1. The Applicant is a 28-year-old citizen of New Zealand.
2. The Applicant first arrived in Australia on 17 December 2010 and has departed Australia three times since this date.[4]

1. The Applicant has been convicted of more than 20 offences since he first arrived in Australia. These offences involved driving offences, giving false details, fraud, breach of bail, stealing, burglary, and violence.
2. The Applicant's offending history is set out in the Check Results Report by the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission run on 16 October 2024[5] and a History for Court -

Criminal and Traffic compiled by the WA Police Force on 11 February 2026.[6] 3. The Applicant's first offence, 'fail to obey order given by an officer', resulted in a conviction on 24 June 2016. Between 2016 and 2018, the Applicant was convicted of over 10 offences. 4. On 4 December 2019, the Applicant was sentenced to over 50 months' imprisonment for a range of offences, served concurrently and with a head sentence of seven months' imprisonment. Those offences included 'gains benefit by fraud', 'aggravated home burglary and commit', 'common assault', 'stealing', and 'possession of stolen or unlawfully obtained property'. 5. On 5 March 2020, the Applicant was released from prison on parole.[7] 6. Following his release, the Applicant was convicted of three drink driving offences:

(a) 23 June 2021 - 'drove under the influence of alcohol', for which he received a 10 months' licence disqualification; > > (b) 15 June 2022 - 'circumvented the operation of an alcohol interlock' and 'exceed 0.08g alcohol per 100ml of blood' for which he was fined a total of $3,300 and disqualified from driving for 14 months. > > (c) 26 January 2026 - 'drove under the influence of alcohol'[8] for which he received a 30 months' licence disqualification.

1. On 6 September 2023, the Applicant was granted the Visa.[9]
2. On 2 March 2020, a delegate of the Department of Home Affairs (the Department) provided the Applicant with a notice of intention to consider cancellation (NOICC) of the Visa under s 501(2) of the Migration Act.[10] The NOICC invited the Applicant to comment on information indicating he may not pass the character test.[11]
3. On 7 April 2020, the Applicant's representative made representations in response to the invitation in the NOICC.[12]
4. On 25 March 2025, the Applicant was provided a second NOICC under subsection 501(2) of the Migration Act.[13] The second NOICC invited the Applicant to comment on information indicating he may not pass the character test.[14]
5. On 16 April 2025, the Applicant's legal representative provided written submissions in response to the invitation in the second NOICC.[15]
6. As noted above, on 1 October 2025, the delegate made the Reviewable Decision.[16]
7. On 9 January 2026, the Applicant was notified of the Reviewable Decision[17] and taken into immigration detention.
8. On 14 January 2026, the Applicant lodged an application for review of the Reviewable Decision by the Tribunal.[18]

Migration Act

1. The Migration Act provides special powers for the Minister to refuse or cancel visas on character grounds. In some circumstances, where a visa is cancelled on character grounds, the Minister can revoke that cancellation decision.
2. These powers generally involve consideration of whether a person passes the character test and, if they do not, consideration of whether there is another reason that the decision to cancel or refuse a visa should be revoked.
3. Section 501(2) of the Migration Act provides that the Minister may cancel a visa that has been granted to a person if:

(a) the Minister reasonably suspects that the person does not pass the character test; and > > (b) the person does not satisfy the Minister that the person passes the character test.

4. The character test is set out in s 501(6) of the Migration Act and provides that a person does not pass the character test if the circumstances listed in that subsection apply. Section 501(6)(a) of the Migration Act relevantly provides that:

(6) For the purposes of this section, a person does not pass the character test if:

(a) the person has a substantial criminal record (as defined by

subsection (7)); ...

1. A 'substantial criminal record' is relevantly defined by s 501(7)(d) of the Migration Act as follows:

(7) For the purposes of the character test, a person has a substantial criminal record if: ...

(d) sentenced to two or more terms of imprisonment, where the total or those terms is 12 months or more.

1. By reason of s 499(2A) of the Migration Act, in considering whether to exercise the discretion in s 501(2) of the Migration Act, the Tribunal must comply with written directions about the performance of its functions or the exercise of those powers which are given by the Minister pursuant to s 499(1) of the Migration Act.
2. On 7 June 2024, the Minister made Direction no. 110 under s 499 of the Migration Act, which commenced operation on 21 June 2024. This Direction replaced the previous Direction No 99.[19]
3. An objective of Direction no. 110 is to guide decision-makers in exercising powers under ss 501 or 501CA of the Migration Act.[20]
4. Paragraph 5.1 of Direction no. 110 sets out '[o]bjectives', including para 5.1(2) which provides that:

Specifically, under subsection 501(1) of the Act, non-citizens may be refused a visa if they do not satisfy the decision-maker that they pass the character test.

Under subsection 501(2), non-citizens may have their visa cancelled if the decision-maker reasonably suspects that they do not pass the character test, and the non-citizens do not satisfy the decision-maker that they do pass the character test. Where the discretion to refuse to grant or to cancel a visa is enlivened, the decision-maker must consider the specific circumstances of the case in deciding whether to exercise that discretion.

1. Paragraph 5.2 of Direction no. 110 sets out '[p]rinciples' which must be taken into account by decision-makers under ss 501 and 501CA of the Migration Act. These principles 'provide the framework within which decision-makers should approach their task of deciding whether to ... refuse or cancel a non-citizen's visa under section 501', and are expressed as follows:

(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 non­citizens in the expectation that they are, and have been, law-abiding, will respect important institutions, such as Australia's law enforcement framework, and will not cause or threaten harm to individuals or the Australian community.

(2) The safety of the Australian Community is the highest priority of the Australian Government.

(3) Non-citizens who engage or have engaged in criminal or other serious conduct should expect to be denied the privilege of coming to, or to forfeit the privilege of staying in, Australia.

(4) The Australian community expects that the Australian Government can and should refuse entry to non-citizens, or cancel their visas, if they engaged in conduct, in Australia or elsewhere, that raises serious character concerns. This expectation of the Australian community applies regardless of whether the non-citizen poses a measureable [sic] 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.

1. Informed by the principles set out in para 5.2 of Direction no. 110, paragraph 6 of Direction no. 110 compels decision-makers to take into account the primary considerations listed in para 8 and the other considerations listed in para 9 where relevant, having regard to the specific circumstances of the case.
2. The 'primary considerations' to be taken into account by the Tribunal are:[21]

(a) protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct; > > (b) whether the conduct engaged in constituted family violence; > > (c) the strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia; > > (d) the best interests of minor children in Australia; and > > (e) expectations of the Australian community.

3. The 'other considerations' that the Tribunal must take into account, insofar as they are relevant to the matter, include (but are not limited to):[22]

(a) legal consequences of the decision; > > (b) extent of impediments if removed; and > > (c) impact on Australian business interests.

4. Further guidance as to how a decision-maker is to apply the considerations in

Direction no. 110 can be found in para 7, which provides that:

(1) In applying the considerations (both primary and other), information and evidence from independent and authoritative sources should be given appropriate weight.

(2) The primary consideration at 8.1 below (protection of the Australian community) is generally to be given greater weight than other primary considerations. Otherwise, primary considerations should generally be given greater weight than the other considerations.

(3) One or more primary considerations may outweigh other primary considerations.

1. There are two issues for consideration by the Tribunal:

(a) Character test - Whether or not the Tribunal reasonably suspects that the Applicant does not pass the character test, and whether the Applicant has satisfied the Tribunal that he passes the character test. If not; > > (b) Exercise of discretion - Whether the Tribunal should exercise its discretion conferred by s 501(2) of the Migration Act to cancel the visa.

1. The Applicant accepts that he does not pass the character test, pursuant to s 501(6)(a) of the Act.
2. However, the Tribunal must also reasonably suspect that the Applicant does not pass the character test.
3. Sections 501(6)(a) and 501(7)(d) of the Migration Act preclude a person from passing the character test if they have a 'substantial criminal record', which includes a person who has been sentenced to two or more terms of imprisonment, where the total of those terms is 12 months or more. Failure to pass the character test arises as a matter of law.[23]
4. On the basis that the Applicant was sentenced to a term of imprisonment totalling over 50 months on 4 December 2019, the Tribunal can also reasonably suspect that the Applicant does not pass the character test.

1. Accordingly, the remaining and determinative issue for the Tribunal to consider is whether the discretion in s 501(2) of the Migration Act to cancel the Applicant's visa should be exercised. This evaluative process requires the Tribunal to have regard to the primary and other considerations in Direction no. 110: Visa Refusal and Cancellation under Section 501 and Revocation of a Mandatory Cancellation of a Visa under Section 501CA (Direction no. 110).
2. If the Applicant also fails on the 'exercise of discretion' ground, the weight of authority indicates that the Tribunal must exercise the power conferred by s 501(2) of the Migration Act to cancel the Visa (being the visa that was previously granted to him). This would, in turn, involve affirming the Reviewable Decision.[24]

1. The hearing was conducted at the Tribunal's Perth Registry on 18 and 19 March 2026. The Applicant was represented by Ms Briony Chen of Tang Law, who appeared in person. The Respondent was represented by Mr Max Plitsch of the Australian Government Solicitor, who appeared by Microsoft Teams.
2. At the hearing, the Applicant gave oral evidence and was cross-examined along with his wife, sister, and mother. All witnesses appeared in person.
3. The Applicant's mother and wife gave evidence with the assistance of a Somali interpreter.
4. The Tribunal marked the Joint Hearing Book prepared by the Respondent as an exhibit (R1).
5. R1 included:

(a) The Applicant's Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions (ASFIC); > > (b) The Respondent's Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions (RSFIC); and > > (c) The Applicant's Response (ASFICR).

6. The Tribunal has taken into account the letters of support from the Applicant's relatives, friends, and community contacts.[25]
7. At the hearing, the Tribunal provided the opportunity for the parties to respond to matters put by the Member, directed at matters relevant to Direction no. 110, in their oral closing submissions.

1. The Applicant said that he has left Australia on two occasions since first arriving on 17 December 2010, the first time being for a one-week trip to Malaysia to see his sister and her husband, and the second time being to travel to Kenya to meet his wife. When asked, the Applicant said that he had not been to Somalia since he was a young child, although he has been to the part of Somalia 'that Kenya owns.'
2. When asked if he needed a visa to visit Kenya, the Applicant said he did not know, as he was with his father at the time, but he knew that he did not have a right to live in Kenya.
3. The Applicant said that, while in Kenya, he lived with his father's best friend, to whom he referred to as his 'uncle'.
4. The Applicant said that, when he met his wife for the first time, there were 'no arrangements' and that they were introduced at a Somali wedding.
5. When asked why he returned to Australia from Kenya on 6 September 2023,[26] the Applicant said he wanted to build a life in Australia with his family.
6. When asked about when he committed 'possession of identification material with intent to commit an offence', the material being stolen credit card numbers, the Applicant said the credit card numbers were sent to him by another member of the gang he was involved in and he had no intention to use those details.
7. When asked about his offending that took place in 2018 and 2019, the Applicant said he started drinking and taking drugs with his friends and 'going for rides.' The Applicant said it was 'easy for people to get into his head.'
8. The Applicant said he would use marijuana in the car with his friends, then switched to committing crimes when he ran out of drugs. The Applicant said that 'staying back' (from the offending) 'saved him for a while', then he 'fell into it' (offending). The Applicant said he would 'steal phones to buy weed'. The Applicant said that he has not used drugs since 2018.
9. When asked specifically about his commission of the burglary and assault offences on 25 December 2018, and the sentencing judge's remark that the victim 'didn't let you have the phone at first and you went back, again, and you grabbed the phone in order to run away',[27] the Applicant said it was not him that stole the phone, rather it was his friend who did and he had been with him. The Applicant said he had removed his bag to break free from being grabbed by the victim's boyfriend and, in self-defence, had struck the victim's boyfriend in the course of doing so.
10. The Applicant said he is not in contact with those friends any longer and has 'left that life behind.' The Applicant said that these people were never really his friends and, rather, they had blackmailed him into committing crimes and threatened to kill him on two occasions.
11. The Applicant said that 'he blames himself 100%' and takes full responsibility for his offending. When taken to the record of him having confirmed that alcohol use was a contributing factor to his 2019 offences,[28] the Applicant said that alcohol was 'involved at parties' and that his crimes also related to his 'marijuana usage,' for example having stolen a phone so that his fellow gang members could buy marijuana.
12. When taken to the extract from his statutory declaration that:

I was introduced to alcohol, which took over my mind and didn't see what's right and wrong. This has led me to stealing and driving without Valid license, gaining benefit by Fraud.

The Applicant said that he was not drinking heavily, just at parties and gatherings in 2016 to 2018.

1. The Applicant said that he has learned his lesson in life, got a taste of punishment and that prison was 'a real turning point.' The Applicant also said that, since having two children, 'he is not the same person' and does not want to jeopardise his life.
2. Regarding his 'common assault' offence on 25 December 2018,[29] the Applicant said one person organised it all. The Applicant said he went to the victim's house, snatched her iPhone and ran out of the slide doors. The Applicant said he was grabbed by his bag by the victim's boyfriend, so he took off his bag. The Applicant said that the victim's boyfriend was 'trying to get him in a headlock.' The Applicant said he then punched the victim's boyfriend in the face and ran off. The Applicant said that what he did was 'very bad' and that he had not committed any violent crime since then.
3. When directed to the 'large number of offences' for which he was convicted 'all at once' on 4 December 2019,[30] the Applicant said that he feels ashamed and would apologise to the victims if he had the chance.
4. When asked about his 'drove under the influence of alcohol' offence in 2021,[31] the Applicant said he was found by the police in the middle of the road. When it was put to him that the recorded facts were that his vehicle had crashed into a ditch to the left side of the road,[32] the Applicant said he had lost control of his vehicle on a rainy day, he was still 'battling alcohol' at the time and does not know why he did it.
5. When taken to his 'circumvented the operation of an alcohol interlock' and 'exceed 0.08g alcohol per 100ml of blood' offences in 2022,[33] the Applicant said he 'should have learned his lesson', that his offending was 'all to do with his addiction', and that he had 'failed the test in the booze bus'. When asked how he had circumvented the operation of the alcohol interlock, the Applicant said that his friend had 'blown into the machine' for him and that he did not have this friend drive his car for him because his friend did not have a licence.
6. As to his most recent 'drove under the influence of alcohol' offence on 26 December 2025,[34] the Applicant said that 'Border Force were deep down after him', he was in a depressive emotion and thought it was the end of his life, that it was a bold mistake to go behind the wheel and he takes full responsibility.
7. During cross-examination, the Applicant added that, on 26 December 2025, he had started the day at his mother's house and then went to his sister's house. The Applicant said that he knew that the Australian Border Force was looking for him. The Applicant said that he bought alcohol and drove to the beach, where he drank six cans of whiskey, and then kept driving. The Applicant said that he was sober prior to that day.
8. When it was put to him, the Applicant accepted that he had committed three drink driving offences following his being issued a NOICC in March 2020 and, in April 2020, he had given his assurance that he had taken steps to ensure that he would not offend any further in the future.[35]
9. When asked why he did not disclose his offending on his two incoming passenger cards,[36] the Applicant said that, in the first case, his father did not know English, a Somali friend had filled out the form and that he (the Applicant) was young and did not look at the form or read what was on it. The Applicant said that, on the second occasion, he filled out the form incorrectly, because he was scared that, if he disclosed his offending, he would be deported.
10. When it was put to him, the Applicant recalled stating in his statutory declaration that, at the times his incoming passenger cards were completed, he was 'under the fog of addiction and intellectual impairment' and his life was in 'a state of absolute chaos.'[37] When asked how this could have been the case when the Applicant also gave evidence that, at this time, he was returning from Kenya where he did not drink alcohol (which he stated was unavailable in Africa in any event), the Applicant said that the way this was stated in his statutory declaration was incorrect, that he had not been using alcohol but was addicted to marijuana. The Applicant said that he never used any other kind of drug. The Applicant also said that he was not using drugs in Kenya.
11. The Applicant said that concealing his offending on his incoming passenger cards was 'not good' and he would never do it again. The Applicant said that he 'just goes along with what is right to him in that moment.'
12. The Applicant said that the part of him 'knowing the rightness blocks away.' The Applicant gave the example of the time when he knew he did not have a driver's licence but drove a car anyway.
13. The Applicant said he learned of his intellectual disability after going to a doctor as a child. The Applicant said that his parents took him to a doctor in New Zealand, where 'three problems' were indicated. The Applicant said that he could not remember exactly when he was diagnosed.
14. The Applicant said that he is not sure of the reason he has the disability and noted that he was struck by a glass as a child in Somalia, that a road accident (in 2009, while riding a bike to school)[38] was 'also to do with it', and that no one quite knows the cause.
15. The Applicant said that his disability does 'not quite' affect his day-to-day life, but does affect his decision-making processes. The Applicant gave the example that, if someone 'tells him to break the law,' they can 'manipulate him easier.'
16. The Applicant said that, in 2023, he realised that he had to 'go to rehab' to address his 'alcohol problem.'
17. The Applicant said that he did 'counselling in Warwick' twice per week, which did not work for him as it did not stop him from drinking.
18. The Applicant said that he told his sister that he needed to go to Africa (to rehabilitate), as there is no alcohol there. The Applicant said that people go to Somalia to change their life and 'get sober.' The Applicant said that his sister also recommended this. The Applicant said that his mother (however), did not recommend it (as a course of action). The Applicant also said that if he had gone to Somalia, he does not know how he would have been 'let in'. The Applicant said that he (ultimately) chose to rehabilitate in Australia because he loves his family, he wanted to be close to them, and because Somalia is unsafe.
19. The Applicant said that, towards the end of 2024, he went to a rehabilitation program at Cyrenian House for three months straight, following which, he received the news that his wife had obtained her visa to come to Australia. The Applicant said this led him to 'make the move to leave rehab.' The Applicant said that three months at Cyrenian House was not enough, but he did it out of love, and he wanted to see his wife and kids.
20. The Applicant said he left Cyrenian House in January 2025 and did not drink alcohol for nine months straight. The Applicant said that the rehabilitation course at Cyrenian House had helped him with his addiction and he had 'learned breathing techniques' whilst there.
21. The Applicant said that, if released, he plans to address his recent drink driving and to 'reflect on what he did.' The Applicant said that he wants to move forward, that he will seek help (from the Somalian community and his family) if he has to, even if he has to go back to rehabilitation.
22. The Applicant said that, since arriving in Australia, he visited Kenya once in 2016 on a holiday with his father, the purpose of this trip being to meet his wife. The Applicant said that his father knew his wife's parents.
23. The Applicant said he married his wife in Kenya in 2023 (as in entered into the 'marriage contract' or the 'promise to marry') and that their first daughter was born in Nairobi. The Applicant said that his wife (and older daughter) travelled to Australia on 9 February 2025 on a '461 visa'.[39]
24. The Applicant said that he is very close with his parents and siblings.
25. The Applicant said that his father, siblings, nieces, and nephews are all Australian citizens and that his mother is awaiting the outcome of her citizenship application.
26. The Applicant said that, if removed, and if his wife remained in Australia, his wife would have a hard time without him present and that it would be hard for her to survive. The Applicant said that, if removed, his wife would probably divorce him and find another husband and that 'nobody is going to wait around for you.'
27. When asked if he had discussed the possibility of his being removed with his wife, the Applicant said they had not discussed it and that he did not want to discuss it. The Applicant said that, while he does not know if his wife would come to New Zealand with him (if he was removed), he was just guessing (that she would not). When asked if he had made any inquiries about visa options in New Zealand for either his wife or himself, the Applicant said he had not. When it was put to him, the Applicant accepted that it would be possible for his wife to obtain a New Zealand visa, adding that he also believed this would be difficult.
28. The Applicant said that his mother runs a daycare and his parents look after other grandchildren. The Applicant said that, if removed, his parents may be able to give his wife a hand 'now and then', but would not otherwise help his wife as this is his job now. The Applicant said that, rather, he gives financial support to his wife and parents. When asked how this could be so when his taxable income for the year ending 30 June 2024 was $14,987,[40] the Applicant said that this figure was not really accurate and that he still had access to other funds in the form of compensation payments, 'savings on the side' from contract work, syndicate savings from a private community arrangement, and that his wife was in receipt of government benefits.
29. When asked whether his evidence that his parents would not be in a position to provide sufficient support to his wife and grandchildren if he was removed was inconsistent with his evidence that his daughters are surrounded by a loving and attentive 'village' which includes their paternal grandparents,[41] the Applicant said he is not saying that his parents would never help his wife, rather that it is his job to support her.
30. When asked, the Applicant confirmed that his wife had looked after their older daughter for one and a half years in Kenya before moving to Australia, the Applicant having returned to Australia from Kenya when his older daughter was one month old.
31. The Applicant said that, in Australia, he had worked in mining, in 'warehouse work', and had qualifications in working with heights, forklifts, crane operation, and in first aid.
32. The Applicant said that his daughters are his 'whole world', that he spends a lot of time with them, and that it 'breaks him in pieces' to be away from them. The Applicant said that, prior to going to detention, he was involved in his daughters' day-to-day lives.
33. The Applicant said that he plays a day-to-day role in his minor nieces and nephews' lives, assisting with sports, homework, and 'school runs'.
34. When asked, the Applicant said that he had no friends, family, or social contacts in New Zealand.
35. The Applicant said that he had never lived in New Zealand as an adult and never worked there.
36. The Applicant said that, if removed, it would be hard for him to get work and 'good pay' in New Zealand. The Applicant said that the challenge of finding work, housing, and a means of support in New Zealand, and being at a distance from his children is a 'big challenge' that he does not think he could bear. The Applicant said that it is better for him to be physically close with his children than at a distance.
37. The Applicant said that, if he was removed, his children will be fatherless and 'feel pain', noting that his wife relies on him. The Applicant said that his children would be able to go to New Zealand, but his wife would not be able to do so as it would be difficult for her to get another visa, therefore she would be unable to bring the children. The Applicant said that he did not think his family would fund such a trip.

Sihaam Ali Qasim's evidence (the Applicant's wife)

1. Ms Qasim said that she had lived only in Somalia before moving to Australia in 2025 to live with the Applicant. Ms Qasim said that, in 2022, she had travelled to Nairobi, Kenya, to meet her husband in person for the first time and for the purpose of getting married. Ms Qasim said that she and the Applicant agreed to marry before they met in person and then proceeded to inform their families that they wished to marry.
2. Ms Qasim said that, prior to their meeting, they communicated through social media and Facebook, that they 'married' in September 2022 prior to their 'official marriage' and wedding in January 2023.
3. When asked why she had agreed to marry the Applicant before she met him in person, Ms Qasim said that, because of their 'smooth' communication on social media, they had begun to love each other.
4. Ms Qasim said that she lived with the Applicant while he was in Kenya.
5. Ms Qasim said that, from when the Applicant left Kenya to early 2025, she lived in Nairobi with her brother and the Applicant's cousin, on a visa that needed to be renewed 'every now and then'. Ms Qasim said that she did not know the name of the visa she was on in Nairobi. Ms Qasim said that this living arrangement was made after she met the Applicant on social media and after the 'marriage contract' was entered into.
6. Ms Qasim said that she does not know much English and can only say 'yes' and 'no'.
7. Ms Qasim said that Australia 'looked good at first,' as she was a happy wife living with her husband and children, but it is now getting harder because her husband is not with her, she is not feeling happy, and her children are asking where their father is. Ms Qasim said that she used to tell her children that the Applicant was working long hours and would be coming soon, however that answer 'is not convincing anymore'.
8. Ms Qasim said that it is very difficult living alone, that she has taken her older daughter to the detention centre a few times to visit the Applicant, that her older daughter misses the Applicant, that her older daughter thinks that detention is another house and asks Ms Qasim to take her there.
9. Ms Qasim said that she is dependent on the Applicant because she is 'new to the country.' Ms Qasim said that she came to Australia for the Applicant, that, without him, she will not be able to survive or help herself or their two children in Australia, that he is the central pillar in their house, that she cannot get the support he gives her from anyone else, and that, if he were to leave, she is unsure whether support from the Applicant's family would continue.
10. When asked, Ms Qasim said that she did not come to Australia in 2024 because her visa had not been processed yet. Ms Qasim said that she did not know her 'visa type' and she did not apply for it herself as the Applicant is responsible for her as her husband.
11. Ms Qasim said that she does not work, that the Applicant's family provides for her and her children (rent, groceries, house needs, medical expenses) and that she is also in receipt of 'Centrelink.' Ms Qasim said that prior to his being detained, the Applicant was providing for her financially as he used to work. Ms Qasim said that she cannot see herself gaining the skills to work in Australia and that doing so would be difficult.
12. Ms Qasim said that the Applicant was not working at the time she arrived in Australia in 2025. Ms Qasim said that the Applicant started working after she arrived, from about 'May to July 2025 or September 2025' in the mining sector. Ms Qasim said that she did not know what the Applicant was doing for work but knew that he was not working after September 2025. When asked to explain the discrepancy between this and the evidence of the Applicant's payslips for employment from July to October 2025,[42] Ms Qasim said that she could not explain it and does not know why those payslips are there.
13. When it was put to Ms Qasim that, given that the Applicant's evidence was that his last work contract ended in early 2025 (one month after she arrived in Australia),[43] it was unclear how the Applicant paid rent, bills, and medical expenses, Ms Qasim said that she was 'not much into the details but knows that, with the Applicant's family supporting and Centrelink supporting, these things were paid'. When asked, Ms Qasim said that she does not know how the rent or utilities expenses are distributed between the occupants of their house, which includes two adults other than herself and the Applicant.
14. Ms Qasim said that whatever financial capacity the Applicant had, he would use it to support her. Ms Qasim said that, since his detainment, the Applicant's brothers and sisters would help her, for example by driving to hospital when she was pregnant.
15. Ms Qasim said that she was aware of the Applicant's criminal history, for example, when they were introduced, the Applicant told her about his criminal history, that it was his 'past life' and that he had changed.
16. When asked what she was doing on the day of the Applicant's offending on 26 December 2025, Ms Qasim said that, in the morning, she was in her house with her children and that, in the afternoon, she visited the Applicant's sister's house. Ms Qasim said she saw the Applicant that day in the afternoon, between 5pm and 6pm (prior to his offending on that day) and that he was 'fine' at this time. When asked, Ms Qasim said that she was not aware of what the Applicant was doing that day before he was caught drink driving.
17. As to what Ms Qasim knows about the Applicant's drinking problem, Ms Qasim said she is aware of it, and that the Applicant has not consumed alcohol in their house. She is aware of his offending in December 2025 when the Applicant was 'worried about staying in Australia,' she is aware that he was in rehabilitation at one point and that he left rehabilitation to live with her and their daughters.
18. When asked, Ms Qasim said that she holds no concerns that the Applicant will consume alcohol again because he has been to rehabilitation, he 'has responsibility', and 'a lot has changed.' Ms Qasim said that, rather, she is more concerned about the Applicant returning to robbery or theft offending.
19. Ms Qasim said that, if the Applicant were removed, she would not be following him to New Zealand. Ms Qasim also said that, if the Applicant were removed, she would not divorce him. Ms Qasim said that it was beyond her comprehension what will happen if the Applicant was removed, that she cannot talk about the future, that she had not thought about this circumstance at all, and she would be forced to stay with her husband. When asked again during re-examination, Ms Qasim said she cannot give a conclusive answer as to whether she would go to New Zealand with the Applicant, if he were removed.
20. Ms Qasim said that all of their family members (meaning the Applicant's family members to whom she is connected through their marriage) are in Australia and that she has two daughters to take care of. Ms Qasim said that her family is in Somalia. Ms Qasim said that it would be very difficult for her to move to New Zealand, having no family or friends there and no language skills, and the thought of doing so was 'terrifying.'[44]
21. When taken to her statement that, if the Applicant were removed and she and their children followed, their children would lose the daily presence of their grandparents, aunts, and uncles, which is central to their upbringing and identity,[45] Ms Qasim added that there would also clearly be a negative impact if the Applicant were removed and she remained alone in Australia, as her children would be unable to travel to visit him.
22. Ms Qasim said that the Applicant would not be happy to leave Australia, that Ms Qasim would not be happy for him to do so, that it would not be easy for her to move and start again and that, if the Applicant were removed, she would not move to Somalia or Kenya.
23. Ms Qasim said that the Applicant was a good father to their older daughter, playing with her, taking her to the park, and that they have a lovely father/daughter relationship.

Farhiyo Egal Ali's evidence (the Applicant's sister)

1. Ms Ali said that she came to Australia by herself as a 19-year-old on 24 November 2010.
2. Ms Ali said that she saw the Applicant every day before he was detained and lived 15 minutes away from him.
3. Ms Ali said that she was there 'from the start to the end' in relation to the Applicant's offending, that their family 'knew exactly everything' relating to his offending and that it been very hard for their family to see the Applicant in jail. When asked, Ms Ali said that she was aware of the Applicant's drink driving convictions but was not exactly sure how many there had been.
4. Ms Ali said that the Applicant was '100% remorseful' after he was released from jail in March 2020. Ms Ali said she told the Applicant that he needed to marry and be a father.
5. Ms Ali said that, in her view, the Applicant had not seriously offended since being married. Ms Ali said that the Applicant had not consumed alcohol since 2020, noting that he had had 'drinking issues' prior. Ms Ali said that the Applicant had wanted to stay in residential rehabilitation (beyond when he left) but his wife's visa had been approved and she had fallen pregnant straight after her arrival in Australia. Ms Ali also said that the Applicant had 'drug issues back in the day, maybe' but not for the last six years.
6. When asked, Ms Ali said that she did not know why the Applicant had offended, that he was young (when he did), under his friends' influence (noting he had not been in contact with these friends since prior to going to jail) and was taking drugs at the time.
7. When asked how the Tribunal should reconcile the fact that Ms Ali considers the Applicant has changed since he has had a family with the fact that he has offended a further three times during this time, Ms Ali said that she could not remember the Applicant's additional two drink driving convictions since 2022.
8. When asked about the Applicant's medical condition, Ms Ali said that the Applicant's school in New Zealand had said that the Applicant had a short memory and did not know what he was saying. Ms Ali said that the family did not act on that diagnosis and the Applicant did not take medication. Ms Ali said that the Applicant forgets things very quickly, does things too fast, does things you warn him about again, repeats his words, and that things slip out of his mind very quickly.
9. Ms Ali said that their family now has plans to help the Applicant beat his disorder and also to take the Applicant back to rehabilitation if he drinks again.
10. Ms Ali said that, if the Applicant is removed, he would not be able to survive in New Zealand, that his family is his whole life and that the Applicant told her when his visa was cancelled that, if he goes to New Zealand, he will kill himself. Ms Ali said that there is nothing there for the Applicant in New Zealand and that even their own family would not go back. Ms Ali said that the Applicant's skills are in mining and that it would not be easy for him to find a job in New Zealand. Ms Ali said that, 'mentally', the Applicant could not study more and that he is not good at reading.
11. Ms Ali said that their family was not providing for the Applicant financially prior to him going to detention but was providing for Ms Qasim and their children whilst the Applicant was in detention. Ms Ali said that doing so was not easy, giving the example that Ms Qasim had $8,000 owing to the hospital for the birth of her second daughter and that she (Ms Ali) had left her car unregistered for a period in order to pay this debt, in order to avoid debt collection.
12. Ms Ali said that one of the Applicant's daughters screams 'daddy' in her sleep and that the Applicant is still their father wherever he is. Ms Ali said that the Applicant's older daughter is a smart girl who knows when the Applicant has been drinking by the smell of it.
13. Ms Ali said that Ms Qasim is a 'kid' herself and not capable of leading her family independently, has no language skills, experience, or family in New Zealand and that neither she nor the Applicant would have any support there unless an adult went with them.
14. When asked if the Applicant could return to Kenya, Ms Ali said that it is not safe there like in New Zealand and Australia, the Applicant would have no job and noted that their second cousin had just been stabbed there. Ms Ali said that Somalia was 'way worse'.
15. Ms Ali said that she could be confident that the Applicant's family will stop him from offending in future because they will take him to work, to rehabilitation and to appointments for his disability. Ms Ali said that, in this regard, she does not know what the Applicant's diagnosis is or what medication was previously recommended, that no arrangements had been made just yet, though agreed that their family had already had years to look into or arrange this.

Fadumo Ali Mohamed's evidence (the Applicant's mother)

1. Ms Mohamed said that, when the Applicant was 4 years old, he fell on his head and suffered a huge injury. Ms Mohamed said that, six months later, they set off to New Zealand. Ms Mohamed said that the Applicant's school in New Zealand reported that he was 'not normal' and recommended he see a doctor.
2. Ms Mohamed said that the Applicant went to a cognitive testing place where a doctor examined him for three weeks. Ms Mohamed said the doctor told her the Applicant had 'mental barriers' but she could not recall the name of his diagnosis, referring to it as 'seriously short memory.' Ms Mohamed said that the Applicant took medication for a month, after which time their family could not see a change and stopped the medication on the recommendation of a Somali community member. Ms Mohamed said she could not recall the name of the medication.
3. Ms Mohamed said that the Applicant has a short memory, can't concentrate on his studies, or remember what he was told.
4. Ms Mohamed said that, in the future, she plans to take the Applicant to hospital and take the doctor's recommendations seriously. This change of heart has come from the fact that, when she took the advice of the aforementioned Somali community member, 'she did not have much experience.'

WHETHER THE DISCRETION IN SECTION 501(2) OF THE MIGRATION ACT TO CANCEL THE APPLICANT'S VISA SHOULD BE EXERCISED

1. The considerations relevant in the context of a cancellation decision under s 501(2) of the Migration Act are the five 'primary considerations' and the four 'other considerations.' The considerations are addressed in turn to determine whether the Tribunal's discretionary power pursuant to s 501(2) of the Migration Act is enlivened.
2. The Applicant contended that, even though he does not pass the character test, the discretion in s 501(2) of the Act should be exercised in his favour, on the basis that the third and fourth primary considerations - being the strength, nature and duration of his ties to Australia and the best interests of minor children in Australia - weigh determinatively in his favour.
3. The Respondent contended that the considerations that weigh very strongly in favour of the exercise of the discretion to cancel the visa are the first and fifth primary considerations - being the protection of the Australian community and the expectations of the Australian community - and that these considerations outweigh any primary or other considerations in favour of not cancelling the visa, namely the third and fourth primary considerations as mentioned above and the extent of impediments if removed consideration. The Respondent contends that, therefore, the discretionary power ought to be exercised to cancel the visa and the Reviewable Decision should be affirmed.
4. At the hearing, the Respondent also submitted that the Applicant's evidence was marked by inconsistencies, for example telling the Tribunal he had never returned to Somalia, then stating he had returned in 2017 to 2018 and telling the Tribunal he told his sister he wanted to go to Africa to get sober then stating that his sister had recommended this to him. The Respondent also gave the examples of:

(a) The Applicant's written evidence regarding his incoming passenger cards being inconsistent with his oral evidence. > > (b) The Applicant's evidence regarding his alcohol use. The Applicant's evidence that he did not drink prior to his imprisonment is inconsistent with his evidence that he would drink on special occasions when he was younger, and that alcohol had 'taken over his mind' and caused his offending. > > (c) The Applicant's evidence that he did not take the victim's iPhone, rather that his friend had done so and that he had struck the victim's boyfriend in self-defence is inconsistent with the Magistrate's remarks on these matters. > > (d) The Applicant's evidence regarding his offending in 2021 that he was stopped by a booze bus in the middle of the road is inconsistent with evidence under cross-examination that he had driven into a ditch.

5. The Applicant accepted that it was 'not 100% clear' when the Applicant drank alcohol or when he stopped using drugs.
6. The Respondent added that, with respect to the Applicant's mental condition, there was no formal diagnosis available regarding it nor any evidence of whether this condition played any role in his offending or of a treatment plan to decrease his risk of reoffending.
7. The Applicant accepted that there was 'not much evidence' nor a proper diagnosis of his intellectual impairment.
8. The Respondent submitted that these inconsistencies are relevant because they demonstrate:

(a) the Tribunal should not accept the Applicant is a changed man, as he claims, > > (b) the Applicant lacks credibility and says what is in his interests, > > and that, overall, the Applicant's lack of candour, risk of recidivism, and breaches of orders demonstrate a disrespect for the law such that the Tribunal ought to have no confidence that he will not continue to behave as he has done in the past.

First primary consideration: Protection of the Australian Community

1. The first primary consideration, paragraph 8.1(1), focuses on the protection of the Australian community.
2. Direction no. 110 requires decision-makers to keep in mind that 'the safety of the Australian community is the highest priority of the Australian Government' and, to that end 'the Government is committed to protecting the Australian community from harm as a result of criminal activity or other serious conduct by non-citizens'.[46] In this respect, the Tribunal is directed 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.[47]

3. Paragraph 8.1(2) of Direction no. 110 then provides that decision-makers should also give consideration to:

(b) the nature and seriousness of the non-citizen's conduct to date; and

(c) the risk to the Australian community should the non-citizen commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct.

1. The Tribunal must consider the nature and seriousness of the Applicant's criminal offending and other conduct[48] to date[49] by having regard to specific types of crimes or conduct which are 'viewed very seriously' by the Australian Government and the Australian community. The direction also provides that certain other crimes or conduct are considered to be serious. While there are categories of conduct to be considered to be very serious or serious, it does not limit the range of conduct that may be so regarded.[50]
2. Paragraph 8.1.1(1) of Direction no. 110 provides:

1. In considering the nature and seriousness of the non-citizen's criminal offending or other conduct to date, decision-makers must have regard to the following:

(a) without limiting the range of conduct that may be considered very serious, the types of crimes or conduct described below are viewed very seriously by the Australian Government and the Australian community: > > > (i) violent and/or sexual crimes; > > > > (ii) crimes of a violent and/or sexual nature against women or children, regardless of the sentence imposed; > > > > (iii) acts of violence, regardless of whether there is a conviction for an offence or a sentence imposed; > > (b) without limiting the range of conduct that may be considered serious, the types of crimes or conduct described below are considered by the Australian Government and the Australian community to be serious: > > > (i) causing a person to enter into or being party to a forced marriage (other than being a victim), regardless of whether there is a conviction for an offence or a sentence imposed; > > > > (ii) crimes committed against vulnerable members of the community (such as the elderly and the disabled), or government representatives or officials due to the position they hold, or in the performance of their duties; > > > > (iii) any conduct that forms the basis for a finding that a non-citizen does not pass an aspect of the character test that is dependent upon the decision-maker's opinion (for example, section 501(6)(c)); > > > > (iv) where the non-citizen is in Australia, a crime committed while the non-citizen was in immigration detention, during an escape from immigration detention, or after the non-citizen escaped from immigration detention, but before the non-citizen was taken into immigration detention again, [sic] or an offence against section 197A of the Act, which prohibits escape from immigration detention; > > (c) with the exception of the crimes or conduct mentioned in subparagraph (a)(ii), (a)(iii) or (b)(i) above, the sentence imposed by the courts for a crime or crimes; > > (d) the impact of the offending on any victims of offending or other conduct and their family, where information in this regard is available and the non-citizen whose visa is being considered for refusal or cancellation, or who has sought revocation of the mandatory cancellation of their visa, has been afforded procedural fairness; > > (e) the frequency of the non-citizen's offending and/or whether there is any trend of increasing seriousness; > > (f) the cumulative effect of repeated offending; > > (g) whether the non-citizen has provided false or misleading information to the Department, including by not disclosing prior criminal offending; > > (h) whether the non-citizen has re-offended since being formally warned, or since otherwise being made aware, in writing, about the consequences of further offending in terms of the non-citizen's migration status (noting that the absence of a warning should not be considered to be in the non-citizen's favour); > > (i) where the offence or conduct was committed in another country, whether that offence or conduct is classified as an offence in Australia.

3. The Applicant accepted that his offending history includes serious offences and asked the Tribunal to appreciate his journey (including the significant trauma he endured in his early life and his unmanaged addiction) and the 'transformation' that has since taken place.
4. The Applicant characterises his 2018 and 2019 offending as the 'very serious' offending that occurred during a 'discrete and identifiable crisis period', being a 'discrete and bounded period' and asked the Tribunal to adopt this characterisation.
5. Similarly, the Applicant emphasised that he has not committed any violent or aggravated offending since June 2022, marking a 'decisive break' from his previous pattern of offending and a demonstration of a genuine commitment to change.
6. The Applicant also referred to the three and a half year period between his drink driving offending in 2021 and 2022 and his most recent drink driving offence in December 2025 as the 'clean period,' and 'not the intervals of someone who is wholly undeterred,' submitting that the December 2025 offence should be assessed in the context of 'the extreme pressure the Applicant was under' and viewed as a 'relapse in an otherwise improving trajectory.'
7. The Applicant stressed that, taken as a whole, his offending history demonstrated a capacity for extended periods of non-reoffending and is properly characterised as serious 'but not at the highest level.'
8. The Respondent considered that the Applicant's offending and other conduct should be viewed as very serious, taking into account his offending history, his deliberate attempt to mislead the Department by failing to declare his convictions on his incoming passenger cards, and his prior awareness of the consequences of his further offending.
9. The Tribunal has considered the evidence and the parties' extensive oral and written submissions in relation to the nature and seriousness of the Applicant's offending conduct by reference to matters or considerations raised in paragraph 8.1.1 of Direction no. 110.[51]
10. The Tribunal regards the statement of facts and the sentencing transcript as accurate records of the facts of the Applicant's offending and accepts and has regard to these facts as recorded.
11. The Applicant's violent offending is very serious in nature and is one of the types of conduct that falls squarely within the conduct referred to in paragraph 8.1.1(1)(a)(i) of Direction no. 110. The Applicant's initial explanation for the assault charge involving the stolen iPhone was to deny his involvement and, even now, the Applicant describes his conduct in striking the victim's boyfriend as an act of self-defence when trying to remove his bag to break free.
12. The Applicant's offending was repetitive over a continuous period and is properly characterised as such. In the Tribunal's view, it matters not (as the Applicant has argued that it does) that the Applicant has not engaged in violent offending in more recent times as there is considerable authority to the effect that the Applicant's prior, subsequent, and repeated traffic offending and drink driving offending is regarding as serious despite not being expressly described as such by Direction no. 110. Similarly, the Applicant's offending is not a series of one-off mistakes that occurred during crisis periods or periods of stress, they reflect consistent patterns of behaviour, disregard for authority, ignorance for the property and safety of others, and an indifferent attitude.
13. The Applicant's offending involved conduct for which he was ultimately sentenced to a term of imprisonment, with all ten terms of imprisonment to be served concurrently. This conduct forms the basis of the finding that the Applicant did not pass the character test,[52] and is, in the Tribunal's view, probative of the overall seriousness of that offending conduct, noting that sentences involving terms of imprisonment are the last resort in the sentencing hierarchy.[53] In circumstances where the Applicant's December 2019 convictions were in breach of a suspended imprisonment order, the imposition of fines and the threat of imprisonment have not deterred him from further offending.
14. In relation to the frequency of the Applicant's offending and whether there is any increasing trend in seriousness,[54] the Applicant's offending consists of repeated patterns of offending and with complete disregard for his victims on each occasion. The cumulative effect of his offending is serious in the context of its frequency and the number of victims involved over time.[55]
15. In failing to declare his convictions on his incoming passenger cards, noting this occurred on two occasions, the Applicant has provided false and misleading information to the Department.[56] The Applicant also continued to offend, following being made aware that consideration was being given to the Visa being cancelled.[57]
16. There is no evidence, or claims made, that the Applicant committed crimes of a violent and/or sexual nature against women or children,[58] acts of family violence,[59] committed an offence in another country,[60] in relation to any of the matters set out in paragraphs 8.1.1(1)(b)(i), (ii) or (iv) of Direction no. 110 or on the impact of the Applicant's offending on any victims.[61]
17. Overall, the Tribunal finds that, applying Direction no. 110, the Applicant has a significant criminal record, as evidenced by the terms of imprisonment ordered, the total effective sentence imposed, and the serious and very serious nature of the offences committed, his violent offending being expressly identified as 'very serious' in Direction no. 110 by its very nature and in a number of respects.
18. Therefore, having regard to the evidence of which paragraph 8.1.1 of Direction no. 110 is relevant, and the comments and assessment on the offending in sentencing and by the courts generally, the Tribunal considers the Applicant's offending conduct to be very serious and weighs very heavily in favour of it exercising its discretionary power to cancel the visa.

Risk to the Australian community should the non-citizen commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct

1. The Tribunal must also consider the risk to the Australian community should the Applicant commit further offences. Paragraph 8.1.2 of Direction no. 110 states, in part:[62]

1. In considering the need to protect the Australian community (including individuals, groups or institutions) from harm, decision-makers should 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 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. 2. In assessing the risk that may be posed by the non-citizen to the Australian community, decision-makers must have regard to, cumulatively:

(a) the nature of the harm to individuals or the Australian community should the non-citizen engage in further criminal or other serious conduct; and > > (b) the likelihood of the non-citizen engaging in further criminal or other serious conduct, taking into account: > > > (i) information and evidence on the risk of the non­citizen re-offending; and > > > > (ii) evidence of rehabilitation achieved by the time of the decision, giving weight to time spent in the community since their most recent offence (noting that decisions should not be delayed in order for rehabilitative courses to be undertaken). ...

2. This requires an assessment of the nature of the harm should the Applicant engage in further criminal or other serious conduct.[63] It also requires an assessment of the likelihood of the Applicant engaging in such conduct.[64]
3. There is no statutory constraint on the way that risk is assessed by the decision-maker other than that there must be a rational and probative basis for the assessment.[65]

1. In order to determine the risk to the Australian community should the Applicant commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct, the Tribunal must consider the nature of the harm to individuals or the Australian community, should the Applicant reoffend.
2. The Respondent submitted that, should the Applicant reoffend in a similar way, this could involve significant physical, financial, and psychological harm to members of the community, noting that offences such as driving under the influence of alcohol and assault have the potential to cause great harm to members of the Australian community.
3. The Applicant made a number of responsive claims regarding the nature of the harm should the Applicant reoffend, namely:

(a) While he does not dispute further violent and drink driving offending has the potential to cause severe injury, death, and psychological harm, the relevant assessment of harm relates to that which would flow from the Applicant's specific offending conduct, not any offence in that same broad category. > > > (i) The Tribunal disagrees. Paragraph 8.1.2(2)(a) of Direction No. 110 refers to 'further criminal or other serious conduct', not further criminal or other serious conduct already engaged in by the Applicant. To imply otherwise, in any event, would invite a restrictive interpretation of that paragraph where there is no indication in the words of that paragraph or elsewhere. > > (b) The Applicant's drink driving offending, to date, did not result in the potential harm identified, namely potential to cause severe injury, death, and psychological harm. > > > (i) The Tribunal views there to be nothing in Direction No. 110 or elsewhere to indicate that this is relevant. > > (c) Assessing the nature of the harm in combination with the risk of reoffending, not in isolation, is the proper approach and gives the result the Applicant's risk to the community is manageable and not such as to require the extreme and irreversible consequence of permanent removal from Australia. > > > (i) Whilst the Tribunal agrees that cumulative regard must be had in this context, it disagrees with the resulting assessment proposed by the Applicant.

4. In the Tribunal's view, should the Applicant commit further similar offences, this would further result in very serious harm that may cause considerable and widespread psychological, physical, and financial harm to members of the Australian community.

Likelihood of the non-citizen engaging in further criminal or serious conduct

1. In order to determine the risk to the Australian community should the Applicant commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct, the Tribunal must also consider the likelihood of the Applicant reoffending if he were permitted to remain in the Australian community.[66]
2. The Applicant submitted that the likelihood of him reoffending is minimal and manageable due to the following factors, which he identified as 'critical':

(a) His fundamental shift in priorities, having become a devoted husband and father. > > > (i) The Tribunal notes the Applicant indeed continued to offend whilst a husband and father and, in the context of the present consideration, removed himself from his residential rehabilitation just prior to his wife's arrival in Australia. > > (b) The Applicant's efforts to distance himself from negative peer groups and fully embrace the guidance of his family network in Australia. > > > (i) Again, the Applicant's evidence was that he did not see his negative peers since his 2018/2019 offending and has had his family available to him at all times yet continued to offend. Therefore, these efforts cannot be considered to have been effective and the Tribunal does not view the Applicant's available family support as a protective factor. > > (c) The Applicant's offending profile has shifted from violent property offending to a single, isolated traffic lapse, also referred to as an 'unfortunate setback' indicating he is no longer a physical threat to the community. > > > (i) For reasons stated above, the Tribunal marks no distinction between the Applicant's types of offending at various times, or whether the potential harm is physical or psychological, for example, only noting that it comprised serious offending in a continuum, not in isolation. The Applicant also refers to this recent traffic offence as following a difficult period of personal stress. This raises further concern as to how the Applicant will react to further life stresses in future and whether he has the propensity to offend when faced with such stress. > > (d) The Applicant's previous employment has demonstrated a genuine commitment to contributing positively to the Australian community. > > > (i) While the Tribunal broadly accepts this proposition, it considers the Applicant's employment endeavours and the manner in which he was receiving his overall income in more recent times lacks clarity. > > (e) The Applicant ought to be afforded a higher level of tolerance in circumstances where he arrived in Australia as a child. > > > (i) The Tribunal gives this matter due consideration under the third primary consideration.

3. The Respondent rejected the Applicant's submission that the likelihood of him reoffending is minimal and manageable and, rather, he presents at the very least with a real and likely risk of reoffending for the following reasons:

(a) The Applicant's 'lapse' indicates he is an ongoing risk to the community and the Tribunal can have no confidence that this lapse will not be repeated nor that it will not lead to other offending. His children did not deter him from drinking on the most recent occasion. > > (b) Evidence of his having seen a psychologist and of his having entered residential rehabilitation has not been provided. In any event, 12 months later, the Applicant was charged with another drink driving offence, adding weight to the conclusion that his rehabilitation is incomplete. > > (c) The Applicant has reoffended despite being the suspect of bail, a suspended imprisonment order, and after having served a full-time imprisonment sentence, indicating a sustained disregard for the law and an unwillingness to avail himself of opportunities to rehabilitate while in the community. > > > (i) In this regard, the Applicant directed the Tribunal to the fact that the Applicant participated in residential rehabilitation at Cyrenian House. Whilst this is true, the Applicant did not complete the program, by his own evidence still requires further rehabilitation, and continued to offend in any event.

4. Having reviewed the parties' submissions and evidence, the Tribunal notes the Respondent's submissions in agreement and makes the following additional remarks and findings:

(a) The Tribunal considers that the Applicant, even now, has the tendency to minimise his culpability, for example denying taking the stolen phone, denying using the credit card details found on his phone, stating that his cognitive condition is such that 'people get into his head' and the 'idea of what is right falls away.' This demonstrates that the Applicant has limited insight into his offending, has not taken responsibility for his actions, and that he still struggles with impulse control. Further, in relation to the credit card fraud, the sentencing Magistrate remarked that this offence involved some planning, indicating that the Applicant is not always just doing as he's told under peer influence as he claims. > > (b) The Applicant stated he would consider going to back to rehabilitation if released. There is no evidence to corroborate his potential plan to return and, indeed on the first occasion, he left residential rehabilitation prior to completing it. > > (c) The Applicant has been given multiple opportunities to demonstrate his ability to no longer engage in offending conduct and continued to do so even when he was subject to a suspended sentence and even after he was issued with a NOICC setting out that cancellation of the Visa was being considered. > > (d) There is no evidence before the Tribunal as to how the Applicant's drug use affected or contributed towards his offending, and/or how his abstention from drug use serves to decrease his risk of reoffending (if indeed that is the case). > > (e) The Applicant's submission that he has rid himself of negative peer influence after his 2018/2019 offending and that he only associated with family cannot be reconciled with the fact that his friend blew into the alcohol interlock of the car the Applicant was driving after a party in 2022. In any event, the Applicant's family has not served as an effective protective factor in the past.

5. In light of the above, the Tribunal finds that there is a high risk that the Applicant will reoffend in a similar manner. The Tribunal considers this risk is unacceptable in circumstances where the harm to the community presented by the Applicant's offending is significant.

Conclusion on the protection of the Australian community

1. Having regard to the nature and seriousness of the Applicant's offending and conduct, and to the risk to the Australian community should the Applicant commit further offences or other serious conduct, the Tribunal finds that the protection of the Australian community consideration weighs very heavily in favour of it exercising its discretionary power to cancel the visa.

Second primary consideration: Family violence committed by the non-citizen

1. Paragraph 8.2 of Direction no. 110 provides that decision-makers, such as the Tribunal, must have regard to family violence perpetrated by the non-citizen when deciding whether to revoke a visa cancellation decision.
2. There is no evidence before the Tribunal to suggest that the Applicant has engaged in acts of family violence. The parties agree. Accordingly, the Tribunal considers that this consideration is not relevant to the Applicant's case and weighs neutrally.

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

1. This consideration requires the Tribunal to have regard to the strength, nature and duration of the Applicant's ties to Australia. Paragraph 8.3 of Direction no. 110 provides that:

1. Decision-makers must consider any impact of the decision on the non-citizen's immediate family members in Australia, where those family members are Australian citizens, Australian permanent residents, or people who have a right to remain in Australia indefinitely. 2. Where consideration is being given to whether to cancel a non-citizen's visa or whether to revoke the mandatory cancellation of their visa, the decision-maker must also consider the strength, nature and duration of any other ties that the non-citizen has to the Australian community. In doing so, decision-makers must have regard to:

(a) how long the non-citizen has resided in Australia, including whether the non-citizen arrived as a young child, noting that: > > > (i) less weight should be given where the non-citizen began offending soon after arriving in Australia; and > > > > (ii) more weight should be given to time the non-citizen has spent contributing positively to the Australian community > > (b) the strength, duration and nature of any family or social links with Australian citizens, Australian permanent residents and/or people who have an indefinite right to remain in Australia.

2. The Applicant arrived in Australia in 2010, when he was 12 years old, has resided in the Australian community for approximately 16 years, completed the majority of his schooling in Australia and has an employment history in mining. The Applicant also spent a year in Kenya.
3. The Applicant's immediate family members in Australia are his wife and daughters, his parents, siblings, nieces, and nephews.
4. The Applicant's wife holds a subclass 461 visa, which is a temporary visa. Hence, any impacts in relation to her do not fall for consideration under paragraph 8.3 of Direction no. 110 as she is not a family member who is an Australian citizen, an Australian permanent resident, or a person who has the right to remain in Australia indefinitely.[67] The Applicant's argument that Ms Qasim is eligible to apply for successive subclass 461 visas if she wishes has no bearing on this finding.
5. The Applicant submitted that the strength, nature and duration of the Applicant's ties to Australia are extraordinary and to sever him from this from large, loving, and law-abiding family network would be to 'amputate a vital limb from a living organism' that would have a 'devastating ripple effect' on his two daughters. The Applicant submitted that he completed his schooling in Australia and contributed meaningfully through his employment. The Applicant submitted that this 'recent traffic lapse' does not diminish the reality that his heart, family, and future are exclusively Australian.
6. The Respondent accepts there will be an adverse impact on members of the Applicant's immediate and extended family if his visa were to remain cancelled.
7. Having considered the available evidence and the parties' submissions on the matter, the Tribunal finds that the strength, nature and duration of ties consideration weighs moderately against the exercise of its discretionary power to cancel the Applicant's visa, because:

(a) The Applicant has lived in Australia since 2010, arriving at the age of 12. > > (b) The Applicant began offending six years later and has continued to offend through to December 2025. > > (c) The Applicant has been employed in Australia, however his employment and overall income source has been unclear in more recent years and it is unclear whether he would have a job available to him if he were to remain in Australia. > > (d) The Tribunal accepts the Applicant's immediate and extended family are close-knit. > > (e) The Tribunal accepts the Applicant's written submissions, and the letters of support from family members, that he had a close relationship with his immediate family members and those family members who fall within the scope of paragraph 8.3(1) of Direction no. 110 would be negatively impacted by his removal.

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

1. Paragraph 8.4 of Direction no. 110 requires the Tribunal to consider the best interests of minor children in Australia affected by the decision. Under paragraph 8.4, the Tribunal 'must make a determination about whether cancellation or refusal under s 501... is, or is not, in the best interests of' children who are under the age of 18 at the time the decision is expected to be made.[68] Where there are 'two or more relevant children, the best interests of each child should be given individual consideration to the extent that their interests might differ'.[69]
2. Paragraph 8.4(4) of Direction no. 110 goes on to outline the factors that a decision-maker must consider when determining the best interests of a child affected by the decision where relevant. Those factors include:[70]

(a) the nature and duration of the relationship between the child and the non-citizen. Less weight should generally be given where the relationship is non-parental, and/or there is no existing relationship and/or there have been long periods of absence, or limited meaningful contact (including whether an existing Court order restricts contact);

(b) the extent to which the non-citizen is likely to play a positive parental role in the future, taking into account the length of time until the child turns 18, and including any court orders relating to parental access and care arrangements;

(c) the impact of the non-citizen's prior conduct, and any likely future conduct, and whether that conduct has, or will have a negative impact on the child;

(d) the likely effect that any separation from the non-citizen would have on the child, taking into account the child's or non-citizen's ability to maintain contact in other ways;

(e) whether there are other persons who already fulfil a parental role in relation to the child;

(f) any known views of the child (with those views being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child);

(g) evidence that the child has been, or is at risk of being, subject to, or exposed to, family violence perpetrated by the non-citizen, or has otherwise been abused or neglected by the non-citizen in any way, whether physically, sexually or mentally; [and]

(h) evidence that the child has suffered or experienced any physical or emotional trauma arising from the non-citizen's conduct.

1. The Applicant is the father of two minor age daughters, aged 2 and a half years, and 4 months, respectively. The Applicant's older daughter was born in Kenya and is a New Zealand citizen by decent. The Applicant's younger daughter was born in Australia.
2. The Tribunal has considered the best interests of the Applicant's daughters together, to the extent that joint consideration ought to be given.[71]
3. The Tribunal accepts that the best interests of the Applicant's minor age daughters are for the Applicant to remain in Australia. This is based on the available evidence regarding his fulfilling a meaningful and involved parental role in their lives,[72] other than when he has been imprisoned and detained, and also taking into account that his older daughter spent her first year of life in Kenya.
4. Despite his significant offending, the Tribunal accepts the Applicant would generally play a positive parental role in future,[73] if he continues targeted drug and alcohol rehabilitation to address his unmet treatment needs and that separation from his daughters would have a negative impact on them, despite the ability to stay in contact via electronic means.[74]
5. The Tribunal also notes that, currently, the Applicant's daughter's needs are met by their mother, with the assistance of his extended family. While the Applicant has canvassed the argument that this assistance would cease if the Applicant were removed, this is wholly inconsistent with the evidence regarding the close relationship enjoyed between his daughters and their grandparents and other family members, including the Applicant's sister, Ms Ali.

1. The Applicant is the uncle of seven minor age nieces and nephews, to whom his relationship is non-parental, that role being fulfilled by their parents.[75] The Tribunal has considered the best interests of the Applicant's nieces and nephews together, as, in the present matter, there is no evidence to suggest that individual consideration ought to be given.[76]
2. While the Tribunal accepts the Applicant has a close relationship with his nieces and nephews, it also notes their parents have not referred to the Applicant's relationship with their children as being negatively impacted by his removal, and contact could be maintained by other means.[77]
3. Overall, the Tribunal finds that the best interests of the minor children identified by the Applicant weighs heavily against the exercise of its discretionary power to cancel the Applicant's visa.

Fifth primary consideration: Expectations of the Australian Community

1. The fifth primary consideration requires the Tribunal to weigh the expectations of the Australian community. Paragraph 8.5(1) of Direction no. 110 provides that:

[t]he 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.

2. Paragraph 8.5(2) of Direction no. 110 directs that:

... visa cancellation or refusal, or non-revocation of the mandatory cancellation of a visa, may be appropriate simply because the nature of the character concerns or offences is such that the Australian community would expect that the person should not be granted or continue to hold a visa. In particular, the Australian community expects that the Australian Government can and should refuse entry to non-citizens, or cancel their visas, if they raise serious character concerns through conduct, in Australia or elsewhere, of [particular kinds].

3. The paragraph directs that, in particular, the Australian community expects that the Australian Government should cancel a non-citizen's visa if they raise serious character concerns through specific conduct listed in paragraphs 8.5(2)(a)-(f) of Direction no. 110. Those particularised types of harm generally reflect the types of conduct identified in paragraphs 8.1.1(a)-(b) as conduct which is considered 'very serious' or 'serious'.
4. Paragraph 8.5(3) of Direction no. 110 further confirms that the stated 'expectations apply regardless of whether the non-citizen poses a measureable [sic] risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community'. In doing so, paragraph 8.5(3) arguably further qualifies the 'norm' expressed in paragraph 8.5(1), which refers to the 'unacceptable risk' of conduct being engaged in. This makes it clear that a 'measureable [sic] risk' of physical harm to the community is not required for the community expectation that the non-citizen not hold a visa to be engaged, where serious character concerns are raised through the person's conduct or offending.[78]
5. Paragraph 8.5(4) of Direction no. 110 directs that:

[t]his consideration is about the expectations of the Australian community as a whole, and in this respect, decision-makers should proceed on the basis of the Government's views as articulated above [in para 8.5], without independently assessing the community's expectations in the particular case.

6. This consideration will, in most cases, weigh in favour of exercising the power to cancel a visa if that expectation has been breached, or if there is an unacceptable risk that it may be breached in the future.
7. However, it remains for the Tribunal to determine the appropriate weight to be given to this consideration. This will depend on the Tribunal's assessment of the totality of the relevant considerations, including the primary and other considerations.
8. In weighing this consideration, the Tribunal is also guided by the principles in paragraph 5.2 of Direction no. 110.

(a) Paragraph 5.2(2) states that 'the safety of the Australian Community is the highest priority of the Australian Government';

(b) Paragraph 5.2(3) directs that the Applicant, having engaged in criminal conduct, 'should expect to... forfeit the privilege of staying in Australia';

(c) Paragraph 5.2(4) expresses a principle similar to paragraph 8.5(3) with respect to serious character concerns and makes it clear that those concerns are not restricted to circumstances where there is a measurable risk of physical harm to the Australian community;

(d) Paragraph 5.2(5) states that 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; and

(e) Paragraph 5.2(6) states that, 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.

1. In relation to the expectations of the Australian community, the Tribunal has considered the parties' submissions in light of the available evidence and makes the following comments and findings, including the Applicant's argument that a higher level of tolerance ought to be observed in circumstances where the Applicant arrived in Australia at the age of 10.
2. The Applicant identified a number of additional considerations or external factors that he claimed serve to mitigate the Australian community's expectation that a visa ought to remain cancelled in circumstances where a non-citizen has engaged in serious conduct in breach of the expectation to obey Australian laws while in Australia or where there is an unacceptable risk they may do so.[79] The Tribunal does not consider that, in the present matter, any of these considerations or external factors identified by the Applicant serve this purpose.
3. In light of the objective seriousness of the Applicant's offending, the Tribunal finds that the expectations of the Australian community consideration weighs very heavily in favour of it exercising its discretionary power to cancel the visa.

Legal consequences of decision under section 501 or 501CA

1. The Tribunal is required to consider the legal consequences of a decision on a non-citizen, including having regard to Australia's non-refoulement obligations in respect of unlawful non-citizens.[80]
2. While this consideration in Direction no. 110 refers to non-refoulement obligations, it also makes reference to detention and removal, highlighting that there are a range of legal consequences of a decision to cancel an applicant's visa. The consequences of a visa refusal or cancellation under s 501 or related provisions include:

(a) Unlawful status; > > (b) The likelihood of becoming subject to detention and/or removal;[81] > > (c) Refusal of other visa applications and cancellation of other visas;[82] > > (d) A prohibition on applying for other visas;[83] and > > (e) Periods of exclusion and special return criteria may apply.[84]

3. Generally, if a visa is cancelled, its former holder becomes an unlawful non-citizen immediately after cancellation.[85] Under s 189 of the Migration Act, the Applicant must be detained and removed as soon as reasonably practicable under s 198.[86]
4. The Tribunal has considered the parties' oral and written submissions on this consideration.
5. The Applicant is not a person who is the subject of a protection finding and has not made any claims that he has personally engaged Australia's non-refoulement obligations in relation to New Zealand.
6. Generally, if a visa is cancelled, its former holder becomes an unlawful non-citizen immediately after cancellation.[87] Under s 189 of the Migration Act, the Applicant must be detained and removed as soon as reasonably practicable under s 198.[88]
7. The Applicant submitted that a consequence of the Visa remaining cancelled is that he will be subject to a permanent prohibition from applying for most types of visas to Australia as he would be unable to meet the special return criteria imposed under section 503 and Schedule 5 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (the Regulations).[89]
8. The Applicant holds no other visas and has not expressed an intention to apply for any other type of visa.
9. The Applicant also contended that:

(a) The Tribunal should consider the legal consequences of cancellation on his wife's visa. > > > (i) The cancellation of the visa has no bearing on the Applicant's wife's visa and the impact on her visa (which is nil) is not a legal consequence. > > (b) His wife's possible removal to Kenya or Somalia raises serious concerns regarding Australia's non-refoulement obligation as she is a recognised refugee. > > > (i) Again, the decision in the present matter has no direct or immediate consequence on Ms Qasim's visa and, further, any decision has no bearing on her status and she could apply for a protection visa.

10. The Tribunal acknowledges the legal consequences of a decision to cancel the visa. As the effect of cancellation is considered under the third and fourth primary considerations and the 'extent of impediments if removed' consideration, the Tribunal considers this consideration should be given neutral weight.

1. Paragraph 9.2 of Direction no. 110 provides that, taking into account the matters identified in paragraphs 9.2(1)(a)-(c) of Direction no. 110, the Tribunal must consider the extent to which the Applicant would face an impediment or impediments in establishing himself and maintaining basic living standards in the context of what is generally available to other citizens of that country.
2. The matters identified under paragraphs 9.2(1)(a)-(c) are:

(a) the [Applicant's] age and health; > > (b) whether there are substantial language or cultural barriers; and > > (c) any social, medical, and/or economic support available to [the Applicant] in their country.

3. The Tribunal is satisfied that the extent of impediments if removed consideration weighs slightly against the exercise of the discretion to cancel the Applicant's visa, for the following reasons:

(a) The Applicant is 28 years old. > > (b) The Applicant has lived in Australia since he was 12 years old. > > (c) Australia and New Zealand share similar cultures and have the same national language, such that the Applicant's submission that he will suffer language and cultural barriers cannot be accepted. > > (d) The Applicant submitted he lacks transferable skills and that his work history is tied to Australia such that his ability to find work or pursue further education in New Zealand would be severely limited. The Tribunal considers that the Applicant's trade qualifications and work experience hold him in a position he would be likely to find employment, noting he has worked in Australia from time to time. > > (e) The Applicant submitted this his health, namely his 'diagnosed intellectual impairment' is a critical factor in his ability to reestablish himself if removed, stating that this significantly affects his executive functioning and ability to manage complex tasks. Hence, he needs the support of his family in Australia to help him navigate daily life, and to live without this support in New Zealand would pose a grave risk to his basic standard of living and leave him vulnerable to exploitation or neglect. The Tribunal considers that organisations such as Te Pa would assist him in this regard and without any independent medical evidence of the real nature of the extent of the Applicant's impairment, it is presently unclear as to what assistance would be required. The Tribunal also noted in this context that the Applicant lived in Kenya for one year without his extended family and shares the Respondent's viewpoint that his claimed inability to survive in New Zealand without family has an 'air of unreality' to it. > > (f) While the Tribunal generally accepts the Applicant's arguments regarding the psychological impact of removal on his wife, children, and extended family, if the Applicant's wife and children chose to remain in Australia, particularly with Ms Qasim being reliant on the Applicant in many respects, Ms Qasim is not prevented from exploring her visa options in New Zealand and, indeed, one of the Applicant's daughters is a New Zealand citizen. At the hearing, Ms Qasim was unable to give a conclusive answer regarding her plans in this respect.

1. Paragraph 9.3 of Direction no. 110 states:
   1. 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.
2. The Applicant did not suggest that his removal from Australia would adversely impact Australian business interests. Similarly, the Respondent contended there did not appear to be any impact on the interest of Australian businesses.[90]
3. There is no evidence the Applicant is involved in the delivery of a major project or important service in Australia that would impact any Australian business interests.[91]
4. As such, the Tribunal considers this consideration weighs neutral in the Applicant's case. The parties agree.[92]

1. The Applicant does not pass the character test under s 501(6) of the Migration Act.
2. Section 501(2) of the Migration Act provides the Tribunal can make a decision about whether to exercise the power to cancel the visa.
3. The Tribunal has therefore considered whether the discretion in s 501(2) of the Migration Act to cancel the Applicant's visa should be exercised, having regard to the primary and relevant other considerations in Direction no. 110.
4. Paragraph 7 of Direction no. 110 sets out the way in which the relevant considerations are to be taken into account and weighed.
5. There has been extensive judicial consideration on how the exercise of balancing and weighing the considerations contained in the relevant Ministerial Directions is to be undertaken (considering a number of Ministerial Directions preceding Direction no. 110).
6. Relevantly, the Full Court of the Federal Court considered the operation of Direction No. 90 in CRNL v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs.[93] While the Court was considering Direction No. 90, its observations would apply to Direction no. 110. The Court found that the Tribunal must weigh and balance the various primary and other relevant considerations outlined in the Direction (in this case Direction no. 110) against each other as 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.[94]
7. In determining the weight to be applied to each consideration, the Tribunal has considered all the primary and other considerations and weighed them in light of the evidence and findings and according to the guidance provided by Direction no. 110. The Tribunal has ascribed weight to each of the primary and other considerations under Direction no. 110 and explained the basis upon which it has assessed the weight to be given to each consideration.
8. The Tribunal has gone on to compare and balance all of the considerations to determine whether to exercise its discretionary power to cancel the visa.
9. The Tribunal found that the protection of the Australian community consideration weighs in favour of it exercising its discretionary power to cancel the visa and affords the consideration very heavy weight.
10. The Tribunal found that the consideration of family violence weighs neutrally.
11. The strength, nature and duration of the Applicant's ties to Australia consideration weighs against the Tribunal exercising its discretionary power to cancel the visa. The Tribunal finds moderate weight should be afforded to that consideration in the present matter.
12. The best interests of the minor children identified as being impacted by the decision weigh against the Tribunal exercising its discretionary power to cancel the visa. Overall, the Tribunal considers heavy weight should be afforded to this consideration in the Applicant's circumstances.
13. The expectations of the Australian community consideration weighs very heavily in favour of the Tribunal exercising its discretionary power to cancel the visa.
14. In relation to the relevant 'other considerations' identified in Direction no. 110, the Tribunal finds that:

(a) the legal consequences of the decision consideration weighs neutrally in the Applicant's case; > > (b) the extent of impediments if removed consideration weighs slightly against the Tribunal exercising its discretionary power to cancel the visa; > > (c) the impact on Australian business interests consideration weighs neutrally in the Applicant's circumstances, for the reasons given.

15. Having weighed the considerations in favour of the Tribunal exercising its discretionary power to cancel the visa against those against the Tribunal exercising this power, the Tribunal finds that:

(a) The first and fifth primary considerations weigh very heavily in favour of the Tribunal exercising its discretionary power to cancel the visa. > > (b) The second primary consideration weighs neutrally. > > (c) The third primary consideration weighs moderately against the Tribunal exercising its discretionary power to cancel the visa. > > (d) The fourth primary consideration weighs heavily against the Tribunal exercising its discretionary power to cancel the visa. > > (e) The extent of impediments if removed consideration weighs slightly against the Tribunal exercising its discretionary power to cancel the visa. > > (f) The two remaining other considerations carry neutral weight.

16. The Tribunal also emphasises that the considerations are not hierarchical - one or more primary considerations may outweigh other primary considerations.[95]
17. Paragraph 7(2) of Direction no. 110 states that primary considerations should generally be given greater weight than the other considerations. Further, it states that primary consideration 8.1 (protection of the Australian community) is generally to be given greater weight than other primary considerations.
18. Nothing before the Tribunal would cause it to find that this general principle should not apply in the Applicant's case.
19. Having weighed the primary and other considerations against each other, the Tribunal is satisfied that appropriate weight has been assigned to each of them.
20. Particularly, the Tribunal is satisfied that the circumstances of the Applicant's case warrant the very heavy weight placed on the first and fifth primary considerations. Those circumstances being:

(a) the very serious views taken by the Australian Government and the Australian community in relation to violent crimes.[96] > > (b) the Australian community expects the Australian Government to cancel the visas of those persons who do not obey Australian laws and of those persons who raise serious character concerns.[97]

21. Therefore, while the considerations weighing against the Tribunal exercising its discretionary power to cancel the visa are greater in number to those weighing in favour of the Tribunal exercising its discretionary power, the Tribunal is satisfied that the very heavy weight afforded to the first and fifth primary considerations gives the result that they carry, overall, far greater weight than the considerations weighing in favour of the Tribunal exercising its discretionary power to cancel the visa.
22. In summary, having regard to all of the primary considerations and other considerations in Direction no. 110, the Tribunal is satisfied that it should exercise its discretionary power conferred by s 501(2) of the Migration Act to cancel the visa.
23. The correct or preferable decision is to affirm the Reviewable Decision.

1. For the reasons given above, the Tribunal's decision dated 2 April 2026 was:

The decision of the delegate of the Respondent dated 1 October 2025, to exercise the discretion to cancel the Applicant's Class TY Subclass 444 Special Category (Temporary) visa under section 501(2) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) is affirmed.

I certify that the preceding 250 (two hundred and fifty) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of General Member Lana Gallagher

...............................[SGD].........................................

[1] See Khalil v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCAFC 151; (2019) 271 FCR 326, [41], [48].

[8] This offence occurred on 26 December 2025.

[19] Direction no. 110, Part 1, sections 2-3.

[20] Direction no. 110, Part 1, para 5.1(4).

[21] Direction no. 110 section 8.

[22] Direction no. 110 section 9.

[23] Re Harrison and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2009] AATA 47; (2009) 106 ALD 666 at 685 [63].

[24] As noted on the cover page to these reasons, the Tribunal's decision was made within the 84-day period after the day on which the Applicant was properly notified of the Reviewable Decision, in accordance with s 501G of the Migration Act, which ended on 16 February 2026.

[29] For which he was convicted on 4 December 2019; R1, HB 41.

[34] For which he was convicted on 29 January 2026. R1, HB 435.

[39] Referring to a New Zealand Citizen Family Relationship (subclass 461) visa.

[46] Direction no. 110, paragraph 8.1(1).

[47] Direction no. 110, paragraph 8.1(1).

[48] For completeness, the Tribunal notes there is no 'other conduct' to date that falls for consideration in this matter.

[49] Direction no. 110, paragraph 8.1(1).

[50] Direction no. 110, paragraph 8.1.1(1)(a).

[51] Exhibit R1, Document 1 [40] to [54] and Document 2 [17] to [25].

[52] Direction no. 110, paragraph 8.1.1(1)(b)(iii).

[53] Direction no. 110, paragraph 8.1.1(1)(c).

[54] Direction no. 110, paragraph 8.1.1(1)(e).

[55] Direction no. 110, paragraph 8.1.1(1)(f).

[56] Direction no. 110, paragraph 8.1.1(1)(g).

[57] Direction no. 110, paragraph 8.1.1(1)(h).

[58] Direction no. 110, paragraph 8.1.1(1)(a)(ii).

[59] Direction no. 110, paragraph 8.1.1(1)(a)(iii).

[60] Direction no. 110, paragraph 8.1.1(i).

[61] Direction no. 110, paragraph 8.1.1(d).

[62] See also Direction no. 110, paragraph 8.1(2)(b).

[63] Direction no. 110, paragraph 8.1.2(2)(a).

[64] Direction no. 110, paragraph 8.1.2(2)(b).

[65] See BSJ16 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCA 1181, [68] (Moshinsky J); Hambledon v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 7, [41] (Kenny J).

[66] Direction no. 110, paragraph 8.1.2(2)(b).

[67] These impacts would fall for consideration under the 'other considerations' to the extent they are advanced by the Applicant.

[68] Direction no. 110, paragraph 8.4(1)-(2).

[69] Direction no. 110, paragraph 8.4(3).

[70] Direction no. 110, paragraphs 8.4(4)(a)-(h).

[71] Direction no. 110, paragraphs 8.4(3).

[72] Direction no. 110, paragraph 8.4(4)(a).

[73] Direction no. 110, paragraph 8.4(4)(b).

[74] Direction no. 110, paragraph 8.4(4)(d).

[75] Direction no. 110, paragraph 8.4(4)(a) and (e).

[76] Direction no. 110, paragraph 8.4(3).

[77] Direction no. 110, paragraph 8.4(4)(d).

[78] The Tribunal is also guided by the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia in FYBR v Minister for Home Affairs (2019) 272 FCR 454 and Deputy President Boyle in Wightman and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2021] AATA 1208, [86]-[87].

[79] R1, HB 231 and 232, [4.55] to [4.60].

[81] Migration Act, ss 189, 196, 197C, 198.

[82] Migration Act, s 501F.

[83] Migration Act, s 501E.

[84] Migration Act, s 503; Special Return Criteria 5001.

[85] Migration Act, s 15.

[86] The Court in BHL19 v Commonwealth of Australia (No 2) [2022] FCA 313 followed AJL20 v Commonwealth of Australia [2020] FCA 1305, [112]-[122] to find the Applicant's detention had at all times been lawful.

[87] Migration Act, s 15.

[88] The Court in BHL19 v Commonwealth of Australia (No 2) [2022] FCA 313 followed AJL20 v Commonwealth of Australia [2020] FCA 1305, [112]-[122] to find the Applicant's detention had at all times been lawful.

[89] The Applicant also referred to s 501F of the Regulations, which has no application in the present matter.

[90] Exhibit R1, Document HB3(a) [58].

[93] [2023] FCAFC 138.

[96] Para 8.1.1(1)(a) of Direction no. 110.

[97] See Para 8.5 of Direction no. 110.