Thiengtham and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (Migration) - [2025] ARTA 2060

Thiengtham and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (Migration) [2025] ARTA 2060 (14 October 2025)
Applicant/s:  Nalinporn Thiengtham
Respondent:  Minister for Immigration and Citizenship
Tribunal Number:                2025/4423
Tribunal:Senior Member M Harrowell
Place:Sydney
Date:14 October 2025

Decision:The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and in substitution decides that discretion should not be exercised to refuse to grant the visa to the Applicant under s 501(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth).

......................[SGD].........................
Senior Member M Harrowell
Catchwords
MIGRATION – Refusal of visa – Application for review decision to refuse visa pursuant to s 501(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) – conviction for trafficking offence – false arrival declarations when entering Australia – Partner visa application – risk to Australian community – family ties and interests of minor children – decision to set aside refusal.
Legislation
Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth)
Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth)
Migration Act 1959 (Cth)
Cases
Kumar v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs (Migration) [2023] AATA 4069
HZCP v Minister for Immigration and the Border Protection [2019] FCAFC 202; (2019) 273 FCR 121
PNLB v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (Migration) [2018] AATA 162
Secondary Materials
Direction No. 110 – Migration Act 1958-Direction under section 499 —Visa refusal under section 501(1).
REASONS FOR DECISION
INTRODUCTION

The Applicant is a citizen of Thailand who had applied for a Partner (Temporary) Class UK Visa (‘Partner Visa’). On 24 July 2024 the application was refused under s 501(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (Act).
The decision of the delegate of the Minister was in the following terms:
Ms THIENGTHAM has not satisfied me that she passes the character test. I have decided to exercise my discretion under s501(1) of the Act to refuse to grant Ms THIENGTHAM a Partner (Temporary) Class UK visa. I hereby refuse to grant Ms THIENGTHAM a Partner (Temporary) Class UK visa. My reasons for this decision are set out in the attached Statement of Reasons.
The delegate provided reasons for the decision (‘Decision’). The delegate found the Applicant failed the character test as she had been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more and decided to exercise the delegate’s discretion to refuse the application for Partner Visa. Having had regard to Direction No. 110 – Direction under s 499 Migration Act 1958 (‘Direction 110’), the delegate concluded:
CONCLUSION
124. I have found that Ms THIENGTHAM does not pass the character test and she has not satisfied me that she passes the character test.
125. In considering the use of my discretion, I have given the highest priority to the safety of the Australian community and the need to protect its safety.
126. When considering the factors that weigh in favour of granting a visa in this case, I have taken into account that the best interests of Mr Pearson’s three grandchildren, with whom Ms THIENGTHAM has some level of relationship weigh in favour of granting the visa and I have given this consideration some weight, for reasons as discussed above.
127. I found other factors also weigh in favour of visa grant. I found the strength, nature and duration of Ms THIENGTHAM’s ties to Australia weighed somewhat against refusal of her visa. I found Ms THIENGTHAM’s impediments to return to Thailand and the impact on Australian business interests both weighed very little against refusal of her visa.
128. However, I have also given significant weight to the very serious nature of Ms THIENGTHAM’s criminal conduct related to human trafficking and the serious nature of her other conduct, in repeatedly providing false and misleading information about her criminal history. These matters weigh heavily against granting a visa to Ms THIENGTHAM.
129. In my view, the Australian community would expect that non-citizens who have a history of such conduct should be denied the privilege of coming to, or forfeit the privilege of staying in, Australia.
130. I consider that where serious harm could be inflicted on the Australian community, any risk of reoffending may be considered unacceptable. I consider this to be so here.
131. In addition to the need to protect the Australian community from risks of harm, I have also considered what the community would expect in relation to non-citizens of character concern. I am of the view that the community generally would not expect non-citizens who have committed very serious criminal offences and have engaged in other serious conduct to hold a visa in Australia, especially where the non-citizen continues to pose a significant risk to the community.
132. I have found that the factors that weigh against grant of Ms THIENGTHAM’s Partner (Temporary) Class UK visa application outweigh the factors in favour of grant and that Ms THIENGTHAM presents a risk of harm to the Australian community which is unacceptable.
LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK AND LEGAL PRINCIPLES
Section 501(1) of the Act provides:
501 Refusal or cancellation of visa on character grounds
Decision of Minister or delegate—natural justice applies
(1) The Minister may refuse to grant a visa to a person if the person
does not satisfy the Minister that the person passes the character
test.
Note: Character test is defined by subsection (6).
Section 501(6) provides:
For the purposes of this section, a person does not pass the
character test if:
(a) the person has a substantial criminal record (as defined by subsection (7)).
It is not in dispute that the Applicant has a substantial criminal record in that she “has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more”,[1] or that she does not pass the ‘character test’. The question for determination is whether the discretion in s 501(1) of the Act should be exercised to refuse to grant the Partner Visa.
[1] s 501(7)(c) of the Act.
Direction 110 applies to the exercise of discretion under s 501(1) of the Act. The direction was made by the Minister under s 499 of the Act. The Tribunal is required to comply with this direction. The direction sets out primary and other considerations to be taken into account and the principles to be applied in doing so. The 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 noncitizen 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.
In Kumar and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs (Migration),[2] the President of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (now the President of this Tribunal), set out the approach to be taken by the Tribunal in the decision-making process. At [16]-[18] the President said:
16. As stated by the Full Court of the Federal Court in Kumar v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs, although the Tribunal is required to take into account Direction 99, that direction does not dictate the outcome of the review before the Tribunal. The primary and other considerations in Direction 99 are mandatory relevant considerations but are ‘not an exhaustive universe’ of considerations.
17. Complying with Direction 99 is no substitute for the Tribunal reading, identifying, understanding and evaluating the case made by an applicant on the material before the Tribunal.
18. It is not sufficient for the Tribunal to weigh each of the considerations in Direction 99 separately and then aggregate each of the individual assessments by some form of calculus. Instead, the Tribunal must undertake a process of weighing and balancing, by which it evaluates the different considerations in relation to each other in a balancing exercise in order to reach the ultimate conclusion required by s 501(1) of the Act.]
18. The discretion conferred by s 501(1) of the Act is to be exercised subject to the Act and subject to the self-evident Australian community protective purpose of the discretion. However, by the very circumstance that the section confers a discretion, it necessarily follows that Parliament has accepted that this purpose is not necessarily served in a given case by a refusal to grant a visa to a person who does not pass the character test.
[2] [2023] AATA 4069.
HISTORY OF PROCEEDINGS AND EVIDENCE
The application was listed for hearing by the Tribunal for two days commencing on 2 October 2025 and concluding on 3 October 2025.
At the hearing, the Applicant was represented by Mr Guan, solicitor. Mr Taverniti, solicitor.
The Tribunal was provided with an agreed hearing bundle (hearing bundle/HB). Included in the hearing bundle were submissions filed on behalf of the applicant[3] and a Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions (SFICS) filed by the respondent[4]. The Applicant also filed a reply to the Respondent’s SFICS.[5] In addition, written closing submissions were provided by each party.
[3] HB 2 and following
[4] HB 63 and following
[5] HB 58 and following
The hearing bundle contained statements of the Applicant as well as other witnesses providing evidence on her behalf. Of those people providing statements, the Respondent cross examined the following:
(a)The Applicant;
(b)Mr Ian Pearson (her partner);
(c)Ms Kristina Pearson, the daughter of Mr Pearson;
(d)Ms Jilapada Silapong, partner of the Applicant’s daughter.
Evidence
The evidence can be summarised as follows.
Non contentious history
The Applicant is 50 years old having been born in 1975 in Thailand.
The Applicant currently lives with her de facto partner, Mr Pearson in Casino.
Prior to her arrival in Australia, the Applicant worked in various positions in Thailand, including first in a Bank call centre and later as the owner of a book rental shop in Bangkok.[6]
[6] HB 343 – employment history
On 5 November 2009, the Applicant was convicted of two offences, described in the Decision as “conspiracy to commit human trafficking and conspiracy to procure and seduce or take away a person for indecent purposes”. Initially, she received a combined sentence 2 years imprisonment. On 6 June 2011, this sentence was reduced on appeal to 1 year and 4 months. On 14 March 2013 a further appeal to the Supreme Court was dismissed. The circumstances of what occurred are dealt with in more detail below.
The Applicant has visited Australia on multiple occasions, her first arrival being in 2016.[7] On arrival she completed incoming passenger cards (Arrival Declarations) as part of the process of entering Australia.[8] There is no evidence before me that the Applicant has overstayed any period for which entry was permitted.
[7] HB 541-2 – movement history
[8] HB 532 and following
The Applicant met Mr Pearson in Canberra in 2017, where Mr Pearson then work. Initially, they would meet on the weekends or talk over the phone or go out together on Mr Pearson’s days off.
When Mr Pearson finished work in Canberra, he moved back to Lismore. He invited the Applicant to come out to Australia again and visit his home, which she did. After that, they travelled together to Thailand as well as the Applicant returning to Australia on multiple occasions. The circumstances of their relationship and its development are detailed in their statements in the hearing bundle.
These statements include details of the various medical conditions of the applicant (who suffers from diabetes) and the respondent (who suffered a heart attack) and who has since had to cease work as a traffic controller, and the support they have provided each other in dealing with these circumstances.
The Applicant applied for a combined Partner (Temporary) Class UK Subclass 820 visa and Partner (Residence) Class BS Subclass 801 visa on 16 February 2021[9]. That application stated the Applicant and Mr Pearson had been a de facto relationship since October 2019[10]. The application and the supporting sponsorship document completed by Mr Pearson set out further details concerning their relationship and its development.
[9] HB 478 and following, see HB 565 for particulars of visas sought
[10] HB 479
In the application, the Applicant indicated she had been convicted of “conspiracy to commit human trafficking” and “conspiracy in procuring, seducing or taking away for an indecent of a man or woman in Thailand”[11]. This was the first time the applicant provided a statement to the respondent or representatives of the Government that she had been convicted of offences in Thailand, earlier visa applications and Arrival Declarations answering “no” to the question of whether there were any convictions.
[11] HB 511-3
The Applicant presently lives with Mr Pearson in Casino. Since April 2021, she has operated a Thai massage business at Casino in which Mr Pearson is involved, working at reception.
Since her arrival in Australia, she has had no criminal convictions.
Convictions in Thailand
The convictions concern events which occurred between October 2007 and March 2008.
What occurred is set out in more detail in the Decision. I will refer to the person who was found to have been trafficked as the “victim”.
In short, in convicting the applicant in 2009, the Criminal Court (‘Court’) found that the Applicant had introduced the victim to a third party who arranged for transport and accommodation for the victim to travel to Bahrain. The Court also found the applicant attended Suvarnabhumi Airport and provided the victim with air tickets. When the victim arrived in Bahrain, she advised those with whom she met that she did not agree to being involved in prostitution. Consequently, the victim was required to repay travel and other expenses and, with the help of her father, thereafter returned to Thailand.
Further, the Court’s reasons indicate the Court rejected the Applicant’s assertion she did not provide the travel documents, but only the introduction.[12]
[12] HB 262
Also, the Court did not accept the victim had agreed to travel on the understanding she would be “working as an elderly caretaker”, Rather, the Court said the evidence “would clearly indicate the intention of the victim as the voluntary consent to travel for prostitution”.[13]
[13] HB 264
An appeal was determined by the Appeal Court (Appeal Court) on 6 June 2011.
The Appeal Court accepted that the victim was not coerced nor was she “controlled or supervised” or otherwise denied her freedom while overseas.[14] Further, while the Appeal Court found the victim was not deceived as to the work she would be required to undertake while overseas, the Appeal Court nonetheless found the offences had been committed. In doing so, the Appeal Court reduced the sentence from 2 years to a period of 1 year and 4 months.[15] A subsequent appeal to the Supreme Court was dismissed.
[14] HB 287
[15] HB 287-288
I should note the court documents suggest it was the prosecutor (who is described as the plaintiff in the criminal proceedings), who lodged the various appeals, not the Applicant (who is described as the defendant).
Evidence of witnesses cross-examined
The following witnesses provided statements and were cross-examined.
Applicant
The Applicant provided a number of written statements in support of her application[16] as well as evidence in the form of statements made in applications to the respondent from time to time in connection with visa applications, including the application the subject of these proceedings.
[16] HB 9, HB 12
The Applicant attended the hearing of the Tribunal, was affirmed and cross-examined by the Respondent. She required the assistance of a Thai interpreter.
In oral evidence, the Applicant explained that the statements she had provided in support of her review application had been prepared by her in Thai and translated by an AI translation application.
The Applicant confirmed the truth of her earlier statements dated 31 January 2021[17] and 5 November 2024[18] , subject to some corrections. Prior to doing so, these statements were read to her by the interpreter. The Applicant said these statements had been written by her in Thai and then she had arranged for them to be translated.
[17] HB 323
[18] HB 326
In cross-examination, the Applicant explained her life in Thailand and where she had worked. She provided evidence that she has two children, one aged 30 and one aged 27 from an earlier relationship (being a person she described as her ex-husband although she was not married). The Applicant has a number of siblings, the youngest being a sister (Vilawan) who has provided support to her.
Details of her family members, including her parents and other close family are set out in the hearing bundle at HB 367. Her parents are deceased as is her second sister. The applicant has little contact with her elder sister.
Vilawan works as an assistant nurse in the dental department of a hospital.
Before her arrest, the Applicant was living with Vilawan who does not have children. That accommodation, which is owned by Vilawan, consists of two separate apartments with one bedroom in each apartment. The apartments do not adjoin each other. The accommodation is located on the outskirts of Bangkok.
Previously, the Applicant lived there with her children. While doing so, she helped financially by paying electricity and water. When she left prison and returned to live with her sister, she did not pay rent to her sister.
Since she has been in Australia, the Applicant’s eldest daughter and her partner have lived with her sister in the apartment.
The Applicant’s employment history is summarised in the document entitled “Personal particulars for assessment including character assessment” submitted to the Department of Home Affairs.[19] The Applicant was supported by her sister in opening a bookstore which she operated in Thailand from 2014 until it closed 2018. More recently, Vilawan has supported the Applicant by providing funding for the Applicant’s Thai massage business in Australia. Vilawan’s apartment in Thailand has been used as collateral for that loan.
[19] HB 339 and following at HB 343.

As to her work in Australia, the Applicant said she had worked in a Thai massage business in Lismore as a therapist, having learned this work in Thailand. She received further training while working in Lismore. Presently, she is the sole therapist in her business although Mr Pearson assists by working on reception from time to time.
As to her relationship with Mr Pearson and with the children and grandchildren of Mr Pearson, there was no significant challenge to her evidence on these matters in cross-examination, including her evidence in the application for the Partner Visa. However, the Applicant indicated in questioning that Mr Pearson has no superannuation and that the Applicant and Mr Pearson live in rental accommodation.
The written evidence of the Applicant also dealt with her relationship with the three children of Mr Pearson and their children including the care and support provided by the Applicant to the children of Kristina Pearson.
In connection with the conviction in Thailand, in her statement dated 2 September 2025, she described her involvement in the circumstances giving rise to the charges for which he was convicted. She said:[20]
I am writing this letter to provide further clarification regarding my past criminal case. I did not have the opportunity to present the truth before the court, as I had entrusted my case to a lawyer whom I believe would represent me fairly. Unfortunately, the lawyer did not provide any assistance and assured me that everything could be resolved because a friend who had travelled with the complainant was willing to testify that I had nothing to do with sending them to Bahrain and that I was not involved in the allegations.
As I had no knowledge of legal proceedings, I place my trust in my lawyer. However, on the day of the hearing, I was told by the lawyer to accept all statements made by the complainant. I was shocked and completely unprepared for this. The court immediately delivered the judgement, sentencing me to 2 years in prison. I was taken into custody right away. Later, my lawyer demanded an additional fee at a very high amounts which I could not afford, leaving me without legal support.
Regarding the plane tickets that the complainant claimed I delivered, I had already informed the police from the beginning that I could prove my innocence by requesting airport CCTV footage to confirm that I did not deliver any tickets. As for the allegation that I applied for visas for the complainants, this was untrue because Thai citizens can travel to Bahrain without a visa. They can simply purchase a ticket and travel. Unfortunately, I never had a chance to clarify these facts in court.
During my time in prison, I reflected deeply on everything. I accepted the court’s decision and did not request a public defender, nor did I appeal. I am truly grateful for the mercy shown by the Appeal Court and the Supreme Court, which reduced my sentence to one year and 4 months.
While in prison, I behaved well and never caused any problems. I volunteered to work in the prison laundry until the day of my release. After being released, I waited for the Supreme Court’s decision and never attempted to escape or break any rules.
The mistake cost me everything. My ex-husband abandoned me and never visited. I lost my future, and it was extremely difficult to integrate into society. I was ashamed to face people, withdrew from social interactions, and carried a criminal record that destroyed opportunities for my life. I felt deep regret that my children had to feel ashamed because their mother had been in prison, and my younger sister had to take on the responsibility of raising them. I never want to make another mistake or face a similar situation again.
I cannot fully express how deeply remorseful I am for what happened. It was one of the hardest times in my life. Since then, I have rebuilt my life, found work, adapted to society, and created new opportunities to move forward – until I met Ian.
[20] HB 9
I should note at this point that a transcript of the criminal proceedings was not provided to the Tribunal for the purpose of this application. However, it would appear from the Court’s reasons that the Applicant did give some evidence to the Court, the Court finding the Applicant had given plane tickets to the victim at the airport.
Before the Tribunal, the Applicant gave oral evidence concerning introducing her friend to a clinic that conducted plastic surgery. The Applicant said she did not work at the clinic. She also gave evidence of introducing the victim and a nurse at the clinic involved in the trafficking enterprise.
The Applicant said she never received any money for introducing the victim, for whom she said she had provided a telephone number to those arranging the trafficking enterprise. She made clear that she accepted she was at fault and guilty of the offences for which he had been convicted but asserted her involvement was limited to providing a telephone number, not providing plane tickets to the victim at the airport. In this regard, she said she had raised with the police the need to obtain the CCTV footage from the airport, however this evidence was never produced to the Court.
In short, the Applicant sought to challenge some of the facts found by the Court in convicting her.
Notwithstanding this challenge, the Applicant accepted that she knew the person to whom she gave the telephone number of the victim was a sex trafficker.
The Applicant was cross-examined about her statement dated 5 November 2024, where she said that she became a scapegoat for the police.[21] Despite this statement being read to her by the Tribunal’s interpreter and thereafter confirming it to be correct, the Applicant sought to explain this statement when cross-examined by the Respondent on the issue of whether she accepted responsibility for what had occurred.
[21] HB 329
On the issue of the Arrival Declarations, the Applicant was asked questions about providing false information to the Australian Government.
In her statement dated 2 January 2025[22], which dealt with her Arrival Declaration dated 24 April 2016, the Applicant said:
… During my first visa application. I had enlisted the help of an agent in Thailand to apply for the visa and was granted a one-year visa to enter Australia for the first time. I travelled with two daughters of a friend. As I do not speak English, the eldest daughter of my friend filled out the incoming passenger cards for me, and I only signed it. I was unaware that there was a question about whether I had a criminal record.
In my first entry, I had no intention of concealing any information. It wasn’t until my second trip to Australia that I became aware of the question while filling out the incoming passenger card by myself at the airport using a translation app. I was shocked and anxious, realizing that if I had answered truthfully at the time, it might have contradicted my previous entry, potentially causing problems and leading to immediate deportation to Thailand by immigration officials.
It was out of fear and lack of foresight, I selfishly concealed this information multiple times, which has understandably impacted my credibility.
At the time, I was determined to maintain my relationship with Ian, as we had only recently started seeing each other. Ian worked hard to make ends meet and save money for visits to Thailand, but he couldn’t afford many trips. Thus, I travelled to Australia to see him instead.
On my third entry, I had a serious conversation with Ian about whether our relationship should continue, as my visa was nearing expiration, and I wouldn’t be able to return to Australia. Ian assured me that he was committed to our relationship and wanted to move forward and apply for a Partner Visa.
Each time I entered Australia, I carried a sense of guilt and worry. I was never at peace, as the guilt lingered in my heart. I only acted to give myself a chance to have someone in my life. During our relationship, Ian showed genuine care and concern for me, treating me well despite his own modest means. Ian was serious and sincere, unaware of my actions until I told him when he was ready to apply for a Partner Visa.
Initially, Ian was shocked and asked for the full story. However, he gave me a chance to start over and find ways to rectify the mistakes I had made. Since spending several years together, we have taken care of each other through sickness, hardship, and joy. I have built a good relationship with Ian’s family, helping care for his grandchildren. I have been accepted and loved by his family, contributed to the community, and adhered to Australian laws. I have improved myself, worked responsibly, and never caused any harm or posed a danger to society.
[22] HB 330
Ultimately, the Applicant accepted she had lied in various visa applications and Arrival Declarations.
I should note at this point two other matters relevant to the disclosure to the Australian Government of the Applicant’s convictions in Thailand.
First, despite there being a number of applications for Visitor Short Stay Visas which answered “No” to the question of whether the applicant had ever been convicted of an offence in any country,[23] a truthful declaration was made in the application for the Partner Visa[24].
[23] See eg HB 449
[24] HB 512-3
Secondly, it would appear there were several Arrival Declarations completed in the period 24 April 2016 until 30 December 2016.[25] These Arrival Declarations appear to be in Thai. While not translated, they indicate an answer of “No” to the question 11. In the later Arrival Declarations, question 11 is the question concerning criminal convictions. These arrivals were before the Applicant met Mr Pearson.
[25] HB 538-HB 540
Mr Pearson
Mr Pearson is 67 years old.
As with the Applicant, he provides evidence of their relationship which commenced in 2017. He sets out the medical conditions they each experience, the support they have provided each other and various personal issues which have arisen, including in connection with the law. In his statement in support of her application for a Partner Visa, Mr Pearson provides further details concerning their relationship and its history.
Mr Pearson said that he has stopped work as a traffic controller, now assisting the Applicant in her Thai massage business in Casino.
Mr Pearson describes the Applicant as a law-abiding person who has been working paying taxes and helping out with Mr Pearson’s family. Mr Pearson says that he would be unable to support the Applicant over in Thailand and says that the Applicant has been able to provide him with ongoing support and assistance in relation to his continuing medical conditions.
Finally, he says his grandchildren would be adversely affected if the applicant was required to leave Australia.
Mr Pearson was sworn and cross-examined. He confirmed the information in his statement, summarised above.
Of the Thai massage business in Casino, Mr Pearson said the business was started in August 2023. He expressed the view that if the Applicant left, the business would close as he was unaware of anybody who would want to buy the business.
Mr Pearson said that if the Applicant left Australia, he would follow her to Thailand. He indicated that his children could not afford to look after him as well as their own families. On the other hand, he also said that the applicant provide support to his family.
As to his financial position, Mr Pearson said that he would be applying for the pension.
As to his knowledge concerning inaccurate Arrival Declarations, he became aware of this matter when the application for the Partner Visa was made.
Kristina Pearson
Ms Pearson was affirmed and confirmed the content of her written statement.
In her written statement, Ms Pearson gave evidence concerning the role the Applicant has played with her family, including looking after her children during the week and weekends.
While close to her father, Ms Pearson says due to her own family commitments, she is unable to provide him with all necessary support, particularly after his heart attack. This role is undertaken by the applicant.
Ms Pearson described the close relationship her children have with the Applicant and the negative effect upon them if the applicant was required to leave Australia. This, she said, would cause her children “to feel a sense of abandonment and left questioning why the grandparent is no longer around”.[26]
[26] HB 25
Ms Pearson expressed her anxiety at the possibility the Applicant might be required to leave Australia and the negative effect it would have on her father’s physical and mental health. In this regard Ms Pearson said the Applicant assists Mr Pearson with his medication and maintenance of his overall health and “has helped keep him stable, happy and content with his life”.[27]
[27] HB 26
Ms Pearson says that the applicant’s Thai massage business is very successful and she describes the Applicant as a dedicated hard-working woman. She described the Applicant as caring and nurturing of her customers and a person who helps others. This included housing people who lost their home in the 2022 Lismore floods for a period of 5 months.
When cross examined concerning the conviction in Thailand, Ms Pearson explained what she had been told concerning those events, namely that the Applicant had provided a phone number of the victim to another person but was otherwise not involved and that the victim had changed their mind in connection with prostituting themselves Bahrain.
When asked to comment on the Applicant’s conduct, including in connection with the Arrival Declarations, the effect of Ms Pearson’s evidence was that she was not concerned.
Jidapa Silapong
Ms Silapong is the partner of the Applicant’s daughter. She has been in Australia studying Mechanical Engineering at the Lismore campus of Southern Cross University. She is in Australia on a working holiday visa which is due to expire in February 2026
Ms Silapong explained that she lives with the Applicant and Mr Pearson in Casino and that they have provided food and accommodation to her as well as providing support and advice.
Ms Silapong gave evidence of the Applicant volunteering alongside other members of the Thai community to help with the cleaning and recovery efforts following the Lismore floods in 2022. She says the Applicant has been law-abiding and positive contributed to the local community.
Of the Applicant’s conviction in Thailand, she explained her understanding that the Applicant had given a phone number of the victim to another person. She also said that the Applicant’s lawyer was not of great assistance. Ms Silapong said the Applicant was ashamed of her conduct in relation to completing the Arrival Declarations.
Evidence of witnesses not cross examined
Statements were provided by the following witnesses.
Josephine Pearson
Ms Josephine Pearson (Josephine) is the former wife of Mr Pearson and the mother of Kristina. She provided a statement dated 4 September 2025.[28]
[28] HB 22
Josephine provides evidence concerning the “strong co-grandparent relationship” which the applicant has with Josephine’s grandchildren.
Josephine explains that on many occasions when she is unavailable to help her daughter due to work commitments, the Applicant cares for her grandchildren. She says the Applicant has formed a strong bond with the grandchildren and that she is a valued member of the extended family.
Josephine observes the positive impact the Applicant has had on Mr Pearson and describes the relationship between Mr Pearson and the Applicant as “built on mutual care, respect, and commitment”. In this regard Josephine notes the support the Applicant has provided to Mr Pearson including in attending to his health needs and providing stability and love.
Theo Waters
Mr Waters is the father of Kristina Pearson’s children. It would appear he does not live with Ms Pearson. He provided a statement dated 12 August 2025.[29]
[29] HB 28
He provides evidence concerning the time which the Applicant has known Mr Pearson, the relationship between the Applicant and Mr Water’s children and the support the Applicant has provided to his family. He says his children visit the Applicant frequently and that she is regarded as their grandmother. He describes the support given to Kristina and the children and the involvement of the Applicant with Kristina and the children from since the children were born. This involvement includes looking after the children on weekdays and weekends and purchasing clothing and putting money towards the children’s sporting activities.
Mr Waters also provides evidence concerning the care the Applicant provides for Mr Pearson and the strength of their relationship together.
As to her role in the community, Mr Waters refers to her successful business in Casino and her work in providing support, assistance and housing to those involved in the Lismore 2022 floods for a period of 5 months.
Sarah McDonald (nee Pearson)
Ms McDonald is a daughter of Mr Pearson. She provides evidence concerning the relationship between her father and the Applicant. She states:[30]
In 2022, when my father Ian suffered a heart attack, [the applicant] was right by his side every single day, providing care, comfort and strength during one of the most challenging periods of his life. I have seen first-hand how much happiness and stability she brings to him, and I can honestly say that she has made a lasting and positive difference not only in his life, but to all of ours as well.
[30] HB 31
Ms McDonald also describes her own relationship with the Applicant and her significance as a member of her family.
Nevin Clifford
Mr Clifford has known the Applicant for 4 years, being a customer of her business in Casino.
Of her business and the Applicant (who Mr Clifford refers to as “Anna”), Mr Clifford says:[31]
Anna has bought her skills first to Lismore and now to Casino, where she has established a small business that has become an important part of the local community. Beyond her business, she actively supports and participate in community events, including Anzac services, community markets, and other gatherings.
I have personally recommended and is services to many people, including colleagues from my large workplace, and the feedback has always been positive. Her business provides a valuable service that spares Casino residence from having to travel more than 25 minutes to Lismore. Her presence and contribution are, in my view, an asset to the casino community.
[31] HB 37
Otherwise, Mr Clifford observes the Applicant “is a law-abiding citizen who poses no danger to the community” and a person who “conducts herself with integrity and treats others with respect”. In both a professional and personal context, Mr Clifford says he has “found her to be reliable, considerate and genuine”.[32]
[32] HB 37
FINDINGS
It is convenient to deal with each of the relevant considerations in turn.
PRIMARY CONSIDERATION 1- PROTECTION OF AUSTRALIAN COMMUNITY
This consideration requires me to keep in mind that the safety of the Australian community is the highest priority of the Australian Government. In this regard 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.[33]
[33] The Direction, paragraph 8.1(1).
Consideration must also be given 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.[34]
[34] The Direction, paragraph 8.1(2).
There can be no doubt that human trafficking is a serious offence.
The Respondent referred to the trafficking laws in Australia, particularly Division 271.2 of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) and the consideration in paragraph 8.1.1(1)(i) of Direction 110.
Of the applicant’s conduct, the respondent said in its SFICS:[35]
…, the particular circumstances of the applicant’s offending highlight its seriousness. The offending conduct involved her encouraging and arranging for a Thai woman to travel to Bahrain and work as a prostitute as part of a sex trafficking enterprise. She and her co-offenders preyed on the victim’s vulnerability and financial difficulties, in recruiting her and in coercing her to pay 50,000 baht if she wanted to return home. The applicant was plainly involved in the enterprise and well aware of its manipulative and degrading nature, for financial gain and with no regard for the wellbeing, safety and dignity of the victim. The applicant’s involvement in such an enterprise was a callous and abhorrent manipulation of a vulnerable woman and should be regarded as a serious case of criminality.
[35] Respondent's SFICS at [20] – HB 68

The Respondent then said that the imposition of a custodial sentence of one year and four months for her offending was a significant term of imprisonment for a first-time offender. Reliance was placed upon the proposition under Australian law that custodial sentences are a last resort in the sentencing hierarchy[36]. The Respondent continued: “the significant sentence reinforces the seriousness of the Applicant’s offending”.[37]
[36] the respondent referred to PNLB and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (Migration) [2018] AATA 162 at [22]
[37] Respondent's SFICS at [31] – HB 68-9
The Respondent also submitted that the Applicant’s attempt to contradict various findings of the Thai Courts:[38]
(a)was impermissible having regard to the decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia in HZCP v Minister for Immigration and the Border Protection;[39]
(b)demonstrates a consistent denial of responsibility, lack of remorse and absence of any insight into the harms associated with her offending.
[38] Respondent's written closing submissions at [6]
[39] [2019] FCAFC 202; (2019) 273 FCR 121 at [63]
As such, the Respondent submits “the Applicant has not achieved a level of rehabilitation as might mitigate the unacceptability of any risk of future such offending”.
The Respondent also relies upon the false and misleading information contained in the applications for visas and the Arrival Declarations. Of this conduct, the Respondent says:[40]
As regards the applicant’s provision of false and misleading information to Australian authorities, the applicant accepts that she engaged in that conduct in relation to each entry into Australia subsequent to her first because she knew that if she told the truth she would be denied entry or deported. The applicant says this was out of “fear, not fraud” (ACS [4.2]). But inherent in the nature of fraudulent conduct is that it is engaged in because the person knows that deceit is the only avenue via which they will obtain the desired outcome. The applicant’s “fear” of the legal processes that might have unfolded if she had been forthcoming about her criminal history does not assist her case. But it does, in the Minister’s submission, substantiate his contention that the applicant is a person who has not achieved anything resembling the kind of rehabilitation that might lead the Tribunal to view her as posing something less than a real risk of further offending.
[40] Respondent's closing submissions at [7]
In her closing submissions, the Applicant disputes some of the findings of the Thai Courts and also asserts the trial was procedurally unfair on the basis that “requests to present CCTV evidence were denied, her lawyer accepted the complainant’s statement without challenge, and she was not permitted to properly testify”.[41]
[41] Applicant's closing submissions at paragraph 2.2
Under the heading Direction 110 – 8.1.1 Nature and Seriousness of the Conduct, the Applicant said:[42]
3.1 Trafficking offences are inherently serious and contrary to international norms.
3.2 However, the seriousness must be assessed in light of the actual conduct. On her account, the Applicant was not an organiser, recruiter, or profiteer; she acted merely as a go-between, with no evidence of coercion or financial gain.
3.3 Under Australian evidentiary standards, it is doubtful whether such limited conduct—passing on a phone number—would have sustained a conviction for trafficking.
3.4 While the Tribunal must accept the conviction exists, it is entitled, in exercising discretion, to give it less weight given the questionable trial process, minor involvement, and the 15+ years that have passed since.
[42] Applicant's closing submissions at paragraph 3
As to the provision of false or misleading information in connection with visa applications and Arrival Declarations the Applicant said:[43]
4.1 The Applicant admits she incorrectly answered “No” to the criminal conviction question on her incoming passenger cards.
4.2 Her explanation is that she feared being automatically denied entry if she answered truthfully. This was an error of judgment made out of fear, not fraud.
4.3 The conduct was wrong but is distinguishable from deliberate, repeated criminal dishonesty. Since then, she has made full disclosure of her conviction in immigration processes.
4.4 The provision of false information therefore does not establish an ongoing risk but reflects a mistake under pressure.
[43] Applicant's closing submissions at paragraph 4
In the present case, the trafficking involved facilitating a woman to travel from Thailand to Bahrain to engage as a sex worker. The Court’s reasons record that the Applicant was a participant in the trafficking enterprise but there is no finding she was the instigator or controller of the enterprise. In this regard, the Applicant accepted she provided the phone number of the victim to an organiser of the enterprise but denied handing over plane tickets at the airport.
While no transcript of the proceedings before the Thai Court is available, it is apparent from the reasons of the Court that the Applicant provided “testimony” in relation to the plane tickets,[44] which the Court rejected.
[44] HB 262
The Court’s reasons also record that the victim understood what was involved in travelling to Bahrain, agreed to participate for financial return, was given a plane ticket and travelled to Bahrain and that her actions “clearly indicate the intentions of the victim as the voluntary consent to travel for prostitution”[45]. The Appeal Court’s reasons record that while in Bahrain, the victim was not deprived her freedom or detained against her will, nor was she forced into prostitution[46]. However, in Bahrain, the victim decided she did not wish to participate and was required to repay travel expenses to the organisers of the enterprise. This occurred and the victim returned to Thailand.
[45] HB 264
[46] HB 287
The Court’s reasons do not record a finding that the Applicant received payment for her role.
It is unclear what was the maximum sentence that could be imposed in respect of the charges. However, in imposing a sentence of two years imprisonment, it seems clear that the Court considered the “testimony from the defendant was useful for considering which is a ground for mitigation, therefore, reducing the punishment by one-third.[47] The Appeal Court further reduced the sentence by another one-third based on “the testimonial of the defendant”.[48]
[47] HB 265
[48] HB 291
The matters lead me to conclude that the conduct of the Applicant was not determined to be the most serious for these crimes. This conclusion is supported by the fact that there were no findings concerning monetary reward for the Applicant nor any finding that the victim was detained against her will or forced to engage in acts of prostitution. As to the submission that imprisonment in Australia is a last resort in sentencing, I have no evidence that such principles apply in Thailand.
In these circumstances, I consider the offending to be serious but at the lower end of culpability for such offences.
As to the risk of reoffending, I note the convictions were in the 2009 for conduct that occurred in 2007/2008. Since that time, there is no evidence or any suggestion that after being released from prison, the applicant has engaged in or has been associated with others engaged in conduct of the type for which she was convicted. The evidence of her work in Thailand after she was released, her time with Mr Pearson, her work in Australia and her involvement with Mr Pearson’s family and the evidence provided by the Applicant’s witnesses satisfies me that no such conduct has occurred nor is it likely to occur in the future.
In reaching this conclusion, I am mindful of the Applicant’s conduct in completing various applications for visas and Arrival Declarations. While a true statement was finally made in the application for the Partner Visa, it is difficult to accept the Applicant’s evidence that she was not aware of the questions being asked on the Arrival Declarations because some of the earlier declarations appear to be in the Thai language and before she met Mr Pearson. In any event, her evidence discloses that when returning to be with Mr Pearson she was aware of the true nature of the question and chose to make false statements.
The Applicant submits the false statements were made out of fear. This is not an excuse for such conduct. It is conduct contrary to the privilege afforded to non-citizens in being permitted to enter and remain in Australia.
On the other hand, I do not accept the submission that her conduct in respect of visa applications demonstrates a lack of rehabilitation in connection with the offences for which he was convicted in Thailand or that it leads to a real risk of offending in the future if permitted to stay in the Australian community.
As to the risk to the Australian community should the Applicant commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct:
(a)the Applicant’s conduct is not so serious that any risk of repetition would be unacceptable;
(b)the nature of the harm to individuals or the Australian community should the Applicant engage in the conduct for which she was convicted would be serious;
(c)the evidence indicates further criminal offending is unlikely, the Applicant is remorseful for her conduct and her time in the community since she was released imprisonment, both in Thailand and in Australia, suggests the applicant is rehabilitated and will not further engage in illegal conduct.
Finally, it can be accepted that the application for a Partner Visa may, ultimately, result in the Applicant being permitted to remain in Australia. However, in my opinion this possibility does not affect the outcome in respect of this consideration for the reasons stated above.
Having regard to my conclusions above, and notwithstanding the low risk that the Applicant might pose, the conviction and the conduct of the Applicant in connection with visa applications and Arrival Declarations leads me to the view that this consideration weighs in favour of refusing the Partner Visa.
PRIMARY CONSIDERATION 2- FAMILY VIOLENCE COMMITTED BY THE NON-CITIZEN
There is no evidence of family violence.
PRIMARY CONSIDERATION 3- STRENGTH, NATURE AND DURATION OF TIES TO AUSTRALIA
In the Respondent’s SFICS, the Respondent says:[49]
52 It can be accepted that the applicant provides Mr Pearson with emotional, mental and physical support, and if the applicant were removed from Australia this would create a significant hurdle for the applicant and Mr Pearson in maintaining their relationship. As such, the Minister accepts that the applicant’s removal would have a significant impact on Mr Pearson. The Minister also accepts that this consideration weighs in favour of not exercising the discretion to refuse the visa. However, the following matters are relevant to the weight that this consideration should carry.
53 Firstly, as to Mr Pearson’s health needs, his family reside in Casino, he is an Australian citizen who is entitled to assistance from Medicare and other social welfare as needed, and there is no apparent reason why his family could not support him.
54 Secondly, the applicant has been in Australia since 2020 and for a period of some four years before then, the couple were able to maintain a distance relationship and by visiting each other. Virtual contact and visits to Thailand by Mr Pearson would remain possible.
55 Thirdly, the Tribunal should have regard to the fact that the applicant’s visits and residence in Australia have occurred in circumstances where she undermined the integrity of Australia’s migration system by providing false information as to her criminal conduct in respect of each visa she applied for.
56 Turning to the family, through Mr Pearson, the applicant has a relationship with his daughters (Kristina and Sarah) and his grandchildren … . The applicant also has a relationship with Mr Pearson’s ex-partner, Ms Josephine Pearson. From these statements, the Minister accepts that the applicant plays a role in the lives of the people in Mr Pearson’s extended family. The applicant contends that she “is deeply integrated into [Mr Pearson’s’] family”. However, there is no evidence demonstrating how the applicant interacts with his daughters or ex-wife, or to suggest that they rely on her for any practical, financial, or emotional support. Further, the applicant would be able to maintain a relationship with these individuals if she were returned to Thailand, through virtual contact and visits to Thailand.
57 The second limb of this consideration requires the Tribunal to consider the strength, nature and duration of any other ties in Australia (paragraph 8.3(2)). The applicant has resided in Australia on a permanent basis since March 2020. This is not trivial but also a relatively confined period – she arrived here as an adult, at the age of 44 years old, having lived most of her life in Thailand. The applicant has also provided two statements of support from members of the community of Casino, and appears to have assisted the community following the Lismore floods. The applicant’s employment ties are addressed below. To the extent that the applicant has made a positive contribution to the Australian community, this should be weighed against the significant detriment to the community any reoffending would cause.
58 Overall, while this primary consideration weighs in the applicant’s favour, the Tribunal should give it moderate weight.
[49] HB 74-75
In closing submissions, the Respondent says the weight to be afforded this matter is reduced by reason of the following:[50]
(a)Mr Pearson’s evidence that he would follow the Applicant to Thailand if she was removed. Further if this did not occur, his family would assist him in applying for the age pension and that the assistance available to him “moderates the Applicant’s previous contention that Mr Pearson will be left without a “primary carer” or support if the Tribunal makes an adverse decision”; and
(b)the asserted tie to Ms Silapong is not a tie to Australia and there is no basis for Ms Silapong’s assertion she will suffer significant hardship if the Applicant is removed to Thailand. In this regard the Respondent notes Ms Silapong holds a work and holiday visa and has a spouse (the Applicant’s daughter) in Thailand.
[50] Respondent's closing submissions at [9]
The evidence from the Applicant and her witnesses, which I have summarized above, satisfies me that the Applicant has strong ties to Australia being with Mr Pearson, the children of Ms Pearson and the other members of Mr Pearson’s family, all of whom are Australian citizens.
The Applicant has known Mr Pearson for 8 years and has been in a de facto relationship since 2019. The strength of the relationship is demonstrated by the time they have spent living and working together, the care provided for each other in dealing with their respective medical conditions, the fact they share a house and the commitment made by the Applicant to Mr Pearson and his family.
There is no evidence of any convictions in respect of any offence while in Australia although there is evidence of lying on applications and declarations made for the purpose of securing entry to Australia.
There is also evidence that has contributed positively as a member of the community and Lismore during the period of the 2022 floods and that her business provides a service otherwise not available to the local community in Casino.
Each of Mr Pearson and the Applicant have been receiving medical treatment in Australia. The evidence indicates they are not wealthy people. While Mr Pearson gave evidence that he would move to Thailand, it seems to me this evidence demonstrates a commitment to the Applicant despite Mr Pearson’s ill-health rather than a factor that weighs against the exercise of the discretion to refuse the Partner Visa.
While there was a lack of honesty in making the early visa applications and completing the Arrival Declarations, which conduct should not be condoned, overall this consideration of the Applicant’s ties to Australia weighs strongly in favour against the exercise of the discretion to refuse the Partner Visa.
PRIMARY CONSIDERATION 4- BEST INTERESTS OF MINOR CHILDREN IN AUSTRALIA AFFECTED BY THE DECISION
The children in Australia that might be affected by this decision are the children of Kristina (grandchildren of Mr Pearson) who range in age between 3 and 8 years old. The ages of other grandchildren are not clear.
The fact of a relationship between the Applicant and Kristina’s children is not disputed by the Respondent. However, in the SFICS, the Respondent contends that the relationship between the Applicant and the grandchildren is non-parental and that the parents of the grandchildren do not rely on the Applicant “for any practical, emotional or financial support”[51].
[51] Respondent's SFICS at [61 – HB 76
The statement from Kristina[52] does not support this last contention and she was not challenged on this evidence in cross examination. The contention was not pursued in closing submissions. Ultimately, there was no challenge to the proposition that the Applicant performed the role of a grandmother. This position was also supported by the evidence of Josephine who described the role of the Applicant as co-grandparenting.
[52] HB 25
Further, it seems to me that the absence of a report from a psychologist reporting on the grandchildren does not lessen the significance of the direct evidence provided by their parents, Kristina and Theo.
As to the contention that the parents of the grandchildren are unaware of the Applicant’s offending, this was not the case at the time the parents provided the evidence to the Tribunal. In this regard, the witnesses remained supportive of the Applicant and did not resile from their comments concerning her relationship with the Pearson family.
As to any relationship with other grandchildren of Mr Pearson other than those children of Kristina, it is unclear whether or not they are minors. In the absence of relevant evidence concerning their age, while I accept there are other grandchildren within the Pearson family, for the purposes of considering the best interests of minor children, for the purpose of this consideration, I give no weight to the matters in section 2 of the Applicant’s statement dated 17 August 2025.[53]
[53] HB 12
The evidence satisfies me that there has been a relationship between the Applicant and the grandchildren for a significant period of time. The Applicant has provided real support to the parents and has been involved in the daily lives of the grandchildren. Having regard to their age, the relationship and the involvement of the Applicant is likely to continue for many years into the future.
The evidence of Kristina satisfies me that she has relied upon the help and assistance from the Applicant in caring for her children and supporting her when she has needed to attend to other matters. The help provided by the Applicant and the nature of the relationships the Applicant has established is not of the type that can be maintained if the Applicant was required to leave Australia. Rather, if the Applicant was required to leave Australia, it is likely the grandchildren would be adversely affected.
Otherwise, there is no suggestion whatsoever that the Applicant has had other than a positive effect on the life of the grandchildren and that she has made a positive contribution to the Pearson family more generally. Further, it seems improbable that the Applicant’s past conduct has or will have a negative impact on the grandchildren in the future.
It follows that this matter weighs strongly against the exercise of a discretion to refuse the Partner Visa under s 501(1).
PRIMARY CONSIDERATION 5- EXPECTATIONS OF THE AUSTRALIAN COMMUNITY
Where there is serious conduct in breach of the expectation that a non-citizen will obey the laws of Australia it is accepted that, as a norm, the Australian community would expect the Government not to allow such a noncitizen to enter or remain in Australia.[54] Further, refusal may be appropriate simply because of the nature of the character concerns or offences are such the Australian community would expect that the person should not be granted or continue to hold a visa.[55]
[54] Paragraph 8.5 (1) of the Direction
[55] Paragraph 8.5 (2) of the Direction

Further, as provided in paragraph 8.5(3) of Direction 110, these expectations “apply regardless of whether the non-citizen poses a measurable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community”.
Clearly the conduct for which the Applicant was convicted raises serious character concerns which must also be considered in the context of the false information provided in her earlier visa applications and Arrival Declarations made prior to the application for the Partner Visa.
In my view, this consideration weighs strongly in favour of refusing the application for the Partner Visa.
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
There is no protection finding nor any claim made to suggest that Australia’s non-refoulement obligations operate in the present case.
Otherwise, as the Respondent states, if her application is refused, the Applicant would be liable to be removed from Australia and would not be able to apply for another visa while in Australia (with the exception of a protection visa) in accordance with s 501E of the Act.[56]
[56] Respondent's SFICS at [74] – HB 78
Therefore, this consideration is neutral in the evaluative process.
As to the extent of impediments if removed, as noted by the Respondent, the Applicant is 50 years old and has Type II diabetes. While initially treated in Thailand, the evidence discloses she continues to receive treatment in Australia and has been treated locally for her condition for many years.
She is also supported by Mr Pearson in receiving this treatment, in an emotional sense and in her business activities. While Mr Pearson has indicated he would travel to be with the Applicant if she is required to return to Thailand, he has little or no capacity to provide financial support in that environment.
There is no evidence of personal financial resources which the Applicant has in Thailand. On the other hand, there is evidence that her sister, Vilawan, has provided financial support to enable the Applicant to establish her Thai massage business in Australia and that this business is operating successfully, providing a financial return to the Applicant and Mr Pearson. It is unclear as to the Applicant’s ability to earn income in Thailand, although one would expect work of a type previously done by the Applicant would be available to her in Thailand. The evidence as it presently stands suggest that Vilawan has no spare room at her house and that the financial capacity of Vilawan might be adversely affected if the Australian Thai massage business was forced to close.
Otherwise, the extent of support available to the Applicant from her own family, including her daughters, is unclear. In this regard, I note one of her daughters is dependent upon the applicant’s sister, Vilawan, to provide accommodation.
Overall, these matters count against refusal of the application for the Partner Visa and should be given moderate weight.
There are no substantial language or cultural barriers identified which might impact the Applicant if removed Thailand. This matter is neutral.
As to the impact on Australian business interests, there is no evidence that refusal would “significantly compromise the delivery of a major project, or delivery of an important service in Australia”.
It can be accepted, on the evidence provided by the Applicant’s witnesses including Mr Clifford, that the Thai massage business is the only service available in Casino, like services only being available at Lismore. Further, having regard to the evidence concerning:
(a)the difficulty in obtaining someone to work in the business while the Applicant was in Sydney attending the hearing of these proceedings; and
(b)the lack of any identified competition,
there seems little prospect of Mr Pearson being able to maintain the business and that the business would be forced to close if the Applicant was required to depart Australia. While the amount is unknown, this would likely cause financial loss to the Applicant and Mr Pearson and to the Applicant’s sister, Vilawan.
The evidence of Mr Clifford also suggests this would have an impact on the local community which would be deprived of available services.
Having regard to the business being located regionally, I do not think this matter should be given no weight. Rather, it should be attributed a little weight in favour of not refusing the application under s 501(1) of the Act.
OUTCOME
As recorded above, I have made the following determinations:
(c)Primary consideration 1 (Protection of Australian community) weighs in favour of refusing the Partner Visa.
(d)Primary consideration 2 (Family violence committed by the noncitizen) has been given no weight as there are no reported incidents.
(e)Primary consideration 3 (strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia) weighs strongly against the exercise of the discretion to refuse the Partner Visa.
(f)Primary consideration 4 (Best interests of minor children in Australia affected by the decision) weighs strongly against the exercise of a discretion to refuse the Partner Visa.
(g)Primary consideration 5 (Expectations of the Australian community) weighs in favour of refusing the Partner Visa.
In relation to other considerations, these weigh slightly against the exercise of a discretion to refuse the Partner Visa, noting the needs of the Applicant and Mr Pearson and the circumstances that they would face if the applicant was removed to Thailand.
Direction 110 provides primary consideration 8.1 (Protection of the Australian community) “is generally to be given greater weight than other primary considerations” and otherwise “primary considerations should be given greater weight than other considerations”.[57]
[57] Paragraph 7(2) of Direction 110
Having reviewed the evidence in the context of the requirements of Direction 110, particularly primary consideration 8.1 and the weight generally afforded to that consideration and the conclusion I have reached in relation to primary consideration 8.5, I am nonetheless of the view that the factors against the exercise of a discretion to refuse the Partner Visa outweigh the factors in favour of refusal.
The criminal conduct engaged in by the Applicant is very serious as is the making of false declarations when entering Australia. However, the risk to the Australian community is very low, even having regard to the nature of the harm and the consequences if it re-occurred. Her ties to Australia and the best interests of the minor grandchildren children lead me to the conclusion that the application for the Partner Visa should not be refused under s 501(1) of the Act.
DECISION
In these circumstances, the decision under review should be set aside and the following decision made:
The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and in substitution decides that discretion should not be exercised to refuse to grant the visa to the Applicant under s 501(1) of the Migration Act 1958.

Date(s) of hearing:
2 and 3 October 2025

Solicitors for the Applicant: Mr P Guan, ANZIA Immigration Lawyers

Solicitors for the Respondent: Mr A Taverniti, Sparke Helmore Lawyers

Date(s) of hearing:	2 and 3 October 2025
Solicitors for the Applicant:	Mr P Guan, ANZIA Immigration Lawyers
Solicitors for the Respondent:	Mr A Taverniti, Sparke Helmore Lawyers