TPTN and Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (Migration) - [2025] ARTA 366

TPTN and Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (Migration) [2025] ARTA 366 (31 March 2025)
Applicant:TPTN
Respondent: Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs
Tribunal Number: 2021/8650

Tribunal:Senior Member N Manetta
Place:Adelaide
Decision Date: 31 March 2025

Date of Written Reasons: 9 April 2025
Decision:The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and decides in substitution that the cancellation of the applicant’s visa be revoked.
Written reasons for this decision will be provided within a reasonable time hereof.
......................Sgd.................................................
Senior Member N Manetta

Catchwords
MIGRATION – mandatory cancellation of visa – applicant fails character test – whether another reason to revoke visa cancellation – applicant guilty of serious family violence against partner – both applicant and partner abusing drugs – applicant has spent a considerable period in jail and immigration detention – most recent violence confined to relationship that has now ended – applicant has spent almost all his life in Australia – low risk of recidivism – decision set aside
Legislation
Migration Act, 1958 (Cth)
Cases
Frugtniet v ASIC [2019] HCA 16; (2019) 266 CLR 250; (2019) 79 AAR 9
Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs v LJTZ [2021] FCA 92
Secondary Materials
Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs (Cth), Direction no. 110 — Visa refusal and cancellation under section 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under section 501CA (7 June 2024)
Statement of Reasons

On 31 March 2025, I formed the view that, after a close review of the evidence and submissions, the decision under review should be set aside. I decided to deliver a decision without reasons on that day to expedite the applicant’s release from detention. I indicated that written reasons would be provided within a reasonable time of my decision. These are my written reasons for the decision.
This is an application by ‘TPTN’, a person whose name has been anonymised in the interests of confidentiality and to whom I shall refer in these reasons as ‘the applicant’. The applicant seeks to have a decision of the respondent’s internal-review delegate, dated 15 November 2021, set aside. By this decision, the delegate affirmed the mandatory cancellation of the applicant’s visa[1] that had taken place on 14 May 2021 under s 501(3A) of the Migration Act, 1958 (Cth) (‘the Act’). The applicant’s visa was cancelled after his conviction of serious family-violence offences. He received sentences in relation to this offending that exceeded 12 months in length. Part of these sentences was required to be served on a full-time basis in jail. In these circumstances the initial cancellation of the applicant’s visa was required under s 501(3A) of the Act.
[1] A Class TY Subclass 444 Special Category (Temporary) visa.
The applicant made a timely application for an internal review of the visa-cancellation decision. The internal-review delegate had two questions to address under s 501CA(4)(b) of the Act. First, the delegate had to consider whether the applicant passed the so-called ‘character test’ as defined by s 501(6) of the Act. Secondly, if the answer to this question was no, the delegate had to consider whether there was ‘another reason’ – that is, a reason apart from the applicant passing the character test – warranting the revocation of the cancellation decision. In this regard, the delegate was required to apply any direction issued under section 499 of the Act. The delegate applied Direction no. 90,[2] then in force. Having weighed the various considerations required to be addressed under that direction, the delegate concluded that, on balance, they did not favour revocation of the cancellation decision. The delegate formally concluded that the statutory jurisdiction under s 501CA(4)(b)(ii) of the Act was not enlivened, and the delegate declined to take any action to set aside the decision under review.[3]
[2] Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Cth) Direction no. 90 – Visa refusal and cancellation under section 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under section 501CA (8 March 2021).
[3] The delegate’s decision and reasons appear at Ex R1, 19ff.
The applicant applied to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (‘AAT’), this Tribunal’s predecessor, seeking a review of the delegate’s decision. The AAT affirmed the decision under review, but the AAT’s decision was the subject of a successful judicial-review application that led to a quashing of the decision and an order that the application to the AAT be determined according to law.[4] A new hearing was conducted by me. It comprised a complete de novo hearing on the merits.
[4] The Full Federal Court’s orders appear at Ex R1, 881-882.
Like the delegate, I must address the two questions I earlier identified. There is no doubt that the internal-review delegate was correct to find that the applicant did not pass the character test. Section 501(6)(a) of the Act, when read in conjunction with subsection (7)(c), provides that a person does not pass the character test when he or she has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of at least 12 months. That is the case here.
In respect of the second question, I must apply any direction issued under s 499 of the Act. Since the delegate’s decision, the direction has changed. The current direction is Direction no. 110 (‘the Direction’),[5] and I have applied it in my review.
[5] Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs (Cth), Direction no. 110 — Visa refusal and cancellation under section 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under section 501CA (7 June 2024).
TRIBUNAL’S TASK
In a case like this, the Tribunal hears the matter afresh. It does not merely review the delegate’s decision for error, but reaches the correct or preferable decision on the evidence adduced before it.[6] It hears evidence and oral submissions and receives written documents and written submissions. It follows that the Tribunal may set aside the decision under review notwithstanding the absence of any error in the delegate’s reasons if that is the correct or preferable decision on the evidence before it; equally, the Tribunal may affirm the decision under review notwithstanding the presence of a clear error in the delegate’s reasoning if that is the correct or preferable decision on the evidence before it.[7]
[6] See, for example, Frugtniet v ASIC [2019] HCA 16; (2019) 266 CLR 250; (2019) 79 AAR 9 at [51]. This decision concerned the Tribunal’s predecessor, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, but the same principles apply to the Tribunal’s exercise of jurisdiction.
[7] This paragraph is one I routinely use in my decisions to explain the general decision-making approach of the Tribunal.
STATEMENT OF CONCLUSION
I have decided to set aside the decision under review. I first set out the background facts and then my reasons for this conclusion.
BACKGROUND FACTS
The applicant was born in 1990 in the Cook Islands. He has New Zealand citizenship through his father. He came to Australia in 1998 aged eight years of age. He came with his mother, father and an older brother. He gave evidence that his extended family, for the most part, reside here in Australia. The applicant gave evidence that he has been in Yongah Hill Detention Centre since September 2023 and before that he was in the Christmas Island Detention Centre for some years, since May 2021, in fact. A concerning feature of the applicant’s evidence to me was that he had had no one-on-one visits for some years. He gave evidence that he had no such visits in either 2023 or 2024.
The applicant gave evidence that that he has a close relationship with his mother, and that he believes her to be substantially unwell. How unwell she is was a point of controversy, but her psychological wellbeing has no doubt been impacted by the uncertainty surrounding her son’s future. She turns 55 this year. The applicant would like to spend time with her, and look after her. The applicant has work experience as a carpenter (in making kitchens but not installing them), in steel-fixing, in factory work and in driving forklifts (although he is not qualified).
The applicant gave evidence that he has also experienced periods of unemployment. The applicant has no children and has been out of contact with his former partner and girlfriend for a considerable time.
I turn out to consider the applicant’s criminal record which was before me.[8] The record shows some offending when the applicant was still a teenager. This offending was dealt with in the Campbelltown Children’s Court and the Liverpool Local Court.
[8] Ex R1, 36ff.
The offending as recorded before the Campbelltown Children’s Court in 2005 dates from a time when the applicant was merely 15 years of age. I think that offending belongs to a different time in the applicant’s life; it could not reasonably be a tipping point in my consideration of this matter and I have left it to one side. In 2008, when he appeared in the Liverpool Local Court, the applicant received fines for driving as a learner without an accompanying qualified driver and for failing to display his ‘L’ plate.
He received a bond of 12 months for driving with a middle-range PCA in his blood which is an antisocial offence and of some seriousness although again the applicant was 18 only at the time of this appearance in court.
More seriously, the applicant appeared before the Sydney District Court on 1 April 2011. He was convicted of two offences on that date of robbery and demanding property with menaces with intent to steal. He was given a term of imprisonment of two years and six months on that occasion. The applicant was still quite young at this stage, however; but there is no doubt the offending was serious. I have read carefully the transcript of the sentencing remarks.[9] I do not need to repeat the remarks, but the Court clearly treated the offending as serious. Encouragingly, there is no record of any appearances before the Court for some five years after April 2011, and I weigh that.
[9] Ex R1, 58ff.
After the offending in 2011, it is accepted that the applicant received notification from the Department that his visa was under review.[10]
[10] Ex R1, 83.
22 February 2016, the applicant was fined $700 in the Campbelltown Local Court for driving while his licence was suspended. On 5 April 2016, the applicant was fined for driving with an illicit drug present in his blood. He received a fine of $100 and a driver disqualification of three months. On 29 July 2016, he was fined $400 for driving a motor vehicle whilst disqualified and was further disqualified for 12 months. In August 2016, the applicant was fined for possessing a prohibited drug. One year later, in approximately 2017, he was found in possession of a prohibited drug and was again fined.
In 2019 there are offences of unlicensed driving and possession of a prohibited drug. The unlicensed driving attracted a fine and the two offences of possession attracted convictions with no other penalty.
Pausing there, I note that the applicant’s criminal history after 2011 revolves mainly around relatively minor offending.
In 2019, 2020, and 2021, matters deteriorated substantially, and the offending took on a different character. There are two offences that were the subject of convictions in August 2019. Around that time the applicant was engaged in serious drug misuse. He was staying with his girlfriend at the time of the offence. It would appear that he had been heavily using ice.[11] His girlfriend confronted him about certain text messages he had received on his phone, apparently from a former girlfriend.[12] A heated argument ensued, and the victim decided to leave the flat with her child (from another relationship). The applicant head-butted her and grabbed her by the throat as she sought to leave. He also demanded her PIN to enable a bank transfer to take place. She was holding her infant child at the time. The police who were called to the scene observed the large bump on the victim’s forehead. Three hundred dollars was transferred from her bank account to the applicant’s. This was very serious offending. It constituted a serious act of family violence coupled with extortion. The applicant received an intensive corrections order of 16 months and a community correctional order of 14 months. He was required to engage with psychologists and to obtain treatment.
[11] Ex R1, 304.
[12] Ex R1, 59.
On 10 November 2020, the applicant was convicted of contravening a prohibition in an AVO. The applicant was found in a car in the vicinity of his former partner’s residence. For breaching the AVO he received a community correctional order of 15 months commencing 10 November 2020.
Lastly, I turn now to the very serious offending that was the subject of charges dealt with in March 2021. Three charges were laid. On 16 November 2020, the applicant was in breach of his AVO in respect of the same partner, to whom I shall refer as ‘Ms W’. She had invited him over to her residence. There was a very serious domestic disturbance. The sentencing remarks referred to both Ms W and the applicant screaming and knocking over random items of furniture.[13] Ms W was then assaulted by the applicant: she was thrown on the sofa, pinned and struck around the face with a closed fist. She was also choked. The sentencing remarks advert to it being a ‘time of conflict between the two in the context of drug-fuelled behaviour’.[14] The Court noted that the applicant was still under an intensive corrections order for an assault occasioning actual bodily harm against the same victim. The applicant was sentenced on a call-up of an earlier breach of an AVO to a 17-month community corrections order. In respect of the two offences on that night of contravening the AVO and the assault, a term of imprisonment of 18 months was imposed with effect from 17 November 2020, the date on which the applicant was formally arrested, with a non-parole period of six months.
[13] Ex R1, 46.
[14] Ex R1, 47 line12.
The applicant’s visa was cancelled on 14 May 2021; he was released on parole, it would appear on 16 May 2021, but was immediately transferred into immigration detention where he has remained for well over three years.
REASONS
Prefatory remarks
With this background in mind, I come to the Direction. I usually set out four standard paragraphs that explain aspects of the Direction, and I do so again in what follows in paragraphs [25] – [28] below.
The Direction is framed against the stated objective of the Act, which is to regulate, in the national interest, the presence of non-citizens in Australia: see paragraph 5.1(1). The decision-maker is directed by paragraph 5.1(2) and (3) to consider the specific circumstances of the case. The explicit purpose of the Direction is to guide decision-makers in performing their functions under the Act: see paragraph 5.1(4).
Principles appear under paragraph 5.2 of the Direction. These principles provide the framework within which decision-makers should approach their task. They are stated in paragraphs numbered (1) to (8). I set out some of the salient features of these principles.
First, remaining in Australia is a privilege conferred on non-citizens in the expectation that they are law-abiding, will respect important institutions, and will not cause or threaten harm to individuals or the Australian community. Secondly, the safety of the Australian community is the highest priority of the Australian Government. Accordingly, non-citizens who engage in criminal or other serious misconduct should expect to forfeit the privilege of remaining in Australia, and the Australian community expects that the Australian Government should cancel visas or refuse non-citizens a right of entry where they have engaged in conduct that raises serious character concerns. This expectation arises whether or not the non-citizen poses a measurable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community. Fourthly, Australia has a low tolerance of any criminal or other serious conduct by non-citizens who have been participating in and contributing to Australia for a short period of time only. A higher level of tolerance of criminal or other serious misconduct may, however, be afforded to those who have lived in Australia for most of their life or from a very young age. Fifthly, the nature of the non-citizen’s conduct and the harm that would be caused if the conduct were to be repeated may be so serious that even strong countervailing considerations may prove an insufficient counterweight. In particular, I note that the inherent nature of certain conduct such as family violence is so serious that even strong countervailing considerations may prove insufficient justification (to warrant not cancelling the visa, not refusing the visa, or revoking a mandatory cancellation), and this is so even if the non-citizen does not pose a measurable risk of causing harm to the Australian community.
Informed by these principles, I am required under Part 2 of the Direction to take into account the considerations identified in sections 8 and 9. I add here that paragraph 7(1) directs me to give appropriate weight to information and evidence from independent and authoritative sources. Paragraph 7(2) also directs me to give greater weight ‘generally’ to the protection of the Australian community over other primary considerations, and it also provides that primary considerations should ‘generally’ be given greater weight over other considerations.
Application of the Direction
I now turn to apply the Direction. I turn first to consider the protection of the Australian community. Subparagraph 8.1(1) provides that decision-makers should keep in mind that the safety of the Australian community is the highest priority of the Australian Government. The Government is said to be committed to protecting the Australian community from harm as a result of criminal activity or other serious conduct by non-citizens. 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. I take this principle seriously and give it due weight.
Subparagraph (2) provides that decision-makers should also give consideration to the nature and seriousness of the non-citizen’s conduct to date and the risk to the Australian community should the non-citizen commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct.
Paragraph 8.1.1 deals with the nature and seriousness of the non-citizen’s conduct. Subparagraph (1)(a) provides that, without limiting the range of conduct that may be considered very serious, certain types of conduct must be viewed very seriously. These include acts of family violence and crimes of violence against women. I regard as very serious the offences that occurred in relation to the applicant’s former partner.
I accept that the offending in 2011 is also serious. But I must also say that it is now 14 years old, and it belonged, in my opinion, to a different stage of the applicant’s life as he was still relatively young. The principal offending which is of most relevance is the applicant’s repeated family violence and drug use.
The Direction requires me to take into account in my evaluation the warning the applicant received from the Department in 2011, the escalating seriousness of his family-violence offending, and its frequency.[15] I do so.
[15] See paragraphs 8.1.1(1)(h) and (e).
I must also consider the risk to the Australian community. Paragraph 8.1.2(1) provides that I should have regard to the Government’s view that the Australian community’s tolerance for harm becomes lower as the seriousness of the potential harm increases. I bear this principle in mind.

I must also have regard to two factors when assessing risk and should do so ‘cumulatively’.[16] The first is the nature of harm to individuals or the Australian community should the non-citizen engage in further criminal or other serious conduct. The second is the likelihood of the non-citizen engaging in that further criminal or other serious conduct.[17]
[16] That is, in conjunction with one another: see Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs v LJTZ [2021] FCA 92, [31].
[17] Paragraph 8.1.2(2) of the Direction.
There is no doubt that if the applicant were to reoffend violently against a partner, serious consequences could ensue. I note that the violence occurred in circumstances where the applicant was not fully in control. Not only were his emotions heightened, but a degree of dysregulation no doubt attended his actions, because he was taking drugs at the time. In particular, he was taking ice, which can produce quite extreme effects.
Accordingly, a very serious risk is posed to the community on the assumption that the applicant reoffends. There is also some risk to the community if the applicant takes a drug and operates a vehicle as he has in the past. If he were to repeat the conduct from 2011, there could be very serious consequences for the victims; but as I have said this offending is old now and belongs to a different phase of his life.
I must have regard to the likelihood of the applicant reoffending. Here, I have taken the view that the risk is very low. There are a number of reasons for this conclusion. First, the applicant has had both the experience of a significant time in jail and, more importantly, quite some years in detention (including a significant time where he did not receive any personal visits). These experiences must have been, to say the least, challenging. They would have produced a very serious impact on the applicant. They are a powerful deterrent for him.
Secondly, the years spent in detention have allowed the applicant an opportunity to lead an orderly life away from the destructive relationship with his former partner. I do not blame the partner for the applicant’s violence; but nevertheless, it is clear that she was herself involved in illicit drug-taking; she had also invited him to her premises on the last occasion despite the AVO. Of course, that did not excuse his breach of the AVO, as the sentencing Court observed, but her behaviour in allowing him into her house and in sharing drugs with him played its part in the events that unfolded that night. The relationship may well be described as a harmful one to both parties in different ways. I accept that the applicant has not had any contact with the victim. I accept also that the relationship is over. The relationship did not bear the couple children and there is no reason for the relationship to resume. The applicant fully appreciates that the relationship has led him to a very serious situation in his life.
Thirdly, I note that the violence has involved a single person. There is no wider community violence in recent times that I must consider. In my opinion, it would be right to treat the violence that the applicant has manifested in recent times as originating in a particular relationship and exacerbated by illicit drugs. As that relationship is now at an end, and has been for some years, there is in my opinion reason to be confident that no violence towards that victim will recur. There is no other relationship at the present time, and the applicant has had the benefit of an orderly, if closely controlled, life in detention on a prolonged basis to solidify prosocial tendencies and to rethink the chaotic and destructive life he had been leading before.
Nevertheless, I am required by the Direction to consider this cumulatively with the risk if the applicant were to re-engage in violence and I do so.
Paragraph 8.2 is important in my decision. The Direction addresses clearly and firmly family violence as a separate form of criminal conduct that is given special treatment and emphasis. Paragraph 8.2 (1) provides that the Government has serious concerns about conferring on non-citizens who engage in family violence the privilege of remaining in Australia. The Government’s concerns in this regard are proportionate to the seriousness of the family violence engaged in by the non-citizen.
Subparagraph (3) requires me to address the seriousness of the family violence by reference to a number of factors. I accept that there has been frequency in the applicant’s conduct in this regard. I believe there is a trend of increasing seriousness because there has been violence extended towards the victim in circumstances where the applicant was required absolutely by AVOs and earlier court orders to refrain from having any contact with the victim, consensual or otherwise. There is clearly a cumulative effect of repeated acts of family violence and I take it into account. I also take into account the fact that the violence was severe and resulted in significant injuries to the victim. The earlier violence was perpetrated in the presence of a young child who was being held by the victim when she was assaulted.
On the other hand, I give credit to the applicant in respect of his rehabilitation. I believe he has recovered from a substantial drug dependency, and I believe both jail and immigration detention have had a rehabilitative effect upon him. I doubt whether the applicant has reflected adequately on the impact of his behaviour upon the victim and her child. I think the applicant does not yet fully appreciate how debilitating and degrading violence of this sort is for a female victim, and for children who witness it. It can have profound and long term psychological effects.
In this connection, I am also required to have regard to the warning that was issued in 2011. Of course, it predated the recent offending in question by quite some time; nevertheless, it must be said that the applicant was fairly put on notice that his criminal conduct could well affect his visa status in Australia.
I must have regard to the strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia.[18] I accept that the applicant has a close relationship with his mother. He cares for her very much; and I believe that affection is reciprocated. I accept that there is a father and a sibling in Australia. I accept that they will be impacted by the applicant’s departure. That is the matter I am required to give weight to and I do so.
[18] Paragraph 8.3 of the Direction.
I am not persuaded that the best interests of minor children has any particular role to play in this case.[19]
[19] Paragraph 8.4 of the Direction.
I must have regard to the expectations of the Australian community. These clearly count against the applicant. Paragraph 8.5(1) provides that the Australian community expects non-citizens to obey Australian laws while in Australia. As a ‘norm’ – although not as a rigid rule – the Australian community expects the Government not to allow a non-citizen who has seriously breached the law to remain in Australia. Subparagraph (2) goes on to state that a visa cancellation may be appropriate simply because of the nature of character concerns or the offences in question. In particular, serious character concerns are said to arise in respect of acts of family violence. This is the position, here. of course. I note that these expectations apply even where a non-citizen poses no measurable risk of reoffending.[20] I note that I am to take the expectations as outlined in the paragraph without assessing them for myself.[21] This consideration clearly weighs heavily against the applicant.
[20] Paragraph 8.5(3) of the Direction.
[21] Paragraph 8.5(4) of the Direction.
So-called ‘other’ considerations appear in section 9. There is a non-exhaustive list given. The legal consequences of a decision by me to affirm the decision under review would mean the exclusion of the applicant from Australia. He indicated that he would choose to live in New Zealand. I accept that New Zealand has an equivalent standard of living and social- welfare system and so there are no impediments on removal to consider from that perspective, although the applicant would suffer some degree of dislocation in having to re-establish himself in a country where he has never lived.
I take into account a very important matter under section 9. A strict reading of the Direction may suggest that paragraph 8.3 does not allow for the impact upon the applicant himself of separation from family to be considered as a primary consideration. Paragraph 8.3(1) speaks of the impact on family members rather than on the applicant himself or herself.
Nevertheless, even if that is so, it is appropriate in my view to consider the applicant’s position under section 9 and I do so. As I say, the three considerations instanced under paragraph 9(1) are non-exhaustive. Here, it is in my opinion very important to give due weight to the applicant’s exact circumstances. The applicant arrived in Australia as a boy. It is, in my opinion, practically meaningless to speak of the Cook Islands as his home still less New Zealand, where he has not lived. The applicant considers Australia his home, and in a practical, if not legally enforceable sense that is entirely accurate. His upbringing, his family ties, his work experience, and his cultural formation have all taken place in Australia.
It is always a serious matter, in my opinion, to contemplate the removal from Australia of people who have lived the vast majority of their life here, and where they have no memories of any substance of their country of birth. That is a matter that weighs in the applicant’s favour.
Weighing the considerations
I turn now to weighing the considerations I have identified. I begin with the seriousness of the applicant’s conduct under the Direction. The applicant has been guilty of a number of offences. These have ranged from antisocial offences involving driving when not authorised to do so or when not in a fit state through to the possession of illicit drugs and finally to the infliction of significant violence. It is appropriate to focus on the violence that has been a feature of the applicant’s most recent convictions, fuelled by illicit substances and, in particular, ice. The violence was family violence. The Direction speaks very strongly and firmly against family violence perpetrated against women. The applicant’s criminal conduct has seen him ignore AVOs and court orders that required him to be of good behaviour. He has not done so.
Against that, I weigh the low risk of reoffending, and the rehabilitation that the applicant has undergone in a practical sense by having to spend so much time first in jail and then in immigration detention. He has emerged as a different person from that experience. I believe he will not reoffend provided he stays away from drugs and a relationship that leads him to take drugs. Drugs led the applicant to pointless acts of violence that harmed his partner.
The applicant has spent almost all his life in Australia and he would have only the sketchiest of memories of his life in the Cook Islands, and he has not lived in New Zealand. He does have a role to play in his family in a prosocial sense, I believe, and I accept his evidence that he does wish to assist his mother. I believe he will refocus on assisting his mother and father and on finding productive work.
I am aware that the considerations that are taken into account under section 9 are ‘generally’ not to be given as much weight as primary considerations. I accept, moreover, that the protection of the Australian community ‘generally’ counts more than other primary considerations.
Nevertheless, I repeat what I have put in other decisions, where I have noted that I must always give particular attention to the specific circumstances of the case at hand: see paragraph 5.1(3) of the Direction. The Direction is not to be applied in a mechanical fashion without due regard being given to the specific circumstances. The Direction requires what might be called an individualised synthesis of all relevant factors arising under the Direction. There is no crime or circumstance that the Direction says leads inexorably to affirming a visa cancellation. The totality of the circumstances must always be weighed.
In this case, I do believe the applicant has a very real interest in continuing his life in Australia and I weigh this is a context where I have found that he poses no effective risk to his former partner, as the relationship is over; and a low risk in relation to any putative future partner. I weigh in his favour the very long experience of jail and detention, which I have found to have been a salutary and rehabilitative one.
After weighing all relevant considerations, I believe that, on balance, they favour revocation of the cancellation decision in this case. Accordingly, I have concluded there is ‘another reason’ for the purposes of section 501CA(b)(ii) of the Act warranting the revocation of the cancellation decision. It follows that I should set aside the decision under review and substitute a decision that the cancellation of the applicant’s visa be revoked. That was the decision I delivered on 31 March 2025.
I certify that the preceding fifty-nine (59) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the
decision herein of Senior Member N Manetta.
…………[sgnd]………….
Dated: 9 April 2025
Dates of Hearing: 25, 26 November, 2024; 16, 17 January 2025
Applicant’s Advocate J Mendoza
Respondent’s Advocate G Gutmann and then C McDermott (of Minter Ellison)