TYJK and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (Migration) - [2025] ARTA 1146

TYJK and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (Migration) [2025] ARTA 1146 (29 July 2025)
Applicant/s:  TYJK
Respondent:  Minister for Immigration and Citizenship
Tribunal Number:                2025/3466

Tribunal:Senior Member S Thode
Place:Sydney
Date:29 July 2025
Decision:The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

.......................[SGD].................................................
Senior Member S Thode
Catchwords
MIGRATION –s 501(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) – where the applicant does not pass the character test - whether there are other reasons why the decision to cancel the visa should be revoked –serious persistent offending – family violence - Direction no. 110 considered - where applicant arrived as adult – impediments to removal where applicant is not subject to a protection finding
Legislation
Migration Act 1958 (Cth)
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth)
Cases
CRNL v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FCA 43
FHHM v Minister for Immigration [2022] FCAFC 19
Suleiman v Minister for Immigration [2018] FCA 594
Secondary Materials
Direction No 110 – Visa refusal and cancellation under section 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under section 501CA
Statement of Reasons
INTRODUCTION

The applicant seeks review of a decision made on 2 May 2025 not to revoke the cancellation of the Class WA Subclass 010 Bridging A visa on the basis that the applicant does not pass the character test: s 501CA(4) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).
The application was heard on 15 and 16 July 2025. At the hearing the applicant was self-represented and Ms C Warren of Sparke Helmore Lawyers appeared for the respondent. The applicant gave evidence with the assistance of an interpreter in the Malay and English languages.
For the following reasons the Tribunal has decided to affirm the decision under review.
BACKGROUND
Background
The applicant was born in Malaysia on 16 April 1987. He arrived in Australia on 18 October 2018 on a visitor visa and applied for a protection visa on 7 January 2019. The protection visa application was refused on the basis that the delegate did not find that the applicant was a person in respect of whom Australia owed protection obligations. On 15 June 2019 the applicant applied for a review of the decision to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the AAT). The application for review was heard by the AAT on 15 August 2024. The applicant appeared and gave evidence. The AAT affirmed the decision under review.[1] The applicant has sought review of the AAT’s decision by the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia. That application has not yet been determined.
[1] G documents 505
The applicant was granted a Bridging R (subclass 070) visa (BVR), which came into effect after the review of the decision of the delegate to refuse a protection visa was affirmed.
According to the information contained in the application for a protection visa, the applicant is a 37-year-old Malaysian citizen. He indicated he was born in Nerang where he resided until October 2018. He indicated he is of Malay ethnicity and Muslim. He declared his occupation to be a ‘businessman’.
The applicant stated that in December 2005 he joined the Royal Malaysia police (RMP) . He then worked as a bodyguard with CEM securities in Kuala Lumpur from January 2015 He met his current wife at the airport in Melbourne in October 2018 upon his arrival in Australia. He was 31 years of age at the time of his arrival. The applicant is married with three children, two girls, currently four and five years of age. His wife, Ms Y, has an eight year old adopted son who also forms part of the applicant’s family unit. After his arrival in Australia he worked as a spray painter of kitchen cabinets for some time. He has also worked as a delivery driver. His offending commenced after about three years in the Australian community.
The applicant’s offending history
The applicant was convicted of his first offence on 3 August 2021.
The applicant was convicted of common assault (DV)-T2 and he was fined $750 and sentenced to a two-year community correction order. According to the NSW Police Facts Sheet, the offending occurred on 10 July 2021, when the applicant was in bed on a Saturday afternoon after working a shift as an Uber Eats driver. The applicant’s wife, Ms Y, sat down with their daughter, N, and began questioning the applicant about whether he had been cheating on her the night before. The argument became heated and the applicant pushed Ms Y to the ground, kicked her in the back, and punched her three or four times in front of N. Ms Y settled N on the bed and walked out, but the applicant grabbed her by the arm and tried to pull her back into the room. Ms Y broke free and lost balance, running into a glass door. The applicant grabbed Ms Y and threw her to the ground, covering her mouth as she tried to scream. The applicant then took Ms Y back to the bedroom. Significantly, the offending occurred in the presence of both of their children.
The applicant continued to offend and was convicted of multiple offences between 2021 and 2023. These included 31 traffic offences as well as a two charges of supply illicit drug, resist arrest, and domestic violence charges. The totality of the offences are listed in the Check Results Report of 8 August 2024[2]
[2] Exhibit A p.414
04/07/2023 Drive vehicle, illicit drug present in blood etc - 2nd+off
04/07/2023 Licence expired less than 2 years before - prior offence
21/06/2023 Driver not wear seatbelt properly adjusted and fastened
21/06/2023 Never licensed person drive vehicle on road - prior offence
26/04/2023 Possess prohibited drug
26/04/2023 Possess prohibited drug
19/04/2023 Supply prohibited drug >indictable &<commercial quantity-T1
19/04/2023 Supply prohibited drug >indictable &<commercial quantity-T1
19/04/2023 Deal with property proceeds of crime <$100000 & < $5000-T2
02/12/2022 Drive vehicle, illicit drug present in blood etc - 1st off
01/12/2022 Common assault (DV)-T2
01/12/2022 Possession of equipment for administering prohibited drugs
01/12/2022 Possess prohibited drug H 91037354: FINE : $500
01/12/2022 Licence expired less than 2 years
17/03/2022 Contravene prohibition/restriction in AVO (Domestic)
17/03/2022 Unlicensed for Class, Class C, R, LR or MR - first offence
17/03/2022 Drive motor vehicle while licence
17/03/2022 Drive motor vehicle while licence suspended - 1st off
17/03/2022 Unlicensed for Class, Class C, R, LR
09/02/2022 Drive motor vehicle while licence suspended - 1st off
03/08/2021 Common assault (DV)-T2
On 4 October 2023, the applicant was convicted of the following offences that occurred between 2021 and 2023. These are offences that are included in the Check results report of 8 August 2024 and listed at [8] above.
a. two counts of possess prohibited drug ;
b. two counts of drive motor vehicle during disqualification period – 2nd+ offence;
c. two counts of hinder/resist law enforcement officer in execution of duty;
d. two counts of contravene prohibition/restriction in AVO (domestic)(20 July 2023)
e. drive on path;
f. escape police custody;
g. cross when pedestrian lights not green (20 July 2023);
h. common assault (DV);
i. driver not wear seatbelt properly adjusted and fastened;
j. assault police officer in execution of duty cause abh; and
k. negligent driving (no death or grievous bodily harm).
The applicant’s prior offences of supply prohibited drug for which he was convicted on 19 April 2024 were also called up. The applicant received a total aggregate sentence of 16 months’ imprisonment, fined $14,500, put on a 12-months’ community correction order, and he was also disqualified from driving for 12 months.
Visa cancellation and review
On 25 October 2023, the applicant’s visa was mandatorily cancelled under s 501(3A) of the Act. On 22 November 2023, the applicant made representations seeking revocation of the mandatory cancellation.
JURISDICTION
The Tribunal has jurisdiction to review a decision not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of his Bridging (Class WA)(subclass010) visa. In this case, the application for review of that decision was lodged on 9 May 2025, which is within nine days after the decision was notified on 6 May 2025. The Tribunal therefore has jurisdiction to hear and determine the application.
EVIDENCE AND SUBMISSIONS
In deciding in relation to the application, the Tribunal has considered:
(a)The tender bundle of documents – Exhibit A
(b)The statement of Ms Y; Exhibit B
(c)The statement of Mohammad Ali - Exhibit C
(d)The statement of Syed Sazwan Bin Syed Abd Rahman - Exhibit D
All documents other than Exhibits B, D and D are included in the joint tender bundle, Exhibit A.
The applicant’s witnesses were:
·His wife, Ms Y;
·His former employer, Mr Mohammad Ali.
Relevant parts of Exhibit A that have been considered as forming part of the applicant’s evidence as they were included by the Minister in the G documents, pp 75 - 203. Those documents were tendered by the applicant as part of his submission to the Minister in support of his revocation request dated 20 November 2023. The Tribunal has taken those documents into account.
LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK
Section 501 of the Act deals with decisions to refuse or cancel a visa on character grounds. Relevantly to this case:
(a)Section 501(1) states that 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.
(b)Section 501(6)(a) states that a person does not pass the character test if the person has a substantial criminal record; and
(c)Section 501(7)(c) a person has a substantial criminal record if the person has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more.
The Minister may give written directions under s 499(1) of the Act to a person or body having functions or powers under Act if the directions are about the performance of those functions or the exercise of those powers. Section 499(2A) requires the Tribunal to comply with any directions made under s 499(1).
In this case, “Direction No 110 – Visa refusal and cancellation under section 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under section 501CA” (the Direction) applies.
For the purposes of deciding whether to refuse an application for a visa or whether to revoke the mandatory cancellation of a visa, 5.2 of the Direction sets out several principles that must inform the decision-maker’s application of the primary and other considerations set out in Part 2 of the Direction, where those considerations are relevant to the decision.
These principles are:
(1) Australia has a sovereign right to determine whether non-citizens who are of character concern are allowed to enter and/or remain in Australia. Being able to come to or remain in Australia is a privilege Australia confers on non-citizens in the expectation that they are, and have been, law-abiding, will respect important institutions, such as Australia's law enforcement framework, and will not cause or threaten harm to individuals or the Australian community.
(2) The safety of the Australian Community is the highest priority of the Australian Government.
(3) Non-citizens who engage or have engaged in criminal or other serious conduct should expect to be denied the privilege of coming to, or to forfeit the privilege of staying in, Australia.
(4) The Australian community expects that the Australian Government can and should refuse entry to non-citizens, or cancel their visas, if they engaged in conduct, in Australia or elsewhere, that raises serious character concerns. This expectation of the Australian community applies regardless of whether the non-citizen poses a measureable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community.
(5) Australia has a low tolerance of any criminal or other serious conduct by visa applicants or those holding a limited stay visa, or by other non-citizens who have been participating in, and contributing to, the Australian community only for a short period of time.
(6) With respect to decisions to refuse, cancel, and revoke cancellation of a visa, Australia may afford a higher level of tolerance of criminal or other serious conduct by non-citizens who have lived in the Australian community for most of their life, or from a very young age.
(7) Decision-makers must take into account the primary and other considerations relevant to the individual case. In some circumstances, the nature of the non-citizen's conduct, or the harm that would be caused if the conduct were to be repeated, may be so serious that even strong countervailing considerations may be insufficient to justify not cancelling or refusing the visa, or revoking a mandatory cancellation.
(8) The inherent nature of certain conduct such as family violence is so serious that even strong countervailing considerations may be insufficient to justify not cancelling or refusing the visa, or revoking a mandatory cancellation, even if the information available at the time of consideration suggests that the noncitizen does not pose a measureable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community.
Informed by these principles, the Tribunal must take into account the relevant primary and other considerations set out in the Direction.
Section 7.1 of the Direction states that appropriate weight to be given to information and evidence from independent and authoritative sources. Section 7.2 of the Direction states that the primary consideration of the protection of the Australian community is generally to be given greater weight than other primary considerations. It also states that primary considerations should generally be given greater weight over ‘other’ considerations.
The primary considerations are set out in section 8 of the Direction:
(1) Protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct;
(2) Whether the conduct engaged in constituted family violence;
(3) The strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia;
(4) The best interests of minor children in Australia; and
(5) Expectations of the Australian community.
A non-exclusive list of other considerations is set out in section 9 of the Direction. These are:
(1) The legal consequences of the decision;
(2) The extent of impediments if removed; and
(3) The impact on Australian business interest.
In FHHM v Minister for Immigration[3] considered (8.4) of Direction 79, which also stated that primary considerations should generally be given greater weight than other considerations. O’Callaghan and Colvin JJ (Derrington J) agreeing referred to remarks made by Colvin J in Suleiman v Minister for Immigration[4] stated at [34] that “particular circumstances may pertain that may justify greater weight being to one or more of the other considerations than one of more of the primary considerations”.
[3] [2022] FCAFC 19
[4] [2018] FCA 594 at [23].
ISSUE
As noted above, s 501(6)(a) of the Act states that a person does not pass the character test for the purposes of s 501(1) if the person has a substantial criminal record, which relevantly to this application is defined in s 501(7)(c) as a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more.
The applicant is not represented. There was no concession made that he does not pass the character test.
The applicant was convicted of multiple offences and received a total aggregate sentence of 16 months’ imprisonment, fined $14,500, received a 12 months’ community corrections order and was disqualified from driving for 12 months. On 25 October 2023 the applicant’s visa was mandatorily cancelled under s 501(3A) of the Act.
The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant does not pass the character test because the applicant has a substantial criminal record pursuant to s 501(6)(a) of the Act. The phrase “substantial criminal record” is defined in s501(7) and includes circumstances in which a person has been sentenced to 2 or more terms of imprisonment, where the total of those terms is 12 months or more.
The issue to be determined is therefore whether the discretion to revoke the cancellation of the Class WA Subclass 010 Bridging visa previously held by the applicant should be exercised, taking into account relevant considerations in the Direction.
CONSIDERATION
Protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct – 8.1
In accordance with 8.1(1) of the Direction, in considering the protection of the Australian community, the Tribunal has had regard to the principle that the Government is committed to protecting the Australian community from harm as a result of criminal activity. The Tribunal has also considered 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.
As required by 8.1(2) of the Direction, the Tribunal has considered:
(a)the nature and seriousness of the applicant’s conduct; and
(b)the risk to the Australian community, should the applicant commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct.
Nature and seriousness of the applicant’s conduct - 8.1.1
Paragraph 8.1.1 of Direction 110 sets out the factors to which decision-makers must have regard when considering the nature and seriousness of the applicant’s criminal offending or other serious conduct. The Direction provides that violent and/or sexual crimes; crimes of a violent and/or sexual nature against women or children (regardless of the sentence imposed); or acts of family violence (regardless of whether there is a conviction for an offence, or a sentence imposed) are viewed very seriously by the Australian Government and the Australian community.
The Tribunal has taken particular notice of the violent offending of the applicant.
On 3 August 2021, the applicant was convicted of common assault (DV)-T2 and he was fined $750 and sentenced to a two-year community correction order (G6). According to the NSW Police Facts Sheet, the offending occurred on 10 July 2021, when the applicant was in bed on a Saturday afternoon after working a shift as an Uber Eats driver. The applicant’s wife, Ms Y, sat down with their daughter, N, and began questioning the applicant about whether he had been cheating on her the night before. The argument became heated and the applicant pushed Ms Y to the ground, kicked her in the back, and punched her three or four times in front of N. Ms Y settled N on the bed and walked out, but the applicant grabbed her by the arm and tried to pull her back in. Ms Y broke free and lost balance, running into a glass door. The applicant grabbed Ms Y and threw her to the ground, covering her mouth as she tried to scream. Significantly, the offending occurred in the presence of both of their children.
On 17 March 2022, the applicant was convicted of contravene prohibition/restriction in AVO (Domestic) and he received a s 10A conviction with no other penalty. The offending occurred on 16 March 2022, when NSW Police were looking for the applicant and went to Ms Y’s home. Ms Y said that the applicant was not home, but the police saw him poking his head around a wall before hiding again. The police entered the home and arrested the applicant, who claimed he had come that evening for dinner and to collect his belongings
On 19 April 2023, the applicant was convicted of two counts of supply prohibited drug >indictable & <commercial quantity and one count of deal with property proceeds of crime $100,000 & <$5,000, and he was sentenced to a 15-month community correction order and fined $550. The offending occurred on 4 March 2023, when police noted the applicant driving erratically and pulled him over, and that his car had already been pulled over previously for possessing drugs. Police searched the car and found 16 bags of cocaine totalling 9.1g, and 7.1g of MDMA.

On 4 October 2023, the applicant was convicted of multiple offences set out at [10] above.
The assault police officer occurred on 7 July 2023, when the applicant was driving a car and was stopped by police. The applicant produced a positive detection for methamphetamine, and police officers conducted checks revealing that he was disqualified from driving. The police informed the applicant that they suspected he was in possession of a prohibited substance and asked the applicant to leave his car. The applicant said “I’m going” and a police officer attempted to reach into the car and remove the keys, but the applicant accelerated. The officer was thrown from the vehicle onto the roadway, suffering cuts and grazing resulting in bleeding, as well as damage to his pants and wedding ring.
The common assault and contravene prohibition/restriction in AVO occurred on 20 July 2023 and once again occurred in front of his children. The applicant went to Ms Y’s house, telling her that he wished to get back together once the ADVO had ended. The applicant browsed Ms Y’s phone and noticed that she had a friend request from an unknown male. The applicant became aggressive, accusing Ms Y of cheating and saying “You’re a very bad person, you do very bad things behind me” and requested a divorce. Ms Y agreed, and the applicant picked up an umbrella and swung it towards her but stopped before it hit her. Ms Y then got her children and entered her car, and reversed out of the driveway. The applicant opened the driver’s door and tried to take Ms Y’s phone and then hit her on the right side of her head two or three times, knocking off her head scarf whilst the children where in the car. Ms Y and her children went to a neighbouring unit until the applicant left.
Later that same day, the applicant attended Revesby Police Station to report as per his bail conditions. The police informed the applicant that he was under arrest, and he ran away before being chased down by police, and he physically resisted them as they tried to restrain him. The applicant was then interviewed where he admitted that he was aware that he was not to have contact with Ms Y, but he had been going out “on holidays” with his wife and children between 2021 and now, and that he would “rather follow Islamic traditions of staying with the victim” rather than following New South Wales legislation.
The applicant does not acknowledge that these were crimes of violence and very serious offences. He continues to minimise his offending. During oral evidence before the Tribunal he variously stated that his wife should have explained the effect of the ADVO to him, and that her failure to do so led to his further breach of the ADVO. He denied assaulting her during that breach. He stated that he pleaded guilty only because his lawyer told him to. He also stated that when he put his hand over his wife’s mouth, it was to calm her because “women are unable to calm themselves”. There are multiple other instances in the applicant’s written material that demonstrate that he has very little insight in the effects of his offending on the victim as well as a tendency to portray himself as the victim. The Tribunal refers to his statement of 20 November 2021 where the applicant states:
These incidents arose from misunderstandings of Australian legal and family laws and have been a learning experience for me.”[5]
[5] Exhibit A p 475
When asked at the hearing if he had any concern for the police officer when he harshly accelerated the car while the police was leaning through the window, the applicant stated that the “police officer was holding onto the window” and “I had lost my mind at that time” further indicating to the Tribunal that he has no insight into the impact that his offending has on the victim and no insight into the gravity of his behaviour.
The applicant’s offending being in the very serious category is reflected in the remarks of the sentencing judge. In reaching a finding that the crime was of a very serious nature the sentencing judge stated:
The most serious matter before the Court, in terms of new matters, is the
assault police matter where the defendant was pulled over by police, the police
15 leant into the car to get the keys of his car and the defendant accelerated away
whilst the attempt to take the keys. The officer was thrown onto the roadway,
sustained cuts, grazing to his wrists and knees and had his work pants torn
and his wedding ring damaged….
…
In addition to those matters, there are drive whilst disqualified matters where
he has not abided by Road Transport law on a consistent basis. In addition to
that there is also a set of offences where he contravened an AVO and assaulted his partner. The whole purpose of an AVO is to protect the person
and, in this case, he ignored the AVO, went around to the place and swung an
umbrella and assaulted the victim in the presence of the children.
…
For charge ending 224, sequence 12, the assault police, is 12 months.
Sequence 1 drive whilst disqualified, four months. For sequence 1, the supply
charge, for each supply charge I impose indicative terms of six months. For
charge ending 898, sequence 2, drive whilst disqualified, I impose an
indicative term of four months. For charges ending 729, the assault, I impose
15 an indicative term of four months. For contravening the AVO with violence I
impose an indicative term of six months.
The sentence imposed on the applicant is relevant to this issue. As noted above, the head sentence imposed on the applicant was an aggregate sentence of 16 months with a non-parole period of 12 months. The head sentence was not changed on appeal against severity by the applicant, although the non-parole period was decreased to 11 months. While the maximum penalty for assault police at the time of sentencing was five years imprisonment, a head sentence of sixteen months is a significant sentence, reflective of the violence of the applicant’s crime and the seriousness of the offence of assault police.
The effect on the victim of the common assault, a domestic violence offence, is relevant to this issue of violent offending. As noted above, the applicant does not seem to understand, or concede the effect of the assault could have had on his wife and makes no mention of any adverse effect his offending may have had on his family or the community.
The Tribunal finds that his violent offending is very serious.
In addition to offences of family violence and assault police, the Tribunal has also considered the offences for which the applicant was convicted between 2021 and 2023; that being several driving offences and several drug offence. Following the assault on his wife, he was sentenced to a community corrections order for a period of two years to commence on 3 August 2021 to conclude on 2 August 2023[6].
[6] Exhibit A p.92
Three months after the corrections order was issued the applicant was pulled over for travelling 156km per hour in a 90kmph zone and was issued with an infringement notice. On 9 December 2021 he was again speeding 45kmph above the speed limit and issued with a suspension notice. Nine days later, on 18 December 2021 he ran a red light, driving whilst suspended. On 21 January 2022, driving whilst suspended, he was stopped and issued with a traffic infringement notice for use of mobile telephone when not permitted. In total the applicant committed 31 traffic offences whilst the subject of a corrections order. [7]
[7] Exhibit A p.297
In respect of the drug offending he was convicted and fined for possession of equipment for administering prohibited drugs, possess prohibited drugs and drive vehicle with illicit drugs present in blood x 2 on 2 September 2022. Another conviction for possess prohibited drug was recorded on 22 September 2022 before the applicant was convicted of the offence of supply prohibited drug on 4 March 2023 for which a community corrections order was imposed.[8] It was a standard condition of the order that the applicant not commit any offence whilst the subject of a corrections order.
[8] Exhibit A p.498
As noted above, the driving offence and the drug offences were committed while the applicant was on a community corrections order and was said to have concluded various rehabilitation courses. In respect of this, the evidence of the applicant demonstrated that he showed little insight into his offending and does not recognise the criminality of his actions. He was arrested as part of an operation that targeted a ‘dial a drug dealer’ organisation in the Eastern Suburbs of Sydney. He was stopped by police after a transaction was observed in Bondi. The applicant stated in oral evidence to this Tribunal that ‘he had never been and never will be a drug dealer’, and that it was unfortunate for him that he had not been paid for his delivery of cocaine that day and that he had somehow “fallen into it because he needed a job”. The evidence of the applicant demonstrates his lack of insight. He was asked if he pleaded guilty to the offence. He again stated that he only pleaded guilty because his lawyer had told him to do so.
The Tribunal considers the driving offences are very serious in nature. In the case of the driving offences, the offences consisted of speeding and other traffic offences as well as two offences of driving while suspended on the space of two weeks. One speeding offence noted the applicant exceeding the speed limit by 60kmph. While speeding can be extremely dangerous to both the person speeding and the community in general, in this case the offences were dealt with by way of licence suspension and fines. This indicates that the offences individually were not considered very serious in nature. However, the applicant gave evidence to this Tribunal that he did not understand his driver’s license had been suspended, he had understood it was his motorbike license that had been cancelled. This is contrary to the evidence tendered, which clearly states that the applicant’s restricted driver’s license had been suspended. When this was put to the applicant in cross examination, he corrected himself and stated that whilst he understood his licence was suspended he believed that his international Malaysian license was still valid. Even more concerning was the evidence to the Tribunal that he was entitled to drive because he needed to work and drive, regardless of the suspension.[9] The Tribunal finds that the applicant continues to show a lack of insight in respect of his traffic offences. Perhaps most concerning is the applicant’s admission to the Tribunal that he took drugs to stay awake whilst working as a delivery driver, and that he did not believe this was of concern to the community because he needed to work. He denied he was addicted to methamphetamine.
[9] Pre-sentence report
In terms of traffic offending, the driving offences, their multitude and the applicant’s admission that he drives under the influence of methamphetamine, is in the view of the Tribunal very serious offending. The applicant’s persistent failure to comply with the road rules presents a serious danger to the community. The offences indicate a persistent disregard for safety mechanisms imposed by road rules and when viewed together with the violent offending against his wife and a police officer, shows a willingness by the applicant to act without care for the safety and wellbeing of others.
In respect of paragraph 8.1.1(1)(e) which requires the Tribunal to have regard to the frequency of the offending and whether there is any trend in increasing seriousness, the Tribunal finds that the applicant’s offending has been frequent and the seriousness of the offending has increased, resulting in a term of imprisonment. In terms of the violent offending, the Tribunal finds that violently breaching the ADVO, with yet another assault upon his wife in front of the children, represents an escalation of the offending for which he was initially convicted. Certainly the conviction of supply of a prohibited drug represents an escalation from a conviction for possession.
Noting the dangers that prohibited drugs represent to the broader community the Tribunal finds that the applicant’s supply offence is very serious. Even whilst facing the prospect of a prison sentence the applicant was not deterred from continuing to offend, even though he was on a community corrections order.
The Tribunal has also considered the cumulative effect of the applicant’s offending, paragraph 8.1.1(1)(f). The applicant has committed 15 offences between October 2021 and 8 May 2023 which have required significant resources from the courts. The offences relate to dangerous driving, drugs and acts of family violence, notwithstanding multiple court imposed deterrent measures, including community correction orders and an apprehended domestic violence order and his conviction of the subsequent violent breach of that order.
Risk to the Australian community – 8.1.2
In considering the need to protect the Australian community from harm, the Tribunal has had regard to the Government's view that the Australian community's tolerance for any risk of future harm becomes lower as the seriousness of the potential harm increases. In this regard the Tribunal notes 8.1.2(1), which states that “[s]ome conduct and the harm that would be caused, if it were to be repeated, is so serious that any risk that it may be repeated may be unacceptable”.
The applicant’s position is that he is remorseful and will not reoffend. It is his further submission that he has undertaken counselling courses and is therefore unlikely to reoffend. He says he wants to live a quiet respectful life with his wife and children. He denies being addicted to drugs.
Particularly relevant in respect of the likelihood of the applicant re-offending is the pre-sentence report tendered by the respondent and contained at page 195 of the bundle. The pre-sentence report was prepared under the hand of C Ribbons, Community Corrections Officer, dated 25 September 2023. Ms Ribbons reports, under the heading of ‘violence and aggression’ that [the applicant] denied that he assaulted his wife and stated that he used ‘only words’ … he did not recognise when challenged that he was coercive in his use of words’. Under the heading ‘Insight into impact of his offending’ the officer reports ‘[the applicant] had limited insight into the impact of his offending by minimising the impact of his actions against his wife and the police officer’. .. In another section the applicant stated that ‘he did not consider his [drug and alcohol] use was problematic’. The officer concluded that “[The applicant] has been assessed at a Medium risk of reoffending according to the Level of Service Inventory (Revised (LSI-R)”.
In relation to this issue, the Tribunal has also considered the applicant’s evidence:
·The applicant’s two letters dated 20 November 2024[10] and his oral evidence at the hearing;
[10] Exhibit A JTB at 474
·The email dated 10 July 2025 provided by the applicant’s former employer Muhammad Ali[11];
[11] Exhibit C
·The email dated 9 July 2025 provided by the applicant’s cousin Syed Sazwan Bin Syed Abdul Rahman[12];
[12] Exhibit D
·The email dated 9 July 2025 provided by the applicant’s wife, Ms Y[13];
[13] Exhibit B
·Letter of Unisaj Legal dated 25 March 2025 under the hand of Siddique Panwala the applicant’s former lawyer; and submissions in support of the revocation provided to the Minister on 1 August 2025;
·The oral evidence given by the applicant, his wife and Mr Ali at the hearing, including the applicant’s closing submission;
·The following certificates of course completion contained in the tender bundle:
·Understanding Drug and Alcohol Abuse 03.06.2025;
·Positive Parenting Techniques 11 May 2025;
·Stress Management 27 May 2025;
·Depression Management 10 May 2025;
·Anger Management Techniques 10 May 2025;
·Remand Domestic Abuse Letter 15 September 2023;
·Online Traffic Offenders Rehabilitation Program 22 October 2022;
The applicant, as is set out above, gave evidence that was in turn avoidant as well as minimising his offending. Whilst he wrote in his letter of 20 November 2025, “I deeply regret my actions and have taken steps to understand and fully comply with Australian laws”, it is apparent from his sworn oral testimony that he continues to deny the violent offending or blames the victim. In the case of his wife, he stated that the victim should have explained the terms of the ADVO to him, in the case of the police officer, the applicant stated that the police officer should not have held on to the window.
The Tribunal has had regard to the submission of the applicant’s former lawyers. Mr Panwala states that his client, as a former policeman, understands law enforcement ‘and the security and safety of people’. It is submitted on behalf of the applicant, in the submission to the Minister, that “[the applicant] intends to do the right thing by the community”. However, this submission is inconsistent with the applicant’s oral evidence and the Tribunal accordingly places little weight on it.
Conclusion in relation to protection of the Australian community
The Tribunal is satisfied that that the applicant’s assault on his wife and the offence of resist arrest occasioning actual bodily harm in respect of the police officer constitutes very serious violent offending. There is no doubt that should the applicant again engage in conduct similar to the domestic violence offence and the resist arrest offence, the resulting harm to a domestic partner, or an officer in the course of the exercise of his/her duty and more broadly to the Australian community is likely to be very serious in terms of emotional, physical and psychological damage.
In relation to the risk of the applicant re-offending, based on the applicant’s oral evidence, the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant feels remorse for the crimes he committed or that he is committed to not re-offending. The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant is rehabilitated in respect of his drug use and notes in particular the applicant’s evidence that he only takes drugs to stay awake when at work as a delivery driver. The Tribunal does not accept that his family has provided a significant protective factor as some of the offending occurred while the applicant was a husband and father and whilst he was cohabitating with Ms Y.
Based on the applicant’s written and oral evidence the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant is committed to rehabilitation or that his commitment to not reoffending is sustained or genuine. He concerningly stated in oral evidence that “when men get angry they cannot control themselves” which indicates to the Tribunal that he takes no responsibility for his actions, nor does he rule out that his violent offending could occur again. The Tribunal accepts and prefers the opinion expressed in the pre-sentence report that the risk of the applicant reoffending is medium and that in giving her professional opinion about the risk of reoffending, the officer expressed considerable concern about the applicant’s lack of insight and his continued denial concerning the violent offending against his wife.
In assessing the likelihood of the applicant engaging in further criminal or other serious conduct, 8.1.2(2) of the Direction requires the Tribunal to take into account not only information and evidence on the risk of the applicant reoffending, but also evidence of rehabilitation achieved by the time of the decision. In doing so, the Tribunal is to give weight to time spent in the community since the applicant’s most recent offence. In this case, the applicant has been in prison and in immigration detention where he remains.
Taking into account the seriousness of the potential harm if the applicant’s conduct were to be repeated, the fact that the applicant still denies the most violent elements of the offending and the fact that the applicant has spent no time in the community since his last offence, I conclude that this is a case where there is a medium risk that the applicant’s conduct may be repeated which, in the Tribunal’s view, is unacceptable. On the available evidence the Tribunal is satisfied that there is a medium risk of the applicant’s conduct being repeated.

The Tribunal finds that the protection of the Australian community weighs strongly against a decision to revoke.
Family Violence – 8.2
Paragraph 8.2 of Direction 110 concerns family violence and is said to reflect the government’s serious concern about conferring on non-citizens who engage in family violence the privilege of entering or remaining in Australia.
This primary consideration is relevant because the applicant has been charged with offences that are of a very serious nature concerning family violence set out at [39] above. The applicant was convicted of common assault (DV)-T2 and was fined $750 and sentenced to a two-year community correction order. He has also been convicted of a breach of an ADVO concerning the same victim, Ms Y.
There are police reports available to the Tribunal which detail the incidents of family violence that have been set out above. Both incidents have been the subject of a conviction. As a result of the common assault the applicant was arrested and placed on a community corrections order. The victim was protected by an ADVO and yet the applicant breached the ADVO, not only visiting her home, but attacking her with an umbrella and striking her to the head multiple times, removing her headscarf, as she was trying to escape with the children in the car.
The Tribunal is satisfied that the common assault upon his wife, the imposition of the ADVO and its breach and the subsequent recorded conviction are relevant to paragraph 8.2 of Direction 110. The Tribunal has also considered the witness statement of Ms Y dated 9 July 2025. In her statement the witness deposes that she has made a conscious decision to forgive her husband and to stand by him. She deposes that she has observed changes in her husband’s behaviour. It is not in contention that the eight-year-old boy is Ms Y’s adopted son but the Tribunal accepts that the applicant has during the time of the family’s cohabitation considered the adopted son as part of his family unit. Ms Y states that she is willing to rebuild the marriage in accordance with Islamic values and that she has forgiven her husband and believes in his ability to change. The witness also states that the applicant can be a positive father and partner ‘if given the chance’.
The applicant gave scant evidence demonstrating remorse concerning the offending against his wife, in front of his children. He stated that she should have explained the effect of the ADVO on him, and that he needed to “calm” her when he put his hand over her mouth because women find it hard to calm down once they are ranting. The applicant’s evidence indicates that he has very little insight in respect of the breach of the ADVO and blames the victim for escalating matters to police. This is also reflected in the pre-sentence report set out above, which was prepared in respect of his repeat offending and as is described by the officer, “[The applicant] denied that he assaulted his wife”. This is echoed in his most recent sworn oral evidence before this Tribunal.
In considering 8.2 of Direction 110, the Tribunal has taken into account the authority of CRNL v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs[14] to the effect that the threshold of relevance set by paragraph 8.2.(2)(b) is low and that facts of family violence as reported by NSW Police are relevant and must be taken into account in accordance with paragraph 8.2.(2)(b). It is noted that the maximum penalty for a breach of an ADVO is 2 years imprisonment and the Tribunal has considered that the court must have found the offending to be in the medium end of the spectrum as a four month term of imprisonment was imposed in respect of the breach of the ADVO.
[14] [2023] FCA 43.
The seriousness of the family violence offending
Several factors must be taken into account when considering the seriousness of family violence, including frequency of the conduct, cumulative effect of repeated acts, rehabilitation achieved, and reoffending after formal warnings about the consequences of further acts.
The applicant has been convicted of two domestic violence related offences. The first was a conviction for common assault and the second for breach of an ADVO. Both of these convictions related to assaults on Ms Y. While the applicant has not received a formal warning, the Tribunal concludes that the offence of a violent breach of an existing ADVO constitutes an escalation of the family violence offending (8.2(3)(a)). In addition, the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant has shown no remorse and does not appear to have accepted his offending, and rather blames his wife and his lawyer for the conviction and subsequent sentence. While taking into account Ms Y’s views as expressed in her letter, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is rehabilitated.
The Tribunal finds that this consideration weighs heavily against the revocation of the cancellation of the applicant’s visa.
The strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia – 8.3
In accordance with 8.3(1) of the Direction the Tribunal has considered any impact of the decision on the applicant’s immediate family members in Australia, where those family members are Australian citizens, Australian permanent residents, or people who have a right to remain in Australia indefinitely. The Tribunal is also obliged to also consider the strength, nature and duration of any other ties that the applicant has to the community.
The applicant arrived in Australia on 18 October 2018 and he was 31 years of age at the time. The applicant has lived in Australia for seven years. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant has made some positive contribution to Australia in his previous employment as a delivery driver. The Tribunal accepts that he has financially supported his wife and children from time to time.
In respect of the applicant’s wife and children, neither are Australian citizens, Australian permanent residents or individuals who have the right to remain in Australia indefinitely. It is the Minister’s evidence that Ms Y is currently pursuing a protection visa application. The outcome of that protection visa application is unknown as at the time of these proceedings. The applicant’s daughters were born in Australia but are neither Australian citizens nor permanent residents. Ms Y’s adopted son is a citizen of Malaysia and not an Australian citizen or permanent resident. Accordingly, neither Ms Y or the children are individuals with the right to remain in Australia indefinitely, so 8.3(1) is not enlivened in this cases. The applicant has stated in his evidence that in the event his application is successful he intends to resume a relationship with his wife and children (once the ADVO expires in September 2025). The Tribunal accepts that there would be a negative impact on his wife and children if the applicant were removed from Australia.
The applicant has provided witness statements from his former employer, Mr Ali and his cousin Mr Abd Rahman. Neither Mr Ali nor Mr Abd Rahman have given evidence as to whether they are Australian citizens, Australian permanent residents or persons who have an indefinite right remain in Australia for the purpose of paragraph 8.3 (2) (b) of Direction 110. Whilst the Tribunal accepts that the applicant has developed some social ties during his residence in Australia there is currently no evidence before the Tribunal that a decision not to revoke the cancellation of his visa would have an adverse impact on his former employer and or his cousin, or any other individual.
Overall the Tribunal finds that this consideration weighs slightly in favour of the decision to revoke.
The best interests of minor children in Australia - 8.4
In accordance with 8.4(1) of the Direction, the Tribunal has considered whether the refusal of the applicant’s visa application is in the best interests of the applicant’s two daughters, aged 5 and 4 and Ms Y’s adopted son aged 8.
The Tribunal accepts the evidence given by the applicant at the hearing that although he has been the subject of an ADVO and has not resided with the family for at least two years, he generally has given the minor children $100 here and there and likes to take them to a fried food outlet. The Tribunal further accepts that, should he be given the opportunity, the applicant intends to be involved in his children’s lives and to support them financially. The Tribunal considers that the applicant’s past conduct had a negative effect on his children and Ms Y’s adopted son and that the children would be adversely impacted if the applicant perpetrated further acts of family violence.
The Tribunal accepts that the relationship between the applicant and the minor children is a parental relationship. The Tribunal further accepts that there is for practical purposes no difference in the applicant’s relationship with his daughters and Ms Y’s adopted son. However, whilst the applicant has been incarcerated and in immigration detention, Ms Y has been able to support the children and there is no evidence before the Tribunal that the children are deprived of housing or other essentials as a result of the applicant’s prolonged absence. It is Ms Y’s evidence that she is working and earning an income and that the extended community has assisted her with living expenses.
The Tribunal was not provided with a copy of the ADVO and there is limited information of the terms of the ADVO available to the Tribunal other than that the order expires in September 2025. The Tribunal accepts that in the event of his release into the community Ms Y is prepared to resume the relationship. The Tribunal accepts the applicant’s evidence that in the event of his release he would be willing to resume his parenting role, and to provide financially to the household. There is no evidence that the ADVO would significantly affect parental responsibilities of contact arrangements.
Weighing against this is the fact that the children have witnessed family violence perpetrated against their mother and the Tribunal’s finding adverse to the applicant that the applicant is at a medium risk of reoffending. Considering the lack of insight and the propensity to blame Ms Y for his offending, there is a considerable concern that the children will be negatively impacted by witnessing further assaults.
Overall, the Tribunal concludes that while it would be in the best interests of the applicant’s minor children to revoke the cancellation of the visa, the Tribunal finds that this consideration weighs only slightly in favour of revoking the decision to cancel the applicant’s visa.
Expectations of the Australian community – 8.5
In relation to this consideration, 8.5(1) of the Direction states:
The Australian community expects non-citizens to obey Australian laws while in Australia. Where a non-citizen has engaged in serious conduct in breach of this expectation, or where there is an unacceptable risk that they may do so, the Australian community, as a norm, expects the Government to not allow such a non-citizen to remain in Australia.
The applicant has failed to obey Australian laws. He would therefore be expected to be removed from the community, as his violent offending, his driving offences and his drug supply charges are at the very serious end of the spectrum. Further, family violence and an assault on a police officer alone meets the Direction’s criteria. Further, the risk of reoffending has been assessed as Medium, and the Tribunal has concluded above that any risk of the applicant reoffending is unacceptable in circumstances where the applicant has spent no time in the community since his offending and has little remorse or insight.
The Tribunal has considered the principle expressed in 5.2(6) of the Direction; that is, that the Australian community 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. The applicant is now 37 years of age and has only lived in Australia for six years or since he was 31 years of age. He has therefore lived in Malaysia for most of his live and he has not lived in Australia from a very young age.
The Tribunal finds that the Australian community expects that the Australian government should not grant the applicant a protection visa.
The Tribunal considers that this factor weighs strongly against the decision to revoke.
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
Clause 9 of the Direction states:
(1) In making a decision under section 501(1), 501(2) or 501CA(4), the considerations below must also be taken into account, where relevant, in accordance with the following provisions. These considerations include (but are not limited to):
a) legal consequences of the decision;
b) extent of impediments if removed;
c) impact on Australian business interests.
Legal consequences of the decision – 9.1
The Tribunal is required to consider the legal consequences of a decision on a non- citizen, including having regard to Australia’ non refoulement obligations in respect of unlawful non-citizens.
One adverse legal consequence of the applicant not being granted a protection visa is that there will be significant restrictions on his ability to apply for another visa. Under s 48A of the Act, he would not be able to apply for another protection visa while in the migration zone, unless the Minister thinks that it is in the public interest to lift the bar under s 48B. Further, an application for any visa other than a protection visa would be subject to s 501E; that is, it could not be made from within the migration zone unless it was for a Bridging Visa R (Class WR) as prescribed by cl 2.12AA of the Migration Regulations 1994. The applicant could only apply for such a visa in response to an invitation.
In general, if a person is an unlawful non-citizen, the person must be detained under s 189 of the Act and must be removed from Australia in accordance with s 198 of the Act.
Under section 198 unlawful non-citizens are liable to removal from Australia as soon as reasonably practicable in the circumstances specified in that section of the Act, and in the meantime, are liable to detention under s 189 of the Act, noting also that section 197 C (one) provides that, for the purposes of s 198, it is irrelevant whether Australia has not found obligations in respect of the unlawful noncitizens.
Claims which may give rise to international non-refoulement obligations can also be raised by a non citizen who is not the subject of a protection finding, in responding to a notice of intention to consider cancellation or refusal of a visa under s 501 of the Act, or in seeking revocation of the mandatory cancellation of their visa under section 501CA. Where such claims are raised, they must be considered (9.1.2).
However where it is open to the non-citizen to apply for a protection visa, it is not necessary at the section 501CA stage to consider non refoulement issues in the same level of detail as those types of issues are considered in a protection visa application (9.1.2 (2)).
As noted above, the applicant has applied for and was refused a protection visa. In his protection visa application, he claimed to have a well-founded fear of persecution in his home country of Malaysia. The applicant’s claims were assessed and the delegate was satisfied that the applicant is not a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations as provided for in s 36(2)(a) of the Act.[15]
[15] Exhibit A p.305
As part of the applicant’s submissions dated 20 November 2023 and again during oral submissions before this Tribunal as to why the cancellation decision should be revoked, he submits that he will face harm if he returns to Malaysia due to his history of employment as a police investigation officer which resulted in the conviction of a high-profile criminal group member. The applicant claimed he received subsequent threats to his life. The Tribunal has considered the decision of the AAT made on 4 October 2024 affirming the decision of the delegate. The Tribunal is satisfied that the claims of fear of being harmed due to his former status as a police officer were not accepted by the AAT and are now subject of appeal to the FCFA. The Tribunal notes the applicant’s claims but finds that they do not give rise to Australia’s non-refoulement obligations, as they have been considered in detail and rejected. The applicant thus would not be removed to a country where he faces a real risk of serious or significant harm.
The applicant now raises new claims of harm in respect of his Islamic religion. He claims that he has converted to Shia Islam and now identifies as a Shia Muslim. When asked when he converted the applicant stated that he has always wanted to be Shia but was prevented from being a practising Shia in Malaysia because he would be persecuted. Those new claims were not considered in the protection visa decision, because the applicant did not raise them either before the delegate of the Minister or at the time of his AAT review hearing in October 2024. The claim of his conversion to Shia Islam was not raised until March 2025, in a letter from his lawyer Mr Panwala addressed to the Department of Home Affairs. It is noted that the claim to be a Shia convert was not made when the same legal representative wrote a letter in support of the revocation seven months earlier, on 1 August 2024.
In considering the applicant’s new claims, the Tribunal has also considered the following documents tendered by the applicant in support of his submission to the Minister whether to revoke the original decision to cancel the bridging visa. These documents, it is assumed, were attached to the applicant’s legal representative’s letter dated 25 March 2025. It is stated that further information has been provided and that “[the applicant] now identifies as Shia”.[16]
·Certified translation of the ‘Special Discussion by the National Council Fatwa Committee for Matters of Malaysia Islamic And Religious Affairs’ convened on 5 May 1996, discussing Shiite Islam in Malaysia.
·The certified translated copy of an article, undated, headed the ‘Malacca Islamic Religious Department raided a house in Taman Paya Dalam, Malacca which is to be believed to be the headquarters of the group of Shiite believers’.
·The certified translated copy of a article, undated, headed “the Shia virus destructive to faith”.
·The certified translated copy of an article, undated headed ‘114 Shia followers were arrested’;
·The certified translated copy of an article, undated, headed ‘JAIS /Shiite stronghold -128 arrested’;
·The certified translated copy of an article entitled ‘Freedom of religion in Malaysia by The Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (Suhakam)’;
[16] Exhibit A p.471
The Tribunal accepts that converting from Sunni Islam to Shia Islam remains controversial in Malaysia and carries significant legal, social and personal consequences. Shia teachings and practices are banned in some Malaysian states under sharia law. The Tribunal further accepts that Shia Muslims can face social ostracism, surveillance and discrimination in employment, education and public life. The Tribunal further accepts that the articles tendered by the applicant are reported instances (albeit undated and with the name of the publication removed) of Shia gatherings being raided and individuals being harassed or threatened by authorities. DFAT assess that Shia Muslims face a low risk of societal discrimination and moderate risk of official discrimination.[17]
[17] 60 ‘DFAT Country Information Report Malaysia', Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, 24 June 2024, section 3.69, p.24, 20240624113833
However, the applicant has given no persuasive evidence that he has converted or that he is a practising Shia Muslim. He did not give any details, written or during sworn oral evidence, that he has consulted with an imam, or members of his community or even that he consulted holy texts that predicated his conversion. Given that the entirety of the applicant’s evidence in support of this new claim is the bare assertion by the applicant “that he now identifies as Shia”[18] the Tribunal rejects his claims. In the absence of any evidence to support the proposition that he has converted to Shia Islam, the Tribunal is not persuaded that the applicant ‘identifies as Shia’. The Tribunal finds that the applicant’s claims in this respect are a recent invention to further his claim for a revocation of the delegate’s decision to cancel the applicant’s visa.
[18] Exhibit A p.471

In respect of his assertion that he continues to fear criminals in Malaysia, the Tribunal finds that the issue has been determined by the AAT and refers to the careful consideration by the AAT of the applicant’s claims at pp 305 of Exhibit A.
Based on the evidence and submissions made by the applicant, there is no reason for this Tribunal to reassess the applicant’s claims or to revisit the AAT’s findings.
The Tribunal has also considered that the applicant has lodged an appeal and that the matter is currently before the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia. Whether the appeal is successful and the matter is remitted is a matter of conjecture. If the appeal is dismissed, it is at this time the legal consequences, including the grant of a BVR or any potential removal to his home country of Malaysia, falls for consideration. To do so at this earlier stage involves a high degree of speculation about the outcome of his appeal to the court.
The legal consequence of the decision is that the applicant will remain in immigration detention until his appeal is finally determined. The applicant did not make any submissions in relation to this issue. However, the Tribunal accepts that an indefinite period of detention pending the outcome of the appeal will adversely affect him.
The legal consequences of the decision, including the uncertainty regarding his ongoing visa status and ongoing detention pending the consideration of his appeal weigh slightly in favour of revoking the cancellation of his visa.
Extent of impediments if removed – 9.2
The Tribunal must consider the extent to which the Applicant would face an impediment or impediments if removed from Australia. This is to take into account the applicant’s:
·Age and health;
·Whether there are substantial language or cultural barriers; and
·Any social, medical and/or economic support available to them in that country.
The Applicant is now approximately 37 years of age. He has no adverse health concerns that are relevant to the decision. There is an entry in the applicant’s admission record to the Villawood detention centre which states “Schizophrenia has automatically been applied to this client”. The entry was created "for purposes of handover to new provider". He was prescribed Olanzapine from August 2024 to December 2024. The applicant does not claim to be schizophrenic and does not receive treatment for schizophrenia or any other health condition at the current time. He denies having substance abuse issues and does not receive treatment for methamphetamine or other addictive substances. The Tribunal does not consider that the applicant taking Olanzapine between August and December 2024 was part of his rehabilitation efforts.
This consideration refers to impediments a non-citizen may face if removed from Australia to their home country, in establishing themselves and maintaining basic living standards in the context of what is generally available to other citizens of that country.
As noted above, the applicant does not have a protection finding in his favour and subject to the outcome of his appeal, can be removed to Malaysia.
The applicant was 31 years of age when he arrived in Australia and spent his formative years in his home country of Malaysia. He has no cultural, linguistic or other barriers that would prevent him for reintegration into Malaysian society. He worked as a police officer for the Malaysian government from 2005 to 2015 and worked as a security guard thereafter. He obtained employment in Australia variously as a spray painter and delivery driver. He is clearly resilient and industrious and can obtain employment. He has no relevant adverse health concerns and is a relatively young man with no physical disabilities that prevent him from obtaining and maintaining work. In addition, the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant will have access to the same level of social, medical and economic support available to other Malaysian nationals.
The Tribunal concludes that this consideration only weighs very slightly in favour of revocation.
Impact on Australian business interests – 9.3
There is no evidence of impact on Australian business interests. This factor is neutral.
CONCLUSION
The Tribunal has considered the applicant’s circumstances in relation to the various considerations set out in the Direction. The Tribunal must now carry out the evaluative exercise of weighing up the factors to determine whether to exercise the discretion whether to revoke the decision to cancel the applicant’s visa.
The Tribunal has made the following findings concerning the relevant primary considerations in the Direction, other considerations being neutral:
(a)Protection of the Australian community against criminal and other serious conduct weighs strongly against a decision to revoke.
(b)Family violence weighs heavily against a decision to revoke.
(c)The strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia weigh slightly in favour of a decision to revoke.
(d)While it is in the best interests of the applicant’s children that he remain in Australia, this consideration only weighs slightly in favour of a decision to revoke.
(e)The expectations of the Australian community weigh strongly against a decision to revoke.
The Tribunal has made the following finding about the only relevant other consideration in the Direction:
(a)The legal consequences of the decision weigh only slightly in favour of a decision to revoke.
(b)The extent of impediments if removed weighs very slightly in favour of a decision to revoke.
Overall, the weight attached to the protection of the Australian community, family violence committed by the applicant and the expectations of the Australian community, outweigh his ties to Australia, the best interests of minor children, the legal consequences of the decision and the extent of impediments if removed.
The Tribunal is satisfied that the findings in this regard accord with the weight of the evidence and the principles set out in 5.2 of the Direction. In relation to this, 5.2(2) expressly states that the safety of the Australian Community is the highest priority of the Australian Government and the principles otherwise emphasise the interests of the community rather than those of the individual. In this case, the three primary factors that weigh against the applicant are those that are most relevant to the safety of the Australian community and the expectations of the Australian community. The two primary considerations that weigh slightly in favour of the applicant are his ties to Australia and the interests of minor children.
The Tribunal is not satisfied that these two considerations, even when added to the legal consequences and the impediments if removed that weigh slightly in favour of the revocation, outweigh the primary considerations that weigh against the revocation.
The Tribunal therefore affirms the decision under review.

Date(s) of hearing: 15 and 16 July 2025

Applicant: Self-represented

Solicitors for the Applicant: Ms C Warren

Solicitors for the Respondent: Sparke Helmore Lawyers

Date(s) of hearing:	15 and 16 July 2025
Applicant:	Self-represented
Solicitors for the Applicant:	Ms C Warren
Solicitors for the Respondent:	Sparke Helmore Lawyers