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

MIGRATION - review of decision refusing to revoke a mandatory visa cancellation - Applicant is stateless - born in Kuwait - cancellation of Class BB Subclass 155 Five Year Resident Return visa - multiple convictions over a 20 year period including for driving and traffic offences, one drug-related offence, offences involving violence including assaults against women, including in a domestic violence context, breaching orders or conditions, attempts to pervert or perverting the course of justice, obstructing police officers and dishonesty and disorderly conduct - Applicant has served several terms of imprisonment - most recently Applicant was incarcerated for two years and five months and was released nine days before the substantive hearing - Applicant accepts that he does not pass the good character test - whether there is another reason to revoke the cancellation decision - context of mental health conditions and previous issues involving excessive consumption of alcohol - post-traumatic stress disorder-related symptoms, anxiety, depression and insomnia - extensive network of family living in Australia - Tribunal has taken into account the mandatory considerations under Ministerial Direction No.110 - decision under review affirmed

Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth)

Migration Act 1958 (Cth)

Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth)

Migration Amendment (Bridging Visas) Regulations 2024

Direction no. 110 - Visa refusal and cancelation under section 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under section 501CA ('Ministerial Direction No.110')

NZYQ v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] HCA 37 (S28/2023)

1. On 14 December 2025, Mr Attalah Ghazy Fahd Al Defeary ('Mr Al Defeary') has lodged an application with the Administrative Review Tribunal ('Tribunal')[1] seeking review of a decision made on 8 December 2025 by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship ('Minister') under s 501CA of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ('Migration Act') ('Decision Under Review'),[2] not to revoke an earlier decision made under s 501(3A) of the Migration Act on 28 August 2024 to cancel his Australian Class BB Subclass 155 Five Year Resident Return visa ('Visa') as a consequence of having been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of more than 12 months ('Cancellation Decision').[3] Specifically, the delegate was not satisfied that Mr Al Defeary passes the character test as defined by s 501 of the Migration Act, nor satisfied that there is another reason why the Cancellation Decision should be revoked. Accordingly, the delegate decided that the power in s 501CA(4) of the Migration Act is not enlivened and that Mr Al Defeary's Visa is to remain cancelled.
2. Mr Al Defeary signed a document on 11 December 2025 acknowledging receipt of the Decision Under Review on that date.[4]
3. On 10 February 2026, Mr Al Defeary was released from prison. On the day of his release, he was issued with a "bridging removal visa" or "BVR". The Migration Amendment (Bridging Visas) Regulations 2024 have amended the Migration Regulations 1994 to clarify when a temporary bridging visa known as a Bridging R (Class WR) (Subclass 070 Bridging (Removal Pending) visa) ('BVR') may be granted to certain non-citizens who are in Australia. The grant of a BVR is a tool to manage non-citizens released from immigration detention following the High Court of Australia decision in NZYQ v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] HCA 37 (S28/2023).
4. At the hearing, Mr Max Plitch, AGS, (legal representative of the Minister in this proceeding), explained that this cohort of non-citizens (who have had their visas cancelled) are on "a pathway for removal from Australia" in accordance with the Migration Act, but that the delegate granting the BVR is satisfied that for the non-citizen, "there is no real prospect of removal becoming practicable in the reasonably foreseeable future". Mr Plitch informed the Tribunal that Mr Al Defeary's BVR is not subject to any visa conditions which means he is free to work, access public services and that he does not need to wear a (location-monitoring) ankle bracelet while in the Australian community.
5. At the hearing, Mr Al Defeary confirmed that he is released into the Australian community and that he is residing at the family home of one of his brothers, who will be referred to as "BH".
6. On 4 March 2026, the Tribunal handed down its decision in this application being that it affirmed the Decision Under Review. The Tribunal now provides its Statement of Reasons for this decision.

1. The substantive hearing of this application took place before this Tribunal on 19 and 20 February 2026 and a short, resumed telephone hearing for closing submissions took place on 23 February 2026. On 19 and 20 February 2026, Mr Al Defeary attended the Perth Registry in person for the hearing. Mr Al Defeary was legally represented by Mr Ali Alkafaji. Mr Plitch and the presiding Tribunal member attended the substantive hearing, separately, by video link.
2. Mr Al Defeary called four witnesses including:

(a) his father, who will be referred to as "F"; > > (b) his mother, who will be referred to as "M"; > > (c) BH; and > > (d) one of his sisters, who will be referred to as "SF".

3. The Minister did not call any witnesses to give evidence at the hearing.
4. At the hearing, the Tribunal received the following documents into evidence:

(a) the hearing book lodged by the Minister on 13 February 2026 ('HB') containing a set of documents under s 501G of the Migration Act ('G-Documents'), lodged on behalf of the Minister on 9 January 2026;[5] > > (b) the Minister's supplementary hearing bundle lodged on 16 February 2026 ('Supplementary HB');[6] and > > (c) Mr Al Defeary's evidence contained in and attached to his Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions dated 27 January 2026.[7]

5. The parties lodged the following submissions with the Tribunal:

(a) the Minister's Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions lodged on 10 February 2026 ('Minister's SFIC'); > > (b) the Minister's Amended Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions lodged on 16 February 2026 ('Minister's Amended SFIC'), which Mr Plitch advised supersedes the Minister's SFIC; and > > (c) Mr Al Defeary's outline of closing submissions, lodged at the request of the Tribunal, before the final oral submissions on 23 February 2026 ('Mr Al Defeary's Outline of Closing Submissions').

1. The role of the Tribunal is to decide whether the Decision Under Review is the correct or preferable decision.
2. Section 501CA of the Migration Act applies because the Minister has made a decision under subsection 501(3A) of the Migration Act to cancel the Visa, being the Cancellation Decision referred to above. Subsection 501CA(4) provides that the Minister may revoke the Cancellation Decision, if (under subparagraph (b)) the Minister is satisfied that the person passes the character test as defined by section 501 of the Migration Act, or there is another reason why the Cancellation Decision should be revoked.
3. Mr Al Defeary does not challenge the accuracy of the information in the National Criminal History Check concerning his criminal convictions and sentences,[8] nor does he dispute that he fails to pass the character test pursuant to s 501(6)(a) of the Migration Act.[9]
4. Accordingly, stepping into the shoes of the Minister, the issue for determination by the Tribunal in this application is whether, under subsection 501CA(4)(b)(ii) of the Migration Act, there is another reason why the Cancellation Decision should be revoked.
5. The Tribunal must have regard to the relevant mandatory considerations prescribed in Direction no. 110 - Visa refusal and cancelation under section 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under section 501CA (issued on 7 June 2024) ('Ministerial Direction No.110').[10]

1. Subsection 501(3A)(a)(i) of the Migration Act provides that the Minister must cancel a visa that has been granted to a person, if the Minister is satisfied that the person does not pass the character test because of the operation of subsection 501(6)(a), being that they have a "substantial criminal record" as defined by subsection 501(7). Of relevance to this application, a person has a "substantial criminal record" if they have been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more (see subsection 501(7)(b) of the Migration Act). This provision applied to Mr Al Defeary in respect of his recent offending because he was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of more than 12 months.
2. Section 501CA of the Migration Act provides that the Minister must give the person a written notice of its decision to cancel the visa under subsection 501(3A) as soon as practicable and is to include particulars of the relevant information. The person must be invited to make representations to the Minister about the revocation of the cancellation decision. This notice was provided to Mr Al Defeary in respect of the Cancellation Decision, and he made representations to the Minister when invited to do so.
3. As mentioned above, under subsection 501CA(4), the Minister may revoke the cancellation decision:

(i) that the person passes the character test (as defined by section 501); or

(ii) that there is another reason why the original decision should be revoked.

1. Section 499(2A) of the Migration Act provides that decision-makers, in performing functions or exercising powers under s 501 or s 501CA, must have regard to the considerations listed in the Direction no.110,[11] where relevant to the decision. Those considerations are set out in Clauses 8 and 9 of Direction no.110.
2. Further, Clause 5.2 of Direction no.110 sets out principles which provide a framework within which decision-makers should approach their task of deciding whether to cancel a non-citizen's visa under s 501, or whether to revoke a mandatory cancellation under s 501CA. The principles are reproduced below. The Tribunal has taken these particulars into account when making this decision:

(1) Australia has a sovereign right to determine whether non-citizens who are of character concern are allowed to enter and/or remain in Australia. Being able to come to or remain in Australia is a privilege Australia confers on non citizens in the expectation that they are, and have been, law-abiding, will respect important institutions, such as Australia's law enforcement framework, and will not cause or threaten harm to individuals or the Australian community.

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

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

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

(5) Australia has a low tolerance of any criminal or other serious conduct by visa applicants or those holding a limited stay visa, or by other non-citizens who have been participating in, and contributing to, the Australian community only for a short period of time.

(6) With respect to decisions to refuse, cancel, and revoke cancellation of a visa, Australia may afford a higher level of tolerance of criminal or other serious conduct by non-citizens who have lived in the Australian community for most of their life, or from a very young age.

(7) Decision-makers must take into account the primary and other considerations relevant to the individual case. In some circumstances, the nature of the non-citizen's conduct, or the harm that would be caused if the conduct were to be repeated, may be so serious that even strong countervailing considerations may be insufficient to justify not cancelling or refusing the visa, or revoking a mandatory cancellation.

(8) The inherent nature of certain conduct such as family violence is so serious that even strong countervailing considerations may be insufficient to justify not cancelling or refusing the visa, or revoking a mandatory cancellation, even if the information available at the time of consideration suggests that the non citizen does not pose a measureable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community.

1. Clause 8 of Direction no.110 sets out the primary considerations.
2. When taking the primary and other considerations into account, clause 7(1) of Direction no.110 provides that information and evidence from "independent and authoritative sources" should be given appropriate weight. Clause 7(2) provides that the primary consideration under clause 8(1), that is, the protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct, is "generally to be given greater weight than other primary considerations. Otherwise, primary considerations should generally be given greater weight than the other considerations". Clause 7(3) provides that "one or more primary considerations may outweigh other primary considerations".

1. Mr Al Defeary is a 43-year-old stateless man. He was born in Kuwait. At law, Mr Al Defeary has changed his names several times. The Change of Name Certificate issued on 27 April 2021 records that (as of that date), his legal given names are "Attalah Ghazy Fahd" and his surname is "Al Defeary". His former names are recorded on this Certificate are as follows:[12]

(a) "Kaid Saad Ajit Jasam", as changed on 19 January 2004 in Queensland; > > (b) "John Michael Evke David", as changed on 31 May 2005 in Western Australia; > > (c) "Hamad Ali Mbark Salam", as changed on 15 November 2007 in Western Australia; and > > (d) "Atalah Gazy", as changed on 10 February 2010 in Western Australia.

2. At the hearing, Mr Al Defeary gave evidence that he has only ever received one or two, or at most, three years of schooling during his life. He is able to converse in English as demonstrated at the hearing, but he does not consider himself to be fluent in English. He requested the assistance of an Arabic interpreter during the substantive hearing. He has poor literacy skills and explains that he has trouble reading and writing in English and also reading and writing in the Arabic language.
3. Mr Al Defeary was nine years old when the Iraqi-Kuwait war broke out. He described witnessing the warfare in Iraq and recalled seeing and stepping over dead bodies in the streets. He said he and his family left Kuwait by foot and travelled to Saudi Arabia and later moved onto Jordan. He said that when he was in Jordan, he worked as a mechanic. F travelled to Australia in 1999 and was granted a protection visa.

1. In 2003, Mr Al Defeary, M and his siblings subsequently travelled to Australia to join F. Mr Al Defeary was about 20 years old when he arrived in Australia. Since 2003, Mr Al Feary has remained living in Australia, apart from the occasional trip overseas for a holiday.
2. While in Australia, Mr Alkafaji stated that Mr Al Defeary has worked as a trolley collector, in mining, in five aluminium factories and that he opened a mechanics shop in Perth in 2010.[13] The medical reports before the Tribunal record that Mr Al Defeary ceased work in 2013 arising from his severe anxiety and lack of motivation.

1. The evidence before the Tribunal shows that Mr Al Defeary was previously married under Islamic Law to a woman living in Australia, who will be referred to as "C". Mr Al Defeary and C are the biological parents of two children, "D1" (a daughter aged 14) and "S1" (a son aged 13). In 2013, Mr Al Defeary's marriage with C broke down. Mr Al Defeary and C are now divorced.
2. Mr Al Defeary prepared a lengthy handwritten letter, undated, which was sent by Mr Alkafaji to the National Character Consideration Centre at the Department of Home Affairs on 4 September 2025 ('Mr Al Defeary's September 2025 Letter').[14] In this letter, Mr Al Defeary states that up until 2013 that he was "a heavy alcoholic". He states that his behaviour and the mistakes he made, "were low to the point where" he received charges and was convicted.
3. Mr Alkafaji states that Mr Al Defeary lived in Brisbane until 2017 and then he went to live with his family in Perth, Western Australia.[15]

1. The Police records before the Tribunal state that Mr Al Defeary was married on 29 December 2019 (for the previous five months before the date of this record) to a woman, who will be referred to as "X".[16] These records state that X reported that she was physically assaulted by Mr Al Defeary after she had accused him of "cheating on her". The Police did not charge Mr Al Defeary as they considered there to be insufficient evidence. The Tribunal has decided to disregard this alleged conduct.

1. In Mr Al Defeary's Outline of Submissions for Sentencing dated 16 July 2024, filed in the District Court of Western Australia, Mr Al Defeary's counsel states that in 2020, Mr Al Defeary met a woman, introduced to him by his sister, who will be referred to as "R". At this time, R was 26 years old, of Iranian extraction and a Shia Muslim. Mr Al Defeary is a Suni Muslim. Mr Al Defeary's counsel states in this submission that there are significant differences in ideology between Suni and Shia Muslims and that in many respects they are "fundamentally and diametrically opposed". The submission states that:

(a) Mr Al Defeary started to support R emotionally and financially in 2021; > > (b) Mr Al Defeary announced to R's family his intention to marry R; > > (c) R's father and Z's sister, who will be referred to as "Z", were "totally opposed to any such union"; > > (d) R moved into Mr Al Defeary's home; > > (e) R's father endeavoured to "forcibly remove" R from Mr Al Defeary's home; > > (f) R sought out a family violence order against her own father; and > > (g) R and Mr Al Defeary were married under Sharia Law on 5 August 2021.

2. Mr Alkafaji states that Mr Al Defeary and R are still married,[17] however, a report on the prison file, which was before the Tribunal, refers to Mr Al Defeary and R having been divorced under Islamic Law in November 2021, being only three months after they were married.[18] The Tribunal considers the Police records to be more authoritative than Mr Alkafaji's unsupported assertions and accepts that Mr Al Defeary and R were divorced three months after they were married. However, it is apparent that after the divorce they maintained contact with one another in what has been described as an "on again, off again" relationship.

Uncertain status of current relationship with R

1. Mr Al Defeary claims to have a current relationship with R and informed the Tribunal that they had seen each other twice since his release from prison on 10 February 2026. In Mr Al Defeary's response given to the delegate of the Minister, Mr Alkafaji states that R "is visiting the applicant twice a week in his prison and till this moment and he describe his relationship with her as excellent and full of love and passion". Mr Alkafaji states that "this issue reflect a fact that the applicant is no risk to [R] and that they both they appreciate their life together".[19] Mr Al Defeary also claims to have a close relationship with R's daughter, who will be referred to as "RD".
2. Contrary to Mr Alkafaji's assertions, the Tribunal considers the evidence is unclear as to whether Mr Al Defeary continues to have any significant relationship with R and RD. R did not provide a statement of support in this proceeding when it could reasonably be expected that she would do so if they were in a significant relationship. Nor did R attend the substantive hearing to support Mr Al Defeary, nor appear as a witness in support of his application even after the Tribunal started to ask questions about why R was not being called as a witness at the hearing.
3. Mr Al Defeary informed that Tribunal that R would visit him in prison during this recent period of incarceration. The prison records show that R did visit Mr Al Defeary, however, those visits were not recent. Mr Al Defeary said that RD was unable to visit him because she was a child and that they do not allow children in the prison.
4. At the hearing, Mr Plitch questioned whether there continued to be a relationship between Mr Al Defeary and R and highlights that the prison visitor records show that the last time R visited Mr Al Defeary when he was in prison was on 22 December 2024.[20] This will be addressed in detail further below.

1. Mr Al Defeary has his mother, father, four brothers and five sisters living in Australia.[21] He also has six nieces and 11 nephews based in Australia, with 15 of them being minors. At the hearing, Mr Al Defeary contended that it would be in the best interests of all of his nieces and nephews for him to remain in Australia, so they can see their uncle. This will be addressed in further detail below.

69 criminal convictions and eight separate terms of imprisonment

1. Mr Al Defeary has been convicted for 69 offences over a period of about two decades and he has served eight separate terms of imprisonment since his arrival in Australia, as follows:[22]

(a) 4.5 hours in prison on 8 June 2006; > > (b) 10 days in prison between 21 and 21 January 2008; > > (c) one month and 10 days in prison between 7 February 2009 and 17 March 2009; > > (d) one year and six months in prison between 19 June 2010 and 31 December 2011; > > (e) one year and one month in prison between 18 February 2013 and 17 March 2014; > > (f) one day starting in prison on 10 December 2017 and 11 December 2017; > > (g) 14 days in prison between 25 July 2022 and 8 August 2022; > > (h) two years and five months in prison between 23 May 2023 to 10 February 2026[23].

Concerns raised by the Minister about the credibility of Mr Al Defeary

1. During closing submissions at the end of the hearing, Mr Plitch, on behalf of the Minister, contended that Mr Al Defeary is not a credible witness. Mr Plitch said that Mr Al Defeary's evidence was characterised by a pattern of:

(a) denial; and > > (b) when he was presented with evidence to the contrary, Mr Al Defeary would say something like "I don't remember"; and > > (c) when pressed, he would usually give equivocal evidence about whether or not the event concerned happened.

2. In this regard, Mr Plitch gave an example that Mr Al Defeary gave evidence that his relationship with C was good, and that there were no previous incidents, until 2013 when he said he had "caught her being unfaithful" to him. Mr Plitch said that when it was put to him that he had assaulted her on an earlier occasion, Mr Al Defeary's evidence was that he did not remember that happening. Mr Plitch said that after that, Mr Al Defeary evidence became, "well, if that's the documents say, okay, but I can't remember".
3. Mr Plitch said that at other times, Mr Al Defeary made outright denials at the hearing such as his claim that he was certain that he had not participated in the risk assessment on 16 May 2025, when this appears to have taken place based on the report documents in the HB.
4. Mr Plitch contends that in relation to other points, Mr Al Defeary's evidence is "completely implausible". Mr Plitch gives the following examples such as his evidence about his drug use, specifically:

(a) Mr Plitch highlighted Mr Al Defeary was asked at the hearing about the testing and being caught in prison with being in the possession of methamphetamine and that he had claimed that he did not know what it was and that he thought it was "sweets or something"; > > (b) Mr Plitch highlighted that when Mr Al Defeary was taken to the evidence about his earlier conviction for drug possession (see the conviction entered on 27 June 2018 at HB50), that Mr Al Defeary gave an explanation that this conviction was for possessing steroids when he used to go to the gym. When taken to the evidence that he was in possession of MDMA rather than steroids, Mr Al Defeary claimed that he thought to this day that they were steroids and that he does not know the difference between the two; > > (c) Mr Plitch said that when Mr Al Defeary was taken to a Police report from 2016 referring to him pulling a wallet from his pocket and a bag containing the crystalline substance fell out,[24] his response was that he had borrowed his friend's pants at the time.

5. The Tribunal accepts the Minister's contentions in paragraphs [41] to [44] above, and would agree that Mr Plitch has fairly characterised Mr Al Defeary's evidence during the hearing.
6. Mr Plitch contends that the significance of Mr Al Defeary's credibility is three-fold. Specifically:

(a) Mr Al Defeary's explanations for his conduct should not be accepted; > > (b) Mr Al Defeary has claimed to the Tribunal that he is "a changed man" and that "things will be different this time around", he has "learned his lesson and will not reoffend". The Minister contends that this evidence is not credible and so the Tribunal should not accept those assurances from Mr Al Defeary. Mr Plitch contends that Mr Al Defeary evidence during the hearing, demonstrates that he will say whatever he thinks is in his interests to say and that his claims to be a changed man and to have learned his lesson, cannot be taken seriously; and > > (c) the Minister contends that together with Mr Al Defeary's recidivism and repeated breaching of the court orders, Mr Al Defeary's "lies to the Tribunal demonstrates a disrespect for the law", and they mean that the Tribunal "cannot have confidence that he will not continue to behave as he has been behaving for the last 20 years".

7. The Tribunal notes these contentions and will return to the concerns raised by the Minister about Mr Al Defeary's credibility further below, when dealing with Primary Consideration No.1 under Ministerial Direction No.110.

PRIMARY CONSIDERATION NO.1 - PROTECTION OF THE AUSTRALIAN COMMUNITY FROM CRIMINAL OR OTHER SERIOUS CONDUCT

1. Direction no.110 mandates that the Tribunal must have regard, as a primary consideration, to the protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct. Clause 8.1(1) provides as follows (emphasis added):

(1) When considering protection of the Australian community, decision-makers should keep in mind that the safety of the Australian community is the highest priority of the Australian Government. 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. In this respect, decision-makers should have particular regard to the principle that entering or remaining in Australia is a privilege that Australia confers on non-citizens in the expectation that they are, and have been, law abiding, will respect important institutions, and will not cause or threaten harm to individuals or the Australian community.

(2) Decision-makers should also give consideration to:

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

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

1. Mr Al Defeary's Check Results Report issued by the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission records a history of criminal offending. This criminal history is attached as Annexure A to this Statement of Reasons. As mentioned above, there are 69 convictions entered against Mr Al Defeary, spanning a period of 20 years from 16 July 2004 to 3 September 2024.

Mr Al Defeary's history of criminal offending and misconduct

1. In making this decision, the Tribunal considers it appropriate to focus its attention on Mr Al Defeary's key criminal offending and other misconduct as outlined below:

July 2023 - criminal offences of perverting and attempting to pervert the course of justice

1. Between 10 and 23 July 2023, whilst in custody, Mr Al Defeary called a friend (who will be referred to as "Fr") of R and Z, requesting that Fr speak to R and Z about discontinuing the charges laid against him and to tell them that he would sell his car and give them $20,000. On 18 April 2024, R dropped the charges against Mr Al Defeary. However, Z did not accede to Mr Al Defeary offers as referred to above, and Z continued to press the charges against Mr Al Defeary.
2. Mr Al Defeary made another such request to Fr to speak to Z to tell her he would give her "whatever she wanted" to drop the charges against him. Mr Al Defeary's telephone conversations with Fr were recorded by the prison (where he was detained at the time) and this resulted in him being prosecuted and convicted for attempting to pervert and perverting the course of justice.
3. On 19 July 2024, District Court Judge Cleary of the District Court of Western Australia sentenced Mr Al Defeary for a total imprisonment term of an aggregate period of two years and five months, comprising:

(a) one year and seven months' immediate imprisonment term for attempting to pervert the course of justice;[25] and > > (b) 10 months' immediate imprisonment in respect of breaching the conditional suspended imprisonment orders, arising from offences Mr Al Defeary committed against R involving applying force to her at a time when she was pregnant. Specifically, Judge Cleary reduced the suspended imprisonment terms for the convictions in relation to: > > > (i) charge 6319 of 2022, from 10 to eight months; and > > > > (ii) charge 6320 of 2022, from four to two months.

4. The sentence was backdated to 11 September 2023 being the day Mr Al Defeary was first taken into custody. He served this full term of imprisonment for an aggregate term of two years and five months and was released on about 10 February 2026. This prompted the Cancellation Decision because he was sentenced to an imprisonment term of more than 12 months.
5. The Minister contends that Judge Cleary was satisfied that Mr Al Defeary's offending was "considered, planned and persistent" and that "the nature and consequences" of what he was seeking to avoid, were "very serious". Judge Cleary noted there were "serious allegations of family violence against" Mr Al Defeary by two complainants in the context that he had "already been declared a serial family violence offender" and that he was "trying to avoid convictions for those offences".[26] Judge Cleary expressed his view that from the contents of the telephone calls, that Mr Al Defeary was predominantly concerned about himself and that he wanted to get out of prison. The Judge stated in his sentencing remarks that the only way of Mr Al Defeary getting out of prison was for both women to withdraw the charges because he had been refused bail on those charges.[27]
6. In Mr Al Defeary's SFIC, Mr Alkafaji contends that there is no cumulative offending in respect of the offences of perverting or attempting to pervert the course of justice. While there are no past convictions by the same name, the Tribunal notes the significant history of Mr Al Defeary conducting himself in a manner that demonstrates a contempt for Australian legal processes. He has repeatedly breached family violence orders, bail orders and other protective orders. He has arranged for emails and text messages to be sent to his ex-partners whilst serving previous terms of imprisonment in circumstances when he was legally restrained from doing so. His conduct in July 2023 was not Mr Al Defeary's first endeavour to inappropriately influence the course of justice and to disobey orders made Australian court.

March 2023 - criminal offences involving assaults on R and Z

1. On 11 March 2023, the evidence before the Tribunal indicates that a verbal and physical alteration took place between Mr Al Defeary, R and Z. Mr Al Defeary states that on this day he returned home from work to find R "sleeping with" their neighbour. R is reported to have denied this account and asserts instead, that Mr Al Defeary had suspected of having been unfaithful and had asked her to leave the house. Different accounts were provided by Mr Al Defeary and (R and Z), about who was the perpetrator and the victim in this incident. Mr Al Defeary says he was the victim and was acting in self-defence. The accounts given by R and Z were the opposite.
2. In the Statement of Material Facts issued by the Western Australian Police, an account of this incident is recorded as follows:[28]

(a) Mr Al Defeary and R were previously married under Islamic Law and have been in an "on again, off again" relationship for the last two and half years; > > (b) whilst in the dining area of the house, Mr Al Defeary began swearing at R, approached her, slapped her face and grabbed her hair, pulling her down to waist height; > > (c) Z is recorded as having heard the altercation from another room and upon doing so, attempted to get Mr Al Defeary off of R. Mr Al Defeary is reported to have grabbed a glass object from a nearby table and smashed it over Z causing a laceration to her right hand (later requiring sutures); > > (d) Mr Al Defeary dragged Z outside by her hair, kicked her on the stomach/chest twice and bit her on her back. R "briefly overpowered" Mr Al Defeary who released his hold of Z with all three of them separating for a short time on the driveway; > > (e) R and Mr Al Defeary ran to the front door of the house. R was attempting to reach her daughter, ZD (reported to be 7 years old at this time). At the front door, Mr Al Defeary grabbed R by the hair, dragged her away from the front door and continued to assault her. Z came to R's aid and attempted to get Mr Al Defeary away from R; > > (f) R broke free from Mr Al Defeary and went inside to her daughter. Outside the front door, Z held onto Mr Al Defeary by his t-shirt to stop him from further assaulting R. Mr Al Defeary slapped Z to the face, pulled her head down and punched her to the stomach/chest area; > > (g) 60 seconds later, Mr Al Defeary attempted to gain entry to the house through the front door but could not. Mr Al Defeary walked around to the rear kitchen door, gaining entry to the house and approached R in the kitchen area. R feared she was going to be assaulted. She reportedly grabbed onto the fridge doors. Mr Al Defeary reportedly grabbed a baseball bat and struck the victim on her left arm; and > > (h) R left the house with RD. Mr Al Defeary is reported to have approached R and to have slapped her in the face. The neighbours intervened.

3. The altercation which took place outside was captured on CCTV. Mr Al Defeary claimed that the CCTV showed that R and Z were the ones who had attacked him. It is unknown whether Mr Al Defeary still has access to the video. No video was produced to this Tribunal in relation to this incident.
4. R is recorded to have sustained bruising and abrasions to her left arm and swelling to the right parietal area of her head. Z sustained a laceration to her right hand (for which she received stiches), bruising to the left side of her neck, a bite mark on her back, bruising and scratches to the left side of her face, a scratch mark on her neck and ongoing soreness to the left side of her chest. Mr Al Defeary states that she sustained significant injuries and was most worried about protecting his head because of the head injury he had previously sustained.
5. On 23 May 2023, Mr Al Defeary was charged with assault in respect of R and Z. On 29 May 2023, Mr Al Defeary's application for bail was refused and he was remanded in custody.[29]

July 2022 - offences arising from assaults on R

1. On 24 July 2022, a verbal argument between Mr Al Defeary and R resulted in a physical assault by Mr Al Defeary on R where it was reported that he grabbed her by the shoulder and swung her around before pushing her back up against the hallway wall, took her car keys to shift the location of her car in the driveway, refused to give her the keys back, went back into the home, came out of the house, threw a shoe at R which hit the back of her head, grabbed R's hair at the back of her head and dragged her inside of the house, grabbed hold of R's clothing, and pulled R towards him which resulted in R slamming into the side wall of the home causing her to fall to the ground.
2. The police records indicate that Mr Al Defeary volunteered to be interviewed and admitted to attending R's address and "to throwing the slipper".[30]
3. Mr Al Defeary was convicted for two offences of "Common Assault in Circumstances of Aggravation or racial Aggravation" for the offences he committed on 24 July 2022.[31]

1. The Police records indicate that Mr Al Defeary assaulted R on 1 June 2022. The report states that R had been in an "on again, off again" relationship with Mr Al Defeary. R reported that she was getting ready for work and assisting RD to get ready for school, when Mr Al Defeary became aggressive towards R due to some of his property being placed in the garage. The Police record reports that a verbal argument began, which resulted in Mr Al Defeary grabbing R by the hair and dragging her to her bedroom where he had slapped her to the head and face several times. Z had attempted to intervene and was reportedly pushed away by Mr Al Defeary. Z called the Police. Mr Al Defeary stayed with R for ten minutes and then left when he knew the Police had been called.
2. R had reportedly advised the Police that Mr Al Defeary's behaviour towards her had been increasing and that he was extremely controlling of her life, limiting the people she can visit and the location she goes, for example, the gym, shops and work. R reportedly stated that if she was to do something that Mr Al Defeary did not agree with, it would result in her becoming physically assaulted. R is reported to have divulged a history of assaults caused by Mr Al Defeary and that he would "usually threaten her with retaliation from the Muslim community, his gang or his brothers", if she was to act against him or to go to the Police. R is reported to have told the Police that she did not wish for the suspect to be arrested and charged, as she relies heavily on the Muslim community and believes that if she were to make a formal complaint that she would be ostracised by the community.[32] Mr Al Defeary was not convicted for any offences for this conduct by Mr Al Defeary.[33]
3. Z is recorded as having reported to the Police that when she had woken up to the sounds of R screaming, that she walked out of her room and into R's room, where she observed R on the ground and Mr Al Defeary striking her to the head with his hands.

April 2018 - arrested after methamphetamine found by Police in a car occupied by Mr Al Defeary

1. On 14 April 2018, the Police were called to attend Malaga McDonalds to check a "suspicious" car in the car park. Mr Al Defeary and another male were in this car. The Police undertook a search of the car and found a clip-seal bag containing 30 grams of methamphetamine in a map book pocket behind the front seat. The Police report states that Mr Al Defeary and the other male in the car said they were unaware that the drugs were there. It is recorded that they claimed that a friend, A, had been in the car with them earlier. Mr Al Defeary and the other male were arrested. The drugs and $1,050 in cash were seized.

December 2017 - criminal offences for being in possession with intent to sell and supply MDMA

1. On 9 December 2017, Mr Al Defeary was searched by Police, who located a clip-seal bag in his pant pocket containing 33 tablets of 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine ('MDMA') weighing 4.14 grams. He was convicted of the offence of being in possession of a prohibited drug with intent to sell or supply MDMA.[34]

December 2017 - driving without authority at time of motor vehicle accident after hitting a kangaroo

1. On 9 December 2017, Police reported that Mr Al Defeary had lost control of a motor vehicle after colliding with a kangaroo in circumstances where he was not authorised to drive because his driver's licence had been cancelled on 9 July 2010. The Police report records that enquiries had revealed that Mr Al Defeary was the driver of the vehicle. Mr Al Defeary denied that he was the driver and that instead, his brother-in-law was driving. He maintained those denials at the substantive hearing of this application even though they were inconsistent with third-party witness statements provided to the Police as contained in the HB.

September 2016 - found with crystalline substances in a clip lock bag in the front pocket of his pants

1. On 6 September 2016, Mr Al Defeary was in the driver's seat of a vehicle when Police walked past the car and asked him to show them his licence. When he pulled out his wallet from the front pocket of his pants, it is reported by Police that he had a small clip-seal bag containing crystal substance, believed to be methamphetamine.[35] As there is no definitive evidence before the Tribunal, as to whether the substance was tested and found to be methamphetamine. For this reason, the Tribunal considers is appropriate to disregard this reported alleged misconduct by Mr Al Defeary.

September 2015 - arrested on suspicion of possession of drugs with intent to sell or supply

1. On 24 September 2015, Mr Al Defeary (as the passenger) and a female companion, K (as the driver), were in a vehicle displaying incorrect registration number plates. The car was searched by Police and upon questioning of K, she produced a clip-seal bag of approximately 10 grams of methylamphetamine. Mr Al Defeary and K were both arrested on suspicion of possession of a prohibited drug with intent to sell or supply.[36]

February 2013 - offences arising from assaults to C with a baseball bat and an iPhone

1. On 7 February 2013, Mr Al Defeary is reported to have questioned C about his suspicion of C's infidelity with a neighbour. At the hearing, Mr Al Defeary gave evidence that he had arrived home from work and found C in bed with their neighbour. There is no corroborating evidence to support this assertion, and it was not referred to in the contemporaneous Police statement of material evidence. The Tribunal considers on the balance of probabilities, that Mr Al Defeary has fabricated this in an endeavour to justify his criminal offending, after the fact. The Police report records that Mr Al Defeary has used a baseball bat to strike C in the left elbow, her left knee and her left lower back. He was arrested and interviewed on 12 February 2013. He denied having assaulted C and denied the existence of a baseball bat. The Police are reported to have conducted a search, and they located a wooden baseball bat concealed behind a couch cushion in the lounge room.
2. On this same day, the Police reports state that Mr Al Defeary reportedly forced C into a corner and struck her in the left side of the head with his right hand while he was holding an iPhone. The iPhone reportedly made contact with C's head, causing the phone screen to shatter.
3. On 13 May 2013, Mr Al Defeary was convicted of two offences of "Unlawful assault and thereby did bodily harm with circumstances of aggravation"[37] and sentenced to five months' imprisonment.

December 2012 - offences arising from assaults on three persons: C, McDonald's duty manager and a nearby third-party witness

1. On 16 December 2012 (at 12:50am), Mr Al Defeary is reported to have assaulted C, McDonald's duty manager, who will be referred to as "DM", and nearby witness (to be referred to as "TPW") at Malaga McDonalds "dri_ve through_". Initially, Mr Al Defeary was in the passenger seat of a car being driven by C. C's and Mr Al Defeary's daughter (who was two years old at the time) was also in the car.
2. While the car was idling at the McDonald's service window, the McDonalds staff member, who will be referred to as "SM", is reported to have witnessed an incident involving Mr Al Defeary and C. SM is reported to have called out to Mr Al Defeary in an attempt to stop the incident. Mr Al Defeary got out of the car and is reported to have attempted to strike SM through the service window and verbally abused him. Then, DM is reported to have come over to the service window and identified herself to Mr Al Defeary. The Police records state that Mr Al Defeary verbally abused DM. DM told Mr Al Defeary to leave the area, but he reportedly refused to do so.
3. Mr Al Defeary put his phone to his ear and told DM he was calling the Police. He is reported to have told the Police, over the phone, that SM was touching C inappropriately. Mr Al Defeary is reported to have reached through the service window and to have struck DM on her right arm. DM called the Police and asked Mr Al Defeary to leave the area, which he did.[38]
4. Shortly afterwards, in the car park area of the Malaga McDonalds, Mr Al Defeary is reported to have approached the driver's side door of their car. C was in the driver's seat. TPW, and his three friends, were in an adjacent car. They are reported to have witnessed a further incident between Mr Al Defeary and C.[39] Police records indicate that Mr Al Defeary punched and slapped C to the face, head and neck with his right hand, and pulled her hair.[40] TPW and his friends reportedly intervened and approached Mr Al Defeary. Mr Al Defeary reportedly pushed TPW to the chest area a number of times. TPW's friend sought to restrain Mr Al Defeary from attacking C and TPW.
5. TPW's friends released Mr Al Defeary upon him agreeing to cease his aggressive behaviour. Then, Mr Al Defeary is reported to have grabbed their two-year old child and then, while holding the child on his hip, struck C on the head with an open palm and then pushed the child back through the driver's side window, reportedly causing the child to strike her head on the window surround.
6. The Police report states that Mr Al Defeary used his phone to call a "male associate" who attended the scene with a handgun and reportedly "brandished it" to TPW and his friends and the McDonalds' staff who had come outside to witness the incident. The Police report that while TPW's hands were in the air in a gesture of surrender, Mr Al Defeary punched TPW on his left cheekbone with a clenched fist.[41]
7. On 13 May 2013, Mr Al Defeary was convicted of two offences of "Unlawfully assault and thereby did bodily harm with circumstances of aggravation" and two offences of "Common assault" in respect of his offending on 16 December 2012.[42]

October 2010 - dangerous driving offences causing damage to three other cars

1. Mr Al Defeary's criminal records lists a succession of driving-related criminal offences such as Mr Al Defeary driving under the influence, speeding and driving without a licence. Of note, it is reported that Mr Al Defeary was observed by C, who was the passenger at the time, to be driving over 200km when a collision occurred on 3 October 2010 damaging three other cars in the process. The Police report indicates that C was hospitalised and sustained a spinal injury (although this injury was characterised as not likely to cause her permanent injury or death). Mr Al Defeary denied that he was driving the vehicle. He was charged and convicted with "dangerous driving occasioning bodily harm", "driving without authority", driving with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 0.05 g per 100ml of blood and for wilfully misleading Police, specifically, he denied to Police that he was driving the car when several witnesses (including C) had identified that Mr Al Defeary was driving at the time of the accident.[43]

1. Mr Al Defeary's criminal record also shows miscellaneous other criminal offending which demonstrates a consistent history of defiance in respect of judicial orders and obeying Australian laws. Those offences include:

(a) offences arising from Mr Al Defeary spitting at or obstructing public officers (Police), including providing them with false identification; and > > (b) numerous breaches by Mr Al Defeary of court orders, including family violence restraining orders.

2. The Minister highlighted that Mr Al Defeary has been convicted for 21 driving and traffic offences, one drug-related offence, 14 offences involving offences against woman or involving weapons, 10 offences for breaching orders or conditions and 22 offences involving perversion or attempts to pervert the course of justice, obstructing police officers, and dishonest and disorderly-related offences.
3. Mr Al Defeary first arrived in Australia on 7 June 2003.[44] Mr Al Defeary's first conviction was entered on 16 July 2004, being only one year and one month after he first arrived in Australia. Specifically, this conviction was for the offence of driving under the influence of more than 0.08% blood alcohol concentration which he committed on 16 July 2004.[45] Mr Al Defeary's first conviction for assault against a person was entered on 28 March 2007.[46]
4. In Mr Al Defeary's September 2025 Letter he refers to the sentencing remarks dated 21 January 2008, 7 December 2011, 13 May 2013, 17 June 2014 and 3 September 2024 and says that he pleaded guilty "to all of the above" (meaning to the criminal offending as outlined in those sentencing remarks). The Tribunal notes the admissions made in Mr Al Defeary's September 2025 Letter as follows:[47]

I am not going to try and paint a picture that I am the innocent party to the charges and convictions. It's my fault. My actions were wrong, disrespectful, and a disgrace to the person I am, I did not like the person I was. My domestic violence, driving without a license, drunk driving, assulting(sic) a police officer, or assulting(sic) any human is wrong. I do take responsibility of my actions. Denial of my past behaviour has changed. I thought alcohol was my problem, as most of the charges are alcohol related, though I have not been drinking since 2013. But it's also the way I thought things out. My communication skills were not great, I did not want to hear advice from others due to my ego. I acknowledge the situation I'm in right now is because of me, not others. I need help to change my behaviour. Sitting in prison again within the four walls of my cell and reflecting on my past has changed me. My past behaviour is in the past, I can never deny it, but I can change myself and I'm changing to become a better person now and for the future by always being aware of my past actions.

1. During oral closing submissions at the hearing, the Minister contends that the Tribunal must consider all of Mr Al Defeary's criminal offending as set out in his entire criminal record, and not only the offending that led to the cancellation of his Visa. The Minister relies upon its contentions as set out in the Minister's SFIC at paragraphs [22] to [36].[48]
2. The Minister identifies the offences that led to the cancellation of the Visa, being the offences of attempting to pervert justice, attempting to pervert the course of justice and two breaches by Mr Al Defeary of conditional suspended imprisonment orders relating to two counts of common assault in circumstances of aggravation or racial aggravation. The Minister highlights that those "trigger offences" arose in circumstances where Mr Al Defeary had been charged with multiple violent offences against R and Z, had been refused bailed and was in custody on remand.[49]

1. Regarding the offences which triggered the Cancellation Decision, in Mr Al Defeary's SFIC, Mr Alkafaji states that Mr Al Defeary's motivation in engaging a third person, Fr, was to "make peace between his wife and his sister, as he was fearful that if the trial goes ahead then that will cause grief between the two sisters". The Tribunal does not accept this explanation and is satisfied that Mr Al Defeary made those telephone calls to Fr for the purpose of avoiding further criminal convictions and so he would be released from prison.
2. Mr Alkafaji acknowledged that the sentencing Judge had described Mr Al Defeary's behaviour as being at the high end of seriousness of such offending, "although not anywhere near the most serious".[50] Mr Alkafaji highlighted that the Judge had acknowledged that there was a lack of threats or actual violence in Mr Al Defeary's attempts and that there was a likelihood of his attempts failing because of Z's stance against Mr Al Defeary.[51] Mr Alkafaji highlighted that the Judge had taken into account that Mr Al Defeary had pled guilty to the offences, that he had witnessed traumatic events in Kuwait, the cultural differences between Kuwait and Australia and R's stance against Mr Al Defeary due to sectarian differences between them.[52]
3. Mr Alkafaji, on behalf of Mr Al Defeary, contends that it is open to the Tribunal to assign the same weight that the Judge had assigned "in this matter", considering the impacts on the victims and in circumstances where R withdrew her support to the prosecution of "her own volition". The Tribunal notes that R was not called as a witness at the hearing so there was no opportunity to test this assertion with her or to ask her questions about her written statement purporting to convey that she had withdrawn her support of her own volition. There is evidence before the Tribunal of R not willing to make a previous complaint against the actions of Mr Al Defeary out of fear of her being ostracised by the Muslim community. On the balance of probabilities, the Tribunal considers that this fear is the reason why R had withdrawn her support for the prosecution of Mr Al Defeary for the March 2023 assaults against her.
4. The Tribunal has taken into account the various written statements made by Mr Al Defeary, including:

(a) his letter to the Department dated 15 February 2014;[53] > > (b) his written statement to the Magistrate (undated) regarding the incidents involving R and Z;[54] > > (c) his written statement (undated) about his background including his experiences in Kuwait and problems with drinking alcohol.[55] In this statement, Mr Al Defeary refers to deciding to give up alcohol in the same year as the birth of his son (that is, 2012). He states that in 2013 he opened a mechanic shop with his brother and they were working 60 hours per week and life was going well. Then, he said a few months later, he came home to find his wife in bed with his neighbour; and > > (d) his undated letter provided to the National Character Consideration Centre on 4 September 2025;[56]

Criteria under clause 8.1.1(1) of Direction no.110

1. Subclause 8.1.1(1) of Ministerial Direction No.110 requires the Tribunal to have regard to a range of matters when considering the nature and seriousness of Mr Al Defeary's criminal offending or other conduct.
2. Of relevance in this application, the Tribunal has considered the following matters.

Subclause 8.1.1(1)(a) - Crimes of violent nature against women and acts of family violence

1. Under subclause 8.1.1(1)(a), the Tribunal must take into account that the following types of crimes or conduct 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 family violence, regardless of whether there is a conviction for an offence or a sentence imposed;

1. The Tribunal will address, first, the assaults to C, DM and TPW in December 2012 and the further assaults to C in February 2013. The Tribunal acknowledges that these assaults took place during a period that Mr Al Defeary was drinking (alcohol) heavily. However, it does not alter the objective gravity of the assaults he inflicted on others on those occasions.
2. The Tribunal notes that on 13 May 2013, Mr Al Defeary was convicted for three counts of "Unlawfully assault and thereby did bodily harm with circumstances of aggravation; Criminal Code (WA); 317(1)B".[57] These convictions relate to the assaults by Mr Al Defeary in December 2012 and in February 2013.
3. The sentencing remarks on 13 May 2013 by Magistrate Benn of The Magistrates Court of Western Australia are before the Tribunal.[58] Magistrate Benn states that he had a pre-sentence report and psychological report, as well as the benefit of a victim impact statement made by C. Magistrate Benn states that C "describes a history of violence and abuse by you in a number of different forms including emotional abuse, threats, intimidation, controlling behaviour, all actions typical of a person who is the victim of violence and abuse at the hands of their partner".[59] The Tribunal also notes Magistrate Benn's statement as follows (emphasis added):[60]

I do not accept your attempt to describe this relationship as otherwise happy, loving and functional because clearly it was not; and even if I hadn't had this victim impact statement, offences of this nature, this seriousness, this degree of what appears to be out of control and violent behaviour does not just spring up, in my view, out of nowhere, it generally springs up form a relationship in which the offender has been behaving in other abusive manners towards their partner; but I hasten to make it clear that you are only being sentenced on the matters before me today and those matters are, in my view, serious. > > The issues that have been described, the circumstances and facts in respect of each of these offences make the offences very serious, each in their own right. Starting with offences surrounding the visit to McDonald's, I accept you were affected by alcohol. That's not a mitigating factor but even affected by alcohol you still had the presence of mind and the ability to behave in a very conscious, deceptive and manipulative manner, even in part of this offending while you were physically assaulting your partner in the car, with the children there, to call the police and try to tell the police that your partner was being attacked or behaved to inappropriately by a McDonald's staff member. > > You then go on to assault the various people who were trying to intervene, obviously horrified by your behaviour to your partner, including the manager of the McDonald's store, striking her to the arm, and then in a very serious assault to [Mr S] who attempted to intervene with this matter and after restraining you, getting you to promise that you would calm down, releasing you, then with a gun shoved in his face by this co-offender, his hands up in the air, you punch him in the face. > > Very serious indeed, [Mr Al Defeary]... > > ... further serious charges arise in respect to two counts of aggravated assault occasioning bodily harm occurring between 7 and 8 February this year. The first involves you striking [C] twice to the elbow and the knee with a baseball bat and then striking her in the head or face with your hand while holding an iPhone, with such force as to shatter the screen on the iPhone.

4. The Tribunal also notes that Magistrate Benn made clear to Mr Al Defeary the need for him to seek out whatever counselling was available to him. Specifically, Magistrate Benn stated as follows (emphasis added):[61]

You need to understand, [Mr Al Defeary], you have got a serious problem in respect to this violence that you caused to [C] when you were in a relationship and you need to accept that, you need to deal with it and seek whatever counselling is going to be made available to you. I accept your pleas of guilty, some expression of remorse and acceptance of responsibility but I still think based on all the material before me you've got a long way to go before you accept full responsibility for those matters.

5. Magistrate Benn sentenced Mr Al Defeary in respect of various offences to a 18 months' immediate imprisonment backdated to 18 February 2013 when he was taken into custody (and was refused bail, so remained in custody).[62] Mr Al Defeary remained incarcerated for about 13 months in total for an offence involving family violence, until he was released on 17 March 2014.[63]
6. The Tribunal considers that this significant period of incarceration should have served as a very significant "wake up" call to Mr Al Defeary that he required urgent significant personal reform and rehabilitation to change his ways so that he would not commit any further family violence. It is apparent from the evidence that Mr Al Defeary's attempts to rehabilitate from March 2014 onwards were insubstantial and ineffective. He did not seek out or receive the comprehensive and intensive rehabilitative assistance that he required. He completed a domestic violence program, but this did not help.
7. Since being released in March 2014, Mr Al Defeary struck up an extensive criminal record as outlined above. His criminal record does not show any further assault related offences for some time after the period of incarceration in 2013/14, he met his new partner, R in 2020. However, within a few years, once again, he perpetrated very serious offences involving family violence against R in June 2022, July 2022 and March 2023.
8. The Tribunal finds that Mr Al Defeary has been convicted of and is the perpetrator of several offences directed to two of his former partners, C and then R. Those offences were violent in nature and directed towards his family (that is, his former wives under Islamic Law). Among other things, those offences involved Mr Al Defeary using a baseball to strike and inflict harm on his former wives. In one of those instances, he lied to Police about owning a baseball bat and following a search of his premises, the Police found a baseball bat hidden in his couch as set out above.
9. The Tribunal does not accept Mr Al Defeary's assertion that he was the victim during the incidents involving R and Z. He could have absented himself completely from the scene of the incident, but he did not.
10. The Tribunal finds, on the balance of probabilities, that Mr Al Defeary was the perpetrator in respect of the incidents which took place in December 2012, February 2013, June 2022, July 2022 and March 2023. Even if one were to accept for a moment that R and/or Z had inflicted the first blow/s on Mr Al Defeary during the March 2023 incident, the Tribunal is satisfied on the balance of probabilities, that Mr Al Defeary has retaliated in a manner which was disproportionate and violent towards his R (and Z) causing them bodily injury, in particular, Z who suffered a laceration and has required stiches.
11. The Tribunal concludes that the offences arising from the assaults by Mr Al Defeary against C in December 2012 and February 2013, are:

(a) violent crimes, within the meaning of subclause 8.1.1(1)(a)(i); > > (b) crimes of a violent nature against women, within the meaning of subclause 8.1.1(a)(ii); > > (c) acts of family violence, within the meaning of subclause 8.1.1(a)(iii).

12. The Tribunal concludes that the offences arising from the assaults by Mr Al Defeary against R in March 2023, are:

(a) violent crimes, within the meaning of subclause 8.1.1(1)(a)(i); > > (b) crimes of a violent nature against women, within the meaning of subclause 8.1.1(a)(ii); > > and the assaults by Mr Defeary against R in June 2022 and July 2022, are: > > (a) acts of family violence, within the meaning of subclause 8.1.1(a)(iii).

13. The Tribunal concludes that the assault by Mr Al Defeary against Z in March 2023, is:

(a) a violent crime, within the meaning of subclause 8.1.1(1)(a)(i); and > > (b) a crime of a violent nature against women, within the meaning of subclause 8.1.1(a)(ii).

14. The Tribunal concludes that the assaults by Mr Al Defeary against DM and TPW in February 2013, are violent crimes, within the meaning of subclause 8.1.1(1)(a)(i); and in the case of the assault against DM, is a crime of a violent nature against women, within the meaning of subclause 8.1.1(a)(ii).
15. Ministerial Direction No.110 provides that these types of crimes and acts of family violence are viewed by the Australian Government and the Australian community to be "very serious". The Tribunal concludes that the criminal offending and acts of violence by Mr Al Defeary referred to above in paragraphs [107] to [110] inclusive, are "very serious".[64]

Subclause 8.1.1(1)(c) - length of sentence imposed

1. In consideration of subclause 8.1.1(1)(c), the Tribunal notes that Mr Al Defeary was sentenced to over one years' imprisonment for each of the offences of perverting justice and attempting to pervert the course of justice. The sentence of the jail term in these instances were significant but not particularly lengthy. The Tribunal has decided to treat the length of the prison sentences in this instance to be a neutral consideration.

Subclause 8.1.1(1)(d) - impact on any victims

1. There were no victim impact statements by C or R before the Tribunal. However, there is evidence that Mr Al Defeary caused significant physical harm to Z resulting in a laceration to her hand requiring stiches. Based on the accounts of the offending conduct as described above, the Tribunal considers that Mr Al Defeary has assaulted C, R, Z, TPW and DM, in a manner that is both harmful and objectively traumatic.
2. The Tribunal is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the likely impact of Mr Al Defeary's criminal offending and misconduct on each of them was detrimental. The Tribunal considers that this factor further affirms the Tribunal's conclusion that Mr Al Defeary's offending and other misconduct towards each of C, R, Z, TPW and DM is "very serious".

Subclauses 8.1.1(1)(e) and (f) - frequency of offending, whether any trend of increasing seriousness and any cumulative effect

1. In consideration of subclauses 8.1.1(e) and (f), the Tribunal accepts Mr Alkafaji's contention that Mr Al Defeary has only be convicted once for the offences in relation to the attempts to pervert justice or the course of justice. However, the Tribunal considers that in relation to the offending and conduct involving assaults by Mr Al Defeary on other people, that it would appear on the evidence that he has offended frequently (that is, in December 2012, February 2013, June 2022, July 2022 and March 2023) and also the gravity of the offending and other conduct is slowly escalating. The Tribunal considers that this factor affirms the Tribunal's conclusion that Mr Al Defeary's offending and assaults towards each of C, R, Z, TPW and DM are "very serious".

Subclause 8.1.1(1)(g) - provision of false or misleading information to the Department, including by not disclosing prior criminal offending

1. As highlighted by the Minister, Mr Al Defeary failed to disclose his criminal convictions on passenger cards dated 30 December 2006 and 27 October 20102.[65] Mr Al Defeary admitted to this conduct at the hearing and sought to explain that he had requested a stranger to help him to fill out the arrivals card because he was unable to do so himself. He said that he had not disclosed his criminal record because he embarrassed about it. The Tribunal does not regard this as an acceptable excuse for having made false declarations to the Department. The Tribunal does not condone such conduct but in this instance, has decided to disregard it in light of the more serious offending and conduct by Mr Al Defeary in respect of assaulting his former wives and other people trying to intervene and to help his former wives.

Subclause 8.1.1(1)(h) - prior warnings about the consequences of further offending

1. Under subclause 8.1.1(1)(h), the Tribunal is required to take into account 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.
2. On about 5 February 2014, the Department of Immigration and Border Protection sent a "Notice of Intention to Consider the Cancellation of Your Visa" due to Mr Al Defeary's criminal record.[66] Mr Al Defeazy signed an acknowledgement receipt in respect of this Notice on 15 February 2014.[67] He completed a "Personal Details Form" for consideration by the Department. On the final page of this form, Mr Al Defeary states that he is sorry for his offence and remorseful. He acknowledges that what he had done, was a "wrongful" act. He states that he is "a changed person now" and that he had completed the Stopping Family Violence program while he was in prison. He said he had empathised with the victim and that he knows that he will not put himself in this kind of situation again. He requests to be given a chance to stay with his children and his family as soon as possible, so that he would be eligible for parole by 27 February 2014.[68]
3. The relevant delegate decided not to cancel Mr Al Defeary's visa on character grounds and authored a letter dated 8 July 2014 addressed to Mr Al Defeary in Casuarina Prison. This letter provides a written formal warning that his offending has brought his Australian visa "into very close question", the delegate views his offending as "very serious". The letter states that any further offending could mean his visa is cancelled and that he could be removed from Australia. The attached acknowledgement of receipt form was not signed and returned by Mr Al Defeary. Mr Al Defeary's placement history on HB465 indicates that he was not in prison as of 8 July 2014. On the balance of probabilities, the Tribunal finds that Mr Al Defeary did not receive this written formal warning from the Department.
4. However, the Tribunal is satisfied that Mr Al Defeary was aware that:

(a) the Department came very close to cancelling his visa on a previous occasion after his offending against C; > > (b) Mr Al Defary had undertaken to the Department that he would not reoffend and that he was "a changed man"; > > (c) the delegate decided not to cancel his visa on the basis of this undertaking; and > > (d) he was given a second chance by the Australian Government, at this time, to remain living in Australia.

5. While the Tribunal concludes that the circumstances outlined in subclause 8.1.1(1)(h) do not apply in Mr Al Defeary's circumstances, the Tribunal will return to consider the above matters when considering Mr Al Defeary's risk of reoffending below.

Conclusion about the nature and seriousness of the offending and other conduct

1. The Tribunal concludes that the nature and seriousness of Mr Al Defeary's offending and conduct comprising the offences and assaults against C, R, Z, DM and TPW are "very serious".

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

1. Clause 8.1.2(1) of Direction no.110 provides that in considering the need to protect the Australian community 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. It provides that 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. Clause 8.1.2(2) of Direction no.110 then sets out the following mandatory considerations in assessing the risk that may be posed by the non-citizen to the Australian community (as relevant in this application):

(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.

Nature of the harm to individuals or the Australian community should Mr Al Defeary engage in further criminal or other serious conduct

1. The Tribunal is satisfied that Mr Al Defeary's actions towards C, R, Z, TPW and DM, have caused significant physical and emotional harm. The Tribunal concludes that should Mr Al Defeary engage in further criminal or other serious conduct of the same kind he has engaged in previously, this has the potential to cause serious physical and emotional harm to other persons in the Australian community.

The likelihood of the non-citizen engaging in further criminal or other serious conduct

1. Subclause 8.1.2(2)(b)(i) and (ii) of Direction no.110 requires the Tribunal to take into account the following, when considering the "the likelihood of the non-citizen engaging in further criminal or other serious conduct":
   1. "information and evidence on the risk of the non-citizen re-offending"; and
   2. "evidence of rehabilitation achieved by the time of the decision, giving weight to time spent in the community since their most recent offence".

A. Information and evidence on the risk of the non-citizen re-offending

1. Neither party called a psychologist or psychiatrist to give expert evidence in this proceeding about whether there is a risk of Mr Al Defeary re-offending and if so, to provide an opinion about the level of this risk. Accordingly, in line with subclause 8.1.2(2)(b)(i) of Direction no.110, the Tribunal will consider information and evidence put before the Tribunal on the risk of Mr Al Defeary re-offending.

(a) DoJ Risk Assessment Report and Initial Violence Risk Report - 16 May 2025

1. During closing submissions, Mr Plitch drew the Tribunal's attention to a risk assessment report issued by the Department of Justice, Government of Western Australia ('DoJ') on 16 May 2025 ('DoJ Risk Assessment Report'). This report is entitled "Level of Service Risk Need Responsivity" issued by a "Treatment Assessor" (name has been redacted).[69] The assessment is marked as "Finalised".[70] In section 1.7 "Pro-criminal Attitude/Orientation", the assessor has remarked as follows under the subheading "Pro-criminal attitude/Orientation Comments":[71]

[Mr Al Defeary] denied all violent behaviours in his index offending. He stated that he believes the justice system is unfair, and he disagreed with his sentence length, stating he should not be in prison. He stated in regard to domestic violence related offences, that men will always be at fault and that Police and the courts favour women.

2. Further, under the heading "Antisocial Pattern Comments", the assessor states as follows:[72]

[Mr Al Defeary] presented as supportive of criminal behaviours, where he took no accountability for his actions, denied any use of violence on his behalf and presented with distorted perceptions on healthy relationships. He was unfavourable toward convention and disagreed with the offence details and sentence length. [Mr Al Defeary] disclosed financial issues as his business was losing customers.

3. In relation to the general risk/need factors, the assessor concluded as follows:[73]

[Mr Al Defeary] presented with an overall risk/need rating of high. He has criminogenic risk/need factors involving criminal history, family/marital, leisure/recreation, alcohol/ drug problem and pro-criminal attitude/orientation. > > ... > > [Mr Al Defeary] presented with clear problems with compliance being in breach of multiple community-based and protective orders. He described intimidating, harassing and controlling behaviours, anger management deficits and displayed a lack of consequential thinking and poor decision making, particularly in regard to his domestic violence related offending. [Mr Al Defeary] has a history of intrafamilial, extrafamilial and authority figure related violence.

4. The assessor refers to a 2013 psychology report (the date of this report was redacted) and states that this report further indicates that Mr Al Defeary suffers PTSD symptoms, with him alleging an official diagnosis although the diagnosis was unable to be confirmed at the time of writing the assessment. The assessor states that Mr Al Defeary reported that he has brain damage as a result of a car accident, claiming it affects his vision, also unable to be confirmed.[74]
5. The assessor concluded that Mr Al Defeary presented with a "high risk of generalist re-offending".
6. At the hearing, Mr Al Defeary said he could not remember having participated in an interview while he was in prison. The Tribunal notes that on page 13 of the DoJ Risk Assessment Report, it specifies that the "interview date" was 13 May 2025. The Tribunal also notes that a further unsigned "Treatment Assessment Report" dated 16 May 2025 issued by the DoJ ('DoJ Treatment Assessment Report') refers to an interview having taken place on 13 May 2025 and also refers to Mr Al Defeary having signed a paper confirming his consent to engage in the interview process. In light of these documents and taking into account Al Defeary's memory which by his own evidence, he said he experiences difficulties with, on the balance of probabilities, the Tribunal finds that an interview took place between Mr Al Defeary and the treatment assessor on 13 May 2025 arising from which, the DoJ Risk Assessment Report and DoJ Treatment Assessment Report were prepared and issued.
7. The Tribunal also notes that on the same day as those reports were issued, on 16 May 2025, a further DoJ report entitled "Violence Risk Scale Second Edition (Initial Assessment)" was issued by a treatment assessor (name was redacted) ('Initial Violence Risk Assessment'). It is apparent from the language used in the text of this report, that it was based on an interview with Mr Al Defeary. Of note, it provides and account of the Mr Al Defeary attitudes in relation to violence as follows:[75]

[Mr Al Defeary] has a history of intrafamilial, extrafamilial and authority figure related violence. Regarding his domestic violence, he stated that this is often a result of arguments and external pressures including financial difficulties and perceived infidelity. > > Regarding his extrafamilial violence and assaults on authority figures, he claimed his cultural barrier led to these alterations, where in his home country violence against Police and other authority figures was allegedly normalised. > > He further has a record of more generalised violence which includes reckless and dangerous driving, where he again externalised blame onto his cultural differences, suggesting he was unaware of road rules. > > [Mr Al Defeary] presented in the contemplative stage of change, where he externalised blame of his actions, though indicated his violence was problematic. It is noted that [Mr Al Defeary] denied any form of physical violence against the victims regarding his index offending but acknowledges previous violent behaviours.

8. As addressed with the parties at the hearing, it is unknown what qualifications are held by the treatment assessor referred to in the DoJ Risk Assessment Report and the Initial Violence Risk Report, for instance, whether they are a qualified psychologist or psychiatrist who may have specialist skills and training in assessing risk. The Minister contends that the Tribunal should note that the treatment assessor, irrespective of their qualifications, is a person that the DoJ has entrusted with the task of assessing a prisoner's risk level of re-offending. The Tribunal notes this point but has decided to limit the amount of weight to afford to the treatment assessor's opinions in these two reports, because it is not known what qualifications or experience, the author of this report possesses.
9. This does not prevent the Tribunal from considering some of the matters raised in the assessment reports to inform its own view about Mr Al Defeary's level of risk of re-offending, as explained in further in this Statement of Reasons. The Tribunal has taken into account the expressed views of Mr Al Defeary in respect to his history of offending, alongside his views about those matters as expressed by him at the hearing, indicating his intention not to re-offend in the future.

1. On 10 September 2024, the DoJ issued a "Parole Review Report" authored by a "Case Management Assessor" and noted and endorsed by an authorised "Assistant Superintendent Assessments & Case Management". The qualifications held by those signatories were not specified in the report. The authors recommended that parole be denied to Mr Al Defeary for the following stated reasons:[76]

1. Unmet treatment needs for family and domestic violence, drug and alcohol issues and poor consequential thinking noted. 2. Poor prison conduct with breaches of family violence restraining order and methylamphetamine use while in the prison setting noted. 3. Mixed response towards prior community-based and court-imposed dispositions noted. 4. Risk of relapse into alcohol and drug abuse and re-offending n a violent manner noted. 5. Risk to the safety of persons and/or the community if released on parole noted.

2. The Tribunal notes from this report that it was Mr Al Defeary's intention to reside at his brother's address when he was released and that his brother would provide him with employment upon release.[77] In this report, the authors record that Mr Al Defeary was last medically assessed by prison medical staff on 2 September 2024 and that apart from the condition of "allergies - grass/dust" that he had stated that he was in "good heath with no other medical issues". It is noted that there was no record of him having psychological or psychiatric issues or having any disabilities, whether they be recorded, reported or apparent. The Tribunal expects that Mr Al Defeary has represented himself as being in good health either because he is embarrassed to state otherwise or because he had formed a view that it would serve the interests of him obtaining parole at this stage (or possibly both).

(c) Longstanding mental health issues and claimed brain injury from a car accident in December 2017

1. Mr Al Defeary's offending has taken place in the context of him having suffered from long-standing mental health problems and a previous drinking problem. Mr Plitch asserts that the evidence would suggest that it is likely that at times, Mr Al Defeary was also using methamphetamine and/or MDMA, but this is denied by Mr Al Defeary. He says he has never knowingly used drugs (except for some drugs which he believed to be steroids, which he said he got at the gym because he was "skinny"). Mr Al Defeary said he was unaware when taking those tablets (sourced at the gym), that they were MDMA. Mr Al Defeary admits to having consumed alcohol in the past, but his evidence is that he has stopped drinking alcohol a long time ago. Mr Plitch contends that Mr Al Defeary's evidence about the timing of when he ceased drinking alcohol has been inconsistent and that the Tribunal cannot be certain that he has stopped drinking alcohol.
2. Mr Al Defeary is reported to have been diagnosed with PTSD, anxiety, depression and that he experiences insomnia and poor memory. He says he has a brain injury resulting from a car accident and that he has "12 bleeds on the brain", which he claims to be affecting his memory. The medical evidence before the Tribunal shows that there have been some physiological changes to Mr Al Defeary's brain, as confirmed by a neurologist and magnetic resonance imaging ('MRI'). However, it is less clear what the extent of the brain injury is and whether it has led to any ongoing cognitive or other impairments and further, what impact, if any, those impairments have on his offending to date or the risk of him reoffending in the future.
3. Mr Al Defeary was unable to answer a significant number of questions at the hearing, because he said he could not remember certain things or events. Mr Al Defeary claimed that he has had a poor memory since the car accident he had in 2017.
4. Mr Plitch questioned Mr Al Defeary's claim that his brain injury was responsible for his poor recall, when he was being examined at the hearing. Mr Plitch highlighted to the Tribunal that:

(a) Mr Al Defeary's evidence about the car accident is inconsistent with witness statements made by persons who witnessed the car accident or were involved in the aftermath of it. Specifically, Mr Plitch took Mr Al Defeary to the evidence given by the witnesses as set out on HB550 and HB561; > > (b) Mr Al Defeary was also taken to a report issued by Western Australia Corrections which states that Mr Al Defeary had told a Police officer that the car accident has had no impact on his cognitive abilities or behaviour; > > (c) there is no evidence before the Tribunal clearly showing that the injuries from the 2017 accident have impacted upon Mr Al Defeary's memory. Mr Plitch said the evidence about the 2017 accident is limited to: > > > (i) a report by a neurologist, who opines that Mr Defeary's symptoms, described as dizziness and headaches, are attributable to a migraine. The Tribunal notes that this report is authored by Dr Catherine Franconi, Consultant Neurologist, Royal Perth Bentley Group, and is dated 23 April 2019.[78] Dr Franconi states that Mr Al Defeary was referred to her by the Acute Care Unit after Mr Al Defeary had presented on 31 January 2018 with "vertigo". She refers to the car accident involving the kangaroo in December 2017 and states that Mr Al Defeary and his "cousin" were found by a truck driver by the side of the road and they were "uncertain who the driver was". Dr Franconi refers to the MRI of Mr Al Defeary's brain dated 20 February 2018 and notes that it showed "a degree of diffuse axonal injury involving the right parietal lobe". She states that he is under the care of Mental Health Services. Dr Franconi concluded that Mr Defeary's symptoms were related to "vestibular migraine" and prescribed him with medication to work as a migraine prophylactic agent as well as helping him with sleep and his appetite;[79] and > > > > (ii) a report by a psychiatrist expressing that Mr Al Defeary's "c_ognitive symptoms_" had preceded the injury caused by the car accident. Specifically, Mr Plitch states that the psychiatrist describes his symptoms of depression and a lack of motivation, but that those symptoms did not relate to the car accident; and > > (d) in relation to Mr Al Defeary's assertion that he has PTSD, Mr Plitch contends that there is no report by a mental health professional before the Tribunal confirming a diagnosis of PTSD.

5. The report by a senior medical practitioner in psychiatry, Dr Danka Sokolowska, is found in the Hearing Book at HB201 to HB203. It is dated 5 February 2019 and refers to have arisen after a referral by Mr Al Defeary's general practitioner for "urgent assessment and management of severe depression and anxiety". Dr Sokolowska states that Mr Al Defeary had reported a history of worsening depressive symptoms since the end of his relationship with C in 2013 and his loss of contact with D1 and S1 when they were aged two years and six months, respectively. Mr Al Defeary told Dr Sokolowska that he felt that his symptoms had been exacerbated by a brain injury from a motor vehicle accident 12 months earlier. Dr Sokolowska notes that the MRI of Mr Al Defeary's head showed "diffuse axonal injury in right parietal lobe". Dr Sokolowska also states that Mr Al Defeary was unable to describe how his symptoms had changed.
6. Dr Sokolowska states in her report that Mr Al Defeary had reported:

(a) a history of severe depression since the loss of his children in 2013; > > (b) feeling "low" for the last five years with feelings of worthlessness, emptiness and constant rumination; > > (c) not sleeping, unless he has 10mg of diazepam; > > (d) having a poor appetite and an "unknown loss of weight"; > > (e) that he sits at home on his own and has no interest in working; > > (f) that he has poor concentration, amotivation and difficult with his memory; and > > (g) that he denied any suicidal ideation, plans or intentions.

7. The Tribunal notes the doctor refers to Mr Al Defeary having reported "a previous suicide attempt several years ago in Brisbane" and that he had seen a psychiatrist in Brisbane, but that he could not remember their name.
8. Dr Sokolowska records in her report that Mr Al Defeary had been reviewed on a number of occasions and his mental health had stabilised on the current medications, recorded as Venlafaxine XR, 150mg, in the morning and Quetiapine, 25mg, at night.[80] The doctor recommended that Dr Al Defeary continue with those medication, book an appointment with his general practitioner to organise access to psychology through a Mental Health Care Plan, and to attend a neurology clinic for review.[81]
9. The Tribunal notes that between March 2017 and (at least) October 2017, that Mr Al Defeary was receiving psychological treatment from Mr Kholoud Abdulla, Zone Medical Centre, in Queensland. In the Mr Abdulla's report dated 4 October 2017, he states that Mr Al Defeary is suffering from severe depression and anxiety and has symptoms of insomnia, anger outbursts, extreme loss of weight, irritability, difficulty concentrating and has trouble remembering things. Mr Abdulla states that Mr Al Defeary will continue to seek psychological treatment.
10. In his second report dated 5 October 2017, Mr Abdulla states that Mr Al Defeary's severe depression and anxiety is due to his separation from his children. He states that Mr Al Defeary was "required to be admitted to mental health service in Logan Hospital after suicide attempt". He reported the symptomatology, as stated in his report of 4 October 2017, and he added a further symptom being that Mr Al Defeary was having difficulty with making decisions.
11. There are a set of clinical notes included in the HB (that is, HB206 - 22 November 2018 to HB266 - 10 September 2024). Those notes indicate that Mr Al Defeary was admitted to Royal Perth Mental Health on 11 November 2017 due to possible risk of suicide.[82] The clinical note on 5 October 2022 refers to Mr Al Defeary coming in for a Mental Health Care Plan and being referred for psychology. The clinical note on 27 February 2023 records that he has had headaches for a long time which were "associated with memory loss and dizzy spells". The clinical note on 5 April 2023 record that Mr Al Defeary was the subject of domestic abuse at home on 12 March 2023 and that his wife had hit him on the head three times, lacerated his left shoulder, bruised his left upper arm and that he had felt dizzy and has had headaches ever since.
12. The evidence before the Tribunal shows that Mr Al Defeary has received pharmacological treatment at different times for his mental health conditions, including medication such as Tramadol, Lyrica, Mirtazapine and Olanzapine.[83] In Mr Al Deferay's SFIC, Mr Alkafaji states that Mr Al Defeary is currently on Mirtazapine, Zoloft and Endep. At the hearing, Mr Al Defeay said he is currently taking Mirtazapine, Olanzapine and Tramadol.
13. Mr Alkafaji states that Mr Al Defeary had advised him that he has been seen by many psychiatrists and psychologists for the treatment of his depression. Mr Alkafaji states that Mr Al Defeary struggled a lot due to a brain injury in December 2017 and that he has been unable to work since 2013 (being the year his marriage fell apart). He referred to a previous suicide attempt when Mr Al Defeary as in Brisbane and his admission to "mental institutions many times". Mr Al Defeary confirmed at the hearing that he has been admitted to a psychiatric facility previously after attempting to commit suicide. The Tribunal is satisfied that admission to such a facility is consistent with Mr Al Defeary having struggled with serious mental health issues in the past, and the Tribunal finds accordingly.
14. In this regard, the Tribunal notes that there is a four-page medical record in respect of Mr Al Defeary attached to Mr Al Defeary's SFIC. It does not record who wrote this report, or when and where it was written. In the section entitled Past Histories, it states that Mr Al Defeary has chronic low back pain. In relation to "Mental Health", it refers to Mr Al Defeary having "depression/Low self esteem/inability to gain weight/possible element of secondary gain in his symptomology". This medial report refers to Mr Al Defeary being resistant to accepting either psychological, pharmacological or organic investigations.
15. The report indicates that Mr Al Defeary:[84]

(a) commenced Mirtazapine in 2013 but was "not adherent"; > > (b) commenced Fluoxetine in the morning with Mirtazapine at night from 15 October 2013 but that he was "non-adherent"; > > (c) commenced 2.5mg of Olanzapine daily until 16 December 2013 and then increased this medication to 10mg daily in 2014. Then, he ceased Olanzapine and accepted another trial of Mirtazapine from 25 March 2014 and increased it to 45mg on 2 April 2014. He ceased taking the Mirtazapine three weeks later and he was offered 15mg per day. It is not recorded whether he is taking this medication as of the date this report was prepared but Mr Al Defeary's evidence at the hearing is that he is taking this medication; and > > (d) he commenced 2.0mg of Prednisolone daily in January/February 2014, as an appetite stimulant.

16. At the hearing, Mr Al Defeary was asked why it would appear that he had been resistant to taking medication. He said that it makes him sleep too much.
17. Mr Al Defeary, or Mr Alkafaji on his behalf, did not arrange for a psychiatrist or psychologist to assess Mr Al Defeary in advance of the hearing or to be called as a witness to give expert evidence in this matter about the relationship between Mr Al Defeary's mental health conditions or brain injury and his history of criminal offending and any risk that he may continue to reoffend.
18. Based on the evidence referred to above, on balance, the Tribunal accepts that Mr Al Defeary:

(a) suffers from longstanding depression; > > (b) experiences PTSD-related symptoms; and > > (c) that he has a minor brain injury which affects his memory recall.

19. Mr Plitch highlights that there is no expert evidence before the Tribunal, say from a psychiatrist, to suggest that Mr Al Defeary suffers from PTSD and that this condition has contributed to his offending or to confirm whether he is on a treatment plan now which addressed those root causes of offending. This is correct. This is also the case in respect of Mr Al Defeary's depression and his brain injury.
20. Accordingly, the Tribunal finds that Mr Al Defeary has suffered from longstanding mental health issues and a brain injury. On balance, the Tribunal finds that Mr Al Defeary's treatment regime for his mental health conditions and symptoms has not been coordinated and managed properly and for this reason, this treatment has been inconsistent and incomplete. The reasons for this arise from Mr Al Defeary's transition into and out of prison but mostly, because of Mr Al Defeary's demonstrated poor level of self-awareness, low level of education and corresponding low level of resourcefulness, poor support network (he has many family members around him, but they do not seem be able to support him to access the help he needs), language and cultural barriers and his lack of acknowledgement about the impacts that these issues are having upon him and the other persons (victims) involved, and in particular, their impact on Mr Al Defeary's risk of reoffending. The Tribunal finds that there has been a substantial lag in Mr Al Defeary's treatment because he has not yet accepted full responsibility for his wrongdoings. He has only started to accept some responsibility for his conduct and offending very recently at the hearing of this matter, when faced with the possibility that the Cancellation Decision might not be revoked. Until then, the DoJ Risk Assessment Report state that Mr Al Defeary has sought to externalise blame for the incidents which have occurred.
21. However, the Tribunal considers that there is no evidence upon which the Tribunal can make any findings about what link or relationship there is, if any, between Mr Al Defeary's mental health conditions, brain injury, and PTSD-related symptoms, and his extensive history of criminal offending or risk of reoffending. This is neutral consideration in respect of the Tribunal's assessment about the risk of Mr Al Defeary reoffending.

(d) Remorse for the offending conduct and stated intention to abstain from reoffending

1. At the end of the hearing, Mr Al Defeary addressed the Tribunal and said that he was "really sorry for everything", that he is "really, I'm changed now". Mr Al Defeary said he has "learnt from his mistake" and promises to be "a better person". Mr Al Defeary said he wants to "do my own thing with my family and that's all, you know, and I'm really sorry".
2. As highlighted by Mr Plitch, the Tribunal notes that in 2014, after the offences against C, a delegate of the Minister gave notice to Mr Al Defeary that of their intention to cancel his Visa. Mr Al Defeary was provided with an opportunity to respond. Upon doing so, he made similar assertions about being sorry for his offending behaviour and that he was changed. He promised not to re-offend. He undertook a domestic violence training program to learn tools and strategies to keep him from reoffending. However, this was ineffectual because when he re-partnered with R, he reoffended and assaulted her, Z and some innocent persons who tried to intervene to protect R.
3. For this reason, the Tribunal is unable to accept Mr Al Defeary's assurances at the end of the hearing, that he is genuinely sorry for the offending and misconduct he has engaged in while living in Australia, that he has changed and that he will not reoffend again. On the evidence before it, the Tribunal is not positively satisfied that Mr Al Defeary has genuine remorse for his past offending, nor does he have adequate insight into his offending conduct and what he will need to do to stop himself from reoffending in the future.

(e) Status of Mr Al Defeary's relationship with R

1. Mr Al Defeary told the Tribunal at the hearing that he had seen R twice since his release from prison. When asked whether they were a couple, his responses were unclear. He explained that it was going to take some time for the trust to be reestablished between them. This is consistent with the fact that Mr Al Defeary has not been living with R upon his release from prison. Instead, he has been living with his brother, H. Mr Plitch pointed out that R had not been to visit Mr Al Defeary since December 2024. When he was asked why this was so, Mr Al Defeary said that R has been overseas in Iraq. When asked to specify when R had returned to Australia, Mr Al Defeary was evasive in his answer, stating that he did not know. When pressed about this being inconsistent with his contention that he was still in a relationship with R, Mr Al Defeary answered the question by saying it was about three or four months ago. He did not have an answer for why she had stopped visiting him in prison. R did not give a statement in this proceeding, nor called by Mr Al Defeary as a witness to give oral evidence at the hearing.
2. Based on these matters, the Tribunal is not satisfied that Mr Al Defeary and R are in a current relationship of a kind that would serve as a protective factor against him reoffending.

(f) Mr Al Defeary's intention to resume a parenting role as father to D1, S1 or to RD

1. Mr Al Defeary has not seen his biological children since they were infants. They do not know him, and he does not know them. He does not currently pay their mother any child support even though his evidence at the hearing was that he could sell one of his four unregistered luxury cars immediately to pay the child support if the Tribunal wished him to do so. When asked why he had not done so to date, he responded that he did not consider it important to do so but if the Tribunal wanted him to so, he could sell one of his cars and pay for it tomorrow. It is not for the Tribunal to tell Mr Al Defeary what to do in respect of paying child support. The Tribunal has noted that despite Mr Al Defeary having the capacity to pay child support by selling one of his cars, that he has not done so. The Tribunal considers that this reflects that Mr Al Defeary's commitment towards the welfare of his children is not a priority for him and which reflects the reality that they are not a part of his life.
2. The Tribunal accepts that Mr Al Defeary may have a present intention to apply to the Family Court for orders so that he can spend time with or care for D1 and S1. The Tribunal accepts that it may have been difficult for Mr Al Defeary to do so, while he was imprisoned in 2013/2014. However, a further decade has now past and there is no documentary evidence tendered by Mr Al Defeary to show that he has vigorously pursued Family Court action or engaged lawyers to make valid applications on his behalf. The evidence was unclear another whether another application was made or at least attempted to be made and what the upshoot of that was, other than a vague reference to the Court not being prepared to deal with it at the time. It is amiss that Mr Al Defeary has not persisted, and has not made, or engaged lawyers to make, repeated applications to spend time with his children during the times when he was not imprisoned between 2014 and 2023.
3. The Tribunal finds that Mr Al Defeary is unlikely to follow up on his intention to apply to the Family Court to seek the right to spend time with or to share the care of D1 and S1 with C. The Tribunal finds that it is unlikely that Mr Al Defeary will be able to spend time with D1 or S1 in future. For this reason, the Tribunal is not satisfied that D1 and S1 will be a part of his life in future and for this reason, does not find that this would serve as a protective factor against his re-offending.
4. In relation to RD, Mr Al Defeary gave evidence at the hearing that he has not seen RD upon being released from prison on 10 February 2026. The Tribunal is satisfied that RD has been involved in serious incidents of family violence between Mr Al Defeary and her mother, R. There are some letters in the HB which Mr Al Defeary say are handwritten letters by RD to him while he was in prison. The Tribunal has taken these into account; however, it considers there is insufficient evidence before it upon which to make a finding that it is likely that RD will be a part of Mr Al Defeary's life going forward. R's actions to date of not allowing Mr Al Defeary to reside with him and her daughter and by not facilitating any meetings between Mr Al Defeary and RD, signals that she is treating the situation and treating Mr Al Defeary with caution.
5. The Tribunal is not positively satisfied that RD will be a part of Mr Al Defeary's life and that she would serve as a protective factor against him reoffending in the future.

(g) Intention to take up employment as a protective factor against relapsing and re-offending

1. Mr Al Defeary gave evidence that he is able to start employment in his brother's tow-truck business upon being released from prison. H also gave evidence to state that he could offer Mr Al Defeary employment. In answer to some further questions at the hearing, H said that he has about eight two trucks, but that business is quiet, and that he is working as the only driver in this business at the moment. Given Mr Al Defeary's history of traffic and road related offences, it is not clear whether this type of employment should be pursued by Mr Al Defeary given his track record of driving and traffic offences.
2. The Tribunal accepts that it is possible that this offer of employment by BH may serve as a protective factor for him but only places limited weight on this for the reasons set out above. It is yet to be seen whether H has enough business coming in to support Mr Al Defeary in this business and whether he will be able to obtain and keep the driver's licence he will require to do this type of work.
3. However, based on the evidence of Mr Al Defeary and his parents, the Tribunal considers that at the very least, that Mr Al Defeary would be able to take on the role of their primary carers in respect of their health issues and apply for a carer's allowance and payments. The Tribunal is satisfied that this would serve as a protective factor for Mr Al Defeary against the risk of him reoffending.

(h) Support network to reach out to in challenging times

1. The Tribunal accepts that Mr Al Defeary has a very large family who appear to be supportive of him. This is particularly so in respect of his parents and his brother, BH, with whom he resides.
2. During closing submissions, Mr Plitch questioned the extent to which Mr Al Defeary could rely on his family as "pro-social influences". He said that BH had given evidence at the hearing which would suggest that he shares the "same attitude towards domestic violence and towards women that the Applicant does". The Tribunal notes that BH gave evidence at the hearing that R and Z had assaulted Mr Al Defeary and that both of them had lied. Mr Plitch also contended that Mr Al Defeary had offended regardless of his family's presence in Australia since his arrival.
3. The Tribunal agrees that the degree and effectiveness of the support able to be offered by Mr Al Defeary's family and in particular, BH, is questionable. When giving evidence at the hearing, H demonstrated a lack of acceptance that Mr Al Defeary was responsible for his criminal offending. He sought to place the blame on R and Z in relation to the more recent assaults. He was also unaware of the details of Mr Al Defeary's history of criminal offending, as were M, F and SF, who gave evidence at the hearing. SF was under the impression that Mr Al Defeary had only been to prison on one occasion. The Tribunal infers that Mr Defeary does not share with his family members the whole truth about his intersection with Australian criminal justice system. The Tribunal cannot be confident that he is sufficiently close enough to his family members to be able to lean on them for future support, if he is experiences conflict or difficulties with any future partners.
4. The Tribunal accepts that Mr Al Defeary's parents, BH and SF are loyal and loving family members but finds that the support they are able to offer Mr Al Defeary is limited. The Tribunal concludes that the support able to be provided by his family will not lessen his risk of reoffending in the future. His family have been present in his life since his arrival in Australia to the present day. Despite his family's presence, Mr Al Defeary has continued to offend extensively over a period of two decades, demonstrating that his family have not served as a protective factor to prevent the continuation of Mr Al Defeary's criminal offending. The Tribunal finds that the presence of Mr Al Defeary's family in his life will not lessen the risk of him reoffending in the future.

B. Evidence of rehabilitation achieved by the time of the decision, giving weight to time spent in the community since their most recent offence.

1. In accordance with subclause 8.1.2(2)(b)(ii) of Direction no.110, the Tribunal will take into account evidence of Mr Al Defeary's rehabilitation achieved right up until the time of the Tribunal making this Decision.
2. This consideration requires the Tribunal to give weight to the time spent by the non-citizen in the community since their most recent offence. This consideration is of limited relevance in this case, in light of Mr Al Defeary only having been released in the community for less than two weeks at the time of the substantive hearing. There has not been sufficient time to make an assessment about success of not of Mr Al Defeary's rehabilitation during this short time, except that the Tribunal notes that he says he has made an appointment to see a counsellor so it would appear that there is some level of recognition that he requires ongoing psychological or counselling services.
3. In 2013, Mr Al Defeary completed the "Stopping Family Violence Program". The completion report is recorded as stating that he was a motivated participant in this program and has made some treatment gains in the areas of taking responsibility for his actions, awareness of the impact of abusive practises, engaging with the concept of lifestyle balance, and recognising the need for change. Despite having undertaken this course, Mr Al Defeary reoffending by engaging in acts of domestic violence against R in July 2022, March 2023 and July 2023.
4. In one of Mr Al Defeary's undated written statements, he states that he had enrolled himself in a drug and alcohol course, welding course, forklift course, safety course and for construction cards.[85] The Tribunal notes that Mr Al Defeary has attended:

(a) as certified on 7 November 2024, a Community Transitions Domestic & Family Violence (DFV)/Treatment Readiness Program comprising three group-based sessions intended to increase motivation to change, alter negative perceptions, and begin to acknowledge violent and/or controlling behaviours;[86] and > > (b) commencing on 6 January 2025, Community Transitions Domestic and Family Violence Individual Counselling sessions at Acacia Prison.[87]

5. In Mr Al Defeary's September 2025 Letter, he states that he completed the following "voluntary programs for changes to become a better person and to learn steps not to re-offend"":

(a) "Domestic and Family Violence" (DFV);[88] > > (b) one-to-one counselling with Community Transitions. He said he commenced these sessions in November 2024 and has completed 18 fortnightly sessions. He states that counselling would continue until he was released and then would continue after he is released into the community;[89] > > (c) he has engaged with the Waalitj Foundation who can support him to find employment if needed and that he has an opportunity to work in the family business (referring to a tow truck business operated by his two brothers);[90] > > (d) the Stopping Family Violence Program - 12 weeks for three to four days per week which he completed in the final quarter of 2025; > > (e) vocational training including a unit of study completed on 11 September 2024 entitled "Apply Workplace Health and Safety Concerts" as part of a Certificate I in Entry to General Education (EGE);[91] > > (f) general education courses to help him to improve his literacy including units "VU22342 Identify learning objectives", "VU22343 Engage with short simple tests for personal purposes", "VU22348 Create short simple texts for personal purposes" and "VU22352 Recognise Numbers and money in simple, highly familiar situations" forming part of Accredited Course 22471VIC Course in Initial General Education for Adults as completed on 14 February 2025.[92]

6. The Tribunal notes that Mr Al Defeary has undertaken several rehabilitation and self-improvement activities. However, during closing submissions, Mr Plitch referred to and relies upon the Initial Violence Risk Assessment completed in respect of Mr Al Defeary which reports that when he was assessed six months prior, after he had completed domestic violence and counselling programs, that he said that he was innocent and that the court system was biased in favour of women.[93] Mr Plitch also highlights that the risk assessment records that Mr Al Defeary presented as supportive of criminal behaviours, and that he took no accountability and had "distorted perceptions of healthy relationships".[94] Mr Plitch highlights that the assessor assessed Mr Al Defeary's risk rating as being "high". He said the Minister accepts that the qualifications of the assessor are not recorded in this report, but as mentioned he asked the Tribunal to consider that the assessment was carried out by someone entrusted by Western Australia Corrections to carry out this kind of assessment and that Mr Al Defeary has not presented to the Tribunal any evidence to the contrary.
7. Mr Plitch contends that Mr Al Defeary has a long record of recidivism throughout almost his entire time in Australia and the substantial part of his adult life. Mr Plitch said that Mr Al Defeary was issued with a notice of intention to consider cancelling his visa in 2014 in response to which Mr Al Defeary made a similar response to the Department to the response he is making to the Tribunal now, specifically, that he is a changed man and that he had pointed to the same protective factors being his family and nieces and nephews which Mr Al Defeary claimed would prevent him from re-offending. Mr Plitch highlights that he had continued to re-offend. Mr Plitch also highlights that Mr Al Defeary continued in his evidence given to the Tribunal at the hearing, to minimise and in some cases, to deny his offending, as well as expressing his view on the second day of the hearing, that the court system is bias against men.
8. The Tribunal acknowledges that Mr Al Defeary has made some endeavours to undergo reform and rehabilitation but on balance, it considers those endeavours to be cursory. The Tribunal considers that Mr Al Defeary is a long way from completing the extensive rehabilitation and self-development that he requires, to prevent himself from reoffending in the future.

Conclusion in relation to the likelihood of Mr Al Defeary reoffending

1. The Tribunal finds that Mr Al Defeary is regretful about his history of reoffending and other conduct but mainly because of the consequences such offending and conduct has had for him personally. The Tribunal does not gain an impression that Mr Al Defeary that he has a full appreciation of the harm he has caused to other through his actions. The Tribunal acknowledges that Mr Al Defeary has engaged in some efforts, albeit rather modest, to rehabilitate himself, and that he has made some progress, again albeit modest. The Tribunal is not satisfied that Mr Al Defeary's rehabilitation is anywhere near complete. He has a long way to go.
2. The Tribunal considers that the risk that Mr Al Defeary may offend again and assault other people, including any new partners with whom he may enter into a relationship, or innocent bystanders stepping in to intervene to protect them, is high. Mr Al Defeary has demonstrated that he lacks self-control and can become emotional volatile and aggressive in moments of conflict. He has shown that he has the potential to do grave harm to others when he is in such a state.
3. Many of the protective factors (that is, Mr Al Defeary's extensive family) have been present as protective factors in the past, but they have proven to be an insufficient protective factor against him reoffending.
4. On balance, the Tribunal considers there to be a moderate to high risk that Mr Al Defeary will reoffend in a similar way as he has done so in the past, by assaulting other people and disobeying Australian laws and court orders. He has shown a persistent disrespect and non-observance of Australian laws.

Conclusion - weight to be given to Primary Consideration No.1

1. The Tribunal considers that, on balance, Mr Al Defeary's has experienced longstanding issues with perpetrating family violence, assaulting other persons and disobeying court orders and that there is a moderate to high risk that this will continue to occur and may cause grave harm to others.
2. The Tribunal concludes that the consideration of the "protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct" in this application, weighs very heavily in favour of affirming the Decision Under Review.

PRIMARY CONSIDERATION NO.2 - FAMILY VIOLENCE COMMITTED BY THE NON-CITIZEN

1. The Tribunal finds that Mr Al Defeary engaged in family violence against C in December 2012 and February 2013 and against R in June 2022, July 2022 and in March 2023 as outline above.
2. The Tribunal is positively satisfied on the evidence before it that Mr Al Defeary has committed threats and acts of family violence towards C and R. Accordingly, the Tribunal concludes that this consideration weighs very heavily against the revocation of the Cancellation Decision.

PRIMARY CONSIDERATION NO.3 - THE STRENGTH, NATURE AND DURATION OF TIES TO AUSTRALIA

The impact of the decision on immediate family members

1. Clause 8.3(1) provides that 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. The term "immediate family member" is not defined in Direction no.110.[95] The Tribunal considers it appropriate to interpret "immediate family members" to include those categories of persons as identified by the Minister.
2. At paragraph [56] of the Minister's SFIC, the Minister acknowledges that Mr Al Defeary has immediate familial ties to Australia, namely his parents, siblings, minor children, ex-wife, stepdaughter, and nieces and nephews and that they have provided letters of support. Those letters include:

(a) typed (unsigned and undated) letter by R;[96] > > (b) letter by FA signed and dated 12 September 2024 - brother of Mr Al Defeary;[97] > > (c) letter by HGF signed and dated 12 September 2024 - sister to Mr Al Defeary;[98] > > (d) letter by FAJ signed and dated 12 September 2024 - sibling of Mr Al Defeary;[99] > > (e) letter by FGF1995 signed and dated 12 September 2024 - sister of Mr Al Defeary;[100] > > (f) letter by FGF1992 signed and dated 12 September 2024 - sibling of Mr Al Defeary;[101] > > (g) letter by WGF1990 signed and dated 12 September 2024 - sister of Mr Al Defeary;[102] > > (h) letter by AGF1989 signed and dated 12 September 2024 - sister of Mr Al Defeary;[103] > > (i) letter by AF 1986 signed and dated 12 September 2024 - brother of Mr Al Defeary;[104] > > (j) letter by HKD 1985 unsigned and undated - brother of Mr Al Defeary;[105] > > (k) letter by HKD signed and dated on 12 September 2024;[106] > > (l) letter of JAD 2010 signed and dated on 12 September 2024 - niece of Mr Al Defeary;[107] > > (m) letter of FAD 2006 signed and dated on 12 September 2024 - nephew of Mr Al Defeary;[108] > > (n) letter by M signed and dated 12 September 2024;[109] > > (o) letter by F signed and dated 12 September 2024;[110]

1. The status of the relationship between R and Mr Al Defeary remains unclear. She was not called as a witness, nor did she provide a statement for the purpose of this proceeding. There is a typed unsigned statement, as referred to above, which appears to have been provided to the Department. It has not been possible in this proceeding, to verify with R whether she is the author of this statement or to ask her questions about the assertions by her in this document.
2. At the hearing, Mr Al Defeary referred to R being at work at the time of the hearing. The Tribunal did not get an impression that R is particularly supportive of Mr Al Defeary. Mr Al Defeary said he had seen R twice since being released and that he would have to rebuild her trust. The prison records show that R had stopped visiting in since December 2024, and that even if it is to be accepted that she was overseas for part of the period after this date, Mr Al Defeary reluctantly disclosed she has been back in Australia for three of four months and yet she has not been to see him in prison during that time.
3. The Tribunal finds on the balance of probabilities that Mr Al Defeary and R no longer have a close personal relationship or could be characterised as a couple. The Tribunal in not persuaded that it would impact R, or RD, if Mr Defeary may be removed from Australia at some point in the future. R and RD have been living without Mr Al Defeary in their lives for several years while he has been in prison.

1. D1 and S1 have been living with C since 2013. Mr Al Defeary has not seen D1 or S1 since 2013. Mr Alkafaji states that D1 and S1 are Australian citizens and living in Australia.[111] However, as already mentioned, Mr Al Defeary is no longer in contact with C, D1 or S1.
2. Mr Alkafaji states that Mr Al Defeary had been paying child support to C since 2012. At the hearing, Mr Al Defeary confirmed that he is in not presently paying child support to D1 or S1 and he confirmed that he had stopped paying child support when he went into prison. He gave evidence that he earned $3.00 per day while he was in prison. He also gave evidence that he owns four cars. When asked why he had not sold one of them to assist him to continue making child support payments, he responded that his cars were unregistered. When it was put to Mr Al Defeary that an unregistered car could still be sold, he agreed and remarked that it would reduce the sale price. As mentioned above, he said that he had not sold the car because he did not think it was important but that if the Tribunal wanted him to sell the car and to pay the child support than he would do this.
3. Based on Mr Al Defeary's evidence at the hearing, he said he would like to see D1 and S1 again and to be a part of their lives. He said it is his intention to make another application to the Family Court. He said he had applied previously but he said the Family Court would not accept his application. Mr Alkafaji states that in 2019, the Court advised Mr Al Defeary that it would not assess his case at that time.[112] Mr Al Defeary's evidence was that he is unaware as to whether a court has made any parenting orders in respect of D1 and S1.
4. The Tribunal finds that Mr Al Defeary has not seen or spoken to D1 or S1 for more than a decade and last saw them when they were infants. For more than a decade, Mr Al Defeary has had no relationship with them. The Tribunal is not satisfied that based on the current state of their relationship, which is non-existent, that it would have any impact on D1 or S1 if Mr Al Defeary might be removed from Australia at some point in the future.

1. Mr Al Defeary states that as the eldest child in the family, that he would like to be able to care for his elderly parents.
2. The Tribunal notes that in Mr Al Defeary's September 2025 Letter that upon release, he would stay at his parents' house being a four-bedroom home with only his parents living there. Mr Al Defeary states that the benefit of him staying with his parents is that he can spend time with them and to help care for them. This did not eventuate. Mr Al Defeary has stayed at his brother, BH's, house and with BH's family, upon his release.
3. F (aged 68) and M (aged 67) were living in Kuwait before the war with Iraq broke out. F said they were "stateless". F said they immigrated to Australia as refugees. F and M have made a life for themselves in Australia. F told the Tribunal they have now both applied for and have been conferred Australian citizenship.
4. F and M gave evidence in support of Mr Al Defeary at the substantive hearing of this matter and lodged statements in support of his application. They appear to have a close relationship with, and think highly of, Mr Al Defeary, despite knowing that that he has been convicted of criminal offence/s and have served term/s of imprisonment. F's and M's specific knowledge about the details of their son's criminal offending was limited, as addressed in further detail below. At the hearing, F and M displayed signs of distress at the notion of Mr Al Defeary being removed from Australia. They pleaded with the Tribunal to allow him to remain in Australia.
5. F and M suffer from various ailments, and they asserted that Mr Al Defeary needed to remain in Australia to provide care for them. Specifically, F gave evidence that he has impairments in relation to his mobility and walks with a walking stick. He says he has back problems and that experiences shooting pains down his legs. He said that M has quite a serious vision impairment being blind in one eye and having only 25% of vision remaining in her other eye. F said neither of them receive any assistance under the National Disability Insurance Scheme, nor under an Aged Care Package. F said they have relied upon Mr Al Defeary to assist them since his release on 10 February 2026, and prior to that, they have relied upon their other children, in particular, BH, to help them.
6. Mr Al Defeary said he visits F and M every day and will take them to medical appointments.
7. At the hearing, F gave oral evidence that Mr Al Defeary provides him with assistance and support because he is the eldest child. F said that all of his other children are married and that they look after their own families. F said that Mr Al Defeary takes him to medical appointments. He said he had been helping them for a "long time" and that he is "always helpful". He said his other children help him, but it is mostly Mr Al Defeary because he is available and has no other commitments. F said Mr Al Defeary is a good person and he has made mistakes. He said that when he asks Mr Al Defeary for something that he will "come straight away". F said he is 68 years old and has a back problem with his discs and that it shoots pain down his legs. He said that he can drive a car and can walk without walking aids. He said that both of his knees are sore. He said that the removal of Mr Al Defeary from Australia would have a big impact on him and that he is the one supporting F.
8. F gave evidence that in 1999 when they got off the plane, he told Mr Al Defeary to respect the laws of this country. When F was asked whether there was a plan to ensure he does not commit again, F said "God willing, he won't commit crimes anymore". When F was asked what he knew about Mr Al Defeary's had done, F said there was an incident involving two ladies at home. When asked who the two ladies were, F said "No, I don't know them". This was a curious remark given that Mr Al Defeary was married under Islamic Law to one of the women involved in this incident. When F was asked to explain what else Mr Al Defeary had done, he indicated that he did not know. When F was asked to state how many times Mr Al Defeary had been to jail, F said two or three times.
9. F confirmed that when he left Kuwait that he witnesses the killings, the burnt tanks and that there were dead bodies in the street. F confirmed that he came to Australia in 1999 under a refugee/protection visa. When asked why Mr Al Defeary did not arrive in Australia until 2003, F said he had to pay money for the rest of the family to come to Australia.
10. When F was asked who had helped him when Mr Al Defeary was in jail (for three years), F said that the other siblings had helped him and that he had mainly relied on BH and sometimes, BH's wife and girls.
11. The Tribunal accepts that F and M have a good relationship with Mr Al Defeary and that they have health issues so that they would benefit from have Mr Al Defeary in Australia indefinitely so that he can help them by taking them to medical appointments and assist them generally. The Tribunal is satisfied that if Mr Al Defeary was removed from Australia at some point in the future that this would be upsetting for F and M. The Tribunal considers that if this were to occur, that F and M would be assisted by BH and their other children, as occurred while Mr Al Defeary was in prison. The Tribunal considers that the impact on F and M if Mr Al Defeary is removed from Australia would be primarily emotional. They would be able to remain in touch via telephone and videoconferencing communications.
12. M gave oral evidence that Mr Al Defeary is "not a troublemaker" and that he has had "bad luck". She said Mr Al Defeary was "very good with her", his siblings, nieces and nephews. She said that they "love him too much". When asked what M felt while Mr Al Defeary was in prison, M said that being a mother, she was thinking about him day and night. She confirmed that he helps her attend medical appointments, prepare her bed, and that he stays overnight with her. When asked why her other children would be unable to assist with such activities, M said they have their own families and commitments. M said that Mr Al Defeary will take her shopping, to medical appointment and he will go out with her. M said he will chat with her and will cook for her, because she cannot see. When asked to explain why he has been to prison, M said that it was "bad luck". M asked the Tribunal to give Mr Al Defeary his visa back. She said that she thinks he has learned his lesson and has learnt from his mistakes. M said that Mr Al Defeary has nobody outside of Australia to support him. M said that maybe something will happen to her and that maybe she will die. M said, "we are stateless". The Tribunal notes that M is not stateless - she is a citizen of Australia. There was no evidence before the Tribunal to suggest that M was at risk of dying in the imminent future.
13. M was asked whether she knew R. M said she did and commented that R was visiting him. When asked why Mr Al Defeary ended up in prison three years ago, M said it was because of R. She said R "did an injustice to him" and that Mr Al Defeary is "passionate". When asked whether she considered that R was lying about Mr Al Defeary, M answered in the affirmative and stated that R was "a poor thing". When asked if she knew C, M said that C was Mr Al Defeary's wife. When M was asked why Mr Al Defeary went to prison in 2013, M said "I don't remember".
14. Based on these matters, the Tribunal concludes that the impact on F and M will be significant.

Impact on Mr Al Defeary's siblings and his nieces and nephews

1. Based on the numerous letters of support from Mr Al Defeary's sisters and brothers and one of his nieces and one of his nephews, the Tribunal is satisfied that Mr Al Defeary has the support of many of his brothers, sisters, nieces and nephews and in particular, BH, and BH's family, with whom he currently resides.
2. BH gave oral evidence at the hearing that his two children had been through a "rough experience" being away from him, and his wife, because they were "always working". BH said that Mr Al Defeary was the one taking their children to the shops and to buy them gifts. BH confirmed that he owns a two-truck company and they have eight two trucks. He said he is the only one driving a truck at the moment because business is "quiet". BH confirmed that he can support Mr Al Defeary and provide him with a full-time job. When BH was asked about Mr Al Defeary's health, BH responded that he was aware that he had a brain injury from a car accident, but he remarked that he "seemed to be okay". When asked about Mr Al Defeary's mental health, BH said that his mental health is "not good" and that he has not seen "his kids". When BH was asked why Mr Al Defeary's visa was cancelled, BH said that Mr Al Defeary had not told them that. BH said he had told him that he was in prison. When asked if BH was aware of the criminal offending by Mr Al Defeary, he said that there was no criminal offending, and that he only had problems with his ex-partner. BH said that two ladies had assaulted Mr Al Defeary, that they had started the fight and had assaulted him first. BH said he had watched the video.
3. When BH was asked what else he knew about Mr Al Defeary's criminal history, he said that with all of Mr Al Defeary's partners, he has had "trouble and problems" and that they "allege things". When BH was asked if he thought Mr Al Defeary was innocent, he said "for the most recent one, he is innocent". BH questioned why R had visited Mr Al Defeary in jail and that he found this to be "mind boggling" that Mr Al Defeary is "in this situation".
4. SF gave oral evidence that she had three children. SF highlighted that her daughter loves Mr Al Defeary and that she goes out with him. SF said that Mr Al Defeary has a good heart and gives them toys. When asked whether she knew why Mr Al Defeary's visa was cancelled, SF said it was because of problems with R.
5. The Tribunal accepts that all of Mr Al Defeary's siblings, nieces and nephews would miss him greatly, at an emotional level, if he was removed from Australia at some point in the future. It remains possible for those family members to visit Mr Al Defeary from time to time, or they could keep in touch with him via telephone and video communications which slightly mitigates this situation, but not completely.

1. Based on these matters, the Tribunal concludes that the impact of the decision on M, F, his brothers, sisters, nieces and nephews (being Australian citizens and who have a right to remain in Australia indefinitely), will be significant. The Tribunal concludes that weighs heavily in favour of revoking the Cancellation Decision.

The strength, nature and duration of any other ties that Mr Al Defeary has to the Australian community

1. Under subclause 8.3(2) of Direction no.110, the Tribunal must consider the strength, nature and duration of any other ties that Mr Al Defeary has to the Australian community. In doing so, this subclause requires the Tribunal to have regard to the following:

(a) how long the non-citizen has resided in Australia, including whether the non-citizen arrived as a young child, noting that:

1. less weight should be given where the non-citizen began offending soon after arriving in Australia; and
2. more weight should be given to the 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.

1. Mr Al Defeary primary ties in the Australian community are his large extended family referred to above. He did not speak of having any friends or other community networks. He had not been working for quite a long time, reportedly due to issues with depression and lack of motivation. The Tribunal was unable to identify any strong community ties outside of his family ties arising from his relationships with M, F, his sisters, brothers, nieces and nephews.
2. Based on the above matters, the Tribunal finds that the strength, nature and duration of Mr Al Defeary's ties to Australia primarily consist of his large extended family.
3. The Tribunal concludes that this consideration weighs heavily in favour of the revocation of the Cancellation Decision.

PRIMARY CONSIDERATION NO. 4 - BEST INTEREST OF MINOR CHILDREN IN AUSTRALIA

1. Subclause 8.4(1) of Direction no.110 provides that decision-makers must make a determination about whether non-revocation under s 501CA (as relevant in this application) is, or is not, in the best interests of a child affected by the decision. Subclause 8.4(2) states that this consideration applies only if the child is, or would be, under 18 years old at the time when the decision to refuse or cancel the visa, or to not revoke the mandatory cancellation of the visa, is expected to be made.
2. At the hearing, Mr Alkafaji contends, on behalf of the Mr Al Defeary, that it would not be in the best interests of D1, S1, RD, and each of his (minor) nieces and (minor) nephews if he is removed from Australia. At the hearing, Mr Al Defeary gave evidence about each of these minors (18 in total).
3. Subclause 8.4(3) of Direction no.110 provides that where there are two or more relevant children, the best interests of each child should be given individual consideration to the extent that their interest may differ.
4. Subclause 8.4(4) sets out factors which must be considered when the decision-maker is considering the best interests of the child:

(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;

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

1. As mentioned above, D1 has not seen or had any contact with Mr Al Defeary since she was an infant. There is no father-daughter relationship in existence. He does not currently pay any child support in respect of D1 even thought he has the financial means to do so, by selling one of his unregistered cars to fund such payments. C was not called or summonsed as a witness to give evidence at the hearing about D1.
2. The Tribunal finds that it would not be in the best interests of D1 for the Cancellation Decision to be revoked.

1. As mentioned above, S1 has not seen or had any contact with Mr Al Defeary since he was an infant. There is no father-son relationship in existence. Mr Al Defeary does not currently pay any child support in respect of S1 even though he has the financial means to do so, by selling one of his unregistered cars to fund such payments. C was not called or summonsed as a witness to give evidence at the hearing about S1.
2. The Tribunal is not satisfied that it would in the best interests of S1 to revoke the Cancellation Decision.

1. RD has not seen Mr Al Defeary for several years while he has been in prison. There is a handwritten note purporting to be from RD to Mr Al Defeary in the HB. R was not called or summonsed to give evidence at the hearing about this note from RD or to give evidence about the status of the relationship between RD and Mr Al Defeary (or indeed about their own relationship). Mr Al Defeary gave evidence that he has not seen RD since being released from prison. RD has previously been involved in domestic violence incidents involving assaults by Mr Al Defeary against RD's mother, C.
2. The Tribunal finds that it would not be in the best interests of RD for the Cancellation Decision to be revoked.

1. JAD is Mr Al Defeary's 15-year-old niece. JAD has signed and dated a letter of support dated 12 September 2024 which is before the Tribunal.[113] In this letter, JAD states that (as of September 2024) that ever since Mr Al Defeary had left them, she has had nothing but sadness. JAD said (at that time) she had not seen him for over one year and that he had missed so many important events in their lives. JAD states that Mr Al Defeary would take her to the shops whenever she wanted to buy something new. JAD said that every time he would see her, he would offer to take her to places to maker her feel better when he would see her upset. JAD said that Mr Al Defeary would call her every day but that she could not see him while he was in jail. She said that JAD and her brother (FAD), see below, would miss their uncle "terribly". She said that she is unsure why people could see the worst in him, when all he has done nothing but to cheer them all up in various ways. JAD said that we all make mistakes and that her uncle deserves a second chance because the separation from his family, is punishment enough.
2. At the hearing, Mr Al Defeary gave evidence that before he went to prison, he used to move between one place and another amongst his siblings and that he would take "their kids out". He said he would participate in activities with them. He has some trouble elaborating about how it might impact his nieces and nephews if he was removed from Australia except to say that that would be the end of it, and that there would be no life. He explained that he meant that he would not be able to spend any more time with them.

1. FAD is Mr Al Defeary's nephew. FAD signed a letter of support dated 12 September 2024.[114] In this letter, FAD states that (as of September 2024), since Mr Al Defeary had been gone, "the family has been sad". FAD states that it had been over a year and that Mr Al Defeary had missed out on so many important things in his and the family's lives. FAD said that Mr Al Defeary would always "take the family shopping" and would always love to have him over, as well as Mr Al Defeary's other nephews. FAD states that Mr Al Defeary has always been a very thoughtful and caring person towards him and the family and that the family calls him every day (when he was in prison). FAD said that he and his family missed Mr Al Defeary. He remarked that "we all make mistakes" and that he thinks the Mr Al Defeary has learnt from his lessons and has improved his decision making.

1. Mr Al Defeary contends it is in the best interests of JG1 (daughter of FGF) for him to remain in Australia. He gave evidence that he is close to JG1. When asked why it would be in JG1's best interests, at first, he answered that the did not know and then he said so that he could be her maternal uncle. He did not provide any reasons specific to JG1 as to why it would be in her best interests.

1. Mr Al Defeary contends it is in the best interests of JG2 (daughter of FGF) for him to remain in Australia. When asked why it would be in JG2's best interests, at first, he answered that so that he could be one of her maternal uncles in her life. When asked if there were reasons, specific to JG2, as to why it would be in her best interests, Mr Al Defeary answered "no".

1. Mr Al Defeary contends it is in the best interests of AG (son of FGF) for him to remain in Australia. When asked why it would be in AG's best interests, he answered that so that he could be his maternal uncle and take him out and play with him. When asked if there were reasons, specific to AG, as to why it would be in her best interests, Mr Al Defeary answered that AG loves to talk to Mr Al Defeary and that he can call him.

1. Mr Al Defeary contends it is in the best interests of FA (son of WGF) for him to remain in Australia. When asked why it would be in FA's best interests, he answered that so that he could be his maternal uncle. Mr Al Defeary said that he has to be in his life. When asked if there were reasons, specific to FA, as to why it would be in her best interests, Mr Al Defeary answered that he did not know but that he knew he had to be in his life.

1. Mr Al Defeary contends it is in the best interests of LA (daughter of WGF) for him to remain in Australia. When asked why it would be in LA's best interests, he answered that so that he could be one of her maternal uncles and he stated that he has to be in her life. When asked if there were reasons, specific to LA, as to why it would be in his best interests, Mr Al Defeary answered that so that she could see her maternal uncle. He added that he takes her shopping.

1. Mr Al Defeary contends it is in the best interests of MA (son of WGF) for him to remain in Australia. When asked why it would be in MA's best interests, he answered that so that he could be his maternal uncle. Mr Al Defeary said that he has to be in his life.

1. Mr Al Defeary contends it is in the best interests of A (son of HGF) for him to remain in Australia. When asked why it would be in A's best interests, he answered that so that he could be his maternal uncle. Mr Al Defeary said that they are close. When asked if there were reasons, specific to A, as to why it would be in her best interests, Mr Al Defeary answered that he loved A more than he loved himself.

1. Mr Al Defeary contends it is in the best interests of Ab (son of HGF) for him to remain in Australia. When asked why it would be in Ab's best interests, he answered that so that all of Ab's maternal uncles could be there for him. When asked if there were reasons, specific to A, as to why it would be in her best interests, Mr Al Defeary answered that he did not know.

1. Mr Al Defeary contends it is in the best interests of RF (son of HGF) for him to remain in Australia. When asked why it would be in RF's best interests, he answered so that RF could see his paternal uncle and so that Mr Al Defeary can take him out.

1. Mr Al Defeary contends it is in the best interests of IF (son of HGF) for him to remain in Australia. When asked why it would be in RF's best interests, he answered he is IF's paternal uncle and that he has to see Mr Al Defeary. When asked if there were reasons, specific to A, as to why it would be in her best interests, Mr Al Defeary answered that it is good for IF to see him.

1. Mr Al Defeary contends it is in the best interests of RSF (daughter of HGF) for him to remain in Australia. When asked why it would be in RSF's best interests, he answered that like RSF's brother, that so she can see her paternal uncle and so he can take her out, and care for her. When asked if there were reasons, specific to A, as to why it would be in her best interests, Mr Al Defeary answered that he is a part of her life.

1. Mr Al Defeary contends it is in the best interests of SAJ (son of FAJ) for him to remain in Australia. When asked why it would be in SAJ's best interests, he answered he is SAJ's paternal uncle. When asked if there were reasons, specific to SAJ, as to why it would be in his best interests, Mr Al Defeary answered that he would be able to see his paternal uncle.

1. Mr Al Defeary contends it is in the best interests of SAJ (son of FAJ) for him to remain in Australia. When asked why it would be in SAJ's best interests, he answered because he is SAJ's paternal uncle. When asked if there were reasons, specific to SAJ, as to why it would be in his best interests, Mr Al Defeary answered that he would be a part of SAJ's life.
2. The Tribunal acknowledged that Mr Al Defeary has two other nieces and nephews. However, on the evidence of Mr Al Defeary at the hearing those other nieces and nephews are not minors. Specifically, these other nieces and nephews include:

(a) FAJS (18-year-old man); and > > (b) FAJD (18- or 19-year-old woman).

3. On the balance of probabilities, the Tribunal finds that it is in the best interests of all 15 of Mr Al Deferay's nieces and nephews, who are still minors, for the Cancellation Decision to be revoked and to allow him to remain in Australia indefinitely. The Tribunal notes that they all have two parents able to care for them and to fulfil the usual parental role for those minor nieces and nephews, which lessens the significance that Mr Al Defeary will play in their lives compared to a situation where such parental support is not in place. However, Mr Al Defeary still has a role to play as one of their uncles, as he pointed out at the hearing and which the Tribunal accepts.

Conclusion in respect of the best interests of the children

1. The Tribunal concludes that it will be in the best interests of each of Nieces Nos.1 to 5 and Nephews Nos.1 to 10, for the Cancellation Decision be revoked. The Tribunal concludes that it would not be in the best interests of D1, S1 or RD for the Cancellation Decision to be revoked.
2. On balance, the Tribunal considers these this primary consideration weighs moderately in favour of revocation of the Cancellation Decision due to it being in the best interests of Mr Al Defeary's five (minor) nieces and 10 (minor) nephews for the Cancellation Decision to be revoked.

PRIMARY CONSIDERATION NO. 5 - EXPECTATIONS OF THE AUSTRALIAN COMMUNITY

1. Subclause 8.5(1) of Direction no.110 provides that the Australian community expects non-citizens to obey Australian laws while in Australia and that where a non-citizen had engaged in serious conduct in breach of this expectation, or whether 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 to remain in Australia.
2. Subclause 8.5(2) provides that, "In addition, 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". This provision sets out the Australian community expectation that a non-citizen's visa be cancelled in respect of certain types of serious conduct including "acts of family violence" or the "commission of serious crimes against women, children or other vulnerable embers of the community" (being crimes of a violent or sexual nature and other serious crimes in the form of fraud, extortion, financial abuse/material exploitation or neglect". In respect of these expectations, subclause 8.5(3) provides that they apply irrespective of whether the non-citizen poses a measurable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community.
3. Mr Alkafaji submitted that Mr Al Defeary does not dispute his criminal record. His criminal record includes offences against women. The Tribunal finds that Mr Al Defeary has engaged in acts of family violence on account of the assaults against C and R which led to criminal convictions including the offences in February 2013, July 2022 and March 2023. For these reasons, the Tribunal concludes that Primary Consideration No.5 (Expectations of the Australian Community) weigh very heavily against the revocation of the Cancellation Decision.

1. Subclause 9.1(1) of Direction no.110 provides that decision-makers should be mindful that unlawful non-citizens are, in accordance with s 198 of the Migration Act, liable to removal from Australia as soon as reasonably practicable in the circumstances specified in that section, and in the meantime, detention under s 189, noting also that s 197C(1) of the Migration Act provides that for the purposes of s 198, it is irrelevant whether Australia has non-refoulement obligations in respect of the unlawful non-citizen. Subclause (2) defines the term "non-refoulement obligations", and subclause 9.1(c) states that international non-refoulement obligations will generally not be relevant where the person concerned does not raise such obligations for consideration and the circumstances do not suggest a non-refoulement claim.
2. During closing submissions at the end of hearing, Mr Plitch contended that the Minister accepts that Mr Al Defeary is stateless and that this means that if a decision is made by the Tribunal not to revoke the cancellation of his visa, that he will remain in the Australian community on a BVR into the reasonably foreseeable future. However, ultimately, being on an BVR means that Mr Al Defeary is on a pathway for removal at some point in the future.
3. Mr Alkafaji made submissions to the Tribunal about an agreement that has been reached between the Australian Government and Nauru to potentially transfer and to resettle BVR holders in Nauru. The Tribunal accepts that by Mr Al Defeary being on a BVR that he is on a pathway of being removed from Australia at some stage, albeit not in the foreseeable future. It is accepted that there is a definite possibility that at some point in the future that he may be removed from Australia. He is stateless and so does not have a country of origin to return to. The Tribunal accepts that it is possible that he might be removed to Nauru or to another country which may be willing to accept him. The Tribunal accepts that Mr Al Defeary's pending removal is unlikely to take place in the foreseeable future and so until he is removed, he will remain living in the Australian community without any conditions imposed upon him.
4. Overall, the Tribunal concludes that the legal consequences of this decision for Mr Al Defeary weighs moderately in favour of revocation of the Cancellation Decision as it would eliminate the possibility of him being removed from Australia at some stage in the not foreseeable future by being sent to another country willing to accept him or to Nauru.

1. Subclause 9.2 of Direction no.110 provide that decision-makers must consider the extent of any impediments that a non-citizen may face if removed from Australia to their home country, in establishing themselves and maintaining basic living standards (in the context of what is generally available to other citizens of that country), taking into account:

(a) the non-citizen's age and health;

(b) whether there are substantial language or cultural barriers; and

(c) any social, medical and/or economic support available to them in that country.

1. It is extremely difficult for the Tribunal to undertake a consideration under subclause 9.2 because it has been accepted that Mr Al Defeary is stateless and has been granted a BVR. For this reason, it is not known which country, if any, Mr Al Defeary may be removed to or at what time in the future he might be removed in light of him being on a BVR, as discussed above.
2. The Tribunal accepts that there is a possibility that Mr Al Defeary might be removed at some point in the future, and quite possibly, he might be resettled in Nauru or to another presently unknown country which may be willing to accept him. This would place Mr Al Defeary away from his family. In the context of his longstanding mental health issues and minor brain injury, the Tribunal is not able to rule out that Mr Al Defeary would not face any impediments if removed to another country. Even though Mr Al Defeary is a mature adult and has good physical health (apart from reportedly experiencing some back pain), on the evidence before the Tribunal, the Tribunal finds that Mr Al Defeary is fragile person from a mental health perspective, as evidenced by his previous attempts at suicide requiring hospitalisation, when he was faced with life's stressors previously. The Tribunal also takes into account that Mr Al Defeary has only had three years of education (and possibly only one or two years of education, accordingly to his evidence) presenting challenges in respect of having the ability to care for himself and to independently handle his own administrative affairs or to sustain paid employment. There are also language and cultural issues for Mr Al Defeary which may act as an impediment, depending on which country he is removed to.
3. For these reasons, the Tribunal concludes that the Other Consideration (Extent of Impediments) weighs moderately in favour of the revocation of the Cancellation Decision.

1. Subclause 9.3(1) of Direction no.110 provides that decision-makers must consider any impact on Australian business interests if the non-citizen is not allowed to enter or remain in Australia, noting that an employment link would generally only be given weight where the decision under s 501 or s 501CA would significantly compromise the delivery of a major project, or delivery of an important service in Australia. There is no evidence before the Tribunal for a finding to be made that if Mr Al Defeary was removed from Australia that it would impact in a detrimental way on an Australian business. He has been offered work as an employee in the tow-truck business referred to by BH at the hearing. However, this falls short of BH relying upon Mr Al Defeary as being necessary to meet and sustain his current business interests. To the contrary, BH gave evidence that there are eight tow trucks and that only he is working as a driver in the business at the moment, because business is quiet.
2. Accordingly, the Tribunal concludes that Mr Al Defeary's pending removal from Australia would not impact detrimentally on any Australian business interests and that the Other Consideration (Impact of Australian Business Interests) is a neutral consideration.

1. The Tribunal finds that Mr Al Defeary's criminal record evidences an entrenched pattern of emotional dysregulation and a lack of self-control or consideration about the impact of his actions on others. The Tribunal finds that Mr Al Defeary, by his offending history, has demonstrated that he lacks concern for public road users in the Australian community. This has been the case for virtually all of Mr Al Defeary's adult life while living in Australia. Mr Al Defeary's extensive history of offending would appear to be fuelled in part by his lack of self-esteem, propensity at different stages to consume alcohol in excess and at other time to use illicit substances (even though it is accepted by the Tribunal that the evidence does not support a finding that he is currently suffering from any substance use disorders), suspicions of infidelity, and his propensity to be untruthful and to act in a dishonest manner to save embarrassment or to achieve a good outcome for himself when intersecting with the Australian criminal justice system.
2. For the reasons set out above, the Tribunal has concluded that:

(a) Primary Consideration No.1 - "protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct" weighs very heavily against revoking the Cancellation Decision; > > (b) Primary Consideration No.2 - "family violence committed by the non-citizen" weighs very heavily against revoking of the Cancellation Decision; > > (c) Primary Consideration No.3 - "strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia" weighs heavily in favour of the revocation of the Cancellation Decision; > > (d) Primary Consideration No.4 - "best interests of minor children in Australia" weighs moderately in favour of the revocation of the Cancellation Decision; > > (e) Primary Consideration No.5 - "expectations of the Australian community" weighs very heavily against the revocation of the Cancellation Decision; > > (f) Other Consideration - "Legal consequences of the decision" weighs moderately in favour of revocation of the Cancellation Decision; > > (g) Other Consideration - "Extent of Impediments if removed" weighs moderately in favour of revocation of the Cancellation Decision; and > > (h) Other Consideration - "Impact of Australian business interests" is a neutral consideration.

3. The Tribunal has weighed up the considerations under Direction no.110.
4. The Tribunal refers to clause 7(3) of Direction no.110 which allows for one primary consideration to outweigh other primary considerations and clause 7(2) which provides that the primary consideration under clause 8(1), that is, the protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct, is "generally to be given greater weight than other primary considerations. Otherwise, primary considerations should generally be given greater weight than the other considerations". In the circumstances of this application, the Tribunal concludes that Primary Consideration No 1 - "protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct", Primary Consideration No.2 - "family violence committed by the non-citizen", and Primary Consideration No.5 - "expectations of the Australian community", outweighs the collective weight afforded by the Tribunal to Primary Consideration No.3 - "strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia", Primary Consideration No.4 - "best interests of minor children in Australia" and the Other Considerations of "Legal consequences of the decision" and "Extent of Impediments if removed".
5. Accordingly, the Tribunal concludes that there is not another reason under subsection 501CA(4)(b)(ii) of the Migration Act, to revoke the Cancellation Decision. Separately, the Tribunal is satisfied that Mr Al Defeary does not pass the character test as defined by s 501 of the Migration Act.
6. Accordingly, the Tribunal concludes that the power in subsection 501CA(4) of the Migration Act is not enlivened and that Mr Al Defeary's Visa is to remain cancelled.
7. For these reasons, on 4 March 2026, the Tribunal affirmed the Decision Under Review.

Annexure A - Al Defeary, Attalah Ghazy Fahd - Check Results Report

AL DEFEARY, ATTALAH GHAZY FAHD - CHECK RESULTS REPORT

Breached a Family Violence Restraining Order; Restraining Orders Act 1997; 61 (1)

[Counts 1]IMPRISONMENT: 1 Months CONCURRENT FROM 03-SEP-2024. - Concurrent

[Counts 1]IMPRISONMENT: 2 Months CONCURRENT FROM 03-SEP-2024. - Concurrent

Breached a Family Violence Restraining Order; Restraining Orders Act 1997; 61 (1)

[Counts 1]IMPRISONMENT: 1 Months CONCURRENT FROM 03-SEP-2024. - Concurrent

[Counts 1]IMPRISONMENT: 2 MTHS CUM FROM 19-JUL-2024.

Attempt To Pervert Course Of Justice; Criminal Code (WA); 143 C

[Counts 1]IMPRISONMENT: 1 YRS 7 MTHS CONC FROM 11-SEP-2023.

Attempt to Pervert Justice.; Criminal Code (WA); 143 A

[Counts 1]IMPRISONMENT: 1 YRS 7 MTHS CUM FROM 11-SEP-2023.

[Counts 1]IMPRISONMENT: 8 MTHS CUM FROM 19-JUL-2024.

Common Assault in Circumstances of Aggravation or racial Aggravation; Criminal Code (WA); 313 (1)(a)

Original Term: 4 Months Suspended for 15 Months from31-AUG-2022. - Cumulative

Common Assault in Circumstances of Aggravation or racial Aggravation; Criminal Code (WA); 313 (1)(a)

[Counts 1]COND SUSP IMP ORDER: 10 MTHS IMP CONC SUSPENDED 15 MTHS FROM 31-AUG-2022.

[Counts 1]SUSP IMP ORDER: Original Term: 7 Months Suspended for 2 Years from 19-JUL-2019.- Concurrent; Mdl Disqualified: 9 mths - Cumulative

Possess a prohibited drug; Misuse Of Drugs Act 1981; 6 (2)

Breach of Bail Undertaking.; Bail Act 1982; 51 (1)

CTH - USING FALSE IDENTIFICATION INFORMATION AT CONSTITUTIONAL AIRPORT

[CC] 340(1)(B)&(A)(I) SERIOUS ASSAULT POLICE OFFICER BY BITING SPITTING ETC. (ON 30/08/2017) BCS1703293961 AS GAZY, ATALAH

[BA] 29(1) BREACH OF BAIL CONDITION (ON 13/10/2017) QP1701811436

[PPRA] 791(2) CONTRAVENE DIRECTION OR REQUIREMENT (ON 26/05/2016) BCS1603874621 AS GAZY, ATALAH

Breach of Violence Restraining Order.; Restraining Orders Act 1997; 61 (1)

[Counts 1]IMPRISONMENT: 2 Months CONCURRENT FROM 17-JUN-2014. - Concurrent

[Counts 1]IMPRISONMENT: 7 Months CONCURRENT FROM 18-FEB-2013.; Mdl Disqualified: 9 mths -Cumulative

Breach of Violence Restraining Order.; Restraining Orders Act 1997; 61 (1)

[Counts 1]IMPRISONMENT: 2 Months CUMULATIVE FROM 18-FEB-2013.

Unlawfully assault and thereby did bodily harm with circumstances of aggravation.; Criminal Code (WA); 317 (1) B

[Counts 1]IMPRISONMENT: 5 Months CONCURRENT FROM 18-FEB-2013.

Unlawfully assault and thereby did bodily harm with circumstances of aggravation.; Criminal Code (WA); 317 (1) B

[Counts 1]IMPRISONMENT: 5 Months CUMULATIVE FROM 18-FEB-2013.

Unlawfully assault and thereby did bodily harm with circumstances of aggravation.; Criminal Code (WA); 317 (1) B

[Counts 1]IMPRISONMENT: 4 Months CUMULATIVE FROM 18-FEB-2013.

Breach of protective bail conditions; Bail Act (WA) 1982; 51 (2a)

[Counts 1]IMPRISONMENT: 2 Months CONCURRENT FROM 18-FEB-2013.

[Counts 1]IMPRISONMENT: 2 Months CUMULATIVE FROM 18-FEB-2013.

No Authority to Drive - Never held and Disqualified

[Counts 1]FINE: $3000; Mdl Disqualified: 9 mths - Cumulative

[Counts 1]IMPRISONMENT: 7 Mths CONC; Mdl Disqualified: 18 mths - Cumulative

[Counts 1]IMPRISONMENT: 6 Mths CONC; Mdl Disqualified: 18 mths

[Counts 1]FINE: $1000; Mdl Disqualified: 9 mths - Cumulative

Reckless Driving - Dangerous to the Public or any Person

[Counts 1]FINE: $750; Mdl Disqualified: 12 mths - Concurrent

Refuse Particulars for Identification (eg Fingerprints)

Reckless Driving - Dangerous to the Public or any Person

Carried a prohibited weapon.; Weapons Act 1999; 6 (1)(b) C

[Counts 1]FINE: $800; Mdl Disqualified: 3 mths - Concurrent

Fail to Comply with Request to Give Police Personal Details

Fail to Comply with Request to Give Police Personal Details

Fail to Comply with Request to Give Police Personal Details

[Counts 1]FINE: $1200; MDL CANC & DISQ 2 YRS CONC - PRESCRIBED

[Counts 1]FINE: $700; (HOON LAW) MDL DISQ 12 MTHS CONC

[Counts 1]FINE: $400; DISQ HOLD/OBT MDL 3 MTHS MAND CONC - SECT 51

No Driver's licence (Disqualified from Holding or Obtaining)

[Counts 1]FINE: $400; Mdl Disqualified: 9 mths - Cumulative

[Counts 1]FINE: $500; MDL CANC & DISQ 3 MTHS - PRESCRIBED

[1] The Minister lodged a hearing bundle with the Tribunal on 13 February 2026 ('HB'). The Application for Review of Decision is at HB5 to HB19.

[2] A hard copy of the Decision Under Review was given to Mr Al Defeary under cover of a letter by the Department of Home Affairs ('Department') dated 10 December 2025 - see HB20 to HB48, with Attachments [A] to [P] at HB49 to HB354.

[9] HB368 - Mr Al Defeary's SFIC, paragraph [3].

[13] HB139 - Mr Al Defeary's Response to the Cancellation Decision dated 23 September 2024, paragraph [14].

[15] HB138 - Mr Al Defeary's Response to the Cancellation Decision, paragraph [10].

[17] HB139 - Mr Al Defeary's - Mr Al Defeary's Response to the Cancellation Decision, paragraph [20].

[19] HB140, Mr Al Defeary's Response to the Cancellation Decision, paragraph [20].

[20] HB494 from the DoJ Corrective Services document entitled "Visits History - Offender (Offender Copy) Date range: 01/01/1999 to 06/01/2026".

[21] HB137 - Mr Al Defeary's Response to the Cancellation Decision, paragraph [6].

[23] 10 February 2026 is the date Mr Al Defeary was most recently released from prison.

[25] The Tribunal notes there are two convictions entered on Mr Al Defeary on 19 July 2024 for his "Attempt To Pervert Course Of Justice; Criminal Code (WA); 143C" for which he was sentenced to 1 year and 7 months imprisonment (concurrent) commencing on 11 September 2023 and for his "Attempt to Pervert Justice; Criminal Code; 143A" for which he was sentenced to 1 year and 7 months imprisonment (concurrent) commencing on 11 September 2023.

[26] Minister's SFIC, paragraph [24].

[52] HB371 - Mr Al Defeary's SFIC, paragraph [20].

[63] HB465 - Placement History - Offender, issued by the Department of Justice and Corrective Services for date range 1 January 1999 to 6 January 2026 ('Placement History').

[64] Having already concluded that this offending and conduct by Mr Al Defeary is "very serious", the Tribunal considers that it is unnecessary to proceed to a consideration of subclause 8.1.1(1)(b).

[83] HB139 - Mr Al Defeary's Response to the Cancellation Decision, paragraph [17].

[84] Page 2 of the medical report attached to Mr Al Defeary's SFIC.

[90] HB323. The Tribunal notes the letter of support dated 25 February 2025.

[95] The term "member of the person's family" is defined in Direction no.110 for the purpose of the definition of family violence, as including a person who has, or has had, an intimate personal relationship with the relevant person.

[111] HB137 - Mr Al Defeary's Response to the Cancellation Decision, paragraph [7].