1. The Tribunal has jurisdiction to review a decision to refuse to grant a visa on character grounds, where the application for review is lodged within nine days after the decision is notified: s 500(6B).
2. The applicant was notified of the Minister's decision on 9 December 2025. The application for review was lodged on 14 December 2025, which is within nine days after the decision was notified.
3. The Tribunal therefore has jurisdiction to hear and determine the application.

1. A hearing was held on 18 February 2026.
2. The following materials were before me:

(1) the Hearing Book (HB)[1] prepared by the Minister numbering 651 pages. The HB included, but was not limited to the "G Docs". The G-Docs number 320 pages and include, but are not limited, to:[2] > > (a) the notice of application for review of decision (G1); > > (b) the application for a decision under review (G2); > > (c) documents emailed by the Department to the applicant (G3); > > (d) the decision under review (G4) > > (e) the statement of reasons for the decision (G5); > > (f) a National Criminal History Check dated 21 May 2024 (G6) > > (g) a NSW Police Facts Sheet dated 31 October 2019 (G7); > > (h) a Notice of Penalty issued by NSW Local Courts dated 12 February 2021 (G8); > > (i) a Final Order Apprehended Violence Order dated 12 February 2021 (G9); > > (j) a Community Correction Order issued by NSW Local Courts dated 12 February 2021 (G10); > > (k) an extract of the Child Protection Register dated 6 March 2022 (G11); > > (l) a Court Attendance Notice dated 31 October 2019 (G12); > > (m) a Lebanese Police check dated 31 December 2019 (G13); > > (n) a Notice of Intention to consider Refusal of Visa dated 1 May 2025 (G14); > > (o) a Natural Justice letter (G15) > > (p) emails (G16); > > (q) submissions of the applicant (G17); > > (r) 16 character references (G23); > > (s) Requests for expedition or priority (G24); > > (t) Medical documents relating to Mrs Daher (G26); > > (u) Receipts for donations (G27); > > (v) Academic qualifications G233, G34); > > (w) Passports (G35); > > (x) Birth certificates (G36). > > (2) the applicant's Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions (applicant's SOFIC); > > (3) the Minister's Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions (Minister's SOFIC); > > (4) materials received from the Penrith Local Court. These documents number 88 pages, and include, but are not limited, to: > > (a) agreed facts dated 23 November 2020;[3] > > (b) the victim impact statement of Person A;[4] > > (c) a sentencing assessment report dated 3 February 1991;[5] > > (d) a case note report dated 1 February 2021;[6] > > (e) a forensic psychology report of Dr Donald Rowe dated 10 February 2021;[7] > > (f) a statement of the applicant dated 12 February 2021;[8] > > (g) a character of the applicant by Mrs Daher dated 12 February 2021;[9]

(1) himself, respectively dated 9 August 2020, 14 May 2022, 29 March 2025 and 15 January 2026; > > (2) his wife, Mrs Theresa Daher, respectively dated 22 May 2025 and 16 January 2026; > > (3) Ms Jessica Fadlallah, respectively dated 15 January 2026 and 8 May 2025; > > (4) Ms Esra Tan dated respectively 14 May 2025; > > (5) Ms Mary Antoun, undated, and 15 May 2025; > > (6) Mr Navin Goonniah, the applicant's psychologist, dated 16 January 2026 and his report dated 15 May 2025.

2. Each of the applicant, Mrs Daher, Ms Tan, Ms Antoun, Ms Fadlallah and Mr Goonniah were required for cross-examination by the Minister.
3. I summarise the contents of the above statements as follows.

1. This statement is titled "Partner Visa Relationship Statement" and was prepared for the purposes of his partner visa application. This statement sets out the background to his relationship with his (now) wife; financial aspects of their relationship; their respective household responsibilities; the social aspects of their relationship and their commitment to each other and their future plans.

1. This statement was prepared for the presiding magistrate. The applicant gives the following account of the encounter with Person A:

On the night of the offence, I was in a poor state of mind and on my way to church so that I could release the sadness and frustration that was built up in me. However, things, didn't go to plan as I met a girl at the train station and enjoyed her company a lot because I was feeling very alone and excluded up until that point. I thought the feelings were mutual but after we exchanged phone numbers and Jumped on the train carriage, I noticed a shift in her behaviour and saw that she was no longer happy to chat with me, 1I got up and walked away. In Lebanon it is uncommon for a girl to be alone on a train at that time of night, so I thought I should call her and make sure she had gotten home safely. This however had backfired, and I was told that she had reported me lo the police. I was extremely confused and upset with this and didn't completely understand what I did wrong al first. Since the offence and with the help of my Arabic speaking lawyers, I did come to learn the mistakes that I had made that night and understood how the girl may have felt.

2. The applicant also says that at the time of the offence he had been going through a "rough time" in his life and "spiralled downhill into making poor decisions". He thought he had things under control, but "fell into it", after visiting Australia alone without any family or friends, which left him feeling lost and isolated. He says that:

I did not understand the law and culture well enough which gave me anxiety and the language barrier made it harder to connect with people and that caused my depression. My mental health was depleting as I did not know where I belonged and felt alone in a country that was so different to mine and I had no human connection other than with my mother on the phone.

3. The applicant then expresses his apologies and "deepest regret". He says that:

I have educated myself about the correct ways to behave with people and how to socialise in a respectful mann.er. I have also learned a lot about the Australian culture and the boundaries of the law that I should not cross. I have made the decision to think about my every action when Interacting with others and ensure I am keeping a safe and respectful environment for all by considering the feelings of others and pulling myself in their shoes. Committing the offences was the biggest mistake that I regret to this day. I want to put that part of my life behind me and I have been trying to make the best possible life I can for my family, wife and myself.

1. In this statement the applicant sets out his version of events with Person A. In summary, the applicant says he was travelling to church at the time, "hoping to find comfort and spiritual support". He says that he engaged in conversation with Person A, and believed at the time that the interaction was friendly and mutual. The applicant says that he called her telephone number "to ensure [she] had exited [the train] safely".
2. The applicant says that he now understands that his conduct was inappropriate and could have made Person A feel unsafe or uncomfortable. He says he deeply regrets the incident, acknowledges that he made" a poor judgement" and takes full responsibility for his actions and has since committed himself to personal growth and rehabilitation.
3. In this respect the applicant says that he has taken "pro-active steps" to improve his life and mental health. He says that he is deeply committed to his role as a husband and father, and his worked hard to become a role model within his community, particularly to younger members who now look lo him for guidance.
4. In conclusion the applicant apologises for his past conduct and expresses his deep remorse. He says that he recognises the consequences of his actions and the importance of accountability. He says that the incident with Patient A does not reflect who he is today. and asks that his "genuine rehabilitation and commitment to a law-abiding and productive life" be taken into consideration.

1. In this statement, the applicant simply confirms that his three statements summarised above were "true and correct in every particular".
2. The applicant was required for cross-examination. Where relevant, I will refer to his oral evidence below.

3. The applicant was briefly cross-examined by Mr Reischieck who appeared for the Minister. The applicant was a co-operative witness who accepted the circumstances of the offence as set out in the agreed statement of facts. He told me that he would not commit that offence, or any similar offence again, not that he knows the law. He told me that he is not taking any medication and is not seeing a psychologist.
4. The applicant denied wanting to remain in Australia permanently when he arrived on a visitor visa.
5. In re-examination, Mr Levingston established that when the applicant was interviewed by both the Correctional Services officer and Dr Rowe, he did not have the assistance of an interpreter.

6. The statement commences with Mrs Daher stating that she and the applicant had been married five years, having shared their lives for five and a half years in total. They have two children, then aged respectively three and a half and two years. Mrs Daher says that her husband is a "deeply committed individual", who values family, hard work , and the community.
7. At the time of preparing this statement, Mrs Daher was pregnant, and she says that:

I am currently pregnant and in my third trimester with a due date of 8-/\UG-2025 and would not be able to survive without the support of Lucien. He is my soulmate with whom I can openly express my emotions, when I'm upset or anxious he is the only one that understands me and helps me feel better. Lucien has shown me unconditional love; he never leaves my side and Is always available when I'm in need of physical and emotional support. > > Lucien is my rock and backbone providing me with unwavering support and care as I navigate the challenges of my medical conditions - epilepsy, migraines, and anxiety along with my pregnancy. He Is there for me through every seizure and episode and is the only one that understands how to manage them. > > When I'm unable to manage daily tasks, Lucien steps in without hesitation. He completes household chores and tasks, often without even telling me, to take the load off. His thoughtfulness is evident In the little things, like washing and hanging clothes, arid tackling kitchen duties on days when I'm unable to get out of bed. His empathy and willingness to help alleviate my workload are invaluable especially during this challenging pregnancy.

Without Lucien's support, our family's financial and emotional stability would be severely compromised. Given my medical conditions, I'm unable to work, and his absence would leave us struggling to cope. As a result, our children will suffer the consequences of his absence as their mother is Incapable of financially and physically providing support to our children and meeting their daily needs. Lucien's presence is crucial for my mental health and the well-being of our children. The thought of losing him is overwhelming, triggering anxiety and emotional distress. I'm deeply reliant on him, and the idea of facing life without his support is unbearable and brings me to tears.

9. After setting out her understanding of the incident between the applicant, Mrs Daher provides "context" and highlights several mitigating factors that she asks the Tribunal to take into consideration, namely"

I am confident that Lucien didn't intend to cause harm due to his good character and very caring nature. His mental health struggles, stress caused by conflict with relatives, isolation and financial hardships may have influenced his actions on the night of the incident. Despite the circumstances, Lucien has demonstrated profound remorse, accepted responsibility for his actions, and cooperated fully with the police and legal authorities and proceedings. This is an Isolated event as Lucien has a clean prior record both in Australia and Lebanon. I firmly believe that he is not a risk to the Australian community and will not cause harm or re-offend.

This case has been incredibly difficult for our family, and while Lucien has acknowledged and taken responsibility for his actions, I strongly believe that this incident does not reflect his true character, I respectfully request that his remorse, contributions to society, and rehabilitation efforts be considered in any decision regarding his sentencing. > > This legal matter also had a profound emotional and financial impact on our family. Lucien Daher is an Integral part of our household, providing both financial support and emotional stability. The stress of this situation has been overwhelming, but throughout it all, he is consistently dedicated to ensuring that our family remains strong and supported. > > Should he receive a severe penalty, it would have a devastating effect on our children, financial situation, my health and our wellbeing. Lucien is genuinely remorseful and is determined to continue making positive contributions to our family and society. > > I respectfully ask that the Department of Home Affairs consider Lucien Daher's genuine remorse, proactive efforts towards rehabilitation, and long-standing character when determining his sentencing. While I do not seek to excuse his actions, I firmly believe that this situation does not define who he truly is. > > I have full faith that he has learned from this experience and will never find himself in a similar position again. Given his lack of prior criminal history, dedication to self-improvement, and the significant role he plays in our family and community, I sincerely ask for leniency in considering his visa outcome. > > Statement of Mrs Theresa Daher, 16 January 2026

11. In this statement, Mrs Daher confirms that her statements summarised above were "true and correct in [e]very particular".

1. The applicant was briefly cross-examined by Mr Reischieck. Mrs Daher agreed that the version of events surrounding the applicant's offence was different to that set out in the agreed statement of facts. She denied that her version of events minimised the seriousness of the applicant's conduct.
2. She denied that she was asked to write her statement in a particular way.
3. In re-examination, Mrs Daher recounted the first time the applicant had told her about the offence, which was about two weeks after meeting him. She said that he wept when recalling his conduct. Mrs Daher said that the applicant had shown her a copy of the agreed statement of facts at the time they were prepared.

1. This is a short character reference prepared by Ms Fadlallah in respect of the applicant. Ms Fadlallah describes herself as Mrs Daher's best friend. She has known the applicant for about six years and is aware of the incident involving Person A. Ms Fadlallah gives a positive reference of the applicant, consistent with the opinions of Mrs Daher. Ms Fadlallah says that she has I have every confidence that the applicant will continue his path of growth and will not reoffend.

Statement of Ms Jessica Fadlallah, 15 January 2026

1. In this statement, Ms Jesica Fadlallah confirms that her statement summarised above was "true and correct in [e]very particular".

1. There was a lengthier cross-examination of Ms Fadlallah by Mr Reischieck. Ms Fadlallah disputed that her version of events was "quite different" to the version given in her statement. Ms Fadlallah appeared to doubt the truthfulness of Person A's account of what had happened. She said that the photographs of the applicant and Person A together on the train supported her version of events.
2. Ms Fadlallah denied that she was asked to write her statement in a particular way, and did not agree that her account minimised the extent of the applicant's offending. Having read the agreed statement of facts, her opinion of the applicant's good character was unchanged.

1. This is also short character reference prepared by Ms Tan in respect of the applicant. She has known the applicant for about one years and is aware of the incident involving Person A. Ms Tan also gives a positive reference of the applicant, consistent with the opinions of Mrs Daher and Ms Fadlallah. Ms Tan concludes her statement by stating:

Based on everything I've seen, his character, the work he puts into his family, business, and church, and the genuine remorse he has shown, I truly believe Lucien Daher is a good person who made a mistake. He has done everything possible to learn from it, and I believe he deserves a second chance. He has built a life here in Australia that he values deeply, with his family, his home, his career, and his community connections. I sincerely hope that he is allowed to continue living the life he's worked so hard to create.

This one incident does not define who he is. I respectfully ask that the Department take all of this into consideration and show compassion and leniency in assessing his visa outcome.

1. In this statement, Ms Tan confirms that her statement summarised above was "true and correct in every particular".

1. Mrs Tan was cross-examined along similar lines. While somewhat reluctant to concede that her version of events was different to the version of events in the agreed statement of facts, she ultimately accepted that her statement minimised the applicant's role and offending.
2. However, in re-examination, when asked whether her opinion of the applicant's character had changed now that she was seized of the relevant facts as set out in the agreed statement of facts, Ms Tan said that her opinion was changed "at all", and that she had "no issue" with the applicant being around her children.

1. This is also a short character reference prepared by Ms Antoun in respect of the applicant. She has known the applicant for about two years and is aware of the incident involving Person A, which she describes as an "isolated incident" and "not in his character".
2. Ms Antoun says the applicant is a caring and supportive friend, very family oriented and a devoted Catholic. She says that applicant is a man of faith and always demonstrates strong moral values in his personal and professional life.
3. Ms Antoun says the applicant has made significant efforts to take responsibility and rehabilitate, including spiritual counselling and therapy to better understand and address. the underlying factors contributing to his actions.
4. Ms Antoun concludes her statement by saying:

I strongly believe that this incident does not reflect [the applicant's] true character [who] has acknowledged that he made a regrettable mistake and is help-seeking to better himself and is committed to making amends. I respectfully ask for leniency In his sentencing, so Lucien can move forward with his life goals, I am confident that [the applicant] learned from this experience and will not reoffend.

1. In this statement, Ms Antoun confirms that her statement summarised above was "true and correct in every particular".

Ms Antoun was cross-examined along similar lines. Having read the statement of agreed facts, she accepted that Person A had said no and rejected the applicant's advances on several occasions. She denied that her statement minimised the seriousness of his conduct and said she was simply summarising the facts as she knew them.

1. When asked whether view of the applicant had changed, now that she had read the agreed statement of facts, Ms Antoun said that the events had occurred before the applicant became a husband and father of young children.

1. It is appropriate to make some overall observations about the evidence of Mrs Daher, Mrs Fadlallah, Mrs Tan and Mrs Antoun. My overall observation is that the evidence of each witness, while positive and strongly supportive of the applicant needs to be approached with some caution. That is because clearly, they each had (at least some) assistance in the preparation of their statements as the statements of each include the following paragraph:

Lucien Daher met a young girl at the train station, and they conversed, he put his arm around her, and they exchanged phone numbers, They sat on the train together continuing their conversation and Lucien Daher leaned in to kiss the young girl, but she tilted her head, and the kiss landed on her neck. When Lucien Daher saw that the girl was upset, he got up and left.

1. This paragraph appears in identical terms in the statements of Mrs Daher,[10] Mrs Fadlallah,[11] Mrs Tan,[12] and Mrs Antoun.[13]
2. It is not for me to speculate how that came to be. I do not know if one copied the other, whether the statements were prepared for them (which was denied) or if there is some other explanation. But it defies belief to conclude that each of the four witnesses independently drafted the identical paragraph.
3. The further difficulty with the witnesses' evidence was their reluctance to agree that their understanding of the circumstances of the applicant's offence was different, and "quite different" as put to them by Mr Reischieck, when clearly it was.
4. However, I would not go so far as to conclude that any witness was deliberately seeking to minimise the seriousness of the applicant's conduct. I am sure they thought they were simply being supportive of a man they supported and trusted.

1. Mr Goonniah's report is divided into the following sections: Patient Identification and Background; Mental Health Diagnosis; Prognosis; Risk Assessment; Treatment Plan and Ongoing Support and Conclusion. I summarise those sections as follows:

1. In summary, Mr Goonniah states that the applicant is a 30-year-old Lebanese national who entered Australia in 2019 on a tourist visa. He currently resides in Australia under a Subclass 820 Spousal Visa, having married his partner, Theresa, in 2020. The couple have two children, aged three and two, and are expecting a third. Mr. Daher currently runs a sole-trader business installing blinds and curtains, with administrative support provided by his wife. The business has offered financial stability, although income can fluctuate seasonally and due to market competition.
2. The applicant is culturally Lebanese. He was born and raised in Lebanon, where he completed primary and secondary education, despite facing academic difficulties attributed to untreated symptoms consistent with Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD). He later pursued and completed a Law degree at the University of Lebanon. However, difficulties securing legal employment in Lebanon prompted his relocation to Australia, where he began exploring pathways for further vocational training and ultimately met his future wife.
3. The applicant has not historically accessed psychological services but is currently engaged in counselling with a social worker, Ms Rosemary Qummouh, and has completed two sessions on 30 April 2025 and 9 May 2025 with a third scheduled for 21 May 2025 and weekly from there onwards. The initial focus has been exploratory in nature, with formal psychological strategies yet to be implemented.

1. The applicant, Mr. Daher, was previously assessed in a Forensic Psychology Report dated 10 February 2021, authored by Dr. Donald Rowe, which concluded that the applicant met diagnostic criteria for an Adjustment Disorder with Anxiety and Depressed Mood, and ADD.
2. At the time of Mr Goonniah's assessment, the applicant presented with symptoms suggestive of residual anxiety and sleep disturbance. His self-report and Kessler Psychological Distress Scale responses suggested mild to moderate levels of psychological distress, including restlessness, ruminative thinking, and disrupted sleep.
3. There is no current formal psychiatric diagnosis established beyond the earlier 2021 forensic report. However, the emotional impact of the ongoing visa process, historical trauma associated with the legal matter, fluctuations in revenue from his business, limited local support structures appear to be contributing to ongoing situational distress.

1. Mr Goonniah considered that the applicant demonstrated a high level of insight into both his current psychological functioning and recognised the significance of the incident with person A, its implications on his life and his immigration status. Mr Goonniah considered that the applicant's engagement with therapeutic services, which he described as "limited to date", reflected a willingness to address emotional difficulties and engage in longer-term behavioural support. Mr Goonniah noted the applicant accepted recommendations for further psychological input and has responded to guidance in a respectful and motivated manner. Mr Goonniah stated that the applicant's life circumstances reflect stability, providing a "robust protective influence" against recidivism and deterioration in the applicant's mental health.
2. Mr Goonniah considered that the applicant's prognosis was good, contingent upon continued therapeutic engagement, emotional regulation support, and lifestyle structure through ongoing employment and family involvement.

1. In Mr Goonniah's opinion, the applicant does not pose an ongoing risk of harm to the Australian community.

1. Mr Goonniah notes that the applicant is currently engaging in supportive counselling and has expressed openness to further structured psychological treatment. It is strongly recommended that he be referred for cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) or similar evidence-based interventions.
2. Mr Goonniah also recommended that the applicant be assisted to connect with local community organisations and social engagement networks. This will aid in enhancing the applicant's protective factors and reducing social isolation.

1. In conclusion, Mr Goonniah states that the applicant:

presents as a psychologically stable individual with clear insight into the gravity of past events and a demonstrated commitment to rehabilitation and personal growth. He is actively involved in employment, family life and therapeutic support. The historical offence from 2019 appears to be an isolated Incident rather than indicative of a behavioural pattern. > > The prior forensic assessment by Dr. Rowe (2021) identified Adjustment Disorder with Anxiety and Depressed Mood and ADD, both of which are being informally managed at present. His mental state has remained stable, with no risk to himself or others identified. He is assessed as low risk for re-offending and is committed to ongoing rehabilitation. > > I am of the opinion that Mr. Lucien Daher is psychologically suitable to continue residing in Australia and does not pose a threat to the community. > > Statement of Mr Goonniah, 16 January 2026

2. In this statement, Mr Goonniah confirms that the contents of folios 99 to 104 of the G docs (being G19) constitute his professional opinion as an Expert Witness.

1. Mr Reischieck showed Mr Gooniah the agreed statement of facts and asked Mr Gooniah if he agreed that the version of events set out in his report (as recounted to him by the applicant) was different to that in the agreed statement of facts. Mr Goonniah said that he could not speculate or comment nor would Mr Gooniah speculate on Mr Reischieck's suggestion that the applicant had been minimising the seriousness of his conduct.
2. Mr Reischieck put to the applicant that being an accurate historian was an important part of taking responsibilities for one's actions. Mr Gooniah said that he could only work with the information that he was given at the time.
3. Nor would Mr Gooniah comment on any treatment plan or strategies of others.
4. After a series of questions about the applicant's insight and his risk of reoffending, Mr Gooniah said that "I still stand by what I have written".

1. Section 501 of the Migration Act deals with decisions to refuse or cancel a visa on character grounds. Relevantly to this case:

(1) section 501(2) states that the Minister may cancel a visa if the person does not satisfy the Minister that the person passes the character test; > > (2) section 501(6)(a) states that a person does not pass the character test if the person has a substantial criminal record; and > > (3) 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.

2. The Minister may give written directions under s 499(1) of the Migration Act to a person or body having functions or powers under the Migration 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).
3. 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 (Direction) applies.
4. For the purposes of deciding whether to refuse an application for a visa or whether to revoke the mandatory cancellation of a visa, par 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.
5. 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 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 noncitizen does not pose a measurable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community.

1. Informed by these principles, I must take into account the relevant primary and other considerations set out in the Direction.
2. Paragraph 7.1 of the Direction states that appropriate weight be given to information and evidence from independent and authoritative sources. Paragraph 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 the other considerations. In this respect see _FHHM v Minister for Immigrat_ion [2022] FCAFC 19. However, in Suleiman v Minister for Immigration [2018] FCA 594 the Court 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. The primary considerations are set out in par 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.

1. A non-exclusive list of other considerations is set out in par 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.

1. As noted above, s 501(6)(a) of the Migration Act provides that a person does not pass the character test for the purposes of s 501(1) if the person has a substantial criminal record. Relevantly to this application, s 501(6)(e) defines that a person does not pass the character test if a court in Australia or a foreign country has convicted the person of one or more sexually based offences involving a child, or the court has found the person guilty of such an offence, or found a charge against the person proved for such an offence, even if the person was discharged without a conviction.
2. The delegate found, and the applicant accepts, that he does not pass the character test.
3. I too am satisfied that the applicant does not pass the character test because of the operation of s 501(6)(a) (substantial criminal record) on the basis of s 501(6)(e), which provides that a person does not pass the character test if a court in Australia or a foreign country has convicted the person of one or more sexually based offences involving a child or the court has found the person guilty of such an offence, or found a charge against the person proved for such an offence, even if the person was discharged without a conviction.
4. Accordingly, the determinative issue for me is whether the decision to exercise the discretion in s 501(1) of the Migration Act to refuse the applicant's application for a partner visa is the preferable decision, with regard to the considerations set out in the Direction.

First primary consideration: Protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct

1. In accordance with par 8.1(1) of the Direction, in considering the protection of the Australian community, I have had regard to the principle that the Government is committed to protecting the Australian community from harm as a result of criminal activity. I have also considered that entering or remaining in Australia is a privilege that Australia confers on non-citizens upon the expectation that they are, and have been, law abiding individuals, who will respect important institutions, and will not cause or threaten harm to individuals or the Australian community.
2. As required by par 8.1(2) of the Direction, I must consider:

(1) the nature and seriousness of the applicant's conduct; and > > (2) the risk to the Australian community, should the applicant commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct.

1. In relation to the seriousness of the applicant's offending generally, relevant factors under 8.1.1(1) that I must consider are:

(1) the sentence(s) imposed on the applicant for a crime(s) (par 8.1.1(1)(c)); > > (2) the impact of the applicant offending on any victims of offending and their family (par 8.1.1(1)(d)); > > (3) the frequency of the applicant offending and/or whether there is any trend of increased seriousness (par 8.1.1(1)(e)); > > (4) the cumulative effect of repeated offending (par 8.1.1(1)(f)).

2. The matters set out in pars 8.1.1(1)(g), (h) and (i) have no relevance or application in my consideration of this application for review.

3. This consideration was not directly addressed in the applicant's SOFIC. The applicant submits that:

(1) he has no other "matters on his record", and has not engaged in any further criminal conduct

(2) his offending conduct appears to have been excited by a mental disturbance (Dr Rowe, G20; Mr Goonniah, G19);

(3) his criminal conduct was an aberration, driven by significant psychosocial stressors including Immigration-related instability, family separation, "the matter before the court at the time" and financial hardship.

1. In oral submissions, Mr Levingston said that the offending behaviours fell within a statutory offence. He accepted that the conduct the subject of the offence was serious, but submitted that the conduct was not violent (a position that was accepted by the Minister's representative), and at the lower end of the scale.

(1) the Tribunal should have particular regard to the seriousness of the applicant's offending. In relation to the nature and seriousness of the conduct, the applicant's offending behaviour includes sexual offences against women and children which are considered very serious (Direction at 8.1.1(1)(a)(i)-(ii)).

(2) the Tribunal should also have regard to the impact of the offending on the victim where information in this regard is available (8.1.1(1)(d)). The Victim Impact Statement dated 11 February 2021 cogently exemplifies the impact that the applicant's offending had on Person A and that she herself said:

I felt scared

I felt worried

Every time I go to catch a train I feel like its going to happen again

My anxiety is worse because of you

I lost hope

I felt worthless

I get scared when a stranger comes up to me now like I instantly need to run

I couldn't leave my house for months, every time I did it felt like it was all happening again

(3) as information pertaining to the impact of the applicant's offending is available to the Tribunal, significant weight should be given to that information.

(4) the nature and seriousness of the conduct, being an offence against a woman and child, weighs heavily in favour of affirming the decision under review.

1. The appropriate starting point is the agreed statement of facts which the applicant signed on 23 November 2020 which states:

1. The offender in the matter is Lucien DAHER born on the 27 August 1993. The offender is a Lebanese National and arrived in Sydney in early October 2019.
2. The victim in the matter is [Person A], 15 years of age. The offender and Victim were not known to each other prior to the offence.
3. About 5:00pm on Wednesday the 23 of October 2019, the victim attended Windsor Railway Station to board a Sydney bound train to Blacktown. The victim sat down on a three-seater bench. A short time later, the offender sat down beside the victim and had a conversation with her.
4. The offender told the victim he was new to the area and country. He told her he was from Italy and he did not know anyone before asking her if she would like to be his friend. She told him that she was 15 years of age.
5. The offender stroked the victim's right shoulder with his left hand. She asked him to stop touching her. He said "Why, why not".
6. The offender continued stroking the victims left shoulder and asked the victim to enter her mobile number into his phone. The victim said, "No, I don't like giving anyone my phone number out'.
7. The offender placed his left hand on the victim's right upper thigh, stroking it towards the victim's knee. She said, "I don't like that, please stop". He stopped and attempted to hug the victim and asked her for her phone number for a second time.
8. The victim felt pressured and provided the offender with a false number which he contacted. Her mobile phone did not ring and the victim panicked. She said, "Aww that must be my old number I forgot about. So, I'll give you my new number".

1. The victim entered her mobile number in the offender's mobile phone. She dialled her number into the offender's phone to obtain his mobile number and make sure that the offender's caller ID was visible.

1. About 5:20pm, the victim's train arrived at the Station. The offender followed her into the train. She sat in the lower carriage on a vacant three seater closest to the window. The offender sat directly beside her in the middle seat. The victim felt anxious and called her friend and caseworker.

1. The offender touched the victim around her shoulder and massaging her right shoulder and the rear of her neck. The victim was on the phone to her caseworker attempting to inform her of what was currently occurring, without alarming the offender.

1. The victim told the offender to stop, however, the offender ignored her and said, "Hug, hug, hug' whilst attempting to hug her.

1. The victim pushed the offender away and the offender pulled himself closer towards her and attempted to kiss her face. The victim tilted her head away from the window and the offender kissed her on the neck.

1. As the train passed Riverstone Railway Station, the offender asked the victim several questions in relation to her sex and personal circumstances. The offender asked her if she liked the suburb of Riverstone, the victim said, "What's so special about Riverstone", to which the offender replied, "It's nice, It's a nice area, me and you would be happy here". The victim replied "No, I'm too young".

1. The offender continued to touch the victim several times despite being asked to stop.

1. The train ride was 20 minutes and the victim felt fear for her safety and well-being.

1. At about 5:40pm, the train arrived at Quakers Hill Railway Station. The offender was seated next to the victim and he received a phone call. Prior to answering the call, he turned towards the victim and observed her crying. He told her that he was leaving and then left.

1. At about 5:47pm, the victim exited the train at Blacktown Railway Station and attended Blacktown Police Station to report the incident in the presence of her caseworker.

1. About 7:00pm on Wednesday the 30 October 2019, Plain Clothes Police attached to the Transport Action Group North West, attended the offender residential address of [XXXX].

1. The offender was arrested and cautioned in relation to the aforementioned incident. The offender was questioned regarding the allegation, "No, I swear I did not touch anyone". The offender was asked how old the victim was. The offender informed police that he believed that she was 10 years younger than him.

1. The offender participated in an ERISP and stated he was at the location and interacting with the victim. The offender admitted to touching the victim because he believed she was unbalanced, and drug affected but denies sexually touching her. The offender said " I was touching her because she was shaking and rocking back and forth so I tried to hold her up, so she didn't fall. She did not look well', He denied kissing or hugging her. He said "I promise you I did not kiss her. I leant in to look at her scratches on her face".
2. I accept that the offence appears to have been a "one off", possibly driven by psychosocial factors. However, the offence occurred but barely 19 days after the applicant arrived in Australia on a visitor's visa. Therefore, I do not accept that any of "Immigration-related instability, family separation, "the matter before the court at the time" and financial hardship" were a catalyst for his conduct, and I reject these submissions.
3. In my view, the nature and seriousness of the conduct, being an offence against a woman and child, weighs strongly in favour of affirming the decision under review.

1. In accordance with par 8.1.2, when assessing the risk that the applicant may pose to the Australian community, I am to have regard to the Government's view that the Australian community's tolerance for any risk of future harm becomes lower as the seriousness of the potential harm increases. Some conduct in the harm that would be caused, if it were to be repeated, is so serious that any risk that may be repeated may be unacceptable.
2. In assessing the risk that may be posed by the non-citizen to the Australian community, decision makers must have regard to cumulatively:

(1) the nature of the harm to individuals or the Australian community engaging in further criminal or other serious conduct; and

(2) the likelihood of the applicant engaging in further criminal or serious conduct taking into account information and evidence about the risk of the applicant reoffending, as well as evidence of rehabilitation achieved by the time of the decision.

(1) the conduct was a "one off"; driven by Immigration-related instability, family separation, "the matter before the court at the time" and financial hardship;

(2) his arrest, conviction and subsequent penalty have had a salutary effect and "combined to inform" his future conduct;

(3) significant evidentiary weight should be given to the expert assessment of Mr Goonniah that the applicant is psychologically suitable to continue residing in Australia and does not pose a threat to the community;

(4) he is married to an Australian citizen and has three Australian citizen children;

(5) his wife suffers from a number of medical conditions including Epilepsy, anxiety and Migraine headaches;

(6) he is the primary bread winner and is self-employed and provides financial, emotional physical and psychological support to his wife and children.

(7) he has no prior matters on his record and has not reoffended since his conviction on 12 February 2021, and has not breached the terms of his CCO.

1. In addition, the applicant relies on the opinion of Mr Gooniah that he is psychologically suitable to continue residing in Australia and does not pose a threat to the community. In summary, Mr Levingston submitted that, what emerges from Mr Gooniah's evidence is that we "are dealing with a different person to the one engaging with Dr Rowe and Corrective Services and other services at the time of the offending.

(1) if the applicant were to reoffend, it would cause physical, financial and psychological harm members of the Australian community;

(2) the evidence before the Tribunal shows that the applicant has tried to minimise his conduct and has limited insight into his behaviours;

(3) the Sentencing Assessment Report of Kate McCamley dated 3 February 2021 notes that the applicant appeared to justify his actions by explaining that he did not believe he was committing an offence and placed blame on a lack of understanding of cultural differences. He denied knowing the age of the victim and reported that he did not have intentions of a sexual nature towards her. The Sentencing Assessment Report places the applicant's risk of offending at medium - high;

(4) the applicant's stated belief that he did not know the age of the victim, and his general version of events is contradicted by the agreed facts, signed by the applicant on 23 November 2020;

(5) the applicant maintained his innocence for over 12 months;

(6) the report of Mr Navin Goonniah does not confirm any diagnosis of adjustment disorder, anxiety or depressed mood and attention deficit disorder;

(7) it is not clear whether the applicant has undergone any professional treatment or trialled any medications or psychological treatment since his diagnosis in 2021, outside of engaging with a social worker for counselling. Furthermore, engagement with both Dr Rowe and Mr Goonniah appears to be limited for the purposes of obtaining reports for sentencing and the visa application;

(1) the Tribunal should have regard to the Government's view that the Australian community's tolerance for a risk of harm becomes lower as the seriousness of the potential harm increases; in some cases, the harm that would be caused is so serious that any risk it would be repeated is unacceptable;

(2) the risk of potential harm, if the applicant were to reoffend, is significant;

(3) the risk of potential harm and the nature and seriousness of the conduct weigh heavily in favour of affirming the decision under review.

1. In accordance with par 8.1.2 of the Direction, when assessing the risk that the applicant may pose to the Australian community, I am to have regard to the Government's view that the Australian community's tolerance for any risk of future harm becomes lower as the seriousness of the potential harm increases. Some conduct in the harm that would be caused, if it were to be repeated, is so serious that any risk that may be repeated may be unacceptable.
2. In assessing the risk that may be posed by the non-citizen to the Australian community, decision makers must have regard to cumulatively:

(1) the nature of the harm to individuals or the Australian community engaging in further criminal or other serious conduct; and

(2) the likelihood of the applicant engaging in further criminal or serious conduct, taking into account information and evidence about the risk of the applicant reoffending, as well as evidence of rehabilitation achieved by the time of the decision.

1. The view of the Australian Government is 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, I have had regard to par 8.1.2(1) of the Direction which states that "[s]ome conduct and the harm that would be caused, if it were to be repeated, if so serious that any risk that it may be repeated may be unacceptable".
2. In my view, the risk of reoffending is low, and weighs in favour of setting aside the decision under review.

Overall conclusion re first primary consideration

1. The applicant has one criminal conviction, as set out above. It was not a violent crime, but a sexual one, and a serious one which must have been deeply upsetting to Person A, who was aged 15 at the time of the offence.
2. Paragraph 8.1.1(1)(a)(i) of the Direction states that violent and/ or sexual crimes are viewed very seriously by the Australian government and the Australian community. Conduct that forms the basis for a finding that a non-citizen does not pass an aspect of the character test is viewed seriously (pars 8.1.1(1)(b)(iii) and (iv) of the Direction).
3. When I balance the nature and seriousness of the conduct (which being an offence against a woman and child), I have found this weighs strongly in favour of affirming the decision under review, with the risk to the Australian community (which I have found to be low, and weighs in favour of setting aside the decision under review). Overall, in my view, the first primary consideration weighs in favour of affirming the decision under review.

Second primary consideration: whether the conduct engaged in constituted family violence

1. Both parties agree that his consideration is not engaged by the evidence before the Tribunal and the Minister contends that this consideration should be given neutral weight.

Third primary consideration: The strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia

(1) he is married to an Australian citizen and has three Australian citizen children;

(2) his wife suffers from a number of medical conditions including Epilepsy, anxiety and migraine headaches;

(3) he is the primary bread winner and is self-employed and provides financial, emotional physical and psychological support to his wife and children.

(1) the applicant arrived in Australia on 4 October 2019 when he was 26 years old and has resided in Australia for six years

(2) the applicant married his wife on 20 May 2020) and has fathered three children, who of whom are all Australian citizens, and are respectively aged 3 years, 2 years and 6 months;

(3) the applicant is the director of a business in Australia named Blissful Curtains and Blinds Pty Ltd and has a mortgage on a property with his wife.

1. While the Minister accepts that this consideration weighs somewhat in favour of setting the decision under review aside, he submits that this consideration does not outweigh the combined weight of the primary considerations weighing in favour of affirming the decision.

1. I have summarised the competing submissions above. In my view, the matters relied on by the applicant are very strongly in favour of the Minister's decision being set aside.

Fourth primary consideration: Best interests of minor children in Australia affected by decision

(1) the applicant has three, Australian-citizen, minor children.

(2) if the applicant were to be removed from Australia, it is likely that he would be separated from his wife and children for a period of time. Contact may be maintained via video and telephone calls and the occasional visit, but it is accepted that such contact would be suboptimal.

(3) the applicant is currently the main "breadwinner" for the family, and it is in the children's best interest that the applicant remains with his children to ease the parenting and financial burden on the applicant's wife.

(4) has extended family in Lebanon, including his mother, whom the applicant has previously indicated would be "happy to help my wife with our 1.5 year old toddler and give her a break if she travels to Lebanon".

1. While the Minister accepts that this consideration weighs in favour of setting the decision under review aside (noting the applicant's children and wife are Australian citizens), he submits that the evidence before the Tribunal also suggests that if the applicant was to be removed to Lebanon, his family would have a support network to assist his wife and children with the transition to his home country.
2. In my view, the fact that the applicant has three young children who are all Australian citizens weights very strongly in favour of the Minister's decision being set aside.

Fifth primary consideration: Expectations of the Australian community

1. The applicant accepts that there is a deemed expectation that all persons who have committed serious criminal offences giving rise to character concerns should not be permitted to enter or remain in Australia
2. The applicant submitted that while this consideration could be given some weight to support the Minister's decision to refuse the applicant a partner visa, such weight is counterbalanced by primary considerations 3 and 4.

1. The Minister submits that Direction 110 expresses a "deemed community expectation" that all persons who have committed serious criminal offences giving rise to character concerns should not be permitted to enter or remain in Australia: FYBR v Minister for Home Affairs (2019) 272 FCR 454; [2019] FCAFC 185 at [75] per Charlesworth J. It is not for the Tribunal to determine for itself what the community's expectations are in a particular case: Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs v HSRN (2023) 297 FCR 662; [2023] FCAFC 68 at [32], [44] per Moshinsky, Stewart Jackman JJ.
2. The Minister submits in the present matter that:

(1) the Australian community expects that non-citizens obey Australian law and, where a person has engaged in serious conduct in breach of that expectation or presents an unacceptable risk of doing so, the Australian community expects that the Government does not allow such a person to remain in Australia; and

(2) the Australian community expects that the Government should cancel the visas of persons raising serious character concerns through crimes of a sexual nature against children.

1. In the circumstances, the Minister contends that this consideration weighs heavily in favour of affirming the decision under review.

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.

2. In accordance with par 8.5(4) of the Direction, I must consider the expectations of the Australian community as a whole and proceed on the basis of the Government's views expressed in the Direction, without independently assessing the community's expectations in the particular case.
3. In RCLN v Minister for Immigration, C_itizenship and Multicultural Affairs_ [2024] FCA 876 Horan J stated at [56]:

The assessment of community expectations is therefore not a matter of evidence, and does not turn on the personal circumstances of the individual non-citizen: compare, in relation to an earlier iteration of the Ministerial direction: FYBR v Minister for Home Affairs (2019) 272 FCR 454 at [66] -[67] , [74] -[75] (Charlesworth J), [91]-[93], [103]-[104] (Stewart J); see also CKL21 v Minister for Home Affairs [2022] FCAFC 70; (2022) 293 FCR 634 at [29] -[30] (Moshinsky, O'Bryan and Cheeseman JJ). The "degrees of tolerance" referred to elsewhere in the Direction "are matters that fall for consideration by the decision-maker in the ultimate exercise of his or her discretion" (or, in the present context, the determination whether there is another reason to revoke the original cancellation decision), and "in determining whether it is appropriate to give more or less weight to a deemed community expectation of visa refusal that might otherwise arise simply because of the nature of the non-citizen's character concerns or offences": FYBR at [77] (Charlesworth J). In other words, the decision-maker can take into account the personal circumstances of the individual non-citizen in so far as they are relevant to another primary consideration or one of the other considerations, and adjust the relative weight to be given to each of the primary and other considerations accordingly.

4. 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 expects the Government would not allow such a person to remain in Australia.
5. In FYBR v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCAFC 185; 272 FCR 454, the Full Court of the Federal Court affirmed the proposition that the Government's view about the expectations of the Australian community must be considered, and will often weigh against revocation, but this does not amount to dictating the outcome of a particular case, noting the decision-maker must ultimately decide how the specific circumstances of an applicant's case interact with the principles and considerations in the Direction: see too Abbas v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (Migration) [2025] ARTA 1343 at [80].
6. On the basis of the Government's views expressed in the Direction, I find that this factor weighs in favour of affirming the decision under review.

Other consideration - legal consequences of the decision - 9.1(a)

1. Under par 9.1(1) of Direction 110, decision-makers are directed to "be mindful" that unlawful non-citizens are liable to removal from Australia as soon as practicable, and in the meantime, detention.

1. The applicant submits that the legal consequences of a decision to affirm the decision under review would see him detained and then removed Lebanon where he would be dependent on his own resources. The applicant submits that this is not optimal for his mental health as it deprives him of his pillars of support, being his family.
2. Mr Levingston submitted that there is no evidence about what Mrs Daher (and the children) would do should the applicant be removed to Lebanon, noting that neither the applicant nor his wife were cross-examined on this issue.

(1) the applicant does not raise any matters that are relevant to Australia's non-refoulement obligations.

(2) should the Tribunal affirm the decision under review, the applicant will be liable for removal from Australia as soon as reasonably practicable and will continue to be subject to a period of time in immigration detention: ss 189 and 198 of the Act. The applicant would also be unable to satisfy the special return criteria in cl 5001(c) of Sch 5 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) which is required for the grant of most visa types;

(3) the applicant would not be able to apply for another visa while in Australia (with the exception of a protection visa) in accordance with s 501E of the Act.

1. Nevertheless, the Minister contends that in circumstances where the applicant's removal and indefinite exclusion from Australia are intended purposes of the statutory scheme, and these purposes underlie the considerations in Direction 110, the Tribunal should afford negligible weight to this consideration in favour of revocation.
2. Accordingly, the respondent contends that this consideration should be given neutral weight.

1. I agree that this factor should be given neutral weight.

Other consideration - extent of impediment if removed - 9.1(b)

1. Paragraph 9.2 of Direction 110 requires me to consider the extent of any impediments that the applicant 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). This takes 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 him there.

1. No additional submissions on this factor were made by the applicant.

(1) the applicant is a relatively young man, and there is no evidence that he suffers from any health complications that would be an impediment to his removal to Lebanon.

(2) the applicant was a practising lawyer in Lebanon, resided there for the majority of his adult life and speaks Arabic as his primary language.

(3) the applicant would not face any significant cultural or language barriers if he was to return to Lebanon.

(4) the evidence before the Tribunal suggests that the applicant has a support network in Lebanon, and his mother would be happy to assist with taking care of his children;

(5) this consideration should be given neutral weight by the Tribunal.

1. I agree that this factor should be given neutral weight.

Other consideration - impact on Australian business interests - 9.1(c)

1. The Minister accepts that the applicant is a director of a company named Blissful Curtains and Blinds Pty Ltd. However, the Minister submits that this is a personal business interest, and there is no evidence before the Tribunal that suggests that Australian business interests would be negatively impacted if the applicant was refused the visa.
2. In the circumstances, the Minister contends that this consideration should be given neutral weight by the Tribunal.
3. Paragraph 9.3 of the Direction states that decision-makers must consider any impact on Australian business interests if the non-citizen 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 501 or 501CA would significantly compromise the delivery of a major project, or delivery of an important service in Australia.
4. In the circumstances, this factor should be given neutral weight.

1. Clearly enough, the applicant submits that the Minister's decision to refuse him a partner visa should be set aside, while the Minister submits that the decision should be affirmed.
2. I have made the following findings concerning the relevant primary considerations in the Direction:

(1) the protection of the Australian community against criminal and other serious conduct weighs in favour of affirming the decision under review; > > (2) the family violence consideration has neutral weight; > > (3) the strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia very strongly favour the Minister's decision being set aside. > > (4) the best interests of the minor child very strongly favour the Minister's decision being set aside. > > (5) the expectations of the Australian community weigh in favour of affirming the decision under review.

3. I have found that the other considerations, the legal consequences of the decision weigh strongly against revocation, the extent of the impediments if the applicant were removed to Lebanon and Australian business interests are neutral considerations.
4. Compliance with the Direction is not achieved by focusing upon the weight I have given to the various considerations in isolation. In deciding this case, I must "bring together the considerations as part of a single evaluation of their relative significance thereby weighing them all together": CRNL v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FCAFC 138 at [28].
5. In CRNL, the Court stated at [35] (in relation to revocation of a visa cancellation but the principles are applicable by analogy):

The balancing process is directed to determining whether there is "another reason" why the visa cancellation should be revoked. It requires an identification of the matters that may constitute "another reason" and bringing to bear the considerations that the Direction requires the Tribunal to take into account where relevant in determining whether or not the Tribunal is satisfied that there is another reason (or reasons) to revoke the visa cancellation. Some of the considerations set out in the Direction, where relevant, may weigh in favour of revocation, and so may constitute "another reason" capable of supporting the state of satisfaction required in order for revocation under s 501CA(4)(b)(ii) to occur. But whether they do qualify as a reason of that kind will need to be assessed in the context of different considerations set out in the Direction which may weigh against revocation, where relevant. That is why it is appropriate to describe it as a process of weighing and balancing. But to go beyond that to treat the Direction as mandating some sort of calculation of the net weight to be given to the considerations on each side is to lose sight of the ultimately evaluative nature of the statutory task.

6. As noted above, 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 than 'other' considerations.
7. I have found that the protection of the Australian community and the expectations of the Australian community weigh in favour of affirming the decision under review. Balanced against this are the strength, nature and duration of the applicant's ties to Australia and the best interests of his three minor children, both of which I have found weigh strongly in favour of setting aside the decision.
8. In my view, this is a case where the strength, nature and duration of the applicant's ties to Australia and the best interests of his three minor children protection are to be given greater weight than the other primary considerations. I base this conclusion upon the fact that the offence appears to have been a "one off", the applicant has not reoffended and has matured by reason of his marriage and children. As Mr Gooniah stated, the applicant's life circumstances reflect stability, which provide a "robust protective influence" against recidivism and deterioration in the applicant's mental health.

1. For the above reasons, the decision of a delegate of the Minister dated 24 September 2025 to refuse to grant the applicant a Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) visa is set aside and substituted with a decision not to refuse the grant of the a Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) visa under s 501(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth).

Mr C Levingston, Christopher Levingston & Associates, Lawyers

Attachment A National Criminal History Check dated 21 May 2024

Attachment B New South Wales Police Facts Sheet dated 31 October 2019

Attachment C Notice of Penalty dated 12 February 2021

Attachment D Final Order Apprehended Personal Violence Order expires 11 February 2023

Attachment E Community Correction Order dated 12 February 2021

Attachment F Child Protection Register dated 6 March 2022

Attachment G Court Attendance Notice dated 31 October 2019

Attachment H Lebanese Police Check dated 13 December 2019

Attachment I Notice of Intention to Consider Refusal of visa, dated 1 May 2025

Attachment J Natural Justice Letter dated 8 May 2025

a) Email response to Notice of Intention to Consider Refusal and Natural Justice dated 30 May 2025

b) Email response to Notice of Intention to Consider Refusal and Natural Justice dated 2 June 2025

f) Email From Migration Agent dated 9 September 2025

g) Email From Migration Agent dated 11 September 2025

h) Email From Migration Agent dated 11 November 2025

Attachment L Submission from Migration Agent dated 30 May 2025

a) Mr DAHER Statutory Declaration dated 29 March 2025

c) Mr DAHER statement on relationship dated 9 August 2020

Attachment N Psychological Report by Dr Navin Goonniah dated 15 May 2025

Attachment O Forensic Psychology Report dated 10 February 2021

Attachment P Personal Circumstances Form 29 May 2025

Attachment T Email requests for update received between 19 June 2023 and 22 April 2025

Attachment U Medical Documents for Ms Theresa Daher

b) Emergency Discharge Summary Report dated 5 April 2024

Attachment W Confirmation of Psychology Sessions dated 25 May 2025

Attachment X MyCompass Extract dated 23 May 2025

Attachment AA Email from Catholic Care - Defuse Program dated 29 May 2025

Attachment AB Certificate of Mr DAHER's Bachelor of Law from Lebanon University dated 21 June 2019

Attachment AC Statement of Attainment for Prepare to Work Safely in Construction dated 29 May 2021

Attachment AG Marriage Certificate dated 20 May 2025

Attachment AH Visitor Visa Grant Notice dated 31 July 2019

Attachment AI VEVO Bridging Visa Details Check dated 4 September 2020

Attachment AJ Utility Bills and Home Loan Statement

Attachment AK Blissful Curtains and Blinds ASIC extracts and BAS statements

Attachment AM Application for Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) Visa, lodged25 June 2020

[1] Consisting of two volumes, hard copy filed 16 February 2026.

[2] And I will not list documents listed elsewhere, for instance the applicant's statements which are listed in par [24].