
community) is generally to be given greater weight than other primary
considerations. Otherwise, primary considerations should generally be given
greater weight than the other considerations.
(3) One or more primary considerations may outweigh other primary
considerations.
Paragraph 8 contains the primary considerations which are:
(1) protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious
conduct;
(2) whether the conduct engaged in constituted family violence;
(3) the strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia;
(4) the best interests of minor children in Australia;
(5) expectations of the Australian community.
Paragraph 9(1) contains the other considerations. That paragraph provides that the other considerations must also be taken into account, where relevant, in accordance with their provisions. The other considerations include (but are not limited to):
a) legal consequences of the decision
b) extent of impediments if removed;
c) impact on Australian business interests.
BACKGROUND
The Applicant was born in India and is currently 37 years of age. He first arrived in Australia in 2007 as a 19-year-old on a Higher Education Sector (subclass 573) visa.[2] On 13 August 2014, the Applicant was granted a Partner (subclass 801) visa.[3]
[2] Exhibit R1, 142 [4].
[3] Ibid 106.
On 8 November 2023, the Applicant was sentenced at the Fairfield Local Court of New South Wales for the following offences:[4]
·Drive whilst licence cancelled – 1st off,
·Drive while licence cancelled – 2nd off,
·Take & drive conveyance w/o consent of owner – T2,
·Drive recklessly/furiously or speed/manner dangerous – 1st off,
·Police pursuit – not stop – drive at speed – 1st off – T2
·Drive motor vehicle during disqualification period – 2nd off,
·Larceny value >$2000 & <$5000.
[4] Ibid 42-5.
He was sentenced to an aggregate term of 14 months imprisonment, with a non-parole period of seven months imprisonment.[5]
[5] Ibid.
On 12 March 2024, the Applicant’s visa was mandatorily cancelled under s 501(3A) whilst he was serving a period of full-time custody.[6] On 21 March 2024, the Applicant was released from prison and taken into immigration detention where he has remained since.[7]
[6] Ibid 106.
[7] Ibid 730, 809.
On 5 April 2024, the Applicant made representations to the Department seeking revocation of the cancellation decision.[8]
[8] Ibid 67.
On 3 April 2025, a delegate of the Respondent made a decision under s 501CA(4) to not revoke the original cancellation decision.[9] He was notified of this decision the same day via email through his authorised recipient, being his wife.
[9] Ibid 22.
On 8 April 2025, the Applicant lodged an application with the Tribunal seeking to review the decision.[10]
[10] Ibid 7.
On 2 May 2025, the Tribunal held a case management telephone directions hearing in the matter. The Applicant was represented by his wife, Ms H, at this hearing. The matter was set down for a two-day hearing on 12 and 13 June 2025.
On 26 May 2025, the Applicant engaged Migration Downunder to act for him in these proceedings. The Applicant sought an adjournment of the hearing dates to 19 and 20 June 2025 in order to allow the Applicant and his wife to provide further documentation. The Tribunal advised the parties it was unable to agree to this adjournment as the Tribunal was required to make a decision on or before 26 June 2025, which was the deadline to make a decision in this matter pursuant to s 500(6L) of the Act. The Tribunal instead proposed to re-list the matter for hearing on 17 and 18 June 2025, to which the parties agreed.
Tribunal hearing
On 17 and 18 June 2025, the Tribunal hearing was held. The Tribunal received into evidence a combined Hearing Book totalling 847 pages which contained:[11]
(a)Respondent’s G-documents;
(b)Applicant’s Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions;
(c)Respondent’s Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions;
(d)Bundle of Applicant’s material;
(e)Bundle of Respondent’s material.
[11] Received into evidence as Exhibit R1.
The Tribunal also received into evidence the Applicant’s pathology report dated 3 June 2025, and a copy of an Apprehended Domestic Violence Order (AVO) obtained by Ms H against the Applicant’s brother.[12]
[12] Exhibits R2 and R3 respectively.
The Applicant gave evidence via video and was cross-examined. Prior to doing so, he was informed about his privilege against self-incrimination and indicated he understood this privilege. The Applicant’s wife (Ms H) and mother-in-law (Ms W) also gave evidence on his behalf. A pseudonym has been applied to each of the witnesses and the Applicant’s minor children due to the existence of the AVO.
ISSUES TO BE DETERMINED
Does the Applicant pass the character test?
On 8 November 2023, the Applicant was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more which means he has a ‘substantial criminal record’ according to the definition contained in s 501(7) of the Act. A person with a substantial criminal record does not pass the character test according to s 501(6)(a) of the Act. There is no dispute between the parties that the Applicant fails the character test.
The Tribunal therefore finds that the Applicant does not pass the character test. Consequently, he cannot rely on s 501CA(4)(b)(i) as a basis to revoke the mandatory cancellation decision.
Is there another reason why the original decision should be revoked?
The remaining issue to be determined is whether there is ‘another reason’ why the mandatory cancellation decision should be revoked under s 501CA(4)(b)(ii) of the Act.
In order to determine this issue, the Tribunal is required to undertake an assessment of representations put forward by an Applicant.[13] The Tribunal is required to read, identify, understand and evaluate the representations and must bring its mind to bear upon the facts stated in them or the arguments and opinions put forward and appreciate who is making them.[14] The weight to be afforded to the representations is a matter for the decision-maker.[15]
PRIMARY CONSIDERATIONS
[13] Plaintiff M1/2021 v Minister for Home Affairs (2022) 275 CLR 582 [22].
[14] Ibid [24].
[15] Ibid.
Primary consideration 1: Protection of the Australian community
Paragraph 8.1 of Direction 110 provides:
(1) When considering protection of the Australian community, decision-makers
should keep in mind that the safety of the Australian community is the highest
priority of the Australian Government. To that end, the Government is
committed to protecting the Australian community from harm as a result of
criminal activity or other serious conduct by non-citizens. In this respect,
decision-makers should have particular regard to the principle that entering or
remaining in Australia is a privilege that Australia confers on non-citizens in the
expectation that they are, and have been, law abiding, will respect important
institutions, and will not cause or threaten harm to individuals or the Australian
community.
(2) Decision-makers should also give consideration to:
           a) the nature and seriousness of the non-citizen's conduct to date; and
           b) the risk to the Australian community, should the non-citizen commit
           further offences or engage in other serious conduct.
The Tribunal has regard to the matters set out at paragraph 8.1(1). The Tribunal has kept in mind that the safety of the Australian community is the highest priority of the Australian Government. The Tribunal has had particular regard to the principle that entering or remaining in Australia is a privilege that Australia confers on non-citizens in the expectation that they are, and have been, law abiding, will respect important institutions, and will not cause or threaten harm to individuals or the Australian community.
The Tribunal has also given consideration to the matters identified at paragraph 8.1(2) of Direction 110. These matters are dealt with below.
The nature and seriousness of the conduct
Paragraph 8.1.1. of Direction 110 provides:
(1) In considering the nature and seriousness of the non-citizen's criminal
offending or other conduct to date, decision-makers must have regard to the
following:
a) without limiting the range of conduct that may be considered very
           serious, the types of crimes or conduct described below are viewed very
           seriously by the Australian Government and the Australian community:
  i. violent and/or sexual crimes;
  ii. crimes of a violent and/or sexual nature against women or children,
  regardless of the sentence imposed;
  iii. acts of family violence, regardless of whether there is a conviction
for an offence or a sentence imposed;
b) without limiting the range of conduct that may be considered serious, the
           types of crimes or conduct described below are considered by the Australian
           Government and the Australian community to be serious:
  i. causing a person to enter into or being party to a forced marriage
  (other than being a victim), regardless of whether there is a conviction
  for an offence or a sentence imposed;
  ii. crimes committed against vulnerable members of the community
  (such as the elderly and the disabled), or government representatives                    or officials due to the position they hold, or in the performance of their
  duties;
  iii. any conduct that forms the basis for a finding that a noncitizen
  does not pass an aspect of the character test that is dependent
  upon the decision-maker's opinion (for example, section 501(6)(c));
  iv. where the non-citizen is in Australia, a crime committed while the
  non-citizen was in immigration detention, during an escape from
  immigration detention, or after the non-citizen escaped from
  immigration detention, but before the non-citizen was taken into
immigration detention again, or an offence against section 197A of    the Act, which prohibits escape from immigration detention;
c) with the exception of the crimes or conduct mentioned in subparagraph
           (a)(ii), (a)(iii) or (b)(i) above, the sentence imposed by the courts for a crime
or crimes;
d) the impact of the offending on any victims of offending or other
           conduct and their family, where information in this regard is available and
           the non-citizen whose visa is being considered for refusal or cancellation, or
           who has sought revocation of the mandatory cancellation of their visa, has
been afforded procedural fairness;
e) the frequency of the non-citizen's offending and/or whether there is any
trend of increasing seriousness;
f) the cumulative effect of repeated offending;
g) whether the non-citizen has provided false or misleading information to
the Department, including by not disclosing prior criminal offending;
h) whether the non-citizen has re-offended since being formally warned, or
           since otherwise being made aware, in writing, about the consequences of
           further offending in terms of the non-citizen's migration status (noting that
           the absence of a warning should not be considered to be in the non-citizen's
favour).
i) where the offence or conduct was committed in another country, whether
           that offence or conduct is classified as an offence in Australia.
The Applicant’s offending for which he was sentenced on 8 November 2023 involved a series of driving and traffic offences which were committed between 1 January 2023 and 13 October 2023.[16] The offending conduct was described by the sentencing court as follows.[17]
(a)Offending that occurred on 1 January 2023:
[The Applicant] became involved in a scheme whereby he would take a truck from a yard, drive it to a service station and have it filled up and then steal petrol from the truck.
[O]n this occasion four and a half thousand dollars’ worth of diesel was stolen from the yard. The truck was definitely taken without the consent of the owner, and he did not have the licence for that class of vehicle.
(b)Offending on 10 June 2023:
Driving whilst disqualified – second offence and not stop at a traffic light.
(c)Offending that occurred on 13 October 2023:
[The Applicant] was riding a motorcycle again, was detected by police, and he drove at a serious speed, away from police, to the point where they disengaged. He was travelling 90 kilometres an hour, in a 50-kilometre an hour zone, in circumstances where it was 10.23am during the day.
The police no longer chased him, but he was observed, by POLAIR, to drive in a dangerous fashion for a further 11 kilometres, exceeding the posted speed limit, crossing unbroken lines, going onto the other side of the road, and that forms the offence of drive in a manner dangerous, at a time when he was, in fact, being chased. The police have disengaged, apart from POLAIR keeping an eye on where he was heading. He was also cancelled from driving at that point in time. There was no registration, etcetera, on the vehicle.
[16] Exhibit R1, 51-2.
[17] Ibid.

In regard to the 13 October offending, the court noted that the offence of drive manner dangerous is a serious offence which carries a maximum penalty of three years imprisonment.[18] The court further noted it was aggravated because he was on multiple bails at the time in respect of different matters, and that meant that:
…greater weight (is) placed on denunciation and deterrence, sending a message to the community that this type of behaviour will be punished because of the need to protect the community from that type of driving.[19]
[18] Ibid 51.
[19] Ibid.
The court noted later in its sentencing remarks (in regard to the police pursuit offence):
The objective seriousness is high, given the serious course of conduct, which is a risk to other members of the community, and the speeds involved.[20]
[20] Ibid 52.
Prior to being sentenced on 8 November 2023, the Applicant had an extensive criminal history dating back to April 2016 mostly for drug and driving offences.[21] On 6 August 2020 the Applicant was sentenced to a Community Correction Order for larceny, drive motor vehicle during disqualification and destroy or damage property.[22] The Order was breached, and on 5 August 2022, the Applicant was re-sentenced to seven days imprisonment for the breach and for the offence of Goods suspected stolen in/on premises (m/v).[23] There were further court appearances on 29 June 2023, 24 August 2023 and 13 September 2023 where the Applicant received fines for further driving and larceny offences prior to his final court appearance on 8 November 2023.[24] His criminal history can properly be described as lengthy and serious.
[21] Ibid 39-46.
[22] Ibid 45-6.
[23] Ibid 45.
[24] Ibid.
In written submissions, the Applicant concedes that his past criminal history does not support him to be a person with integrity and good character.[25] It is otherwise submitted that the Applicant has a ‘condensed’ history of criminal offences between March 2020 and November 2023, which were influenced by the negative influence of the Applicant’s brother, drug usage, and being mentally influenced by the COVID-19 pandemic.[26]
[25] Ibid 139 [16].
[26] Ibid 13 [15].
The Respondent submits that the Applicant’s offending must be viewed as serious, particularly having regard to the frequency of the offending and the factors identified at paragraph 8.1.1(1) of the Direction.[27]
[27] Ibid 147 [40].
Direction 110 has identified certain types of conduct that may be considered ‘very serious or ‘serious’ by the Australian Government and the Australian community. The Direction makes it clear that the range of conduct that might be considered ‘very serious or ‘serious’ is not limited to those types of crimes or conduct listed at paragraph 8.1.1.(1)(a) or (b).
The Direction also states that decision-makers must have regard to the other factors identified in paragraph 8.1.1.(1). The Tribunal has had regard to those factors as follows:
(a)The sentence imposed by the court for a crime or crimes (paragraph 8.1.1.(1)(c)):
(i)For his most recent offending, the Applicant received an aggregate term of imprisonment of 14 months, with a non-parole period of seven months. The sentencing court clearly noted the serious nature of the Applicant’s conduct in which he drove a motorcycle away from police to the point where they disengaged. The Applicant was travelling 90 kms per hour in a 50 km zone at 10.23am. He was observed by police driving in a dangerous fashion for a further 11 kms, driving on the wrong side of the road, exceeding the speed limit and crossing unbroken lines. The court noted the maximum penalty for that offence was three years imprisonment. The court further noted that he would be sentenced to an indicative term of ten months imprisonment for that offence.[28]
[28] Ibid 52.
(ii)The Tribunal considers that the sentence imposed for this most recent offending is a reflection of the seriousness of the conduct, which involved a dangerous police pursuit, over a lengthy period, which rose to such a severity that police disengaged.
(b)The impact of the offending on any victims of offending or other conduct and their family (paragraph 8.1.1.(1)(c)):
(i)The impact of the Applicant’s offending on any victims is not known.
(c)The frequency of the non-citizen’s offending and/or whether there is any trend of increasing seriousness (paragraph 8.1.1.(1)(d));
(i)There is no question that the Applicant’s offending has been frequent with him appearing before the courts on sixteen separate occasions been April 2016 to November 2023.
(ii)The most recent offending was a marked increase in seriousness and resulted in a conviction for engaging in a police pursuit. Previously, the Applicant had been convicted and sentenced for other types of driving offences, larceny and drug offences.
(d)The cumulative effect of repeated offending (paragraph 8.1.1.(1)(f)):
(i)The Applicant’s offending has been repeated and has led to the imposition of a Community Correction Order and imprisonment. The Applicant’s repeated offending has unquestionably had an impact on his family and the community who were put in danger by the Applicant’s conduct.
(e)Whether the non-citizen has provided false or misleading information to the Department, including by not disclosing prior criminal offending (paragraph 8.1.1.(1)(g):
(i)The Applicant falsely declared on his incoming passenger card in 2017 that he did not have any criminal convictions when he in fact did.[29] The incoming passenger card was signed and dated by the Applicant on 24 October 2017. At that stage the Applicant had been convicted of Possess prohibited drug in May 2016 and Affray-T1 in April 2016.[30] The Applicant was invited by the Department to comment on this information. He stated that it was not his intention to mislead Australian Border Force.[31] He understood the question to relation to crimes related to Australia’s border security. He said he was travelling alone and frequently relies on his wife to assist with paperwork. He expressed remorse for this mistake.[32] When cross-examined on this issue, the Applicant said he never intended to mislead the Department. He also said that because he hadn’t paid his fines at that stage, he didn’t think he had convictions. The Tribunal finds his account to the Department and to the Tribunal as implausible. The Tribunal accepts the Respondent’s submission that he answered ‘no’ to the criminal conviction question because he didn’t want any issue with immigration upon his return to Australia.
(ii)The Tribunal has taken this false or misleading information into account but on balance attributes limited weight to it. When pressed on the issue, the Applicant expressed remorse for his actions, and the Tribunal accepts this as a minor matter.
[29] Ibid 104.
[30] Ibid 46.
[31] Ibid 88.
[32] Ibid.
Weighing these factors, the Tribunal considers that the totality of the Applicant’s conduct must be viewed as serious. This is particularly so in light of the most recent offending in which he endangered himself and innocent members of the community.
The Tribunal is of the view that this factor weighs strongly against revoking the original cancellation decision.
The risk to the Australian community should the non-citizen commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct
Paragraph 8.1.2. provides as follows:
(1) In considering the need to protect the Australian community (including
individuals, groups or institutions) from harm, decision-makers should have
regard to the Government's view that the Australian community's tolerance for
any risk of future harm becomes lower as the seriousness of the potential harm
increases. Some conduct and the harm that would be caused, if it were to be
repeated, is so serious that any risk that it may be repeated may be unacceptable.
(2) In assessing the risk that may be posed by the non-citizen to the Australian
community, decision-makers must have regard to, cumulatively:
a) the nature of the harm to individuals or the Australian community
           should the non-citizen engage in further criminal or other serious conduct;
and
b) the likelihood of the non-citizen engaging in further criminal or other
serious conduct, taking into account:
i. information and evidence on the risk of the non-citizen reoffending;
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).
c) where consideration is being given to whether to refuse to grant a visa to
           the non-citizen — whether the risk of harm may be affected by the duration
           and purpose of the non-citizen's intended stay, the type of visa being applied
           for, and whether there are strong or compassionate reasons for granting a
           short stay visa.
The Applicant has submitted that the Applicant is of low risk of reoffending.[33] The Applicant contends that his history of ‘condensed criminal offending between March 2020 and November 2023’ was due to various influencing factors:
(a)Influenced by his brother: The Applicant argues that his younger brother has been a negative influence on his life. His younger brother arrived in Australia from India one year after the Applicant. The brother resided with the Applicant and his family for some period. However, the relationship between the Applicant’s brother and the Applicant’s family was a fractured one. There was an instance of family violence perpetrated by the brother on the Applicant’s wife which led to the imposition of the AVO. As a result of this, the Applicant’s wife and two children moved out of home for a shoer period. On the Applicant’s account, his brother was heavily involved with drugs and other criminal offending. This offending eventually led to his brother being deported back to India where he now lives with his parents. The Applicant’s wife told the Tribunal it was a relief that the negative influence of the brother is no longer a factor for the Applicant. The Applicant argued that previously he was heavily influenced by the actions of his brother which negatively influenced his behaviour. The Applicant relies on the fact that his brother has been deported and is absent from the family home as a reason why he won’t reoffend.[34]
(b)Influenced by drug usage: The Applicant told the Tribunal he commenced using methylamphetamine on weekends in 2017 and also consumed cannabis occasionally. He said he and his brother would take drugs every weekend. This drug taking increased significantly in 2021 when he reported methylamphetamine every three to four days. The Applicant is now receiving regular buprenorphine injections in immigration detention to treat his drug addiction. It is submitted that the Applicant has been stable on the buprenorphine injections since June 2024, and that this treatment can continue to occur in the community which means the Applicant won’t reoffend whilst under the influence of drugs.[35]
(c)Mentally influenced by the unprecedented COVID-19 pandemic: The Applicant submits that the uncertainty through the forced pandemic lockdowns, loss of employment and financial instability negatively impacted the Applicant’s mental health which was a part of the reason behind his offences. The Applicant submits that because the pandemic is considered as ‘fully over’, and that the recurrence of the pandemic is unlikely in a short period of time, this influencing power won’t impact the Applicant again if he is released into the community. To support this argument, the Applicant provided the Tribunal with a 75-page article from Wikipedia titled ‘COVID-19 pandemic in Australia’.[36]
(d)Driven by a strong cultural bond through his parents in India: The Applicant argued that he felt a strong sense of duty to ‘look after’ his younger brother, which resulted in his younger brother becoming a negative influence on the Applicant.[37] It is submitted that this influence has now been removed by the fact of his brother being deported back to India.
[33] Ibid 139 [16].
[34] Ibid 138 [15a]
[35] Ibid 135 [15b].
[36] Ibid 634-708.
[37] Ibid 138-9 [15d].
The Respondent contends that the nature of the Applicant’s offending is so serious that any risk it may be repeated is unacceptable.[38] It is submitted that if the Applicant were to reoffend in a similar manner, it is highly likely that it would involve physical and psychological harm to members of the Australian community by reason of his driving whilst disqualified, speeding and failing to stop for police.[39]
[38] Ibid 148 [46].
[39] Ibid 148 [44].
The Respondent also contends that the Applicant presents as a medium risk of reoffending.[40] The Respondent notes the Applicant’s remorse but notes there is no evidence that the Applicant has made any attempts at rehabilitation.[41] The Respondent submits that the Tribunal cannot be satisfied that the Applicant will not reoffend.[42]
[40] Ibid 148 [47].
[41] Ibid.
[42] Ibid 148 [48].
The Tribunal has had 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. The Tribunal accepts the Respondent’s argument that any risk the Applicant’s conduct, if repeated, is unacceptable having regard to the nature of the harm to individuals or the Australian community if the Applicant engaged in further criminal or other serious conduct (paragraph 8.1.2(2)(a)). That is because in the Tribunal’s view the Applicant’s conduct in driving whilst disqualified, speeding, and engaging in a police pursuit could have led to the death or serious injury of members of the community or the Applicant himself. The sentencing court noted that greater weight was put on denunciation of the Applicant’s conduct because of the need to protect the community from that type of driving.[43] If that conduct were repeated, the nature of the harm caused could be catastrophic.
[43] Ibid 51.
The Tribunal has had regard to the factors identified by the Applicant in which he submits reduces his risk of further offending. The Tribunal does not accept that any of them either individually or cumulatively is relevant to the Applicant’s risk of reoffending. There is no material before the Tribunal in the form of reports or expert opinion which specifically addresses the question of risk from a forensic point of view.
To the extent that the Applicant’s brother may have had a negative influence on him, the Tribunal notes that he was deported prior to his most recent offending. The influence of his brother does not explain why the Applicant engaged in the most recent serious offending. The Tribunal also observes that on his own evidence, he commenced his drug usage in 2017 independent of his brother. That drug usage did increase when his brother moved into the family home, as did the Applicant’s criminal offending.
The Tribunal notes that the Applicant has been receiving treatment in immigration detention to help manage his drug addiction, but unfortunately has had a relapse whilst detained. The Applicant gave evidence that he smoked ice at Christmas time in 2024. This resulted in a positive drug screen for methamphetamine on 28 January 2025.[44] The Applicant also tested positive for methamphetamine in a later test conduct on 4 March 2025.[45] The Applicant told the Tribunal that the later test was positive because methamphetamine stays in your system for three months. The Applicant provided the Tribunal with his most recent drug screen which was conducted on 3 June 2025 which was clear.[46]
[44] Ibid 845.
[45] Ibid 847.
[46] Exhibit R3.
The current treatment regime consists of monthly buprenorphine injections which he has been receiving since 24 June 2024.[47] The Applicant has not provided any evidence that he has engaged in any form of drug treatment in the past. He did tell the Tribunal that he had proposed to see a doctor in the community prior to his most recent arrest. He hopes to see that same doctor if he is released into the community. There is no evidence before the Tribunal of any appointments made or proposed treatment plans or strategies for managing his drug usage in the community. Given the Applicant’s lengthy criminal history, and his recent relapse, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the Applicant has taken sufficient steps to address his drug use.
[47] Exhibit R1, 603.
The Applicant’s reliance on the COVID-19 pandemic as the ‘driving power for his offences’ is not accepted. The Applicant has not explained how the pandemic influenced his offending behaviour. He did say that he lost his employment at various stages, but did not provide evidence about how those events were attributable to the pandemic. The Tribunal notes that the Applicant was first sentenced in 2016 for Affray and in 2017 for Possess prohibited drug which is prior to the pandemic. His most recent serious offending (being the police pursuit) occurred on 13 October 2023 which is after the pandemic. For these reasons, the Applicant’s reliance on the pandemic as the driving force for his offending is not accepted.
The Applicant’s final influencing factor is again related to his brother, and the Applicant’s submission that he had a sense of duty to look after his younger brother, who was a negative influence on his life. The Applicant submits that this factor is now removed by reason of his brother’s deportation to India. As noted above, the Applicant’s brother was removed from Australia prior to his most recent criminal offending. There is no guarantee that the Applicant won’t be subjected to negative influences in the future. The influence may come from family members, friends, or other external factors. The Applicant relies on the fact that his brother has been deported, he has sold his motorbike, and he never wants to be apart from his family again as reasons why he won’t reoffend in the future. The Tribunal accepts that the Applicant is remorseful for his offending and that his brother may have been a negative influence on him. He told the Tribunal he has plans to apply for a forklift licence and that he could get a job straight away and that this would assist in his recovery. However, the Applicant has not provided any evidence of any strategies or plans on how he might deal with stressors or negative influences in his life in the future. The Tribunal considers that the Applicant needs to accept responsibility for the choices he made in his life, especially after being given multiple chances to rehabilitate.
In conclusion the Tribunal considers the Applicant to be of medium risk of reoffending. This is due to the Applicant’s criminal history, and his lack of future plans to address his drug-taking behaviour or any future life stressors. The Applicant has been subject to community-based dispositions in the past and has continued to reoffend. The Applicant was previously sentenced to a term of imprisonment for seven days on 5 August 2022 but again continued to offend. As of 1 January 2023, the Applicant was engaging in further criminal behaviour of stealing trucks from yards to steal petrol. The imposition of a short gaol sentence at that stage, which took the Applicant away from his family, did not deter the Applicant from further offending.
The Tribunal has had regard to the principles set out in paragraph 5.2 of Direction 110 and notes that the safety of the Australian Community is the highest priority of the Australian Government. The Tribunal has also had regard to the nature of the Applicant’s conduct and noted that the harm caused, if the conduct were to be repeated, is so serious any risk it may be repeated is unacceptable. The Tribunal has afforded greater weight to this primary consideration than the other primary considerations because of the serious nature of the Applicant’s offending and unacceptable risk to the Australian community should be commit similar offending in the future. Overall, the Tribunal has determined that this primary consideration is given strong weight against revoking the cancellation decision.
Primary consideration 2: Family violence committed by the non-citizen

There is no evidence that the Applicant has committed any acts of family violence. This primary consideration is not relevant to the Tribunal’s consideration and is given neutral weight.
Primary consideration 3: The strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia
Paragraph 8.3 provides:
(1) Decision-makers must consider any impact of the decision on the non-citizen's immediate family members in Australia, where those family members are Australian citizens, Australian permanent residents, or people who have a right to remain in Australia indefinitely.
(2) Where consideration is being given to whether to cancel a non-citizen's visa or whether to revoke the mandatory cancellation of their visa, the decision-maker must also consider the strength, nature and duration of any other ties that the non-citizen has to the Australian community. In doing so, decision-makers must have regard to:
a) how long the non-citizen has resided in Australia, including whether the            non-citizen arrived as a young child, noting that:
i. less weight should be given where the non-citizen began offending        soon after arriving in Australia; and
ii. more weight should be given to time the non-citizen has spent    contributing positively to the Australian community
b) the strength, duration and nature of any family or social links with          Australian citizens, Australian permanent residents and/or people who have     an indefinite right to remain in Australia.
The Applicant submits that he has strong ties to Australia because of the following factors:[48]
(a)He arrived in Australia in 2007 as a 19-year-old and has only travelled back to his home country twice, and on both occasions, he was accompanied by his wife and children. The Applicant submits he has spent the majority of his adult life in Australia.
(b)The Applicant married his wife, who is an Australian citizen in 2011, and the couple remain in an exclusive married relationship. The Applicant’s wife visited him regularly in prison and has provided evidence of her many visits to immigration detention where the Applicant remains currently.
(c)The Applicant and his wife have two young children, aged 12 and 10. Both children were born in Australia and currently reside with their mother. The Applicant has close familial bonds with both his children, as evidenced by his daughters’ statements, numerous family photographs, and text messages exchanges between him and his eldest daughter.
(d)The Applicant also has a close bond with his parents-in-law. Each of them has provided statements in support of the Applicant. The Applicant’s mother-in-law is currently undergoing cancer treatment and is the primary carer for her husband. She assists her daughter (the Applicant’s wife) with the care of the two children but finds it difficult to juggle these caring responsibilities with her other grandchildren. She is supportive of the Applicant and says that if the Applicant were removed from Australia, this would place an immense emotional and psychological pressure on her daughter and granddaughters.
(e)Finally, it is submitted that a non-revocation decision would result in the Applicant’s family members in Australia experiencing emotional, practical and financial hardship.
[48] Ibid 139 [19].
The Respondent acknowledges the Applicant’s strong ties to Australia, noting that the Applicant has lived continuously in Australia for the past 18 years.[49] The Respondent notes that the Applicant’s parents and brother live in India, and that his brother was removed from Australia after spending some time in immigration detention.[50]
[49] Ibid 149 [52].
[50] Ibid.
The Respondent notes however that despite living in Australia for the past 18 years, the Applicant has not provided any statements from previous employers, friends or extended family.[51] Overall, the Respondent submits that this primary consideration weighs slightly in favour of revocation of the visa cancellation decision.[52]
[51] Ibid 149 [54].
[52] Ibid 149 [55].
This primary consideration was recently considered by the Federal Court in Siale v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship:[53]
Paragraph 8.3 directs a decision-maker’s consideration of a non-citizen’s ties to Australia in two ways. First, it directs attention to the impact of a non-citizen’s removal on immediate family members who are Australian or who have an indefinite right to remain in Australia. Secondly, it directs attention to the impact on the non-citizen of the loss of any other ties to the Australian community. This two-pronged interpretation is evident from the text and structure of paragraph 8.3. Paragraph 8.3(1) refers specifically to “any impact of the decision on the non-citizen’s immediate family members.” By contrast, paragraph 8.3(2) directs a decision-maker to consider the strength of the ties that the non-citizen has to the Australian community, having particular regard to the length of time the non-citizen has resided in Australia, including whether he or she arrived as a young child, and considering when the non-citizen’s offending began.
(Emphasis in original).
[53] Siale v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2025] FCA 608 [52] (Derrington J).
It was held in particular that paragraph 8.3(2) of the Directions ‘requires and assessment of the strength, duration and nature of any family or social links from the perspective of the non-citizen.’[54] Paragraphs 8.3(1) and (2) are dealt with below.
[54] Ibid [61].
Impact of the decision on the Applicant’s immediate family members
The Tribunal has considered the following immediate family members in Australia who will be impacted by a non-revocation decision. Each of these immediate family members are Australian citizens. They are:
(a)The Applicant’s wife (Ms H): Ms H was born in Australia and is an Australian citizen. She married the Applicant in August 2011, and they have remained together since, aside from a brief period of separation for a few months when she moved out of the family home with the children on account of domestic violence perpetrated by the Applicant’s brother. She has provided written statements to the Department and Tribunal and gave oral evidence.[55] It is her evidence that a non-revocation decision would have a devasting impact on her and her children. She depends on upon the Applicant, not only as a spouse, but also as a loving father to their two children. She told the Tribunal she feels lost without the Applicant being around and often finds it hard to get out of bed. She said the emotional and psychological burden has been enormous and she genuinely fears for her mental wellbeing if the Applicant is deported.[56] She also struggles to raise their two children alone, and that the children miss school on average of one to two days per week as has difficulty getting the children organised on time. She told the Tribunal her financial situation is dire, that her and the children live week to week, and that she relies on the Applicant not only for financial support, but also to assist raising their children. The Tribunal considers that a non-revocation decision would have a negative impact on Ms H and gives this strong weight in the Applicant’s favour.
(b)The Applicant’s eldest daughter (Miss L): Miss L is currently aged 12 years old. She provided a written statement to the Tribunal detailing her close bond with her father.[57] In her statement she said since her father has been incarcerated, he has missed may of her milestones such as birthdays and her Year 6 graduation.[58] She said there are many events she cannot fully enjoy because her father is not present. The Tribunal also considers that a non-revocation decision would have a negative impact on Miss L and gives this strong weight in the Applicant’s favour.
(c)The Applicant’s youngest daughter (Miss E): Miss E is currently aged 10 years old. She also provided a written statement to the Tribunal.[59] She wrote that she misses her father very much and she wishes he was home.[60] She thinks about happy memories they had together such as going learning roller skate and ride bikes.[61] The Tribunal considers that a non-revocation decision would have a negative impact on Miss E and gives this strong weight in the Applicant’s favour.
(d)Applicant’s mother-in-law (Ms W): Ms W provide a written statement and gave evidence that the Applicant’s removal from Australia would have an enormous impact on her life.[62] She is currently battling severe ill-health, including a diagnosis of cancer, and is also caring for her husband who is due to undergo major surgery.[63] She also assists with the care of her other grandchildren when she is able to. Ms W’s evidence to the Tribunal was that she feels the strain of the Applicant not being present, and told the Tribunal her health will only get worse with age. She finds it difficult to juggle her responsibilities to her family with that of looking after her own health. The Tribunal considers that a non-revocation would have significant impact on Ms W because it would increase her caring responsibilities for her daughter and grandchildren, on top of her own personal health difficulties. The Tribunal gives this strong weight in the Applicant’s favour.
(e)Applicant’s father-in-law: The Applicant’s father-in-law also wrote a statement in support of the Applicant.[64] He said he met his son-in-law sometime in August 2011 and considered him as hard working, dedicated, supportive, reliable, honest and loyal.[65] He said they always enjoyed a good bond, and the Applicant assisted him with jobs around his property. He said he feels guilt for not being available to his son-in-law and offering support to him or being the father figure he needed at the time.[66] The Applicant’s father-in-law hopes the Applicant can reconnect with his wife and plan for a successful future.[67] The Tribunal considers that the Applicant’s father-in-law would impact by a non-revocation decision, but less so than the Applicant’s wife and children who have primary day to day care of the children. This is given some weight in favour of revocation.
[55] Exhibit R1, 365-6.
[56] Ibid 365.
[57] Ibid 157-60.
[58] Ibid 157.
[59] Ibid 162-3.
[60] Ibid 162.
[61] Ibid 163.
[62] Ibid 380-1.
[63] Ibid.
[64] Ibid 370-9.
[65] Ibid 371-2.
[66] Ibid 373-6.
[67] Ibid 379.
On balance, the Tribunal considers that the Applicant’s immediate family members in Australia would be significantly impacted by a non-revocation decision. The Tribunal gives this strong weight in the Applicant’s favour.
Strength, nature and duration of any other ties the Applicant has to the Australian community
The Tribunal must also consider the strength, nature and duration of any other ties that the Applicant has to Australian community. The Tribunal notes that the Applicant arrived in Australia as a 19-year-old in May 2007. The Tribunal accepts that the Applicant contributed positively to the Australian community for nine years prior to his first offence in April 2016. In accordance with paragraph 8.3(2)(a) of Direction 110, more weight has been afforded to the time the Applicant spent contributing positively to the Australian community.
The Applicant gave evidence that he has been employed since 2010 in various roles such as a delivery driver and working at Flemington Markets. The Tribunal accepts that the Applicant has a solid work history and that he still has ties to his previous employers, especially those at the markets where he hopes to secure employment if he were released back into the community. He told the Tribunal he still knows many people who work there who would offer him a job straight away if he asked. The Tribunal does not have any evidence of previous ties to the community in the form of letters or references from previous employers but accepts the Applicant’s evidence that he has ties to his previous employers.
The Applicant also has other ties to the Australian community through his extended family which includes his brother-in-law, sister-in-law, their partners and his three nieces. Although the Applicant’s extended family didn’t provide statements, the Tribunal accepts the evidence of Ms H and Ms W that the Applicant is a loving and supportive uncle and much-loved member of the extended family. Of course, the Applicant has very strong ties to his Australian born wife and children, and parents-in-law. In his written statement to the Tribunal he said his wife is his life, and that she has been constant source of support for him.[68] He said he cannot forgive himself for taking precious time away from his daughters.[69]
[68] Ibid 605.
[69] Ibid.
There is no other evidence before the Tribunal of any other ties to the Australian community, but the Tribunal accepts as general proposition that the Applicant would have formed close ties to the Australian community through his work, extended family and friends in the 16 years he resided here prior to his most recent arrest and incarceration.
Having regard to the strength, nature and duration of the other ties the Applicant has to the Australian community, the Tribunal gives this consideration some weight in the Applicant’s favour.
On balance, this primary consideration is given strong weight in the Applicant’s favour. However, it is given less weight in the balancing exercise than the primary considerations which are against revocation. This is primarily because the Applicant’s strong ties did not act as a protective factor during his offending period. The Applicant’s wife and children are currently supported by other immediate family members and have been since the Applicant’s arrest in October 2023. The evidence of Ms W suggests this support will continue into the future for as long as she is able to provide it.
Primary consideration 4: Best interests of minor children in Australia affected by the decision
Paragraph 8.4 provides that decision-makers must make a determination about whether cancellation or refusal under s 501, or non-revocation under s 501CA is, or is not, in the best interests of a child affected by the decision. Paragraph 8.4(3) states that if there are two or more relevant children, the best interests of each child should be given individual consideration to the extent that their interests may differ. Paragraph 8.4(4) provides that in considering the best interests of the child, the following factors must be considered where relevant:
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.
The Tribunal must consider whether a non-revocation decision under s 501CA is, or is not, in the best interests of minor children affected by the decision. Those children are the Applicant’s two minor children and three minor nieces, all of whom were born in Australia and reside in the same state as the Applicant. The Tribunal has considered the best interests of each of the children against the factors identified in this primary consideration below. To the extent that their interests may differ, this has been identified in the factors below.
Miss L
Miss L wrote a statement to the Tribunal in support of her father.[70] She is currently 12 years old and is in her first year of high school.[71] Miss L has an extremely close relationship with her father. The Applicant has provided the Tribunal with extracts of text message exchanges between him and Miss L, as well as an array of family photographs which depict a happy and loving relationship.[72] The Tribunal accepts that the nature of the relationship between the Applicant and Miss L is a loving and supportive one. Miss L was aged 11 years old when her father was arrested for his most recent offending. The Tribunal accepts that the nature and duration of the relationship between Miss L and the Applicant is very strong, and that he has been an important part of her life. This close bond continues whilst the Applicant is in detention and the Tribunal has had regard to this. The fact that this relationship is parental in nature is given strong weight in favour of revocation (paragraph 8.4(4)(a)).
[70] Ibid 157-60.
[71] Ibid 157.
[72] Ibid 165-364.
The Tribunal accepts that if the Applicant were released into the community, he would play a positive role in Miss L’s life in the future. The Applicant’s wife gave evidence that the Applicant would make sure the children always attended school, as he played more of a disciplinarian role with them. The Tribunal accepts that the Applicant would play a positive role in Miss L’s life in these important years of her secondary schooling. This is given strong weight in the Applicant’s favour (paragraph 8.4(4)(b)).
The Tribunal has considered the impact of the Applicant’s prior conduct, and any likely future conduct on Miss L. The Applicant gave evidence about his prior drug usage but maintained he never consumed drugs at home and certainly never in front of the children. However, the Tribunal notes the evidence of the Applicant’s wife who told the Tribunal she found a glass pipe in the Applicant’s brother’s bedroom. The evidence does not establish whether the glass pipe belonged to the Applicant or his brother (who was also consuming drugs at that stage), but in any event, the fact of drug paraphernalia being in the family home is of concern. Both the Applicant and his wife gave evidence that whilst the Applicant was drug-affected he would sleep all day and not be engaged with the children. The Applicant was also asked during cross-examination whether he ever drove his children whilst disqualified or drug affected. He denied driving them whilst drug affected but admitted he would have likely drove them whilst disqualified. He did say however that he may have walked his children to school whilst drug affected which is of concern. On balance the Tribunal finds that the Applicant’s prior conduct would have had a negative impact on Miss L, and certainly any future criminal offending and drug-taking would also have this consequence. This factor is given limited weight in the Applicant’s favour (paragraph 8.4(4)(c)).
The Tribunal accepts that separation of the Applicant from Miss L would have a negative impact on her. In her statement she said loves and misses her father and that she doesn’t want him to be deported.[73] She stated that would mean she would never see him again, but at least now she gets to visit with him regularly in detention.[74] The Tribunal notes that the Applicant and Miss L are in regular contact through phone calls, text messages, as well as regular in-person visits. The Applicant’s wife gave evidence that Miss L is constantly on the phone with her father. The Tribunal accepts that effect of separation of the Applicant from Miss L would be significant, even if the pair could maintain contact electronically if the Applicant were deported from Australia. This factor is given very strong weight in the Applicant’s favour (paragraph 8.4(4)(d)).
[73] Ibid 158-9.
[74] Ibid 159.

The Tribunal has considered that the Applicant poses a medium risk of reoffending, and any risk he would engage in similar conduct in the future is unacceptable. The expectations of the Australian community also weight strongly in favour of not revoking the cancellation decision.
Direction 110 provides that one or more primary considerations may outweigh other primary considerations.[85] The Tribunal notes that primary considerations three and four are in the Applicant’s favour. However, the Tribunal considers that the nature of the Applicant’s conduct, and the harm that would be caused if the conduct were to be repeated, is serious enough that even strong countervailing considerations may be insufficient to justify not revoking a mandatory cancellation.[86] In those circumstances the Tribunal has decided that primary consideration one and five outweigh primary considerations three and four.
[85] Ibid 7(3).
[86] Ibid 5.2(7).
The Tribunal notes that the extent of impediments and other consideration raised by the Applicant are in his favour. However greater weight has been attributed to the primary considerations than the other considerations as the Direction provides that they generally should be given greater weight and has done so in this case.[87] The Tribunal does not consider the extent of impediments the Applicant may face on his return to India would be insurmountable, even though he may face initial practical difficulties. The support the Applicant currently enjoys in Australia from his parents who reside in India would likely continue. The other consideration relating to the impact on Ms W has also been taken into account.
[87] Ibid 7(2).
The Tribunal considers that the Applicant has had multiple chances over the course of his life to correct his behaviour and seek treatment for his drug addiction. The Tribunal accepts that the Applicant may have been negatively influenced by his brother, but his criminal offending and drug taking is solely his responsibility. The Tribunal notes that even a short term of imprisonment (which did not trigger the mandatory cancellation provisions) did not have the desired effect of deterring the Applicant from committing further offences. It was extremely good fortune that the Applicant did not seriously injure or kill himself or an innocent member of the community during his police pursuit. That is why the primary considerations of protection and expectation of the Australian community outweigh the strong countervailing primary considerations that are in the Applicant’s favour.
The Tribunal is therefore not satisfied that there is another reason to revoke the mandatory cancellation decision.
DECISION
The decision under review is affirmed.

Dates of hearing: 17 and 18 June 2025

Advocate for the Applicant: Ms Alice Wang

Representatives for the Applicant: Migration Downunder

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr Mathew Kenneally

Solicitors for the Respondent: Mr Triston Qian, Mills Oakley

Dates of hearing:	17 and 18 June 2025
Advocate for the Applicant:	Ms Alice Wang
Representatives for the Applicant:	Migration Downunder
Counsel for the Respondent:	Mr Mathew Kenneally
Solicitors for the Respondent:	Mr Triston Qian, Mills Oakley