1. Section 13 of the ART Act and s 500(1)(ba) of the Act are the sources of the Tribunal's jurisdiction to hear this review application.
2. The Tribunal has a broad discretion regarding procedure and must act with as little formality and technicality as a proper consideration of matters before it permits.[11] The Tribunal is also not bound by the rules of evidence and 'may inform itself on any matter in such manner as it considers appropriate'.[12]
3. Section 501(3A) of the Act, read in conjunction with ss 501(6) and 501(7), requires the Minister to cancel a person's visa if satisfied the person does not pass the character test and is serving a full-time sentence of imprisonment.
4. The 'character test' is defined in s 501(6) of the Act and a non-citizen does not pass it if they have a 'substantial criminal record' as defined by s 501(7). This includes if they have been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more.
5. Under s 501CA(3) of the Act, the Minister must invite the non-citizen whose visa has been cancelled to make representations about revoking the cancellation decision. If they do, s 501CA(4) of the Act confers a discretionary power on the Minister to revoke the original decision if the Minister is satisfied the person either passes the character test or there is 'another reason' why the original decision should be revoked.

1. The Tribunal finds that the Applicant does not pass the character test as defined under s 501(6)(a) of the Act, on the basis of s 501(7)(c). It follows there is no discretion under s 501CA(4)(b)(i) of the Act to revoke the cancellation decision. The only issue remaining to be decided is whether there is 'another reason' for revocation pursuant to s 501CA(4)(b)(ii) of the Act. The Tribunal must read, identify, understand and evaluate the Applicant's representations or those obviously arising from the evidence.[13]

1. In making its decision, the Tribunal must comply with 'Ministerial Direction 110' ('the Direction').[14] The Direction imposes 'mandatory and aspirational considerations' that guide the exercise of statutory power under the Act.[15]
2. Clause 5.1(1) of the Direction sets out several objectives, the first of which is to '... regulate, in the national interest, the coming into, and presence in, Australia of non-citizens'.
3. Principles at cl 5.2 of the Direction provide a framework within which decision‑makers should approach their task:

(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 non­citizen 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 6 of the Direction provides that, informed by the principles in cl 5.2, decision‑makers must have regard to primary and other considerations where relevant to the decision.
2. Clause 7 of the Direction provides as follows:

7. Taking the relevant considerations into account > > (1) In applying the considerations (both primary and other), information and evidence from independent and authoritative sources should be given appropriate weight. > > (2) The primary consideration at 8.1 below (protection of the Australian community) is generally to be given greater weight than other primary considerations. Otherwise, primary considerations should generally be given greater weight than the other considerations. > > (3) One or more primary considerations may outweigh other primary considerations.

3. Clause 8 of the Direction sets out the following primary considerations:

(1) protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct;

(2) whether the conduct engaged in constituted family violence;

(3) the strength, nature, and duration of ties to Australia;

(4) the best interests of minor children in Australia; and

(5) expectations of the Australian community.

1. Clause 9(1) of the Direction sets out a non-exhaustive list of other considerations:

(a) legal consequences of the decision;

(b) extent of impediments if removed; and

(c) impact on Australian business interests.

1. The weight given to an Applicant's claims and the individual and cumulative weighing process is a matter for individual decision-makers.[16]

1. A Statement of Facts, Issues, and Contentions ('SFIC')[17] is routinely lodged by parties prior to a hearing. The Tribunal has considered the Applicant's SFIC dated 24 October 2025, and the Respondent's SFIC dated 10 November 2025.

1. Documents were tendered into evidence as follows:

(a) Section 501G Documents filed by the Respondent numbering 766 pages;[18] > > (b) Clinical records from the Applicant's imprisonment numbering 103 pages;[19] > > (c) Letter dated 2 October 2025 from Corrections Victoria;[20] > > (d) Letter dated 5 June 2025 from a general practitioner;[21] > > (e) Letter dated 13 October 2025 from another general practitioner;[22] > > (f) Three one-page summaries of online journal articles dated between 2015 and 2025 relating to the use of Tramadol, its effects, and interaction with alcohol and other drugs;[23] > > (g) Letter from GEO Healthcare dated 22 October 2025;[24] > > (h) Letter (undated) from the Applicant's sister;[25] > > (i) Letter (undated) from the Applicant's brother;[26] > > (j) Mobile screenshot (undated) from another of the Applicant's brothers;[27] > > (k) Letter (undated) from one of the Applicant's nieces;[28] and > > (l) Letter dated 18 November 2025 from the Applicant's father.[29]

1. The Applicant has a limited understanding of English and gave most of his oral evidence through an interpreter in the Persian (Farsi) language. At the commencement of his testimony the Tribunal discussed his privilege against self-incrimination and is satisfied he understood this. He was subsequently questioned by Mr AA, cross-examined by Mr Brown, and re-examined by Mr AA. This took all of the first hearing day and some of the second.
2. The Applicant answered some questions in English and, on occasions, corrected the interpreter's translation when he considered it did not accurately convey what he said. The Tribunal directed the Applicant to use the interpreter on occasions when his attempted answers in English could not be clearly understood. Key aspects of the Applicant's oral evidence are summarised as follows:

(a) The Applicant was asked about different names for him in the evidence.[30] He explained one is a false name recorded in the false Iranian passport he procured for travel to Australia, while others are misspellings by officials after arrival. > > (b) The Applicant referred to a difficult life in Iran. He claimed to have attempted suicide at 14 years' of age due to 'childhood emotions' and wanting to alleviate the burden on his father who found it hard to provide for their family. The Applicant said he climbed an electricity pole and intentionally grasped a live cable, leaving him with injuries such as burns, loss of an eye, and an acquired brain injury ('ABI'). The lack of expert corroboration for the Applicant's claimed ABI, and evidence to the contrary,[31] was raised with him during this part of his evidence. > > (c) The Applicant said he married while living in Iran, could not recall when, but thought it was around 2009. When asked why he came to Australia in 2011, the Applicant stated that as 'far as [he] can remember' his father was imprisoned by Iranian authorities but somehow managed to escape. The Applicant claimed that '7 to 8 persons' then arrested and tortured him for 10 days to force disclosure of his father's whereabouts. He said his captors only released him after he promised to locate his father, but instead used this opportunity to flee Iran for Australia. > > (d) Upon arrival in Australia the Applicant said he could not work for several years because of severe depression. This included after learning his wife in Iran gave birth to their daughter in December 2011. The Applicant claimed he and his wife separated prior to his departure from Iran and that she was pregnant with their child but living with her mother. He said she subsequently gave their child to his mother. The Applicant alleged she had done the same thing to another man prior to their marriage, repeated the same conduct with other men after their relationship ended, and purportedly gave birth to eight children. > > (e) The Applicant recalled feeling very depressed while staying in an Australian immigration detention centre. He felt emotionally fragile, which was exacerbated by news that some of his family drowned while attempting travel to Australia in other Indonesian smuggler vessels. He claimed the dead included an elder brother, two sisters-in law, one of whom was pregnant, two nephews, and a maternal cousin. > > (f) The Applicant said that after release from immigration detention he married a woman in Australia under Islamic law. He could not recall when but thought it was 2014 or 2015. Mr Brown referred him to Victoria Police records dated November 2015 and February 2016 containing allegations by his wife about the Applicant's family violence and threats to kill her.[32] He was also referred to a 12-month Full Family Violence Intervention Order ('FFVIO') against him that was authorised by the Melbourne Magistrates' Court in November 2015.[33] The Tribunal reminded the Applicant during this line of questioning about his privilege against self-incrimination. The Applicant agreed a FFVIO was taken out against him and recalled charges being laid relating to his wife's claims, but said these were 'total lies'. He claimed courts found her allegations 'unreasonable' and that she had been 'playing a game'. He said their marriage did not last 'even one year'. The Applicant alleged it was his wife who kept breaching the FFVIO by contacting him and even appeared in court as his interpreter. This conduct purportedly caused a court to 'throw her case out', following which she called him to apologised 'for lying to police'. > > (g) The Applicant said he did some work in Australia, namely two-and-a-half months in an abattoir and a year as a removalist before he hurt his back. He recalled needing strong painkillers for the latter and has not worked since. The Applicant claimed he became addicted to the opioid Tramadol and used this concurrent with alcohol to alleviate pain, which he found 'totally soothing'. The Applicant said this combination of prescribed opioid medication and alcohol is relevant to his crimes. When challenged that there is no reference to Tramadol addiction or alcohol abuse in the sentencing remarks, the Applicant insisted he was 'always drunk and taking tablets'. > > (h) The Applicant referred in documentary submissions to his offences predominantly in singular terms as 'my offence', 'first offence', and 'mistake'.[34] During the hearing, however, he accepted that he committed two sexual offences against two different victims about nine months apart. The Applicant expressed remorse and shame on several occasions and said he ruminates over his conduct. This includes because he would feel terrible if the victims were his sister, daughter, or niece. The Applicant referred to episodes of suicidal ideation, but said a psychiatrist convinced him to live for his daughter. He stated: 'If I didn't have my daughter I would finish myself'. > > (i) During cross-examination the Applicant claimed to have no memory of what occurred during his sexual assault against a young foreign tourist who rented a room in his house. He claimed to have 'consumed some alcohol and tablets', including 'drinks together' with the victim before the assault. Despite this he accepts 'all the evidence - the DNA and all that...'. The Applicant also claimed not to recall what he told police when interviewed. When reminded by Mr Brown that he told police: 'she's trying to disgrace me and dishonour me...This...doesn't make sense',[35] the Applicant responded it was because he: 'didn't think [he] had done it at the time'. He again attributed an absence of memory to 'using tablets and alcohol', claiming that his perception about having done nothing wrong was reinforced by the victim continuing to stay at his home for a week and asking for a rent refund. When asked by Mr Brown when he became aware of what he did to the woman, the Applicant said it was when his lawyer explained the evidence, including the DNA evidence, such that the victim's allegations 'seemed reasonable' and 'made sense'. The Applicant could not recall when he pleaded guilty to this crime. > > (j) In terms of the rape, the Applicant agreed this occurred about four months after police interviewed him for the sexual assault. He again claimed to be affected by 'tablets and drinks at home', followed by 'more drinks' after going out with his friend and that friend's girlfriend. He recalled visiting a brothel, coming home, having a shower, seeing his friend and the girlfriend asleep in his bed naked, and deciding to have sex with her. When asked by Mr Brown if the victim was asleep when he penetrated her, the Applicant replied: 'I'm not sure - sort of'. When asked what made him think it was acceptable to act as he did, the Applicant responded: 'At that moment I didn't know what happened...I thought it was OK, but I was seeing it in the wrong way'. When asked why he thought it was 'OK', the Applicant responded: 'I thought maybe she'd come for that - she was in the room naked'. He now realises that if a 'girl is drunk and doesn't know what she's doing, you shouldn't do it to her'. > > (k) When asked to clarify when he realised his conduct was wrong, the Applicant initially said it was after police charged him. When asked why he then maintained his innocence and advanced a narrative about consensual sex at his jury trial, the Applicant again referred to the effect of 'tablets and alcohol' as underlying his 'belief' about innocence. His evidence then changed to the effect that it was only upon receiving the jury verdict that he accepted his guilt. When pressed by Mr Brown, the Applicant explained he 'wasn't sure' if he was guilty prior to the verdict because the victim was naked in his room. When put by Mr Brown that his insistence on a jury trial resulted in the victim having to give evidence in open court and re-live the rape, the Applicant claimed to be unaware she would have to. He now feels 'very sorry' and hurt, which 'will last for the rest of [his] life'. > > (l) The Applicant invoked coming from another country as a reason why he thought it was 'OK' to act as he did. But since seeing others jailed for rape and watching 'the news', he now realises 'it's the wrong thing to do'. When asked if rape is an offence in Iran, the Applicant responded: 'In my country if a girl comes to your house it's OK...But if he goes to her house, [Iranian authorities] see that differently'. The Applicant was challenged that after seven years living in Australia prior to the sexual offences, it is implausible he did not know his conduct was illegal. He claimed not to 'go out much' and insisted he 'didn't realise' the illegality of his conduct: 'I wasn't investigating Australian laws and regulations. Just lately that has happened'. The Applicant was referred to earlier evidence about frequenting brothels and drinking at bars, to which he responded: 'Going to brothels or having drinks doesn't teach you all the laws'. During re-examination, the Applicant was asked by Mr AA if a factor in how he responded to 'interrogation' by police in Australia caused him to have a 'flash back' to treatment by Iranian authorities. This was new information not previously raised in the Applicant's statement / submissions and is uncorroborated by the sentencing remarks or expert evidence. > > (m) The Applicant was asked about a case note from Corrections Victoria dated August 2023,[36] in which he is recorded as not accepting his sentencing but claiming he could not afford an appeal. The Applicant said the author 'must have misunderstood' him or 'maybe' he did not 'convey it properly'. He claimed that his trial barrister could have organised legal representation for an appeal had he not accepted the verdict. > > (n) The Applicant agreed he was on the Methadone Program while imprisoned but said this has now ceased. The Tribunal notes references to him taking methadone in increasing doses, in addition to other pain medication, between 2020 and 2023.[37] The Applicant said he took Methadone, which is an opioid replacement therapy, for 'severe back pain' because other medications did not work. He has since decided to 'cope with the pain' and not use Methadone, Tramadol, or 'anything that affects [his] life', and just to rely on Panadol. > > (o) The Applicant said he was not placed on the Sex Offender's Register as a consequence of his convictions and is unaware of any attempt for this to occur. > > (p) The Applicant agreed he has not done any offence-specific rehabilitation but recalled applying previously and being put on a waiting list for the Better Lives Program ('BLP'). He has interpreted a letter dated October 2025 from the prison's Forensic Intervention Services[38] as assessing he is 'not a high risk' and does not need to do the BLP or other offence-specific courses. The Applicant said he would voluntarily do such courses to improve himself if released. > > (q) The Applicant said he has reconnected with his religion while imprisoned and 'committed not to drink alcohol' or 'behave badly'. When asked to elaborate on how he has reconnected with his religion, the Applicant said he talks with his 'Muslim brothers' and also 'to the Sheikh'. When asked which Sheikh, the Applicant responded: 'I don't know his name - there are a number of Sheiks who come to the prison and talk about good and bad'. > > (r) The Applicant referred to close family relationships in Australia with his parents, three siblings, daughter, and nieces / nephews. He claims they visit him in prison, and he calls them regularly by telephone. His parents are unwell.[39] He referred to his mother having a heart condition and his father suffering a damaged hand. Both find it difficult to get to appointments and his siblings would be 'relieved' if the Applicant could assist. When asked to specify the last time he helped his parents with their care, the Applicant said it was in 2021 when only his father was in Australia. He was imprisoned prior to his mother and daughter's arrival in Australia in 2023, so has not directly assisted his mother since departing Iran in 2011. > > (s) If released in Australia, the Applicant said his 'main focus' was to be a better father. He left Iran before his daughter was born and she first met him during a prison visit. His daughter currently resides with his sister's family. The Applicant explained this is because of his mother's medical issues but also because schools where his parents live are 'not good quality'. His daughter now attends a better school. The Applicant said his daughter has only been told about his crimes 'to some extent', causing her to be 'really angry' and 'very cold' with him. When asked what he told her, the Applicant responded: 'I was under the influence of alcohol and Tramadol and made a big mistake - I told her it was intercourse with a girl and how sad and ashamed I was of what I'd done'. The Applicant was referred to a case note dated February 2025, recording his claim that the relationship with his daughter was 'strained', she was challenging his fathering, had 'cut off communication', was vaping, and he feared she would 'get in trouble with the wrong crowd'.[40] The Applicant said this is because 'she gets angry' that they are not together. > > (t) The Applicant agreed that his earliest possible parole date is in March 2027. If he must complete his entire sentence release will not be until March 2030. If released in Australia, the Applicant aspires to open a business with his sister. This could be a restaurant or hairdressing salon. > > (u) The Applicant was asked about submissions advanced on his behalf about potential removal to Nauru, he replied: 'In prison this is what we hear' and agreed that he might first be released on a BVR after his prison sentence ends because of his 2012 protection finding. He does not know anyone who has been sent to Nauru.

1. The Applicant's sister gave oral evidence with the assistance of an interpreter in the Persian (Farsi) language. She adopted Exhibit A6 as true and correct, which she said was translated by a close friend who is not an accredited interpreter. She could not recall when the letter was produced. The Applicant's sister spoke about her life in Iran, including the Applicant's accidental electrocution as a 14-year-old, after which she helped arrange his care.
2. The Applicant's sister said the Applicant's daughter currently lives with her and her two children, who are between 17 and 20 years of age. Two of her other children are married and live elsewhere. The Applicant's sister referred to several competing priorities in her life, including her parents' care and 'difficulties' with the Applicant's daughter. When referred to the possibility that the Applicant might be imprisoned until 2030, the Applicant's sister said she would continue looking after his daughter as if she was her own. If the Applicant is released the family will support him and she intends going into business with him.
3. The Applicant's mother gave oral evidence assisted by an interpreter in the Persian (Farsi) language. She could not recall a statement in English submitted in her name. The Applicant's mother is still married but chooses to live with a granddaughter to be closer to medical support. Her husband lives in another house. If the Applicant is released in Australia she will be very happy, including because he can assist her care. When asked by Mr AA how she would feel if the Applicant was removed from Australia, the Applicant's mother said this would upset her and she fears having 'a heart attack'.
4. One of the Applicant's brothers gave oral evidence assisted by an interpreter in the Persian (Farsi) language. He adopted Exhibit A7 as true and correct, which he said his son wrote for him. This letter contains the erroneous claim that the Applicant 'has always been a law-abiding, responsible, and family oriented individual...[who has]...shown respect for others [and a] commitment to human values'. The Applicant's brother said he has not seen the Applicant 'for a long time' and wants him to return to their family, including to help care for their parents. He recalled the Applicant used to 'play with [his] children' and they ask: 'Uncle - when are you coming home'. The Applicant's brother said family discussions have included finding the Applicant 'a good wife' so he and his daughter can live together.
5. The Applicant's teenage daughter gave oral evidence assisted by an interpreter in the Persian (Farsi) language. She could not recall a statement in her name submitted in English. The Applicant's daughter said she lived with her paternal grandmother in Iran and had telephone contact with the Applicant prior to arrival in Australia. She knows 'to some extent' about his imprisonment and felt upset upon learning he would not be released from prison. She 'just gets on with [her] life'. The Applicant's daughter said she visits the Applicant in prison fortnightly. Seeing 'other people with their fathers beside them' makes her feel sad. She intends 'talking with [the Applicant] comfortably [and helping] him not repeat previous mistakes'. The Applicant promised her he would find work if released to support them. If he is removed from Australia she will feel 'extremely upset' and 'stressed'.
6. A screenshot from the telephone of the Applicant's brother,[41] and brief statements from his father and a niece[42] were tendered into evidence. They were not called as witnesses.

Protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct

Nature and seriousness of the non-citizen's conduct

(1) When considering protection of the Australian community, decision-makers should keep in mind that 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. Under cl 8.1.1(1) of the Direction, the following factors are to be considered in determining the nature and seriousness of the non-citizen's criminal and other conduct to date:

(a) without limiting the range of conduct that may be considered very serious, the types of crimes or conduct described below are viewed very seriously by the Australian Government and the Australian community:

1. violent and/or sexual crimes;
2. crimes of a violent and/or sexual nature against women or children, regardless of the sentence imposed;
3. acts of family violence, regardless of whether there is a conviction for an offence or a sentence imposed;

(b) without limiting the range of conduct that may be considered serious, the types of crimes or conduct described below are considered by the Australian Government and the Australian community to be serious:

1. causing a person to enter into or being party to a forced marriage (other than being a victim), regardless of whether there is a conviction for an offence or a sentence imposed;

2. crimes committed against vulnerable members of the community (such as the elderly and the disabled), or government representatives or officials due to the position they hold, or in the performance of their duties;

3. any conduct that forms the basis for a finding that a non-citizen does not pass an aspect of the character test that is dependent upon the decision-maker's opinion (for example, section 501(6)(c));

4. where the non-citizen is in Australia, a crime committed while the non-citizen was in immigration detention, during an escape from immigration detention, or after the

   non-citizen escaped from immigration detention, but before the non-citizen was taken into immigration detention again, or an offence against section 197A of the Act, which prohibits escape from immigration detention;

(c) with the exception of the crimes or conduct mentioned in subparagraph (a)(ii), (a)(iii) or (b)(i) above, the sentence imposed by the courts for a crime or crimes;

(d) the impact of the offending on any victims of offending or other conduct and their family, where information in this regard is available and the non-citizen whose visa is being considered for refusal or cancellation, or who has sought revocation of the mandatory cancellation of their visa, has been afforded procedural fairness;

(e) the frequency of the non-citizen's offending and/or whether there is any trend of increasing seriousness;

(f) the cumulative effect of repeated offending;

(g) whether the non-citizen has provided false or misleading information to the Department, including by not disclosing prior criminal offending;

(h) whether the non-citizen has reoffended since being formally warned, or since otherwise being made aware, in writing, about the consequences of further offending in terms of the non-citizen's migration status (noting that the absence of a warning should not be considered to be in the non-citizen's favour).

(i) where the conduct or offence was committed in another country, whether that offence or conduct is classified as an offence in Australia.

1. The Tribunal has considered sentencing remarks dated 2023.[43] His Honour found the Applicant attacked two female victims 'in unrelated circumstances within the space of about nine months'.[44] They were found to be vulnerable, including because of his physical dominance. The Applicant was charged with attempted rape for the first offence but later pleaded guilty to sexual assault after negotiations between his lawyers and the prosecution service.[45] The sentencing judge observed this plea was 'largely transactional' and reflected 'limited genuine remorse or insight into the significance of [his] offending'.[46] The Applicant chose to run a trial for the rape charge that resulted in a jury verdict of guilty. His conduct against the second victim was found to involve unprotected penetration and the jury 'clearly rejected' his 'florid account of consensual sexual activity'.[47]
2. The Applicant's plea of guilty to sexual assault constitutes admission to and acceptance of all elements of this offence.[48] To the extent his current claims conflict with the essential basis of the Court's findings for either offence, the Tribunal is bound by the latter.[49]
3. The Tribunal does not accept that the Applicant was unaware his conduct against the two victims was unlawful. At the time of his offending in 2018 the Applicant had lived in Australia for over seven years and was either aware, or should have been aware, that his conduct was illegal and contrary to community expectations. There is no reference in the sentencing remarks or other documents to corroborate the Applicant's claims in this regard, which came across as self-serving. This includes because of his denials during police interview, attribution of blame on the victims, and the alternative narratives he advanced. The Applicant's continuing equivocation about aspects of his conduct is not to his credit
4. By operation of cls 8.1.1(1)(a)(i)-(ii) of the Direction the Applicant's crimes are viewed very seriously by the Australian Government and community. The Tribunal respectfully adopts the Victorian Court of Appeal's observations about rape in DPP v Mokhtari:[50]

The very act of rape is inherently serious, simply by virtue of the invasion of the victim's bodily integrity without consent. It is, quite simply, an act of violence, whether or not accompanied by other violent conduct. The violation is physical, emotional and psychological. It follows that, aggravating features apart, all acts of non-consensual penetration are objectively serious, irrespective of the form and the extent of the penetration.

5. In terms of cl 8.1.1(1)(c) of the Direction, custodial dispositions are a last resort and the most severe sanction available.[51] A total effective sentence of ten years imprisonment for a first-time offender is considerable regardless of where it sits within statutory maximums.[52]
6. In terms of cl 8.1.1(1)(d) of the Direction, the sentencing remarks amply convey the significant impact on the victims.[53] The sense of violation they experienced could only have been exacerbated by the Applicant's denials and false claims.[54] In the current hearing the Applicant accepts the facts of his convictions, which is little to his credit given his past denials. This required the rape victim to give evidence in open court and re-live her trauma.
7. In terms of cls 8.1.1(1)(e)-(f) of the Direction, the Applicant's offending is not frequent. That said, he committed rape about nine months after the sexual assault. A trend of increasing seriousness is apparent and the cumulative effect of his crimes has adversely impacted the lives of two vulnerable women.
8. None of the other factors at cls 8.1.1((1)(g)-(i) are relevant.
9. The Applicant's crimes and other conduct are collectively very serious.

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

In considering the need to protect the Australian community (including individuals, groups or institutions) from harm, decision-makers should have regard to the Government's view that the Australian community's tolerance for any risk of future harm becomes lower as the seriousness of the potential harm increases. Some conduct and the harm that would be caused, if it were to be repeated, is so serious that any risk that it may be repeated may be unacceptable.

1. Clause 8.1.2(2) of the Direction states that in assessing the risk the non-citizen poses to the Australian community, decision-makers must consider, cumulatively:

(a) the nature of the harm to individuals or the Australian community should the non-citizen engage in further criminal or other serious conduct; and

(b) the likelihood of the non-citizen engaging in further criminal or other serious conduct, taking into account:

1. information and evidence on the risk of the non­citizen 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 (noting that decisions should not be delayed in order for rehabilitative courses to be undertaken).

(c) where consideration is being given to whether to refuse to grant a visa to the non-citizen - whether the risk of harm may be affected by the duration and purpose of the non-citizen's intended stay, the type of visa being applied for, and whether there are strong or compassionate reasons for granting a short stay visa.

1. In Guo,[55] the High Court held that past actions can be legitimate predictors of future behaviour, but this is an uncertain guide. Depending on an offender's circumstances, the probability of an event occurring could be so low as to be 'safely disregarded' or at the other extreme 'may border on certainty'.[56] Maxwell P and Weinberg J have observed that judgements about recidivism are best founded on expert input:[57]

Predicting whether a particular person will commit a criminal offence in the future is notoriously difficult...the prediction of future dangerousness, if it is to be attempted at all, is a matter for expert opinion ... The necessary expertise combines the ability to make a qualitative assessment of an individual and the ability to utilise the available quantitative risk assessment instruments.

One thing is clear. Judges, including experienced criminal judges, have no such expertise. Neither the conduct of criminal trials nor the sentencing of offenders requires judges to have, or equips them with, the ability to assess the likelihood that an offender will re-offend...

1. There is no independent expert evidence about the Applicant's recidivism risk.
2. Documentary claims advanced on the Applicant's behalf by Mr AA include: 'It is obvious to anybody that the combination of painkillers and alcohol would have a detrimental impact on [the Applicant's] decision-making ability'.[58] Three online journal summaries dated between 2015 and 2025 were submitted relating to Tramadol,[59] in support of the contention that the Applicant's mixing of Tramadol and alcohol is contextually relevant to his crimes. The Applicant claims to now have a better understanding of the dangers of this. Other submissions advanced about recidivism risk include:[60]

(a) The Applicant is 'extremely remorseful' for past conduct. > > (b) Because no application has been made to place the Applicant on the Sex Offender's Register, this 'would indicate the prosecution viewed his chance of reoffending as on the low side'. There is no corroborating evidence to support this contention > > (c) A 'senior clinician' at Corrections Victoria 'has assessed the Applicant as presenting minimal risk to the extent that he is not required or even eligible to complete an offender-specific behavioural program'. Exhibit A1, is advanced in this regard. > > (d) It is claimed the Applicant receives counselling from a psychiatric nurse 'every 2 weeks' and takes 'mood medication' (Duloxetine and Sumatriptan daily). A letter is attached from the prison healthcare provider dated 22 October 2025, which states that the Applicant sees a 'mental health nurse when required'. A medical chart is also provided stating he is prescribed Duloxetine, Magnesium capsules and Paracetamol, with a prescription end date of 7 April 2026. > > (e) The Applicant has completed drug and alcohol programs while imprisoned, and vocational courses. It is submitted he displays 'employment readiness' and 'has been clean of all drugs and alcohol since incarceration' and: > > ...remains eager and willing to complete an offender specific program to gain further insight into his offending but is on the waiting list...Using this against him is unfair...he wants to...and will complete the program.

3. The Applicant stated in revocation submissions he constitutes 'zero chance of any form of offending', including because he has 'committed to staying clean' from substances in future. He advances a narrative that includes factors such as an ABI, past trauma in Iran, and abuse of opioid medication concurrent with alcohol as contextually relevant to his crimes.[61] In terms of parole, the Applicant asserts without evidence that restoring his permanent visa is a precondition to applying for parole and that non-revocation results in him serving his full sentence. The Tribunal does not accept this. The path of logic the Applicant advances appears to be that supervised release on parole under a permanent visa is preferable in a recidivism sense to unsupervised release on a temporary visa such as a BVR.[62] There is no expert corroboration of this claim.
4. In terms of rehabilitation, the sentencing judge could not find 'any significant process of rehabilitation has taken place'.[63] The Tribunal has considered the following courses, all of which were completed in 2023 during the Applicant's imprisonment:[64]

(a) three units towards a Certificate II in Food Processing; > > (b) one unit titled 'Foundation OHS'; > > (c) one unit titled 'Prepare and serve espresso coffee'; and > > (d) one unit titled 'Clean high touch surfaces'; > > (e) 'Power of positive parenting' dated 28 July 2023; > > (f) 'Raising confident, competent children' dated 3 August 2023; > > (g) 'Raising resilient children' dated 17 August 2023; > > (h) 'Raising responsible teenagers' dated 28 September 2023; > > (i) 'Alcohol and Me Program' dated 3 September 2023; and > > (j) 'Getting teenagers connected' dated 29 November 2023.

5. In documentary submissions the Applicant stated the following about future rehabilitation intentions:

...he is eager and willing to complete an offender specific program to gain further insight into his offending but is on the waiting list for this program. Using this against him is unfair as he wants to complete the better lives program and will complete the program...[He] is on the waiting list for the better lives program...All of this is to gain insight into his offending and ensure he never makes such a mistake again.[65]

6. The Tribunal notes from open-source information the Better Lives Program ('BLP') is provided in Victorian prisons and targets sexual offending behaviours.[66] The Applicant submitted that Exhibit A1, which states the following, should be read as confirming he does not have offence specific rehabilitative needs:

A clinician recently reviewed your case to determine whether there has been any change in your assessment and treatment needs. We are sending you this letter to inform you of the outcome of this pathway review. > > Based on this pathway review, you do not require an intervention with Forensic lntervention Services based on your identified risk. We will contact you if circumstances change and you become eligible for further assessment or intervention. > > Various other options are available for you to get support for your rehabilitation and reintegration. These may include transitional supports, and/or personal development programs. We encourage you to discuss your plans and needs with your Case Manager, who can support you to access programs and services in your location

7. In terms of remorse the Applicant expressed several times during the hearing that he is sorry for past crimes and ruminates constantly over the effect on victims. This included references to how he would have felt if a victim was his sister, daughter, or a niece.
8. In terms of conduct in custody, the Respondent does not contest that the Applicant has been compliant.
9. In terms of protective factors, the Applicant claims to have learned from the salutary consequences of a decade-long sentence. He also refers to developed insight, courses undertaken, abstinence from drugs and alcohol, and future parole supervision. He invokes the interests of his daughter, the health of his parents, and alleviating the care burden borne by other family members. There is no expert evidence to corroborate the Applicant's sister's claim about an aneurysm as a factor relevant to the latter. The medical letters tendered about the Applicant's parents erroneously claim he played a 'caregiver' role for them. He has never done so for his mother who only arrived in Australia in 2023 after his imprisonment. Any past care the Applicant provided for his father, or family engagement prior to 2018, was ineffective in preventing him from committing two very serious sexual crimes. In terms of future work as a protective factor, the Applicant has scant past employment in Australia. His plans for reemployment or to start a business with his sister aspirational at best.
10. A repeat of the Applicant's very serious sexual crimes has the potential to cause devastating physical and psychological harm. The Tribunal accepts the Respondent's submission regarding the significant costs of sexual violence against women, including through the health, legal, and administrative review systems, and lost productivity.[67]
11. The Applicant expressed shame and contrition for his past conduct, albeit contextualised by revisionist aspects of his evidence. He claimed, for example, that the interaction of Tramadol and alcohol caused him not to recall what occurred during both sexual crimes. It is noteworthy, however, that when interviewed by police he did not claim an inability to recall, but expressly denied sexual assault or rape occurred.[68] He instead claimed the sexual assault victim was a 'troublemaker...chasing visas' and, because of his permanent residence and medical conditions, was 'vulnerable' to her 'abuse'. The Applicant also claimed her 'false allegations' may require him to initiate a defamation complaint. The Applicant later pleaded guilty to this offence after negotiations between his lawyers and the prosecution service,[69] which the sentencing judge observed was 'largely transactional' and reflected 'limited genuine remorse or insight into the significance of [his] offending'.[70] It is equally noteworthy regarding the rape offence, that when forensic analysis linked the Applicant's DNA to the victim, his evidence changed from denial to a 'florid account of consensual sexual activity' that the jury rejected.[71] There is no support for the Applicant's current revisionist claims in the sentencing remarks or through expert evidence.
12. The Applicant's crimes fall into a category of crime where the community's tolerance would be very low because of the unacceptable harm resulting from any repeat.[72] The Tribunal considers the primary motivation for his crimes was sexual gratification. His efforts to minimise his conduct and deflect blame on extraneous circumstances such as an ABI, past trauma, drug and alcohol misuse, purported lack of understanding about Australian laws, or 'flashbacks' to abuse by Iranian authorities, were uncorroborated and unpersuasive.
13. In terms of protective factors, the Tribunal accepts that the Applicant loves his family and wants to return to them. They have offered what support they can, and the Tribunal accepts he could alleviate the family's caring burden if released. The Applicant's evidence about renewed 'religious fervour' is less persuasive, however, without independent corroboration from the 'Sheiks' he has purportedly learned from but whose names he could not recall. In terms of the Applicant's submission that his supervised release on parole on a permanent visa is preferable in a recidivism sense to unsupervised release on a temporary visa, the Tribunal found this speculative and unsupported by expert evidence. This includes because of uncertainty about when he might be released, which could be more than four years after the Tribunal's decision.
14. The Tribunal accepts the Applicant was law-abiding during periods of release amounting to about 17 months as his criminal matters have played out since November 2018. Although this weighs in his favour, it is a relatively short period during the last seven years, where all but a month between October and November 2018 was under conditional liberty.
15. In terms of the vocational and self-improvement courses completed by the Applicant while imprisoned, these are to his credit. There is scant evidence, however, about what was covered, how the Applicant performed, and what steps were taken to overcome his obvious English limitations.[73]
16. The Applicant is yet to undertake offence-specific rehabilitation. It is accepted, however, that he has not had this opportunity while imprisoned and would have done the BLP if available. He expresses a willingness to voluntarily do offence-specific courses if released. Decisions should not be delayed, however, for rehabilitation to be undertaken.[74] The Tribunal does not accept that Exhibit A establishes the Applicant has no recidivism risk or offence-specific rehabilitative needs. The Tribunal considers the Applicant does have unmet rehabilitative needs that could ameliorate his recidivism risk. This includes because of the concerning nature of some of his evidence, including equivocation about how rape is considered in Iran, when he learned that his conduct against the victims was a crime, and purported uncertainty about whether his conduct was acceptable because the rape victim was sleeping naked with her boyfriend in the Applicant's bed.
17. On current evidence the Applicant constitutes a real recidivism risk that cannot be safely disregarded. When the very serious nature of his crimes is coupled with a real risk of reoffending, which may cause devastating harm, this primary consideration weighs very substantially against revocation.

1. Clause 8.2(1) of the Direction reflects the Australian government's concerns about conferring on non-citizens who commit acts of family violence the privilege of coming into or staying in Australia. Clause 8.2(2) provides that this consideration is relevant where:

(a) a non-citizen has been convicted of an offence, found guilty of an offence, or had charges proven howsoever described, that involve family violence; and/or

(b) there is information or evidence from independent and authoritative sources indicating that the non-citizen is, or has been, involved in the perpetration of family violence, and the non-citizen being considered under section 501 or section 501CA has been afforded procedural fairness.

1. In considering the seriousness of family violence engaged in by a non-citizen, the Direction requires the following factors at cl 8.2(3) to be taken into account where relevant:

a) the frequency of the non-citizen's conduct and/or whether there is any trend of increasing seriousness;

b) the cumulative effect of repeated acts of family violence;

c) rehabilitation achieved at time of decision since the person's last known act of family violence, including:

i. the extent to which the person accepts responsibility for their family violence related conduct;

ii. the extent to which the non-citizen understands the impact of their behaviour on the abused and witness of that abuse (particularly children);

iii. efforts to address factors which contributed to their conduct; and

d) Whether the non-citizen has re-offended since being formally warned, or since otherwise being made aware by a Court, law enforcement or other authority, about the consequences of further acts of family violence, noting that the absence of a warning should not be considered to be in the non-citizen's favour. This includes warnings about the noncitizen's migration status, should the non-citizen engage in further acts of family violence.

1. Documents obtained under summons disclose police reports between November 2014 and February 2016 relating to alleged violence by the Applicant against his wife.[75] This included her reporting to police that the Applicant grabbed her hair, punched her to the head and neck, and engaged in threatening, controlling, and physically abusive behaviours. The reports also refer to a FFVIO being taken out against the Applicant in 2015,[76] about which his evidence was earlier summarised. In essence, the Applicant accepts that a 12-month FFVIO was taken out against him by the Melbourne Magistrates' Court and served on him in November 2015. He claims to have been found 'not guilty' at two subsequent court appearances. There is no evidence before the Tribunal about any charges or judicial outcomes. The Tribunal notes that in the Applicant's criminal history check dated 23 May 2023[77] there is no mention of family violence convictions. Given this and the Applicant's denials no finding is possible that he has committed the violence alleged in the police reports. It is clear, however, that the Melbourne Magistrates' Court was satisfied there were sufficient grounds to issue and serve a FFVIO against him in November 2015.
2. The incidents referred to in the police reports raised with the Applicant are not particularly frequent. There is no evidence from his wife in this proceeding about any effect his conduct may have had on her. The circumstances of this case are such that it is unsafe for the Tribunal to place any weight against revocation just because a Court decided a decade ago to impose a 12-month FFVIO against the Applicant. There are too many gaps and too much uncertainty about why this occurred, whether it was the Applicant's wife or police who asked for the FFVIO, and whether he was charged based on these reports but not convicted as he claims. There is no evidence before the Tribunal that any of the very serious claims of violence that might have been considered prior to issuing the FFVIO resulted in judicial outcomes against the Applicant.

The strength, nature, and duration of ties to Australia

(1) Decision-makers must consider any impact of the decision on the non-citizen's immediate family members in Australia, where those family members are Australian citizens, Australian permanent residents, or people who have a right to remain in Australia indefinitely.

(2) Where consideration is being given to whether to cancel a non-citizen's visa or whether to revoke the mandatory cancellation of their visa, the decision-maker must also consider the strength, nature and duration of any other ties that the non-citizen has to the Australian community. In doing so, decision-makers must have regard to:

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

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 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. The Applicant has lived in Australia for about 14 years. Aa significant component of this time has been spent under police investigation, on remand, or imprisoned. His parents also live in Australia. His father arrived at Christmas Island in 2010, a year prior to the Applicant, also as an unauthorised maritime arrival.[78] He became an Australian citizen in 2019[79] and, in 2023, sponsored the migration of his wife and the Applicant's child to Australia.[80]
2. The Applicant refers to three siblings in Australia who fall within the meaning of this primary consideration. He also invokes the interests of 11 nieces and nephews who vary in age from four to 27 years of age.[81] He claimed to have seen them 4-5 times a week prior to arrest and submits that the minor children will experience emotional distress if he is removed. The evidence from the Applicant's family members in this proceeding was earlier summarised. It is clear that they place considerable significance on the Applicant's place in their lives and want him to remain in Australia with them on a permanent visa.
3. The Applicant claimed in revocation submissions dated July 2024 that his father is on the pension and his mother is 'unwell'. The Tribunal has considered a medical letter from Dr Hamideh Fakr dated 5 June 2025 setting out medical conditions suffered by the Applicant's mother and stating the Applicant 'was actively involved in supporting her with day-to-day living tasks' and that 'more recently the patient underwent an angiography procedure', following which the Applicant's 'care is crucial to her well-being'.[82] The Tribunal has also considered a medical letter from Dr Maryam Shiradzi Kashani Nejad dated 3 September 2024 and 5 June 2025, both stating the Applicant is 'looking after' his father and 'helps him in daily living activities such as cooking and shopping'.[83] These general practitioners were not called to give evidence and their letters make no reference to the Applicant having been imprisoned for all but 17 months since 2018.[84] His mother only arrived in Australia with his daughter in 2024. The Tribunal therefore does not accept he has looked after his parents as claimed and places little weight on these medical letters. They appear entirely based on the Applicant's self-reported claims.
4. In terms of broader prosocial ties, there is a brief, undated letter with ten signatures but no elaboration on the nature of how the signatories know the Applicant.[85] None were called as witnesses. Some signatories appear to be relatives and for others there is only a first name. No reference is made to the Applicant's crimes. The letter is in very general terms and refers to the Applicant as having a 'strong moral compass'. Little weight is placed on this letter.
5. The Applicant's offending did not commence soon after his arrival in Australia such that less weight ought to be given to this primary consideration. In terms of positive contributions, evidence of this is sparse. The Applicant claims to have worked in Australia for about two-and-a-half months in an abattoir and for a year as a removalist in or about 2016. Much of his residence in Australia is contextualised by receipt of benefits, a claimed inability to work due to a work injury, commission of serious crimes, and an extended period of imprisonment. There is no independent corroboration about the actual extent of his past work. The Applicant claims he acted as a mentor for community members who struggle after arrival in Australia. Again, there is no independent corroboration of this from any recipients of his claimed support.
6. The Applicant will not be removed from Australia as a consequence of the Tribunal's decision. Once released from prison at some point between March 2027 and March 2030, he will be able to pursue his aspiration to be a better father, son, brother and uncle. In the event of revocation his permanent visa will be restored. In the event of a non-revocation, he may be placed after release from prison on a conditional BVR because of the protection finding in his favour. The Applicant's connection to the community is relatively narrow and strongest through a small number of family members. On balance, this primary consideration weighs moderately at best in favour of revocation.

Best interests of minor children in Australia affected by the decision

1. Clause 8.4 of the Direction requires decision-makers to determine whether the best interests of minor children in Australia are served by grant or refusal of the visa.[86] It is generally for an Applicant to 'identify the personal facts and circumstances relevant to the decision',[87] including the existence of any minor children whose best interests may be affected by the decision. This primary consideration applies only if the child is, or would be, under 18 years old at the time the application is decided. If there are two or more relevant children, the best interests of each affected by the decision should be given individual consideration, to the extent their interests differ. In considering the best interests of the child, the following factors must be considered where relevant:[88]
   1. 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);
   2. 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;
   3. 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;
   4. 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;
   5. whether there are other persons who already fulfil a parental role in relation to the child;
   6. any known views of the child (with those views being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child);
   7. 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;
   8. evidence that the child has suffered or experienced any physical or emotional trauma arising from the non-citizen's conduct.
2. The Applicant invokes the interests of a daughter who was born in Iran after his departure in 2011 and is currently 14 years' old.[89] They spoke by telephone after he left Iran and the child only arrived in Australia in 2023[90] as a dependant of the Applicant's mother, who was previously her carer.[91] The Applicant's sister has since assumed this responsibility. The child visits the Applicant in prison about fortnightly.
3. The Tribunal has considered three undated, unsigned letters purporting to be from his daughter,[92] but during her oral evidence she could not recall writing a letter. These letters include reference to her to wanting to go on a 'trip' with the Applicant and being unfocussed on her studies / future because he is 'not by [her] side'. The daughter's oral evidence was earlier summarised, and the Tribunal is satisfied she wants her father home with their family.
4. The Applicant' mother and now his sister, have performed the primary parental role for his daughter. He has been absent in a physical sense for virtually the entirety of her life. She does not have a complete understanding of his crimes and their relationship since her recent arrival in Australia is at a formative stage and characterised by some problems. The Applicant expresses frustration at his inability to regulate the child's behaviour. The Applicant's daughter is approaching adulthood in four years, which may post-date the Applicant's release from prison depending on the outcome of his parole application. Even if he succeeds in securing release on the earliest possible parole date, that will leave a relatively brief period before she turns 18.
5. In terms of the 11 nieces and nephews whose interests the Applicant invokes, the Tribunal notes that based on the dates of birth he has provided, 8 of these are purported to be under 18. Their interests cannot be distinguished on current evidence and are considered collectively. There are two undated and brief letters purporting to be from some of his nieces who claim to be between 8-17 years' old.[93] The letter from the 17-year-old niece, who is approaching adulthood states: 'I never lived with my dad as much as I could remember, [the Applicant] was the father figure of my life'. None of the Applicant's nieces or nephews were called as witnesses. The Tribunal is not satisfied on current evidence that the Applicant played a parental role for any of them and there has been long periods of absence and limited meaningful contact since 2018. That said, the Tribunal accepts he wants to play a more prominent avuncular role if released, which may not be until March 2030.
6. There is no dispute the Applicant keenly feels the separation from his daughter. Irrespective of the Tribunal's decision, however, he will have the opportunity to pursue a closer relationship with her and his minor nieces and nephews. That is because a revocation decision means his permanent visa will be reinstated and he would return to the community after his sentence of imprisonment concludes. In the event of a non-revocation decision, the Applicant cannot be removed from Australia because of the protection finding in his favour. It is therefore probable that as his release from prison approaches he would fall for consideration under arrangements applying to the so-called 'NZYQ cohort' of persons affected by the High Court's 2023 decision and released at some stage on a Class WR Bridging R (subclass 070) visa ('BVR') with certain conditions pursuant to regulation 2.25AE of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth).[94]
7. On balance, revocation is in the best interests of the Applicant's daughter and minor nieces and nephews. In the specific facts of this case, however, this primary consideration weighs only moderately at best in favour of revocation.

1. Clause 8.5(1) of the Direction identifies the expectations of the Australian community:

(1) The Australian community expects non-citizens to obey Australian laws while in Australia. Where a non-citizen has engaged in serious conduct in breach of this expectation, or where there is an unacceptable risk that they may do so, the Australian community, as a norm, expects the Government to not allow such a non-citizen to enter or remain in Australia.

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. In particular, the Australian community expects that the Australian Government can and should refuse entry to non-citizens, or cancel their visas, if they raise serious character concerns through conduct, in Australia or elsewhere, of the following kind:

a) acts of family violence; or

b) causing a person to enter into, or being party to (other than being a victim of), a forced marriage;

c) commission of serious crimes against women, children or other vulnerable members of the community such as the elderly or disabled; in this context, 'serious crimes' include crimes of a violent or sexual nature, as well as other serious crimes against the elderly or other vulnerable persons in the form of fraud, extortion, financial abuse/material exploitation or neglect;

d) commission of crimes against government representatives or officials due to the position they hold, or in the performance of their duties; or

e) involvement or reasonably suspected involvement in human trafficking or people smuggling, or in crimes that are of serious international concern including, but not limited to, war crimes, crimes against humanity and slavery; or

f) worker exploitation.

1. Clause 8.5(3) of the Direction provides that the above expectations apply regardless of whether a non-citizen poses a measurable risk of causing physical harm to the community.
2. Clause 8.5(4) of the Direction provides that this consideration is 'about the expectations of the Australian community as a whole', and decision-makers are to proceed based on the Government's views as articulated in the Direction, without independently assessing the community's expectations in a particular case. This correlates with the reasoning in FYBR[95] where the plurality held that this primary consideration is a deeming provision with normative principles, ascribing to the community an expectation aligning with that of the executive government. The reasoning in FYBR establishes that the 'deemed community expectation' will in most cases call for cancellation, but 'the question of whether it is appropriate to act in accordance with the deemed community expectation is in all cases left for the decision-maker to determine'.[96] The High Court refused an application for special leave to appeal from the orders in FYBR.[97]
3. The High Court has more recently held in Ismail at [52] regarding this primary consideration in an earlier Direction (Direction 90):[98]

Paragraph 8.4(4) is to be understood as directing the decision‑maker not to attempt to infer what the expectations of the Australian community would be "in the particular case" (that is, with the knowledge of the delegate about the applicant's personal circumstances), but to proceed on the basis that the views of the Australian Government set out in para 8.4(1)-(3) are the relevant norm described as the expectations of the Australian community. That norm, as applicable by reference to the terms of para 8(1)-(3), is then to be weighed with other relevant matters as required by paras 6 and 7 of Direction 90. The delegate's reasoning accords with these requirements. Observing the norm stipulated in paragraph 8.5(1), and in accordance with the guidance provided by Principles 5.2(1)-(5) of Direction 110, the Australian community would expect that the applicant should not continue to hold a visa on account of his offending and the risk of further offending and infliction of harm.

1. The High Court's decision in NZYQ casts a different light on this primary consideration.[99] This is particularly so regarding the norm expressed at cl 8.5(1) of the Direction about not allowing certain non‑citizens to 'enter or remain in Australia'. The Applicant has a 2012 protection finding in his favour and, for the reasons expressed earlier, will remain in the community irrespective of the Tribunal's decision. That said, he has engaged in conduct that raises serious character concerns within the meaning of cls 8.5 (2)(a) and (c) of the Direction. Pursuant to the principles at cls 5.2(3)-(4), he should expect to forfeit the privilege of staying in Australia. This primary consideration weighs very substantially against revocation.

1. In terms of cl 9.3, there is no evidence of any impact on Australian business interests in the event of non-revocation, nor are submissions advanced in this regard. The Tribunal finds this consideration is not relevant and gives it neutral weight.

9.1 Legal consequences of decision under section 501 or 501CA

(1) Decision-makers should be mindful that unlawful non-citizens are, in accordance with section 198, liable to removal from Australia as soon as reasonably practicable in the circumstances specified in that section, and in the meantime, detention under section 189, noting also that section 197C(1) of the Act provides that for the purposes of section 198, it is irrelevant whether Australia has non-refoulement obligations in respect of an unlawful noncitizen.

(2) A non-refoulement obligation is an obligation not to forcibly return, deport or expel a person to a place where they will be at risk of a specific type of harm. Australia has

non-refoulement obligations under the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees as amended by the 1967 Protocol (together called the Refugees Convention), the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (the CAT), and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and its Second Optional Protocol (the ICCPR). The Act, particularly the concept of 'protection obligations', reflects Australia's interpretation of non-refoulement obligations and the scope of the obligations that Australia is committed to implementing.

(3) 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.

9.1.1 Non-citizens covered by a protection finding

(1) Where a protection finding (as defined in section 197C of the Act) has been made for a non-citizen in the course of considering a protection visa application made by the non-citizen, this indicates that non-refoulement obligations are engaged in relation to the non-citizen.

(2) Section 197C(3) ensures that, except in the limited circumstances specified in section 197C(3)(c), section 198 does not require or authorise the removal of an unlawful non-citizen to a country in respect of which a protection finding has been made for the non-citizen in the course of considering their application for a protection visa. This means the non-citizen cannot be removed to that country in breach of non-refoulement obligations, even if an adverse visa decision under section 501 or 501CA is made for the non-citizen and they become, or remain, an unlawful non-citizen as a result. Instead, the non-citizen must remain in immigration detention as required by section 189 unless and until they are granted another visa or they can be removed to a country other than the country by reference to which the protection finding was made.

(3) Decision-makers should also be mindful that where the refusal, cancellation or

non-revocation decision concerns a protection visa, the person will be prevented by section 48A of the Act from making a further application for a protection visa while they are in the migration zone (unless the Minister determines that section 48A does not apply to them - see sections 48A and 48B of the Act). Further, as a result of a refusal or cancellation decision under section 501 or a non-revocation decision under section 501CA, the person will be prevented from applying for any other class of visa except a Bridging R (Class WR) visa (see section 501E of the Act and regulation 2.12AA of the Regulations.

9.1.2 Non-citizens not covered by a protection finding

(1) Claims which may give rise to international non-refoulement obligations can also be raised by a non-citizen who is not the subject of a protection finding, in responding to a notice of intention to consider cancellation or refusal of a visa under section 501 of the Act, or in seeking revocation of the mandatory cancellation of their visa under section 501CA. Where such claims are raised, they must be considered.

(2) However, where it is open to the non-citizen to apply for a protection visa, it is not necessary at the section 501/section 501CA stage to consider non-refoulement issues in the same level of detail as those types of issues are considered in a protection visa application. The process for determining protection visa applications is specifically designed for consideration of non-refoulement obligations as given effect by the Act and where it is open to the person to make such an application a decision-maker, in making a decision under section 501/section 501CA, is not required to determine whether non-refoulement obligations are engaged in respect of the person. Having considered the person's representations, the decision-maker may choose to proceed on the basis that if and when the person applies for a protection visa, any protection claims they have will be assessed, as required by section 36A of the Act, before consideration is given to any character or security concerns associated with them.

(3) Non-refoulement obligations that have been identified for a non-citizen with respect to a country, via an International Treaties Obligations Assessment or some other process outside the protection visa process, would not engage section 197C(3) to preclude removal of the non-citizen to that country. In these circumstances, in making a decision under section 501 or 501CA, decision-makers should carefully weigh any non-refoulement obligation against the seriousness of the non-citizen's criminal offending or other serious conduct. However, that does not mean an adverse decision under section 501 or 501CA cannot be made for the non-citizen. A refusal, cancellation or non-revocation decision will not necessarily result in removal of the non-citizen to the country in respect of which the non-refoulement obligation exists. For example, consideration may be given to removal to another country, or the Minister may consider exercising his/her personal discretion under section 195A to grant another visa to the non-citizen, or alternatively, consider exercising his/her personal discretion under section 197AB to make a residence determination to enable the non-citizen to reside at a specified place in the community, subject to appropriate conditions. Further, following the visa refusal or cancellation decision or non-revocation decision, if the noncitizen makes a valid application for a protection visa, the non-citizen would not be liable to be removed while their application is being determined.

1. An Applicant's claims in the context of whether there is 'another reason' for revocation can be less categorical than those advanced during the more comprehensive process under s 36A of the Act.[100] Legal consequences can relate to detention, removal, and refusal of other visas. The Tribunal must read, identify, understand and evaluate the representations an applicant makes or those clearly arising from the evidence.[101]
2. The Tribunal is satisfied the country of reference in the present matter is Iran. Because of the Applicant's 2012 protection finding he cannot be removed to Iran and his circumstances fall under cl 9.1.1 of the Direction. The reason he cannot be removed is because s 198(5A) of the Act no longer requires or authorises this. Mr AA submitted on the Applicant's behalf that there is a 'realistic risk of third country removal' following a non-revocation decision:

Failure to Consider Alternative Outcomes > > 10. ... the Minister's reasoning assumes the Applicant will remain in Australia regardless of visa status, failing to consider: > > - The Australia-Nauru resettlement agreement > > - The reactivation of all family hardship concerns if resettled overseas > > 11. ...the Minister has completely failed to consider the same impediments caused by resettlement in Nauru. Considering the Applicant does not know any (sic) in Nauru and nor does he speak the language these impediments would be very significant.

3. Mr AA submitted without evidence that a non-revocation decision would also have the consequence of adversely affecting the Applicant's parole prospects, claiming that a permanent visa is a precondition to a parole application. He said the absence of this is 'likely' to cause the Applicant 'to spend additional time in prison before the Government tries to remove him'. It is contended that non-revocation puts 'him on that trajectory' although Mr AA concedes this is 'not certain'. Mr AA claimed, again without evidence, that the 'treatments and medications' the Applicant requires are not available in Nauru and he would be unable to 'find work there or survive'.
4. The Tribunal means no disrespect in observing that, despite efforts to explain the uncertain branches and sequels of future events, the Applicant and his advocate continue to believe removal to Nauru is a reasonably foreseeable consequence of a non-revocation decision. To step through the potential consequences:

(a) Mandatory cancellation of the Applicant's visa results in him becoming an unlawful non-citizen under s 14 of the Act. As discussed above, he cannot currently be removed to Iran so two paths emerge from the Tribunal's decision: > > > (i) If the reviewable decision is set aside, the Applicant's Protection Visa would be restored. He would continue serving his sentence possibly until March 2030, which turns on parole consideration about 15-16 months after this hearing or more than four years if he serves the entire sentence. There is no evidence what the Victorian Parole Board might do. The Respondent could also elect judicial challenge of a revocation decision by the Tribunal, or the Minister could exercise a personal power such as setting aside the Tribunal's decision under s 501BA of the Act. At some future point a Minister could also choose to remove the Applicant's protection finding and re-detain him for involuntary removal.[102] There is no evidence of any such intentions, which are not an immediate or reasonably foreseeable consequences of the Tribunal's decision. > > > > (ii) In the event of non-revocation, the Applicant would continue to complete his prison sentence and may appeal the Tribunal's decision on a point of law. Upon his release from prison, he could either be taken into detention or found to fall within the 'NZYQ cohort'. This depends on the state of the law at the time of his release, which is potentially over four years from now.[103] The Minister could choose to exercise a non-compellable power if the Applicant made a relevant request. If the NZYQ-cohort outcome eventuated, the Applicant could be considered for the grant of a BVR with certain conditions This again depends on whether current legislation / regulations remain in place at the time of his release in what has been a fast-moving area of the law. Conditions attached to a BVR can be quite restrictive, have a compliance burden, and possible prosecution if breached. BVR holders become a 'removal pathway citizen' within the meaning of s 5(1) of the Act.[104] This could include removal if a third country decided to approve the Australian Government's request for a non-citizen to enter and remain. A BVR holder is currently required to comply with a removal pathway direction pursuant to s 199E of the Act.

5. The Tribunal is aware from open-source information that a resettlement arrangement commenced in 2022 between Australia and New Zealand. In September 2025 a third country reception arrangement was settled between Australia and the Republic of Nauru. These could become relevant at some indeterminate future time once the Applicant's prison sentence ends and if he is placed on a BVR. Alternatively, the decision might be to permit him continued residence in Australia under a BVR as is currently the case for the vast majority of non-citizens in the NZYQ cohort. Under an interim agreement with Nauru earlier in 2025, the Tribunal understands from previous cases that a small number of non-citizens in the NZYQ cohort were selected for resettlement. Open-source media information suggests the Government's intention to rely on this is under legal challenge. These reports state that although 'more than a dozen' of the approximately 358 non-citizens in the NZYQ cohort were re-detained after being issued Nauruan visas, only a small number have since been deported.[105] Ultimately, any removal decision under a third country arrangement would be an exercise of non-statutory executive power rather than a consequence of a non-revocation decision by the Tribunal.
6. The Applicant is not currently a member of the NZYQ cohort. There is also no evidence that if he were to be granted a BVR in future, he would be subject to a removal pathway direction to Nauru or another country. These future possibilities are not a direct consequence of the Tribunal's decision,[106] turn on the irresoluble course of future events,[107] and need not be speculated upon. In DOB18 at [35], Justice Griffiths reflected favourably on Ali[108] in cautioning against this:[109]

... Justice Flick's reasoning in Ali was adopted and applied by Logan J in Greene at [19] and by Farrell J in Turay at [40] ... Contrary to the applicant's submissions, I do not consider that the reasoning in this trio of cases is plainly wrong. Indeed, I consider that it is plainly correct. In my respectful view, it properly recognises the importance of the different stages of decision-making under the Act and the need to avoid speculation as to what might or might not occur in future decision-making ...

1. Irrespective of how future events evolve, however, the Tribunal accepts that non-revocation may be distressing for the Applicant, his parents, daughter, siblings, and perhaps others. While permitted to remain in Australia, a non-revocation decision would likely result in future visa uncertainty.
2. On balance, this consideration carries slight weight at best in favour of revocation.

(1) Decision-makers must consider the extent of any impediments that the 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:

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. The Applicant is about 35 years' old. In terms of his health, he refers to a back injury that causes him pain and continuing depression, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress disorder. The Tribunal has considered medical records relating to the Applicant dating back to 2016,[110] including references to him suffering depression since arrival in Australia in 2012.[111] In revocation submissions dated July 2024, the Applicant claimed he was prescribed with 'Meloxicam',[112] which the Tribunal notes from open-source information is a nonsteroidal inflammatory drug used to treat arthritic symptoms or symptoms such as stiffness and joint pain. The Tribunal has also considered the contemporaneous clinical notes at Exhibit R2 and the prescription chart at Exhibit A5.
2. Because of the protection finding in the Applicant's favour, he cannot be returned to Iran. He has not advanced persuasive submissions about future events that may change this or cause him to be subject to third country removal arrangements. Impediments arising from possible return to Iran are not a direct consequence of the Tribunal's decision. This consideration is not enlivened and carries neutral weight.

1. No other considerations were advanced by the parties, and none are discernible from the evidence.

1. The Tribunal was assisted by the submissions of Mr AA and Mr Brown in highlighting those aspects of each side's case considered most relevant to determining if there is 'another reason' for revocation. The Tribunal sees no reason to depart from the guidance in the Direction to generally give greater weight to the Protection of the Australian community, over the other primary considerations, as the highest priority of the Australian Government.
2. The Applicant's sexual crimes are very serious and have caused great harm to two vulnerable female victims. There is no independent, expert evidence about his recidivism risk, and he is yet to complete any offence-specific rehabilitation. A repeat of his sexual offences has the potential to cause devastating physical and psychological harm. His crimes fall into a category where the community's tolerance would be very low because of the unacceptable harm resulting from any repeat.
3. Aspects of the Applicant's evidence raise concerns about the extent of his insight and rehabilitative progress. This includes his efforts to minimise his conduct and deflect blame on extraneous circumstances such as an ABI, past trauma, drug and alcohol misuse, purported lack of understanding about Australian laws, and 'flashbacks' to abuse by Iranian authorities. These were variously new, uncorroborated, unpersuasive and came across as self-serving. The Tribunal considers the Applicant does have unmet rehabilitative needs. This includes because of the concerning nature of some of his evidence, including equivocation about how rape is considered in Iran, when he learned that his conduct against the victims was a crime, and purported uncertainty about whether his conduct was acceptable because the rape victim was sleeping naked with her boyfriend on the Applicant's bed. On current evidence the Applicant constitutes a real recidivism risk that cannot be safely disregarded. Pursuant to the principles at cls 5.2(3)-(4) of the Direction he should expect to forfeit the privilege of staying in Australia.
4. The Applicant's connection to the community is relatively narrow and strongest through a small number of family members. Irrespective of the Tribunal's decision, he will not be removed from Australia because of the 2012 protection finding in his favour. Once released from prison at some point between March 2027 and March 2030 he will be able to pursue his aspiration to be a better father, son, brother and uncle. That said, in the event of a non-revocation decision this may be on a conditional BVR with the attendant uncertainty accompanying such visas.
5. For the reasons previously adduced, legal consequences confronting the Applicant turn on the irresoluble course of future events. Irrespective of how these turn out, the Tribunal accepts non-revocation may be distressing for him, his parents, daughter, siblings, and perhaps others. Although permitted to remain in Australia irrespective of the Tribunal's decision, a non-revocation decision would result in future visa uncertainty.
6. Having weighed the relevant considerations individually and cumulatively, the Tribunal finds there is not another reason why the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant's visa should be revoked. That is because the primary consideration Protection of the Australian community, which is generally given greater weight than the other primary considerations, coupled with Expectations of the Australian community, considerably outweigh the combined weight given to the countervailing primary and other considerations.

1. It follows that the Tribunal affirms the reviewable decision.

I certify that the preceding one hundred and seven (107) paragraphs are a true copy of the written reasons for the decision herein of Senior Member A. Nikolic

................[sgd]........................................................

[2] Ibid, 126. Within the meaning of s 5AA of the Act.

[8] Pursuant to s 66(2) of the, the Applicant can choose another person to represent them.

[9] Sections 501K(1)(c) and (2) of the Act require that the identity of applicants for a Protection Visa, or their relatives or other dependents, is not published by the Tribunal.

[13] Plaintiff M1/2021 v Minister for Home Affairs [2022] HCA 27; (2022) 275 CLR 582 ('Plaintiff M1/2021'), [22]; [25]; [27]; [36] (Kiefel CJ, Keane, Gordon, and Steward JJ).

[14] The Act, s 499(2A); CGX20 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2021] FCAFC 69; (2021) 284 FCR 416, 417-8 [4] (Rares, O'Callaghan and Jackson JJ); Direction No. 110: Visa refusal and cancellation under section 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under section 501CA (commenced 21 June 2024) ('the Direction').

[15] BOE21 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2022] FCAFC 99, [22], citing with approval Matthews v Minister for Home Affairs [2020] FCAFC 146, [45].

[16] Nguyen v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2024] FCAFC 160, [23] (Perram, Colvin and Abraham JJ); Singh v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FCAFC 46; (2023) 296 FCR 582, [23] (Mortimer J, as Her Honour then was).

[17] A SFIC is routinely lodged by parties during the pre-hearing phase and is comparable to a pleadings document in a court proceeding. It serves to identify / narrow the issues in dispute and helps ensure both sides are aware of and have an opportunity to answer each other's case.

[37] Ibid 170, 172, 214, 244, 255, 258, 267, 375; Exhibit R2, 42, 53, 58, 62, 66, 68, 72, 78, 85, 88, 93, 100, 103.

[48] Maxwell v R (1996) 184 CLR 501, [19].

[49] Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Daniele (1981) 61 FLR 354 at 358; Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v SRT [1999] FCA 1197; (1999) 91 FCR 234 at 244-5_; HZCP v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection_ [2018] FCA 1803, [102] (Bromberg J).

[50] DPP v Mokhtari [2020] VSCA 161, [41] (Maxwell P, Beach and Weinberg JJ).

[51] See for example: Sentencing Advisory Council (Vic), 'Imprisonment' (Web Page, updated 7 May 2024) .

[52] Under s 38 of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic), Rape is punishable by a maximum sentence of 25 years' imprisonment. Under s 40, Sexual assault is punishable by a maximum sentence of 10 years' imprisonment.

[55] Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Guo (1997) 191 CLR 559, 574 ('Guo**'**).

[56] Ibid 574-5. See also, Hughes v The Queen [2017] HCA 20; (2017) 263 CLR 338, 392 [154] (Nettle J, albeit in dissent); Assistant Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v Splendido [2019] FCAFC 132; (2019) 271 FCR 595 [78] (Mortimer J, as her Honour then was).

[57] RJE v Secretary to Department of Justice [2008] VSCA 265; (2008) 21 VR 526 [16]-[17] (Maxwell P and Weinberg J]).

[59] Tramadol is an opioid pain relief medication used to relieve severe pain

[66] Victorian Government, Justice and Community Safety, https://www.justice.vic.gov.au/careers/working-at-forensic-intervention-services, 'Services provided by our teams', accessed on 21 November 2025.

[73] Including Exhibit R1, 4 [34], 258-9, 263, 271-2, 288, 326, 352, 370, 372, 383.

[78] Ibid, 126. Within the meaning of s 5AA of the Act.

[86] Tohi v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2021] FCAFC 125, [180], citing Spruill v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2012] FCA 1401, [18]; RGCZ v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2022] FCAFC 201; (2022) 295 FCR 365, [44].

[87] Ismail v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2024] HCA 2, [23]; Uelese v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2015) 256 CLR 203, 221 [61].

[94] Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) sub-reg 2.20(12)(b). In NZYQ v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship & Multicultural Affairs [2023] 97 ALJR 1005. The High Court held in NZYQ that constitutional limits apply on the executive detention of unlawful non-citizens under ss 189(1) and 196(1) of the Act. In substance, the Court held that continuing detention under those provisions is unlawful if there is no real prospect of a non-citizen's removal becoming practicable in the reasonably foreseeable future

[95] FYBR v Minister for Home Affairs (2019) 272 FCR 454, 471-2 [66] (Charlesworth J), 476 [91] (Stewart J) ('FYBR').

[96] Ibid 473 [75]-[76] (Charlesworth J).

[97] FYBR v Minister for Home Affairs and Anor [2020] HCA Trans 56.

[98] [2024] HCA 2.

[99] See for example the Tribunal's commentary in TTCT v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2024] AATA 1475.

[100] The Direction cl 9.1.2(2); Ayoub v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2015] FCAFC 83; (2015) 231 FCR 513, 521 [27]-[28];

[101] Plaintiff M1/2021, [24]; YKSB v Minister for Home Affairs [2020] FCAFC 224, [5]

[102] Pursuant to the Act, ss 197C(3)(c)(i) and 197D.

[103] NZYQ v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs (2023) 280 CLR 137 ('NZYQ'). The High Court held that constitutional limits apply on the executive detention of unlawful non-citizens under ss 189(1) and 196(1) of the Act. Continuing detention under those provisions is now unlawful if there is no real prospect of a non-citizen's removal becoming practicable in the reasonably foreseeable future

[104] The legislative architecture includes ss 76AAA(1), 198, 198AHB, 199B, 199C of the Act.

[105] Between late October and early November 2025. See, for example, https://www.abce.net.au/news/2025-10-28/first-nzyq-member-deported-to-nauru/105919846;https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2025/nov/04/secret-nauru-deal-nyyq-two-more-detainees-deported-albanese-government.

[106] BNGP v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FCAFC 111; (2023) 298 FCR 609, [101] (Perry J, with Bromwich and Kennett JJ agreeing).

[107] BFMV v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2021] FCAFC 199.

[108] Ali v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 650, at [28] and [33].

[109] DOB18 v Minister for Home Affairs [2018] FCA 1523 ('DOB18').