XYBZ and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (Migration) - [2025] ARTA 1172

XYBZ and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (Migration) [2025] ARTA 1172 (31 July 2025)
Applicant:XYBZ
Respondent: Minister for Immigration and Citizenship
Tribunal Number: 2025/3623

Tribunal: Senior Member C Thwaites
Place:Melbourne
Date:31 July 2025
Decision:The decision not to revoke the cancellation of the Class WA Subclass 010 Bridging A visa, is affirmed.

Statement made on 31 July 2025 at 2:34pm
Catchwords
MIGRATION – review under section 501CA(4), character test, – Ministerial Direction No 110.
Legislation
Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth)
Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth)
Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) Act 2024 (Cth)
Migration Act 1958 (Cth)
Migration Amendment Act 2024 (Cth)
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth)
Secondary Materials
Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (Cth), Direction No 110: Visa Refusal and Cancellation under s501 and Revocation of a Mandatory Cancellation of a Visa under s501CA (7 June 2024)
Statement of Reasons

This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Respondent not to revoke the cancellation of a Class WA Subclass 010 Bridging A visa previously held by the Applicant, made under section 501CA(4) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).
BACKGROUND
The Applicant was born in Islamabad in 1984 and is a citizen of Pakistan. He was granted a student visa for Australia in July 2011 and first arrived on 11 August 2011. The Application applied for a second student visa whilst onshore, which was granted on 31 December 2012. On 17 July 2015, the Applicant was granted his third student visa, which was subsequently cancelled pursuant to s116 of the Act.
On 18 January 2017, the Applicant applied for a Protection visa. This application was refused by a delegate of the Minister, and that decision was affirmed by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The Applicant is currently seeking judicial review of that decision.
After a motor vehicle collision on 5 August 2019 the Applicant was charged with one charge of dangerous driving causing serious injury to which he pleaded not guilty. Following a short trial the Applicant was convicted by a jury in the County Court of Victoria. The Applicant was sentenced on 16 September 2022 to a term of imprisonment of two and a half years with a non-parole period of 20 months. His licence was cancelled, and he was disqualified from holding a license for a period of 18 months.
On 12 December 2022 the Applicant’s Class WA Subclass 010 Bridging A visa was cancelled under s 501(3A) as a delegate was satisfied he did not pass the character test because of the operation of s 501(6)(a) (substantial criminal record) on the basis of s 501(7)(c) and because he was serving a sentence of imprisonment, on a full time basis in Ravenhall Correctional Centre in Victoria for an offence against the law of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory.
The Applicant was invited to make representations which he did in accordance with s 501CA(3)(b) about revocation of the cancellation decision.
On 8 May 2025 a delegate of the Minister decided they were not satisfied the Applicant passed the character test (as defined by s 501). The delegate was not satisfied there was another reason why the cancellation decision should be revoked, and the power in s501CA(4) was not enlivened, and the Applicant’s Class WA Subclass 010 Bridging A visa remained cancelled.
On 16 May 2025 the Applicant applied to the Tribunal for review of that decision.
The Applicant attended a hearing on 17 and 18 July 2025 and gave oral evidence. He was represented in relation to the application and the representative attended the hearing.
The Tribunal also received oral evidence from the Applicant’s current partner and from the psychologist Dr Kwok.
The Tribunal has taken into consideration the oral evidence provided during the hearing, and the evidence contained in the Hearing Book and the further materials provided at the hearing.
LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK
Section 501CA(4) of the Act states the Minister may revoke the original decision if:
(a) the person makes representations in accordance with the invitation; and
(b) the Minister is satisfied:
(i) that the person passes the character test (as defined by section 501); or
(ii) that there is another reason why the original decision should be revoked.
Section 501(6)(a) states that a person does not pass the character test if the person has a substantial criminal record.
Section 501(7)(c) states that, for the purposes of the character test, a person has a substantial criminal record if the person has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more.
Under section 499(1) of the Act, the Minister may give written directions to a person or body having functions or power under the Act, and a person or body must comply with any direction given by the Minster (section 499(2A)).
The Minister has issued Direction 110, Visa Refusal and Cancellation under section 501 and Revocation of a Mandatory Cancellation of a Visa under section 501CA (the Direction) dated 7 June 2024.
The Direction sets out the considerations to be taken into account when considering a request to revoke a cancellation and states: a non-citizen who has had their visa cancelled under section 501(3A) may request revocation of that decision under section 501CA of the Act. Where the decision-maker considering the request is not satisfied that the non-citizen passes the character test, the decision-maker must consider whether there is another reason to revoke the cancellation given the specific circumstances of the case. The purpose of this Direction is to guide decision-makers in performing functions or exercising powers under sections 501 and 501CA of the Act.
Clause 5.2 of the Direction sets out the principles to provide a framework for decision making. These 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 measurable 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 non-citizen does not pose a measurable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community.
Paragraph 8 of the Direction sets out the primary considerations to be taken into account:
8.1protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct;
8.2whether the conduct engaged in constituted family violence;
8.3the strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia;
8.4the best interests of minor children in Australia;
8.5expectations of the Australian community.
Paragraph 9 of the Direction sets out other considerations to be taken into account including:
9.1Legal consequences of the decision;
9.2Extent of impediments if removed;
9.3Impact on Australian business interests.
ISSUES
The issues to be determined in this application are:
1)Does the Applicant pass the character test as set out in section 501(6), and if not,
2)Whether there is another reason why the original decision should be revoked under section 501CA(4), having regard to the Minister’s Direction No. 110.
FINDINGS AND REASONS
Does the Applicant pass the character test?
It is not in dispute that the Applicant does not pass the character test.
On the evidence before it, including the Check Results Report and the sentencing remarks of His Honour Judge Lacava of the County Court of Victoria, the Tribunal finds that on 16 September 2022 the Applicant was convicted of one charge of dangerous driving causing serious injury. The Applicant was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of two and a half years with a non-parole period of 20 months. [1]
[1] HB1 59, 61-70
The Tribunal finds the Applicant has a substantial criminal record and does not pass the character test set out in section 501(6)(a) of the Act.
Whether there is another reason why the original decision should be revoked under section 501CA(4), having regard to the Minister’s Direction No. 110.
The Tribunal has considered each consideration set out in the Direction in turn, keeping in mind the principles in clause 5.2 of the Direction.
8.1 The protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct
This consideration requires the Tribunal to keep in mind that the safety of the Australian community is the highest priority of the Australian Government, and that the Government is committed to protecting the Australian community from harm as a result of criminal activity or other serious conduct by non-citizens.
The Tribunal is required to 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.
The Tribunal 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.
8.1.1 Nature and seriousness of the conduct
Paragraph 8.1.1(1) states that when considering the nature and seriousness of the Applicant’s criminal offending and other conduct to date, the Tribunal must have regard to a number of factors.
Based on the Check Results Report[2] and oral evidence of the Applicant and submissions from his representative the Tribunal finds that as well as the charge of dangerous driving causing serious injury noted above, the Applicant has also been charged with unlawful assault arising from an incident in September 2016, and charged with intentionally cause injury from an incident in May 2019.
[2] HB1, p59
For the charge of unlawful assault, on 23 January 2018 the Applicant was sentenced for unlawful assault without conviction and had an interim intervention order granted against him preventing him from contacting his former partner, which expired on 31 December 2019. During the hearing the Applicant told the Tribunal that he and his then (now former) partner were arguing about a girl, she was slapping him, and he pushed her in the face pushing her backwards. He pleaded guilty and feels bad and regrets that it happened. He agrees he should not have pushed her.
For the charge of intentionally cause injury, the Applicant pleaded guilty and on 30 January 2023 he was sentenced to six months imprisonment served concurrently with the sentence for dangerous driving causing serious injury.
The Applicant told the Tribunal the incident occurred when he was sitting with friends and cracking jokes. When the Applicant made a joke about a particular person (the victim), he became angry and choked the Applicant. The Applicant tried to defend himself and the others then split them apart. The Applicant was taken to another room. The Applicant did not know this person had made a complaint to the police until after the car accident. The Applicant told the Tribunal he should have run from the room and that was his mistake.
During the hearing, part of the transcript of proceedings was put to the Applicant.[3] The transcript stated that the Applicant and two other people assaulted the victim. The victim was known to the Applicant for around seven years. The Applicant said to the victim that he had been talking about his “misuss” then the Applicant and two others assaulted the victim. The victim believed he lost consciousness and when he came to the left side of his face was swelling. Due to the speed of the assault the victim could not tell if an object had been used in the assault. After the victim came to, the Applicant slapped him five times to the face using his right hand.
[3] HB 1, p80
In response the Applicant told the Tribunal the victim was not of good character and that the victim had assaulted the Applicant. He gave examples of the victim’s criminal conduct in the community, and told the Tribunal this person had assaulted others and had spent one year in jail. The victim had also paid people to bully the Applicant while he was in jail. The Applicant told the Tribunal he never did anything wrong to the victim. The Applicant told the Tribunal his mistake was he did not go to the police station at the time. While the Tribunal notes the Applicant’s response is consistent with his response to the charge as recorded in the Preliminary Brief Statement Made by Informant[4], and the information he provided in his written statement dated 19 January 2023, the Tribunal also notes the transcript of proceedings indicates the summary as set out in the transcript of proceedings was accepted by the Applicant’s representative at the time, and the Applicant pleaded guilty to the charge of intentionally causing injury. Given the summary was accepted at the time of sentencing the Tribunal accepts it reflects the applicant’s conduct in relation to this incident.
[4] HB1, p76.
In relation to the charge of dangerous driving causing serious injury, according to the sentencing remarks of His Honour Judge Lacava, on Monday 5 August 2019 at about 1:40 am a collision occurred at the intersection of Bell Street and Albert Street Preston Victoria. The collision was caused because the Applicant, who was driving a Ford Falcon, entered the intersection against a red light and collided with a truck.
The impact of the collision caused serious injury to the Applicant’s young friend who was a rear seat passenger seated behind the Applicant. He suffered a severe brain injury which had the potential to be life threatening. The injuries he suffered have been life changing and he will never make a full recovery to his pre collision state. He will likely remain unable to speak, move his body, swallow, eat or be in control of his bladder and bowels for rest of his life. He is a native of Pakistan and has no relatives in Australia.
On the evening of the collision the Applicant had been to the movies with friends and at the time of the collision he was heading home. There was no suggestion the Applicant had been drinking or that he was drug affected or distracted by mobile phone use.
In His Honour’s judgement the Applicant’s conduct was a serious example of the serious offence of dangerous driving causing serious injury, and fell about the upper mid-range level. By entering the intersection whilst travelling between 59 and 69 km/h, the Applicant failed to comply with the direction of a traffic light that had been red for long enough to enable him to stop. There was no evidence of the Applicant attempting to break. He either decided to drive through the intersection, and attempt to pass in front of the truck, or he failed to pay attention to the lights. His Honour did not accept the lights were green or yellow facing the Applicant at any relevant time immediately before the collision.
His Honor stated the Applicant’s moral responsibility for the offending was high. What he did has resulted in a young man, then aged only 24 years, being effectively robbed of any further meaningful life. Whilst His Honour accepted that the Applicant had continued to visit his friend in hospital when he could because of Covid restrictions, and he accepted that the Applicant was deeply saddened by the injuries inflicted on his friend, His Honour noted there was no evidence of any genuine remorse for the Applicant’s offending.
The Applicant told the Tribunal he accepts the collision was his mistake and he regrets it happened. He has asked his friend’s father for forgiveness, who forgave the Applicant. The Applicant told the Tribunal he did not remember the details of the collision or whether the light was red or not. One of his passengers told him initially he did not enter the intersection against the red light, but she later changed her evidence. The Applicant told the Tribunal this whole incident makes him mentally sick, regretful and remorseful given the effect on his friend who was injured so badly.
During the hearing the Applicant’s driving history was discussed, and it was noted he had run red lights in the past. The Applicant told the Tribunal he had some issues and was not taking medication at the time, but after he went to jail a lot of things came out, about which he had no idea. Now he is far better than before and will keep an eye on it. He will now see his doctors, as before he was avoiding doctors. He also told the Tribunal he has trauma from the past and about returning to his country, as well as trauma from the accident.
The Applicant was referred to a Certificate under Section 84(1) of the Road Safety Act 1986 (Vic) “Matters which appear in or can be calculated from the records kept by the Secretary to the Department of Transport” document[5], which recorded that on 15 October 2013 the Applicant was fined without conviction for driving across single dividing line to perform a U turn. On 30 April 2015 the Applicant was fined for exceeding 60 KPH speed sign by 10 KPH or more but less than 25 KPH. On 18 August 2015 the Applicant was fined for disobeying traffic control signal.
[5] HB 2, p1267
The Applicant was also referred to the “Complete Demerit Point Extract’ VicRoads document dated 25 June 2025[6], which indicated that in 2019 the Applicant was recorded as exceed speed limit less than 10 KMP twice, exceed speed limit by 15 KPH or more but less than 25 KPH twice, and exceed speed limit by 15 KPH or less once, in 2018 overtake or pass improperly, in 2016 disobey traffic control signal, in 2015 exceed speed limit by less than 10 KPH and disobey traffic control signal, in 2014 disobey traffic control signal, exceed 60 KPH sign by 10 KPH or more but less than 25 KPH, and in 2012 disobey traffic control signal three times. It was noted some of the offences in the complete demerit point extract were repeated in the certificate under section 84(1).
[6] HB 2, p1268-1269

In response the Applicant told the Tribunal some of these offences (two or three) occurred when his friends were using his car, and some where his offences, but he did not specify which. He told the Tribunal he was not as bad as these records indicated. The Applicant accepted that some or most of these offences related to him. The Applicant also told the Tribunal his record shows in the past he was driving badly, but at the time he was not taking any medication for his problems. He told the Tribunal that when he was on bail for two years after he was charged, he was driving regularly and did not commit any further offences or receive any fines or demerits.
When considering the nature and seriousness of the Applicant’s conduct, clause 8.1.1(1)(a) of the Direction provides a list of matters the Tribunal must have regard to. Without limiting the range of conduct that may be considered very serious, the types of crimes or conduct listed as viewed as very serious by the Australian Government, include violent crimes, and acts of family violence regardless of whether these is a conviction or sentence imposed.
On the evidence before it, in relation to the offences of unlawful assault, and intentionally cause injury, the Tribunal finds the Applicant has committed violent crimes, and an act of family violence, which are viewed very seriously by the Australian Government and the Australia community in accordance with cl. 8.1.1(a) of the Direction.
Clause 8.1.1(1)(c) requires the Tribunal have regard to the sentence imposed by the courts with the exceptions of crimes of violence against women and acts of family violence.
Therefore, apart from the sentence arising from the unlawful assault, on 16 September 2022 the Applicant was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of two and a half years with a non-parole period of 20 months after being found guilty of the charge of dangerous driving causing serious injury.
The Applicant was also sentenced on 30 January 2023 to six months imprisonment concurrent for the charge of intentionally cause injury.
While the Tribunal has considered the Applicant’s written submissions that the sentence for the charge of dangerous driving causing serious injury was not at the highest end of the scale with the maximum penalty for the charge being a period of 5 years imprisonment, and therefore this should weigh in the Applicant’s favour, the Tribunal does not accept this.
The Tribunal considers sentences of imprisonment as the most serious in the sentencing hierarchy. While the Tribunal accepts the Applicant was not sentenced to the maximum penalty, the Tribunal considers a sentence of two and a half years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 20 months to be a significant sentence, and reflects the seriousness of the Applicant’s conduct and does not weigh in the Applicant’s favour.
While the Tribunal accepts the applicant’s offending relating to the charge of dangerous driving causing serious injury was not intentional or violent in nature, and it was not caused by any sort of drug or alcohol impairment or distraction by mobile phone use, given the sentencing remarks of His Honour Judge Lacava, the Tribunal accepts the applicant’s conduct in relation to this offence has had a serious impact on his friend who was injured in the collision.
Clause 8.1.1(1)(e)&(f) requires the Tribunal have regard to the frequency of the Applicant’s offending and whether there is any trend of increasing seriousness, and the cumulative effect of repeated offending.
The Applicant has a history of driving offences as set out above, as well as repeated offences involving violence.
The driving offences began in 2012 and continued in 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2018 and 2019, culminated in the charge of dangerous driving causing serious injury relating to the collision in August 2019.
The offence of unlawful assault was from the incident in September 2016 and involved a shove, and the subsequent offence of intentionally cause injury was from an incident in May 2019 and involved a more serious assault.
While the Tribunal accepts the applicant continued to drive while on bail after he was charged with dangerous driving causing serious injury and he did not commit any further offences or receive any further fines or demits and this weighs somewhat in his favour, the Tribunal considers the frequency of the applicant’s offending, and the trend of increasing seriousness, add to the seriousness of his conduct. The Tribunal also accepts there is a cumulative effect of the applicant’s repeated offending that also adds to the seriousness of his conduct.
Overall, having regards to the factors set out in cl. 8.1.1, while the Tribunal accepts it has been a number of years since the applicant committed a violent offence, and he did not reoffend or receive any further fines or demerits while on bail, given the act of family violence, the sentences imposed for the intentionally cause injury and dangerous driving causing serious injury charges, the impact of the offending on the applicant’s friend, the frequency of the applicant’s offending, the trend of increasing seriousness and the cumulative effect of repeated offending, the Tribunal considers the nature and seriousness of the Applicant’s conduct is very serious.
8.1.2 The risk to the Australian community should the non-citizen commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct
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. Some conduct and the harm that would be caused, if it were to be repeated, is so serious that any risk that it may be repeated may be unacceptable. In assessing the risk that may be posed by the non-citizen to the Australian community, the Tribunal must have regard to, cumulatively, the nature of the harm to individuals or the Australian community should the Applicant engage in further criminal or other serious conduct; and the likelihood of the Applicant engaging in further criminal or other serious conduct.
While the harm involved in the unlawful assault has been described as a shove, the harm resulting from the intentional cause injury incident was more serious and included, according to the transcript of proceedings accepted by the Applicant’s representative at the time, the Applicant and others assaulting the victim who then lost consciousness, and the Applicant slapping the victim repeatedly after he came to.
The Tribunal also notes the harm resulting from the Applicant’s conduct in relation to the charge of dangerous driving causing serious injury, as noted by His Honour Judge Lacava, resulted in effectively robbing the Applicant’s friend of any further meaningful life.[7]
[7] HB1, p62
The Tribunal considers the nature of the harm to individuals or the Australian community should the Applicant engage in further criminal or other serious conduct is very serious.
In relation to the likelihood of the Applicant engaging in further criminal or other serious conduct, the Tribunal has taken into account the information and evidence on the risk of the Applicant reoffending and the evidence of rehabilitation, and also given weight to time spent in the community since the most recent offence.
While the Tribunal notes that His Honour Judge Lacava accepted the Applicant was deeply saddened by the injuries he inflicted on his friend, there was no evidence of any genuine remorse for his offending[8], the Tribunal has had the advantage of more oral evidence from the Applicant and the information he provided in his written statements.
[8] HB1, p 65
The Tribunal accepts the Applicant is genuinely remorseful for his conduct relating to the unlawful assault in 2016 and relating to the collision resulting in such life changing injuries to his friend in 2019. The Tribunal accepts the Applicant initially visited his friend in hospital after the collision and before Covid restrictions were imposed. The Tribunal also accepts the Applicant’s oral evidence that he has apologised to his friend’s father who accepted the Applicant had not intended to harm his son.
In relation to the charge of intentionally cause injury, the Tribunal remains concerned the Applicant blamed the victim for what happened. He did not take responsibility or appear remorseful for his actions, apart from indicating he should have gone to the police at the time.
Based on the Applicant’s oral evidence, the Tribunal also accepts the Applicant has been deeply affected by his time in prison and has no wish to repeat that experience.
The Tribunal also accepts the Applicant spent an extended period of time on bail in the community before his sentence and imprisonment. The Tribunal accepts the Applicant did not commit any further offences or attract any fines or demerit points over that period. The Tribunal has given weight to time spent in the community since the most recent offence.
The Tribunal has also taken into account the written statement and oral evidence of the Applicant’s partner. The Tribunal accepts the Applicant’s partner knows the details of his offending.
The Tribunal accepts the Applicant and his partner have known each other since 2017 and have been in a romantic relationship since 2021. They lived together prior to the Applicant’s imprisonment in 2022. The Tribunal accepts the Applicant has never been violent towards his current partner and she has not witnessed him be violent to anyone. The Tribunal accepts they plan for the Applicant to return and live with his partner and to marry and purchase a home together if he remains in Australia and is released into the community. The Tribunal accepts the Applicant’s partner knows the details of his mental health conditions and intends to continue to support him and encourage him to continue with treatment and take his medication. The Tribunal accepts the Applicant’s partner feels the Applicant would be much better living with her in the community and that his paranoia seems to be triggered by the detention centre in part. She believes if he feels safe at home living with her with access to a psychologist and doctors it would be much easier to manage his condition. The Tribunal has also considered the letter of support from the Applicant’s partner’s mother who stated that the family would provide assistance and support to the Applicant to get back on his feet and for rehabilitation.[9] The Tribunal also accepts the Applicant’s oral evidence that he has an offer of employment if he were in the community. This was supported by a letter from Night Diner Anwar Sons Pty Ltd.[10] The Tribunal considers these as protective factors in support of the applicant.
[9] HB1, p292
[10] HB1, p293
The Tribunal has also taken into consideration the Parole Suitability Assessment report dated 26 March 2024 which records the Applicant was assessed to be of low risk of general re-offending. He was not assessed or deemed suitable for any offence specific interventions during incarceration, and he did not identify with any prior drug or alcohol issues.[11] The applicant has completed subjects in Clean high-touch surfaces and Comply with infection prevention and control policies and procedures in relation to a Certificate III in Cleaning Operations, Use hygienic practices for food safety for a Certificate II in Kitchen Operations and Control traffic with stop-slow bat and implement traffic management plans for a Certificate III in Civil Construction.[12] The Tribunal considers these achievements weigh in the applicant’s favour.
[11] HB2, p769
[12] HB1, p240-242
The Tribunal has taken into consideration the more recent written reports of psychologist Dr Kwok dated 11 October 2024 and 8 July 2025, as well as her oral evidence provided during the hearing.
In her report dated 11 October 2024 Dr Kwok opined that the Applicant suffers from Schizophrenia, Major Depressive Disorder, and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). He has cognitive deficits that negatively affect his ability to concentrate, attend to information and communicate information in a logical manner. Dr Kwok stated depression contributed to the Applicant’s offending in 2016 and 2019 and that schizophrenia and PTSD did not contribute to the Applicant’s criminal offending.
Dr Kwok opined that the Applicant presented a moderate risk of re-offending and this could be reduced with further treatment. Dr Kwok stated the Applicant did not impress as an individual who was inherently violent or antisocial in his general attitudes and behaviour patterns. He did not present a risk to the Australian community in terms of his general behaviours. The Applicant’s schizophrenia had an indirect causal relationship with his rehabilitation, because schizophrenia was contributing to his lack of insight into his behaviours. Treatment of the Applicant’s conditions would involve both pharmacological and evidence-based psychosocial treatments. The Applicant would need to remain medicated for schizophrenia. He needed both psychiatric and psychological treatment. Intense psychological treatment was required for 12 months and ongoing treatment for another 12 months.
In her written report dated 8 July 2025 Dr Kwok stated that there are various risk factors and criminogenic needs that would need to be addressed in order to reduce the Applicant’s future risk of offending. His mental health is the main risk factor at this time. In particular, with little insight and acknowledgement of his mental health problems, he is unable to recognise how depression inhibits his emotional and behavioural control. In addition, the impact of PTSD and schizophrenia on his logical reasoning and impulsivity will make him more reactive in situations where he feels threatened. In her previous report she indicated the Applicant would more likely react with aggression if he felt threatened. At the time of the report the Applicant claimed that he was being mentally tortured (or mentally threatened) by the government’s alleged use of voice to skull technology, although he did not report the need to react with aggression at that time. Regardless his mental conditions were severe, and they have been inadequately treated in immigration detention. Dr Kwok accepted that the Applicant had previously expressed remorse for his offending behaviour, although Dr Kwok also stated the Applicant did not display sufficient memory and insight into his offending to show remorse. Rather he mainly shifted blame to the victims. Dr Kwok noted that impaired insight does not indicate that the Applicant is in denial of his behaviours but is part of his ongoing mental illness.
Dr Kwok stated there were a few protective factors for the Applicant. He was in a stable relationship with his partner and will have accommodation with her if he is permitted to stay in Australia. He did not report any history of violence in his relationship with his current partner and they reportedly lived together for about a year before he went to prison. The Applicant expressed no interest in reconnecting with his former associates. He stated a friend is willing to offer him employment if he is released from detention.
On balance of the risk and protective factors, Dr Kwok opined that that the Applicant continues to present with a moderate risk of reoffending. This was mainly due to the ongoing impact of his mental conditions on his mood, thought processes and behavioural control. Dr Kwok accepted that the intensity of the treatment required by the Applicant was unavailable in immigration detention.
Dr Kwok stated that the Applicant’s schizophrenia affected his rehabilitation due to its impact on his cognitive deficits and insights into his behaviours. Insight which included an understanding of the cause and consequence of behaviours was necessary for change. Cognitive skills were also required for logical reasoning and consequential thinking. Dr Kwok stated that at present the Applicant was demonstrating a lack of insight into his behaviours. He denied having schizophrenia. He described himself as being reactive to his environment rather than having control over his emotions and actions. Dr Kwok stated that the Applicant’s schizophrenia, as well as his depression and PTSD would require treatment in order to reduce his risk of recidivism.
Dr Kwok stated that pharmacological, psychiatric and psychological treatment can assist the Applicant in the community. If he was permitted to return to the community, it was recommended that he arrange an appointment with a general practitioner in the community prior to his release from detention and that his prescriptions can last until he sees a doctor. Among psychological treatments of depression PTSD and psychosis, family focused interventions have been found to reliably reduce relapse rates. The Applicant reported that he had the support of his partner and her family in the community. The availability of family support can assist him with recognising triggers, identifying early signs of psychosis, reinforcing positive behaviours, regulating emotions, and applying stress management skills. Dr Kwok stated that the Applicant would need to remain medicated to manage his auditory hallucinations and delusions. Although he has indicated that he is currently compliant with taking his medication for schizophrenia Dr Kwok recommended that his ongoing compliance be monitored by his general practitioner and psychiatrist due to his history of non-compliance and current denial of schizophrenia. Dr Kwok remained guarded in providing an opinion on the Applicant’s prospects of rehabilitation because he has just been discharged from hospital and continues to experience psychotic symptoms. She stated that his ongoing compliance with medication will need to be monitored. He also required frequent psychological and psychiatric interventions. Overall, it was unlikely that his conditions will be adequately treated in immigration detention.
In conclusion Dr Kwok stated that the Applicant suffered from schizophrenia, major depressive disorder, and post-traumatic stress disorder. His symptoms of schizophrenia are more severe at the current assessment compared with his assessment in August and October 2024. He presents with auditory hallucinations and delusional thought. The Applicant’s schizophrenia affected his rehabilitation due to its impact on his cognitive deficits and insight into his behaviours. Without intense treatment the Applicant presents with a moderate risk of reoffending. His risk to the Australian community in his general behaviours could be reduced with intervention. Treatment would involve both pharmacological and evidence-based psychosocial treatments. Treatment is available in the community. It is unlikely that his conditions will be adequately treated in immigration detention.
Dr Kwok’s oral evidence was consistent with her most recent written report. While there was some discussion in relation to the details of the Applicant’s driving history and offences and his lack of any further offending behaviour while on bail, Dr Kwok’s opinion remained consistent with that stated in her most recent report, that the Applicant continues to present with a moderate risk of reoffending.
While the Tribunal has considered the oral submissions that the risk of the Applicant reoffending is low, the Tribunal has given considerable weight to Dr Kwok’s opinion supported by her recent assessment. The Tribunal has also given weight to the protective factors and factors in favour of the applicant noted above, many of which were addressed in Dr Kwok’s report, and on balance the Tribunal finds the likelihood of the Applicant engaging in further criminal or other serious conduct is moderate.
Having considered all the factors mentioned above, cumulatively, the Tribunal considers the protection of the Australian community consideration weighs heavily in favour of affirming the decision under review.
8.2 Family violence committed by the Applicant

Paragraph 8.2(1) states the Government has serious concerns about conferring on non-citizens who engage in family violence the privilege of entering or 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.
As noted above, on 23 January 2018 the Applicant was sentenced for unlawful assault without conviction and had an interim intervention order granted against him preventing him from contacting his former partner, which expired on 31 December 2019. During the hearing the Applicant told the Tribunal that he and his then (now former) partner were arguing about a girl, she was slapping him, and he pushed her in the face pushing her backwards. The Tribunal accepts the incident occurred in September 2016 and the Applicant no longer has any contact with his former partner. The Tribunal accepts the Applicant pleaded guilty and feels bad and regrets that it happened, and he agrees he should not have pushed her.
The Tribunal accepts the Applicant’s conduct in this incident is at the lower end of the spectrum of family violence. Dr Kwok’s report dated 11 October 2024 also noted a protective factor in relation to this incident was that the Applicant was no longer in a relationship with this person and had no intention of returning to that relationship.
There is no other evidence before the Tribunal that the Applicant has engaged in family violence other than this one incident which occurred nearly 9 years ago. The Applicant accepts his responsibility for this act of family violence and feels remorse and regret over this incident. The Tribunal also accepts the oral evidence from the Applicant’s current partner, that she has not experienced any family violence from the Applicant and has not seen him be violent to anyone.
While the Tribunal notes the Government’s concerns in relation to family violence, as noted above, the Tribunal accepts this incident is at the lower end of the spectrum of family violence and it gives weight to the protective factors noted above. On balance, the Tribunal considers the family violence committed by the Applicant weighs only moderately in favour of affirming the decision under review.
8.3 The strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia
During the hearing, the Tribunal heard oral evidence from the Applicant and his current partner about the strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia. The Tribunal has also considered the information provided in the Applicant and his partner’s written statements and the written submissions provided by the Applicant’s representative.
On the evidence before it, the Tribunal accepts the Applicant has lived in Australia since he first arrived 2011, aside from two return visits to Pakistan in 2012 and 2013. He has worked as a taxi driver and Uber driver. Prior to his incarceration the Applicant volunteered support to recent arrivals in Australia and was active in his community. The Applicant completed both a Diploma and Advanced Diploma in Business Management as well as a Diploma in Commercial Cookery. He plans to use those skills if he is allowed to remain in Australia and is released into the community.
The Tribunal accepts the Applicant has been in an ongoing relationship with his current partner since 2021, and they lived together prior to the Applicant being imprisoned. The Applicant’s partner is an Australia citizen. The Tribunal accepts the relationship has continued while the Applicant was in prison and now in immigration detention. The Tribunal accepts the Applicant and his partner continue to be each other’s primary emotional support, and plan to live together again and marry if the Applicant remains in Australia and is released into the community. The Tribunal accepts both the Applicant, and his partner have experienced troubled upbringings, which is something they bonded over and they support each other over their individual experiences of trauma. The Tribunal also accepts the Applicant’s partner’s mother has provided a letter in support stating the family’s willingness to support the Applicant. The applicant also has an offer of future employment. [13]
[13] HB1, p293
The Tribunal does accept affirming the decision under review would disrupt the Applicant’s relationship with his partner and adversely affect their plans for the future. The Tribunal accepts it would cause distress and emotional hardship for the Applicant’s partner and through her, her family, and friends who are Australian citizens, Australian permanent residents and/or people who have an indefinite right to remain in Australia.
While the Tribunal accepts the Applicant’s has ties to Australia through his history in Australia, his work, friends and community activities, as well as his ongoing relationship with his partner and her family and friends, the Applicant has been in prison or in immigration detention since September 2022 which has limited his ties and contact to his partner’s family and his friends in Australia over that period of time. Overall, the Tribunal considers the strength, nature and duration of the applicant’s ties to Australia provides moderate weight in favour of revoking the original decision.
8.4 Best interest of minor children in Australia affected by the decision
Based on the Applicant’s oral evidence during the hearing and the oral evidence of the Applicant’s partner, which was generally consistent with the information they had previously provided in relation to her family, the Tribunal accepts the Applicant’s partner has a half sister who is 12 years old and an Australian citizen. The Applicant’s partner is a legal guardian for this child in the event anything happens to her parents.
The Tribunal accepts the Applicant has met this child once. The applicant does not play a parental role in her life. The Applicant has no personal relationship with the child at this time, but expects to play a role in her life if he remains in Australia and is released into the community. There is limited evidence of any impact on the child of the applicant’s prior or likely future conduct, although the Tribunal accepts his incarceration has limited the opportunities for more contact. The child currently has parents caring for her and the Tribunal considers there would be no impact on the child of any separation from the Applicant. The Tribunal considers the impact of the Tribunal’s decision would only have an indirect affect on this child. Nevertheless, the Tribunal does accept, given the plans for the applicant to play some role in her life if he remains in Australia, revoking the original decision is in the best interests of the child.
Given the limited contact, relationship and plans described above, the Tribunal considers the best interests of minor children in Australia affected by the decision provides slight weight in favour of revoking the original decision.
8.5 Expectations of the Australian Community
The Australian community expects non-citizens to obey Australian laws while in Australia. Where a non-citizen has engaged in serious conduct in breach of this expectation, or where there is an unacceptable risk that they may do so, the Australian community, as a norm, expects the Government to not allow such a non-citizen to enter or remain in Australia.
Clause 8.5(2) of the Direction sets out examples of conduct that would raise serious character concerns that the Australian community would expect that a person who undertook such conduct would not continue to hold a visa, and includes acts of family violence.
While the Tribunal has considered the oral submissions made by the Applicant’s representative, and accepts the act of family violence happened a long time ago, and was on lower end of the spectrum of family violence, and has not been repeated, the Tribunal also notes the Australian community expects non-citizens to obey laws while in Australia.
On the evidence before it, the Tribunal finds the Applicant has failed to obey laws while in Australia, and has committed unlawful assault, intentionally cause injury, and dangerous driving causing serious injury. Considering these offences cumulatively, the Tribunal finds the Applicant has engaged in serious conduct in breach of the Australian community’s expectations.
The Tribunal considers the expectations of the Australian community weighs significantly in favour of affirming the decision under review.
9 Other Considerations
In making a decision under section 501CA(4), the Tribunal must also take into account the following considerations.
9.1 Legal Consequences of the decision
The Tribunal accepts the Applicant is a citizen of Pakistan and has made an application for a protection visa that has been refused by the Department, and that decision was affirmed by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, and the Applicant is currently pursing judicial review in the Federal Court.
The Tribunal has considered the written submissions relating to the Applicant’s protection claims and the current country information provided, including the Applicant’s claims that he has previously been targeted for recruitment and kidnapping by extremist groups and the Taliban, and that his fears that his partner’s western influences will bring harm to them if forced to return to Pakistan.
The Tribunal finds that at this time a protection finding in relation to the Applicant has not been made, and the matter is currently before the Federal Court. The Tribunal agrees with the Respondent’s submissions that it is not possible for the Tribunal to make a protection finding while undertaking the current review, and currently the Applicant will not be subjected to prolonged detention because he cannot be removed to Pakistan. The submissions that removal from Australia as a legal consequence of the Tribunal’s decision might occur in breach of Australia’s non-refoulement obligations are speculative, and not legal consequences of the decision.
Nevertheless, the Tribunal does accept that if the Tribunal affirms the decision under review the Applicant will remain an unlawful non-citizen and will remain in immigration detention and be liable for removal from Australia as soon as reasonably practicable. This will mean his plans to remain in Australia and live with his partner, to work and marry and purchase a home together, will not occur.
The Tribunal also accepts the Applicant will be subjected to indefinite exclusion from Australia by operation of the Special Return Criteria in clause 5001(c) of Schedule 5 of the Migration Regulation 1994 (Cth), and that having a visa cancellation will adversely affect any future visa applications under s 501E of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth).
On the evidence before it, the Tribunal considers the legal consequences of the decision provides some weight in favour of revoking the original decision.
9.2 Extent of impediments if removed
The Tribunal must also consider the extent of any impediments the Applicant may face if removed from Australia to his home country, in establishing himself and maintaining basic living standards (in the context of what is generally available to other citizens of that country), taking into account his age, health and whether there are substantial language or cultural barriers; and any social, medical and/or economic support available to him in that country.
The Tribunal accepts the Applicant is 40 years old and has lived in Australia since 2011. According to the sentencing remarks of His Honour Judge Lacava the Applicant has three older siblings and attended private school in Rawalpindi to year 10. He then attended the Rawalpindi College of Intercomputer Science. He left school in year 12 when his father’s business became insolvent. He worked with his father at another firm in sales until aged 22. He later worked for Calltech BPO as a team manager.
Given this, the Tribunal finds there are no substantial language or cultural barriers as an impediment if removed.
The Tribunal accepts the Applicant has mental health conditions as set out by Dr Kwok in her most recent report noted above. While the Tribunal accepts the Applicant is committed to continuing his mental health treatment the Tribunal also accepts the country information provided in support of the Applicant indicates Pakistanis can access public mental health care services without discrimination, but the quality and availability varies widely and can be inadequate.
The Tribunal has also given weight to Dr Kwok’s report and accepts her opinion that the Applicant’s mental health would likely deteriorate in Pakistan, and the lack of mental health services and exposure to traumatic stressors will make it difficult for him to adjust and lead a normal life in Pakistan.
The Tribunal also accepts the Applicant has two sisters in Pakistan, one who he has no contact with, and one who lives with a child his family adopted and who is unable to support him financially.[14] The Tribunal also accepts that while the Applicant’s partner found it hard to contemplate what would happen if the Applicant left Australia, the Tribunal also accepts for a variety of reasons she would be unable to accompany him or support him in Pakistan. The Tribunal accepts the Applicant would have limited social, medical and economic support if returned to Pakistan.
[14] HB2, p1238
The Tribunal considers the extent of impediments if removed weighs in favour of revoking the original decision.
9.3 Impact on Australian business interests
The Tribunal must consider any impact on Australian business interests if the Applicant is not allowed to enter or remain in Australia, noting that an employment link would generally only be given weight where the decision under section 501CA would significantly compromise the delivery of a major project, or delivery of an important service in Australia.
While the Tribunal notes the Applicant’s previous work as a taxi and Uber driver and his qualification noted above, and the applicant’s expectations of work if he remains in Australia and is released into the community,[15] the evidence before the Tribunal does not indicate the applicant’s future employment would fall into the category contemplated by this clause, and the Tribunal has concluded this consideration neither weighs for or against revoking the decision under review.
[15] HB1, 293
CONCLUSION
As noted above, the Applicant does not pass the character test under section 501 of the Act, and the Tribunal has to decide whether there is another reason why the original decision should be revoked under section 501CA(4), having regard to the Minister’s Direction No. 110.
The Tribunal has given appropriate weight to information from independent and authoritative sources, and the primary consideration at clause 8.1 has been given greater weight than the other primary considerations, while the other primary considerations have been given greater weight than the other considerations, in line with the Direction.
Having considered the specific circumstances relating to the Applicant, the Tribunal considers the protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct weighs heavily in favour of affirming the decision under review. The family violence committed by the Applicant weighs only moderately in favour of affirming the decision under review. The strength, nature and duration of the Applicant’s ties to Australia provides moderate weight in favour of revoking the original decision, and the best interests of minor children in Australia affected by the decision provides slight weight in favour of revoking the original decision. The expectations of the Australian community provides significant weight in favour of affirming the decision under review. Of the other considerations, the legal consequences of the decision and the extent of the impediments to the Applicant if removed provides weight in favour of revoking the original decision. The impact on Australian business interests neither weighs for or against revoking the decision under review.
While the strength, nature and duration of the Applicant’s ties to Australia, the best interests of minor children in Australia, the legal consequences of the decision and the extent of the impediments to the Applicant if removed provides weight in favour of revoking the original decision, the Tribunal has concluded the primary considerations of the protection of the Australia community, conduct engaged in constituting family violence, and the expectations of the Australian community weigh heavily in favour of affirming the decision under review, and on balance, outweigh the considerations in favour of revoking the original decision.
Having weighed up all the factors as part of a single evaluation, the Tribunal is not satisfied there is another reason why the original decision should be revoked under section 501CA(4), having regard to the Minister’s Direction No. 110.
DECISION
The decision not to revoke the cancellation of the Class WA Subclass 010 Bridging A visa, is affirmed.
Date of hearing:   17 and 18 July 2025
Counsel for the Applicant:                Mr S Sharify
Solicitor for the Applicant:                  Carina Ford Immigration Lawyers
Solicitor for the Respondent:            Mr M Daly, Mills Oakley