1. Section 13 of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth) (the ART Act) and s 500(1)(ba) of the Act are the sources of the Tribunal's jurisdiction in this matter.
2. Sections 49-50 of the ART Act provide that the procedure of the Tribunal is within its discretion, and the Tribunal must act with as little formality and technicality as a proper consideration of matters before it permits. Section 52 of the ART Act states that the Tribunal 'is not bound by the rules of evidence but may inform itself on any matter in such manner as it considers appropriate'.
3. A person who is not an Australia citizen and is in the migration zone while holding a valid visa is a 'lawful non-citizen'.[19] Any other non-citizen is an 'unlawful non-citizen'.[20]
4. Section 501(3A) of the Act, read in conjunction with ss 501(6) and 501(7), requires the Minister to cancel a non-citizen's visa if satisfied the person does not pass the character test and is serving a full-time sentence of imprisonment. The object of the statute of which s 501(3A) is a part, is to regulate, in the national interest, the presence in Australia of non-citizens and the removal of non-citizens whose presence is not permitted by the Act.[21]
5. The character test is defined in ss 501(6) to 501(12) of the Act and a non-citizen does not pass it if they have a 'substantial criminal record'. Under s 501(7)(c), a non-citizen has a 'substantial criminal record' if they have been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more.
6. Under s 501CA(3) of the Act, the Minister is obliged to give notice of a cancellation decision as soon as practicable after it is made, and invite the affected person to make representations about revocation. Provisions relating to the form and process of those representations are found in reg 2.52 of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth).
7. Section 501CA(4) of the Act confers a discretionary power on the Minister to revoke the original decision if the person whose visa has been cancelled makes representations in accordance with the invitation, and 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 Applicant does not pass the character test as defined under s 501(6)(a) of the Act, based on s 501(7)(c). This means there is no discretion under s 501CA(4)(b)(i) of the Act to revoke the cancellation decision. The Tribunal must decide if there is 'another reason' for revocation under 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.[22]

1. In making its decision, the Tribunal must comply with a ministerial direction under s 499(1) of the Act, known as 'Ministerial Direction 110' ('the Direction').[23] The Direction contains 'mandatory and aspirational considerations' guiding the exercise of statutory power.[24]
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. Clause 5.2 of the Direction sets out principles that guide decision‑makers as follows:

(1) Australia has a sovereign right to determine whether non-citizens who are of character concern are allowed to enter and/or remain in Australia. Being able to come to or remain in Australia is a privilege Australia confers on 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, a decision‑maker must have regard to primary and other considerations where relevant to the decision.
2. Clause 7(1) then 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.[25]

1. A Statement of Facts, Issues, and Contentions ('SFIC') is routinely lodged by parties prior to a hearing.[26] The Tribunal has considered the Applicant's SFIC dated 19 November 2025 and the Minister's SFIC dated 1 December 2025.

1. Documents were tendered into evidence as follows:

(a) Documents filed by the Minister numbering 445 pages;[27]

(b) Supplementary documents filed by the Minister numbering 187 pages;[28]

(c) Two pages dated 16 April 2023 obtained under summons from NSW Police;[29]

(d) Applicant's unsigned and undated 12-page statement;[30]

(e) Undated letter from the Men's Referral Service regarding the Applicant's attendance at sessions between 13 August 2025 and 20 October 2025;[31]

(f) Letter dated 2 December 2025 from a counsellor at Heavy M.E.T.A.L Group;[32]

(g) Letter dated 20 October 2025 from a Pastor at Hillsong City Care and a certificate referring to 'The Prisoner's Journey';[33]

(h) Marriage certificate dated 30 October 2025;[34]

(i) Letters from NSW Health dated 24 November 2025 and 11 December 2025;[35]

(j) Letter dated 5 November 2025 from Ms BC, accompanied by four pages of medical records relating to her, and a letter dated 14 October 2025 from a Historical Society regarding Ms BC's Aboriginal ancestry;[36]

(k) Three-page statement from the Applicant's eldest biological child;[37]

(l) Report of psychologist Mr Billel Rabadi dated 13 November 2025 and Letter of Instruction from Mr Nikjoo to Mr Rabadi dated 31 October 2025;[38]

(m) Letter dated 14 December 2025 from a scaffolding company owner who previously employed the Applicant ('Scaffolding Company 1');[39]

(n) Letter (undated) from the owner of another scaffolding company ('Scaffolding Company 2') offering the Applicant casual employment;[40] and

(o) Letter dated 14 December 2025 from the owner of a company providing services under the National Disability Insurance Scheme ('NDIS').[41]

1. The Applicant's oral evidence took up the first day of hearing and part of the second. He adopted Exhibit A1 and several previous statements as true and correct.[42] Prior to giving oral evidence the Tribunal explained his privilege against self-incrimination and is satisfied he understood this. The Tribunal later reminded him of this and no adverse inference is drawn from the occasions he exercised it.
2. The Applicant claimed his parents returned him to Fiji unaccompanied for about four or five years as a child to ensure he was imbued with Fijian language and culture. He alleges mistreatment by a cousin during this time. After returning to Australia, the Applicant claims he consumed increasing quantities of alcohol as a 'coping mechanism'. He said it was only in 2020, when he took a younger family member to see psychologist Mr Adam Rice, that he decided to disclose his own trauma. The Applicant claims to have attended seven sessions with Mr Rice, albeit where his younger family member was the primary patient. His attendance ended when Mr Rice raised the issue of forgiving his parents, which the Applicant was unwilling to do. He explained that after his parents separated, his mother lived in New Zealand, and they had little subsequent contact. His father kicked him out of home in Australia at the age of 15.[43] He felt a sense of abandonment resulting from these events, which caused prolonged periods of family estrangement.
3. The Applicant generally had a good recollection of his crimes. A key theme in his evidence is that his alcohol abuse persisted since a young age and that each of his crimes occurred because of 'poor choices' made whilst intoxicated. The Applicant referred to himself as an alcoholic and agrees that stressors from relationship and financial problems triggered alcohol abuse. He claims to have no savings or superannuation.
4. The Applicant recalled that his conviction in September 2010 resulted from he and a co-offender attacking a male victim unprovoked. When asked what injuries the victim sustained, the Applicant thought it was a broken jaw. When referred to sentencing remarks stating the victim was rendered comatose, spent 11 days in hospital, and suffered a brain injury, the Applicant accepted this. He also agreed a Pre-Sentence Report dated April 2010 accurately set out factors relevant to this offence.[44] The Applicant recalled the report recommended he seek professional assistance but could not recall why he failed to do so. In addition to being intoxicated during the commission of this crime, the Applicant claimed he was not 'mature enough' to realise its seriousness 'until it was too late'. The Tribunal notes he was 25 years old when this offence occurred. The Applicant recalled being imprisoned and his parole being revoked in March 2012 after authorities thought he beat up a cellmate who was subsequently hospitalised.[45] The Applicant denied responsibility, including after being taken to an incident report that stated only he and the victim were locked together in the cell.[46] The Applicant claims to know who committed the assault but chose not to disclose it. After his parole was revoked, he spent a further six months imprisoned after the end of his sentence. When Ms Carnell pressed that he was the perpetrator of this assault, the Applicant exercised his privilege against self-incrimination.
5. When asked by Ms Carnell if he recalled a 2011 formal warning from immigration authorities,[47] the Applicant claimed to be unsure but 'might have got it'. He agreed, however, that he signed an acknowledgement for this warning.[48] Later in his evidence, the Applicant claimed to have signed this without 'actually knowing what it was'. When asked to explain, he responded: 'I didn't realise my next conviction could lead me to further trouble'. During re-examination, the Applicant said he was 'probably a little bit naïve at the time' and did not understand the seriousness of the formal warning. When Ms Carnell put forward that he committed further offences after the warning, the Applicant agreed this was the case, but said it did not occur until 'a lot further down the track'.
6. At the time of his offending against Ms AA in 2020, the Applicant said he was not in a 'good headspace', drank heavily, and reacted 'out of anger'. He claimed to be living in the same house as Ms AA at the time and recalled arguments with her about his drinking. When asked by Ms Carnell to elaborate on his conduct, the Applicant said he 'struck [her] in the head' during an argument. When asked about sentencing remarks referring to him kneeling over Ms AA and punching her repeatedly in the head, the Applicant accepted this and expressed shame and disgust for his actions. When challenged that the sentencing remarks state he did not have Ms AA's consent to be at her home, the Applicant insisted they were living together. During re-examination by Mr Nikjoo, the Applicant said that despite an AVO being in place, Ms AA allowed him to come over 'and see the kids'. He claims they were 'trying to re-build [their] relationship' but now understands how serious it is to breach an AVO.
7. The Applicant agreed that about a month after his violence against Ms AA, he argued with his 15-year-old stepbrother, yelled at him, slapped him, ripped his shirt, and sent him threatening text messages.[49] The Applicant agreed he was 35 years old. When asked to explain his conduct, the Applicant said his 'emotions were snowballing out of control'.
8. The Applicant recalled an AVO being taken out to protect Ms AA but denied this stopped him contacting his children. When referred to a Sentencing Assessment Report stating he could not contact the children or support Ms AA with parenting,[50] the Applicant accepted this. When referred to a reference in this report to him denying that he punched Ms AA, the Applicant agreed he was untruthful with the officer who prepared the report.
9. The Applicant agreed that between his offending in 2010 and violence against Ms AA in 2020, he did not take steps to address his alcohol abuse except for some 'treatment in jail'. He agreed that he continued to abuse alcohol and reoffend. His relationship with Ms AA broke down despite claimed 'on and off' attempts to restore it.
10. The Applicant recalled participating in a drug trial in 2021 as part of court-mandated conditions that sought to reduce his impulsivity. He was prescribed an antidepressant as part of this trial that is used for treating post-traumatic stress disorder ('PTSD').[51] He agreed that he successfully completed an ICO in November 2021 and performed well on the Reinvest Program that year.[52] The Applicant accepts he relapsed despite this and 'kept falling back into the same pattern'. He said it has taken him 'a long time to learn [his] lesson'.
11. The Applicant agreed he was involved in a violent incident in 2023 while Ms BC was present.[53] He was on bail at the time and an AVO was in place to protect her after an earlier incident.[54] The Applicant recalled getting into a heated argument with Ms BC whilst intoxicated, becoming aggressive, and punching/smashing a glass sliding door at a club. He agreed Ms BC would have been fearful of his behaviour. The Applicant was arrested and charged with assault and destroying property. He recalled seeing psychologist Emma Diamond under court-ordered conditions and had two sessions with her during September 2023. The Applicant then failed to attend further appointments with Ms Diamond in October 2023.[55] He was arrested soon after and their sessions never resumed.
12. During the 2023 incident involving Ms BC, the Applicant said he was only seeing his biological children on weekends, which caused him stress.[56] 'Difficulty' with Ms AA caused him to drink heavily. The Applicant agreed he did not take his conditional liberty obligations seriously during this time. During re-examination by Mr Nikjoo, the Applicant claimed this was because he was 'a bit naïve' and 'didn't realise how serious it was' to breach conditional liberty orders. The Tribunal notes that in late 2023, the Applicant was almost 38.
13. The Applicant recalled that after the club incident with Ms BC he entered her residence and destroyed property while heavily intoxicated. Police arrested him, including for breaching an AVO.[57] He accepted that another AVO was issued against him.
14. The Applicant recalled another incident in October 2023 when Ms BC was driving him in her car. Police arrested both. The Applicant agreed he consumed about 7-8 beers at a party prior to this incident.[58] Ms BC was arrested for drunk driving, lost her licence, and had an interlock device fitted to her car. The Applicant recalled being 'pepper sprayed' by police before his arrest. He knew that his conduct at the time breached an ICO, AVO, and bail conditions. The latter included a curfew and abstinence requirements. [59] The Applicant agreed his actions demonstrated a disregard for judicial orders. The Applicant is unsure if he denied having a problem with alcohol to the author of a Sentencing Assessment Report and claimed that references to him minimising his conduct and blaming Ms AA and Ms BC could have resulted from him 'phrasing it wrong'.[60]
15. The Applicant first realised he had a problem with alcohol after his imprisonment in 2010 but continued drinking. He claimed not to previously 'have the right tools to deal with emotions' or alcohol dependence but does now after doing courses.[61] These include a Remand Family Violence Program ('RFVP') in 2020 and a longer version of the same program in 2023. He could not recall what he learned during the 2020 RFVP, denied refusing to do the 2023 RFVP,[62] but accepted that completing these courses did not prevent him committing further offences. When asked what he learned during the RFVP, the Applicant said the 'biggest lesson is how [his] actions had such a big effect on those close to [him]' and caused him to be 'absent from the kid's lives'. He has now learned to 'defuse situations better' and recognise his triggers. When asked what his triggers are, he said his 'pride or ego would get in the way of a lot of things', but he now realises 'not everything needs to be an argument'. He has learned how to 'respond calmly' by 'breathing in, breathing out' and just 'walking away'.
16. The Applicant agreed that references to him using cocaine and cannabis were correct,[63] but insisted this use was 'not like alcohol'. The Applicant also conceded that he had a gambling 'addiction' prior to his most recent imprisonment.[64] He recalled going to the 'pub on paydays', 'drinking and losing [all his] pay on the pokies'.
17. The Applicant said engagement with psychologists is 'one of the best things' he has done because 'they always know how to ask the right questions'. He disagrees with a report stating that he failed to engage with psychologist Adam Rice in late 2021.[65] He referred to beneficial counselling in immigration detention during 2025. The Applicant believes that despite being unable to previously change the course of his life, he now has the 'right family support and structure around [him]' to succeed. When asked about Ms BC's drink-driving conviction in 2023 and how her own issues with alcohol may impact the support she can provide, the Applicant said they had mutually decided to stop drinking.
18. The Applicant agreed that close friends have provided strong support in the past.[66] More recently, he completed 14 online courses that helped him realise alcohol is his 'kryptonite'. He recalled some courses took a few hours while others took longer. When asked by Mr Nikjoo what he learned, the Applicant said the 'biggest lesson' was to be accountable for his actions. He also realised that 'something so little can be lifechanging' and he has learned to deal with conflict calmly, 'respect boundaries, and stuff like that'. The Applicant said he has always been a 'very spiritual' person but lost contact with his faith as a young person. Having hit 'rock bottom' he has recently reconnected with religion in immigration detention,[67] which diverted him onto a 'disciplined and structured path'.
19. The Applicant said after engaging with the Heavy M.E.T.A.L. Group[68] he now has a pathway to completing a Behaviour Change Program in 2026. He claims to currently be doing part of the course out-of-sequence after some participants dropped out. The Applicant accepted Ms Carnell's contention that he has a history of engaging in rehabilitative activity at some level but then disengaging and committing further offences. He insists, however, that he will see the current program through and is motivated to do so by the risk of deportation.
20. Since his most recent imprisonment the Applicant said he manages stress and mental health issues through 'lots of exercise' and 'lots of church'. He referred to abstinence from drugs and alcohol during the last two years in custody. When asked by Mr Nikjoo what would happen if he did not continue seeing psychologists and maintaining abstinence, the Applicant said he would 'probably go back to old patterns'. He intends avoiding this because he does not want to 'sacrifice [his] freedom again'.
21. In terms of family relationships, the Applicant said he blamed his parents for aspects of his childhood, held 'a lot of anger', and it took him a long time to forgive them. He had little to do with his mother until recently and recalled periods of estrangement with his father.
22. The Applicant recalled his relationship with Ms BC started in early 2023. They lived together for some months before his arrest in October 2023 with time apart during that period because of AVOs. If allowed to remain in Australia he intends living with Ms BC and her two children, who are 12 and 17 years old. The Applicant claims to be 'good friends' with his stepchildren's biological father.
23. In terms of his children with Ms AA, the Applicant claims to talk with them daily by telephone. He said only the two older children are aware of his situation. Ms AA refuses to let him see the children in Ms BC's presence. The Applicant referred to failed mediation with Ms AA while 'trying to work out how to see [his] kids.' He agrees Ms AA has 100% care responsibility for the children[69] and mentioned a current child support debt he owes her of around $2,000-$3,000. If he can resolve their dispute, he wants to see his children 'hopefully every second weekend'.
24. In terms of his stepchildren with Ms BC, the Applicant said he has been very involved with them since a young age through local sporting clubs. The children's biological father is also involved in their lives.
25. If allowed to remain in Australia, the Applicant wants to teach 'troubled kids'. He referred to a job offer as a support worker with a company providing services under the NDIS.[70] The Applicant said he sees this as a 'new direction' that he is well suited to. He does not want to return to scaffolding because it has a 'culture of drinking'. When asked how the support worker offer came about, the Applicant said Ms BC works for the company and arranged this. He was not interviewed before the offer was made. When asked what qualifies him to be an NDIS support worker, the Applicant said he has no qualifications and is unaware if he needs a police check or has to meet other requirements. The Tribunal advised parties about enquiries made with the owner of the NDIS company, who said the person who authored the job offer letter resigned some time ago. She was unaware of the offer before being contacted by the Tribunal and said human resources staff undertake recruitment for support workers. Ms BC is not involved in hiring. This is later discussed.
26. The Applicant said he has a lot of friends in Australia through past employment and engagement in sport. Reference was made by Mr Nikjoo to supportive letters.[71] The Applicant accepted that many of the letter authors evince no understanding of or only a general understanding of his crimes.
27. The Applicant does not know where he would stay and how he would support himself if returned to Fiji. He has spoken intermittently with siblings in New Zealand but said he could not join them because of his criminal record. The Applicant said any income he could earn in Fiji would be a lot less than Australia and insufficient to support his family in Australia. He does not know 'where to start' in getting a job and feels it would be '_very difficul_t' to maintain relationships. The Applicant claims the cousin who mistreated him as a child still resides in Fiji, which causes him anxiety. The Applicant said a paternal aunt and uncle drove this cousin out of their village some years ago but repatriation to Fiji 'would bring back awful memories' and he fears they may run into each other. The Applicant said the uncle he refers to has died and the aunt migrated to Australia. This aunt used to live in a house the Applicant's father still owns in Fiji. There is no evidence from her in this proceeding. The Applicant said he does not have 'many relatives' in Fiji and none can offer support. When referred to revocation submissions where he referred to a significant number of relatives in Fiji and New Zealand,[72] the Applicant said the numbers would be 'less' now because some have died while others relocated to Australia, New Zealand, or England. He is unsure about the status of remaining relatives in Fiji.
28. The Applicant expressed concern about accessing medical treatment if deported, stating: 'Fiji doesn't have ophthalmologists to cater for my eye condition'.[73] When asked how he knows this, the Applicant said he researched it on the internet. He referred to an appointment at the Sydney Eye Hospital in March 2026, which will determine next steps for treatment. He also referred to anticipated eye surgery and tendered a letter dated 11 December 2025 stating that 'as of 04/06/25' he was on the Sydney Eye Hospital elective surgery wait list with an 'approximate waiting time' of 365 days. The Applicant was referred to information that the Pacific Eye Institute was established in Suva in 2006 to train regional eye specialists,[74] that ophthalmology clinics exist in Fiji, and that a study relating to people who suffer the same eye condition (keratoconus) suggests he may be able to access treatment.[75] The Applicant said he could not afford treatment and claimed there is no equivalent to Medicare in Fiji.

1. Ms BC gave evidence by video. She adopted Exhibit A7 and other documentary submissions[76] as true and correct. Ms BC has worked as an NDIS support worker for the last two years and said her company's offer to employ the Applicant as a disability support worker is still available. She agreed an NDIS Worker Check is required for employment but does not believe the Applicant's criminal history will prevent this. Ms BC stated that one recent company employee was taken on without a police check and considers the Applicant has 'lots of opportunities' as a support worker.
2. Ms BC was referred to the Tribunal's enquiries with the owner of the NDIS company who stated she was unaware of the job offer to the Applicant, that the author of the job offer letter resigned some time ago, human resources staff undertake recruitment for support workers, and Ms BC is not involved in hiring. Ms BC claimed without evidence to be responsible for recruitment decisions without reference to the owner/general manager.
3. Ms BC said her two children live with her, 'adore' their biological father, and spend every second weekend with him. Ms BC does not speak with her former partner. She also does not speak with Ms AA and claims to have taken an AVO out against her. Ms BC claimed Ms AA is 'chasing child support' from the Applicant, which she estimated was $3,000.
4. Ms BC said her relationship with the Applicant commenced in January 2023 and they started living together in February 2023. She stands by her claim that the Applicant is an 'amazing father', 'a constant source of love and stability in [his children's] lives' and always strives to be 'a positive role model'.[77] She and the Applicant married on 30 October 2025, which is about a month prior this hearing. Ms BC said this occurred in full knowledge that one outcome of the current hearing could be his removal to Fiji. When asked by Ms Carnell if she intends accompanying the Applicant to Fiji if this occurred, Ms BC initially claimed she had not considered it. She then stated it would be a very difficult decision forcing her to 'choose between [her] husband and children'. Ms BC later stated she does not believe she could accompany him because her future and that of her children is in Australia.
5. Ms BC said her current circumstances are that she works 'seven days a week' to make ends meet, is 'medicated because of major depression and anxiety' and suffers 'panic attacks' that cause her children to regularly call ambulances. The Applicant's return to their family home would alleviate financial and other pressures.[78] Ms BC is concerned about the Applicant's ability to access treatment for his eye condition in Fiji. She said a previous corneal graft operation 'didn't stick' after the Applicant got 'poked in the eye' playing rugby after the operation. He now needs further specialised treatment scheduled in 2026.
6. When asked about an AVO taken out to protect her from the Applicant in April 2023, Ms BC claimed this resulted from 'a bit of confusion'. She recalled drinking heavily, being 'drunk and silly', and acting 'erratically'. She cannot recall why she called police but accepts that she did. Ms BC insists police assistance was not required and claims attending police did not have sufficient concerns for an AVO. Ms BC said she tried to have the AVO varied but could not do so because the initiating officer was on leave. She understood the terms of the AVO required the Applicant not to be close to her and they lived separately for a time. She could not recall how long they ended up living together before the Applicant's next arrest in October 2023 but thought it may have been from August 2023.
7. When asked about an incident at a bowling club on 5 August 2023, Ms BC recalled having a 'disagreement [with the Applicant] at the pub', but insists he was not aggressive towards her. Ms BC said the Applicant is not a violent person, is a 'happy drunk', but 'obviously some things set him off'. She claimed his drinking problems only 'started in 2020'. Ms BC referred to him drinking only 'occasionally' but accepts he engaged in binge drinking at times. During re-examination by Mr Nikjoo, Ms BC stated 'it's very rare' that she has seen the Applicant become angry or violent.
8. Ms BC was asked about an incident on 13 October 2023 when she and the Applicant were arrested after police pulled her car over. She recalled they were drinking at a friend's house and thought the Applicant may have had 'one or two drinks'. This conflicts with the Applicant's evidence that he had 7-8 beers at a party prior to this incident.[79] When asked about the Applicant being charged with contravening an AVO to protect her and assaulting police, Ms BC stated inter alia: 'I seen the whole thing. I didn't witness him assault the officer. I just saw him throw his hands in the air and it did whack the officer'. Ms BC said that after being arrested for drink driving, her licence was suspended and an Interlock device fitted to her car for two years, which currently remains in place. Ms BC said she would not describe her past alcohol consumption as 'problematic' and 'loved to drink'. She claimed not to have consumed alcohol since her arrest, however, and that she and the Applicant mutually committed to future abstinence. Since the Applicant's arrest, imprisonment and detention they talk on the telephone. Ms BC claims to visit him four times each week and said she is 'prepared to do anything it takes' to assist him, including by going to church.

1. The Applicant's eldest son, who turns 18 in early 2026 gave evidence by video. He adopted Exhibit A8 and his past documentary submissions as true and correct.[80]
2. The witness lives with Ms AA and his three younger siblings and is currently doing trade training. He last saw the Applicant about two years ago in late 2023, but during the last six months they have talked daily by telephone. The witness does not know why the frequency of their calls has increased from twice a week previously. During telephone conversations they discuss 'life and random stuff'.
3. The witness only recalls seeing the Applicant under the influence of alcohol at a birthday party but has never witnessed the Applicant being violent.
4. If the Applicant is removed to Fiji, the witness will continue their telephone calls and 'plan some trips' to see him. He will 'probably feel angry' given he has 'had to step up a lot' to look after younger siblings since the Applicant and Ms AA broke up. He said the younger children miss the Applicant, care about him, and know about his potential deportation. The witness hopes to 'have a beer' with the Applicant on his 18th birthday next year.

1. The Applicant's eldest stepson gave evidence by video. He adopted his Statutory Declaration dated 23 April 2025 as true and correct.[81].
2. The witness turns 18 in early 2026. He sees his biological father regularly but considers the Applicant to be a father figure as well. The witness recalled watching the Applicant playing sport years ago and considers him a 'role model'. The Applicant was previously a stalwart of their local sports club and volunteered to do barbecues and other tasks. The witness has previously seen the Applicant drunk but recalls him being 'happy and good to have around'. He has never seen the Applicant angry or violent. The witness continues to talk with the Applicant by telephone and visits when he has time.
3. The witness said the Applicant has assisted him in pursuing a sporting career. Despite the Applicant's crimes, the witness believes he is a better person who can now make better choices and help him achieve his sporting goals.
4. If the Applicant can't stay in Australia, the witness said it would affect his 'future career'. He has not thought about how to maintain contact with the Applicant if this occurs. He said it would be 'very hard' to accompany him because of his aspirations in Australia.

1. The Applicant's mother gave evidence by telephone and adopted her statement dated 12 January 2023 as true and correct.[82] After more than 20 years in New Zealand she moved to Australia in August 2023 and lives with her brother in southern Victoria. She saw the Applicant during Easter 2025 in immigration detention in NSW. This was their first physical contact since he was a child. They have previously communicated via social networking.
2. When asked about the claim that her relocation to Australia was to be closer to the Applicant who lives in New South Wales, the witness said she would willingly move interstate to be closer to him if he could remain in Australia.
3. The witness said she has a brother and cousins in Fiji, but they are unable to assist the Applicant. This includes because of 'stigma' relating to incarceration and she has not shared the Applicant's circumstances with other family members. The witness said she is 64 and the Applicant's circumstances are taking an adverse toll on her health. She believes he has changed and intends to be a better husband and father in future.

1. The female owner of a company that offered the Applicant employment gave evidence by telephone. She has operated the company since 2020, and Ms BC is one of her team leaders. The witness does not know much about the Applicant's criminal history or that he committed crimes of violence. She will have to discuss that with her HR Manager but believes if the violence was not in the workplace, 'it shouldn't matter'. She agreed, however, that the job offer is subject to further reference and other checks. The witness believes that as a former scaffolder the Applicant could be a 'handyman' who maintains her company's properties. She has not interviewed him and when asked how she knows he has the skillset to perform this role, replied: 'I don't recall'. She has relied on Ms BC's advice in this regard. The witness said the new role offered to the Applicant did not require an NDIS worker check.

1. Mr Rabadi gave oral evidence by video on 22 December 2025. He adopted Exhibit A9 as true and correct. Key aspects of his oral testimony are summarised as follows:

(a) Mr Rababi interviewed the Applicant via audiovisual link for two hours on 13 November 2025, and then for 20 minutes the following day to 'validate information'. He said while it is preferrable to conduct interviews in person, an audiovisual interview is accurate and does not affect a report's validity. > > (b) Mr Rababi confirmed the only documents he considered in preparing his report were the Applicant's criminal history, sentencing remarks between 2010 and 2024, a State Parole Authority letter dated 31 October 2023, and the Applicant's Statutory Declaration dated 28 May 2025. Otherwise, his report is based on the Applicant's self-reported claims. He could not recall if the Applicant had breached conditional liberty conditions such as bail, AVO, or ICO. > > (c) In terms of the DASS-21, BAI, BDI-II, PCL-5, and AUDIT methodologies he used,[83] Mr Rababi said these are 'screeners just to get an overall view on symptoms'. Their completion does not require specialised training, but interpretation of results does. Mr Rababi said he put questions to the Applicant verbally and then recorded responses on the relevant forms. > > (d) Much of Ms Carnell's cross-examination focussed on Mr Rababi's assessment of the Applicant's risk of relapsing into alcohol abuse and committing further crimes. Mr Rababi diagnosed the Applicant with 'Alcohol Use Disorder Severe, in sustained remission (F10.21)'. He said this is because remission in a controlled custodial environment is not the same as abstinence in the community. Mr Rababi said the Applicant's score on the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test ('AUDIT') indicates a 'high risk' and dependency on alcohol. Mr Rababi moderated this raw score in response to information gained during their meeting. > > (e) Mr Rababi said the Applicant turned to alcohol in the past in social and workplace settings, as a response to stressors, and because of 'difficulties coping'. This included disturbing thoughts from childhood trauma. Mr Rababi said he could not say if the Applicant will remain sober, which was contingent on adherence to the factors listed at paragraphs 51-52 of his report and the efficacy of protective factors the Applicant invoked. Mr Rababi said he had not assessed these and relied on the Applicant's claims. He said the Applicant is yet to complete required therapies and 'definitely needs' these, including consultation with a psychiatrist for medication support. If he completed treatment and adhered to the conditions mentioned in Mr Rababi's report, he 'would be in a good position to maintain abstinence'. > > (f) Mr Rababi is aware the Applicant completed some courses, including 'around anger management'. In terms of counselling, Mr Rababi could not recall what the Applicant had done but has the impression counselling was continuing prior to his arrest. Mr Rababi also believed the Applicant had developed a positive therapeutic relationship with a practitioner at Woy Woy Hospital and 'was scheduled for continuing treatment'. When put by Ms Carnell that interaction with this practitioner was at an early stage and quite limited, Mr Rababi said: 'If he hasn't completed any sustained treatment, it would increase the risk'. > > (g) Mr Rababi said factors such as financial stability, supportive relationships, and steady employment can help reduce risk of relapse. He was unaware the Applicant had experienced problem gambling in the past, or that Ms BC has her own problems with alcohol, or that the Applicant used illicit drugs such as cocaine recreationally. Mr Rababi said it was 'critical' the Applicant develop skills through counselling and therapy to prevent future relapse, which is yet to be achieved. > > (h) Mr Rababi did not provide a descriptor for the Applicant's recidivism risk in his report despite this being requested in the letter of instruction. Mr Rababi said he believes this is currently 'moderate', which is based on his clinical judgement alone. Mr Rababi did not use actuarial risk assessment methodologies to assess the Applicant's risk because he has not done any training in these. 'Due to limitations', he was also unable to administer 'screeners for malingering and personality' that would have taken four-and-a-half hours. When asked what the predictive validity of his opinion about risk is, Mr Rababi said he has no answer for that, it is a matter for the Tribunal, and his report focusses on 'measures to reduce' the Applicant's risk. > > (i) Mr Rababi was asked about his assessment at paragraph 50 of the report that the Applicant's removal would 'sever his access to ongoing psychological support, continuity of care, and essential medical treatment for his degenerative eye condition, which is not adequately available in Fiji'. Mr Rababi agreed he has no expert knowledge about the health system in Fiji and said this assessment was based on the Applicant's self-reported claims and from Mr Rababi's discussions with other Fijian clients.

Protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious 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 Applicant does not dispute his criminal history.[84] His early offending between 2006 and June 2010 consists mainly of driving-related offences. This includes medium and high range drink driving. He also behaved in an offensive manner in/near a public place/school. This conduct was dealt with through fines, a two-year good behaviour bond, and licence disqualification for up to three years.
2. The Applicant received his first custodial sentence in September 2010 for recklessly causing grievous bodily harm in company. The Gosford District Court sentenced him to 3 years and 3 months imprisonment, with a non-parole period of one year and seven months. The Tribunal has considered sentencing remarks referring to the Applicant and a co-accused engaging in a violent, unprovoked and sustained attack that rendered a male victim comatose. [85] The attack continued even after the victim was on the ground. The victim spent 11 days in hospital and experienced a brain injury. The Court found the Applicant was 'more involved' and led the attack. The offending was assessed by the Court as falling in the mid-range of seriousness. The Court observed that 'alcohol is an issue' for the Applicant and he needed 'a longer than normal period on parole to deal with treatment and counselling in relation to alcohol abuse...and...counselling for anger management issues'.
3. The Applicant's next conviction in March 2020 was for mid-range drink-driving. He was placed on an 18-month CCO, had his licence disqualified for six months, and was ordered to participate in a 12-month Alcohol Interlock Program.
4. On 3 November 2020, the Applicant was arrested and refused bail. This followed incidents at Ms AA's home on 20 September 2020 and, on 29 October 2020, at the home his 15-year-old stepbrother. A summary of these offences follows:

(a) On December 2020, the Applicant was convicted of assault occasioning actual bodily harm against Ms AA.[86] They were no longer in a relationship at the time and the Applicant was under a CCO. He was subsequently refused bail. The Court found the Applicant entered Ms AA's home without consent and repeatedly punched her to the head.[87] He also forced her to drive him to another location. > > (b) On 29 October 2020 the Applicant chased his 15-year-old stepbrother out of a house, slapped his face, and tore his shirt. The Applicant's stepbrother reported this to police, after which the Applicant sent him a text message stating: 'You are dead cunt. You better hope I don't see you around...'[88] The Applicant was subsequently convicted of Common assault T2, Destroy or damage property, and Stalk/intimidate intend fear physical etc harm (domestic).

5. On 17 December 2020, the Applicant was given an aggregate 18-month prison sentence for his crimes against Ms AA. The Magistrate referred to his conduct as 'very serious' and part of a 'history of violence'.[89] It was again observed the Applicant needed to receive treatment for 'alcohol addiction'.[90] The Applicant lodged a severity appeal that was heard on 17 March 2021.[91] He was re-sentenced to 12 months imprisonment with a non-parole period of four-and-a-half months (effectively time served). The sentence relating to conduct against his stepbrother was ordered to be served through an ICO. This was conditional on the Applicant not committing further offences, submitting to community supervision, undertaking programs as directed, abstaining from alcohol and drugs, attending appointments with a general practitioner for an updated mental Health Care Plan, continuing with the Reinvest Program, and accepting directions from psychologist Mr Adam Rice.
6. On 13 July 2023, the Applicant was convicted in the Gosford Local Court of Common assault-T2 and Destroy or damage property, for which he was sentenced to an aggregate term of six months imprisonment to be served by way of an ICO.[92] These convictions related to conduct on 16 April 2023 in a hotel bar and involved the Applicant throwing an object in the direction of a female bartender. This passed over her head and smashed three bottles behind her.[93] He then kicked a door at the main entrance of the hotel, which was smashed beyond repair. The Applicant remained outside the bar where he argued with police before being arrested. He is noted to have been 'charged with further alleged offences...on two occasions within three months of receiving his ICO'. All involved violent behaviour, which was noted as 'one of his primary risk factors'.[94] It was further noted that bail was refused because 'he is an unacceptable risk to community safety'.
7. On 29 April 2024, the Applicant was sentenced to 27 months imprisonment for five offences that included three counts of contravening an AVO and assaulting a police officer. This related to conduct in 2023 when an AVO was in place to protect Ms BC[95] and included an incident when the Applicant was intercepted in a car she was driving. He lied to police about his identity but was nevertheless identified and arrested for breaching bail, an AVO, and ICO. The Applicant assaulted police who used pepper spray to subdue him prior to arrest.
8. In December 2024, the Applicant appeared in the Gosford District Court to hear his severity appeal into the above offending. This included a sentencing assessment report and letter from psychologist Ms Emma Diamond dated 20 December 2023.[96] It was contended that special circumstances warranted a sentence reduction.[97] The overall sentence was left at 27 months, but the non-parole period was reduced to 13 months.[98]
9. There are references in evidence to the Applicant using illicit drugs such as cocaine and cannabis recreationally,[99] which he accepts.
10. Clause 8.1.1(1) of the Direction is non-exhaustive, but expressly refers to violent crimes involving women or children as very serious regardless of whether a conviction is recorded or a sentence imposed. The Applicant has committed violent crimes against Ms AA and his stepbrother, who was a child. His conduct falls within the meaning of family violence at cl 4 of the Direction.
11. Custodial dispositions are the most severe sanction available to courts.[100] The Applicant has multiple convictions and sentences of imprisonment.
12. In terms of cl 8.1.1(1)(d) of the Direction, reference is made in the 2010 sentencing remarks to a Victim Impact Statement from the man who sustained significant injuries.[101]
13. The Applicant's offending since 2006 is frequent, albeit marked by an almost decade-long gap without convictions between 2010 and 2020. Three years of this gap, however, was spent imprisoned after his violent offending in 2010.
14. The Applicant's crimes have increased in seriousness over time, including because of the repeat nature of drink-driving and violent offences. The cumulative effect of his conduct has caused adverse physical, psychological and financial effects on victims. The persistence of his offending, including while under conditional liberty, is an aggravating feature of his conduct. It shows a lack of respect for Australian law, judicial orders, and the rights of others.
15. In terms of cl 8.1.1(1)(h) of the Direction, the Applicant committed multiple further offences after receiving a formal warning from immigration authorities in October 2011. The Tribunal found his oral evidence about not understanding this warning unpersuasive. This includes because he signed a document to acknowledge receipt and there is a lengthy period prior to his next offence in 2020 when he seems to have taken heed of this warning.
16. The Applicant's conduct is 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 take into account, 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. There is no specified method decision-makers must follow when considering risk to the community under cl 8.1(2)(b) of the Direction. It is a future-focussed assessment[102] where past actions can be legitimate predictors of future behaviour.[103] A majority of the High Court in Guo, however, observed this is 'not a certain guide' and, depending on 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'.[104]
2. Maxwell P and Weinberg J have observed that judgements about recidivism risk are best based on expert input whenever possible:[105]

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. The Applicant started drinking alcohol at a young age and this evolved into heavy alcohol abuse.[106] He claims this was variously precipitated by financial and relationship stressors, cultural factors in social and workplace settings, and undiagnosed childhood trauma causing PTSD.[107] Any trauma he experienced, however, does not excuse persistently drunk, aggressive, and violent behaviours. Although there is evidence of the Applicant being a hard worker, attentive father, and someone valued for their community contribution, persistent alcohol abuse and crimes weigh against these positive aspects of his character.
2. The Applicant was noted to be 'binge drinking' in 2010[108] and a Pre-Release Report in 2012 stated he met the diagnostic criteria for Substance Abuse Disorder.[109] Remorse has been a recurring feature of the Applicant's past, including through pleas of guilty.[110] When sentencing him in 2010 the Court found he still had some way to go before having 'real insight into his offending behaviour'. Little has changed in the intervening 15 years. The Applicant was noted in 2011 to have gained insight into his offending by undertaking courses such as the Young Adult Preparation Program, Young Adult Offender Program, Self-Management and Recovery Training Program, Health Survival Program, Positive Lifestyles Program, and Gurnang Life Challenge.[111] His parole was revoked in March 2012, however, when prison authorities thought he may have been responsible for beating a cellmate who was hospitalised.[112] The Applicant's evidence about this was earlier summarised. The fact of parole revocation stands, but in the absence of any convictions, the Tribunal places no weight on this incident.
3. There is a lengthy period after the Applicant's imprisonment in 2010 and formal immigration warning in 2011 before his next violent offending in 2020 against Ms AA. As noted earlier, however, three years of this period was imprisonment from 2010. The Applicant claimed that at the time of his violence against Ms AA in 2020 he was 'going through a tough time mentally'[113] and the COVID-19 pandemic worsened his mental health.[114] He expressed remorse, again sought alcohol counselling, and undertook not to reoffend. The Court received an expert report to the effect he constituted a 'low to medium risk' of reoffending.[115] The Applicant is noted to have informed corrective services staff in November 2021 that he had 'achieved alcohol abstinence' and would not pursue treatment with psychologist Adam Rice until 'COVID restrictions allow face to face appointments'.[116]
4. A Sentencing Assessment Report dated 2024 states the offences then confronting the Applicant (contravene AVO and assault police officer) 'appear to be a continuation of his pattern of criminal behaviour', which had not changed 'despite having multiple concurrent victims in relation to domestic violence and a record of using violence as a response to situations'.[117] The Applicant was noted to have denied a problematic alcohol intake 'despite sanctions placed on him for other convictions specifically indicating the need for Drug and Alcohol (AOD) interventions'.[118] He was also noted to have 'minimised his behaviour, attributing blame to his ex-partner for impacting his mood, his current partner for encouraging him to breach his ADVO and the police for their handling of the situation'.[119]
5. In addition to the Applicant's persistent alcoholism, he has used illicit drugs such as cocaine and cannabis recreationally and accepts he had a gambling addiction[120] prior to his most recent arrest. There is scant evidence of the latter being addressed through rehabilitation and Mr Rababi was unaware of these issues when preparing his report.
6. Mr Nikjoo contends the Applicant's perspectives since visa cancellation in 2024 are 'totally different' because 'this is the first time he's faced a serious fear of losing everything' through deportation. For reasons adduced earlier, the Tribunal does not accept this is the first time the Applicant's ability to remain in Australia has been at risk. The persistence of his crimes and breaches of conditional liberty since 2010 diminishes the persuasiveness of his claims about contrition, insight, and rehabilitative progress. Extensive supports, including Court-ordered conditions[121] did not lead to meaningful change. In 2010, for example, he was ordered to see psychologist Mr Adam Rice but this was not meaningfully advanced.[122] More than a decade later in 2021 he undertook the Reinvest Program facilitated by the University of New South Wales and run by Corrective Services. This sought to reduce the Applicant's impulsivity by prescribing Zoloft, which is also an antidepressant used to treat PTSD.[123] There is no expert evidence, however, about how the Applicant responded to these therapeutic interventions. In any event, his alcohol abuse and violent crimes continued.
7. The Applicant submits he has broken 'the cycles that once controlled [him]' by seeing a counsellor at the 'Wellnest Clinic', a 'drug and alcohol counsellor at Woy Woy Hospital', and by attending Alcoholics Anonymous ('AA').[124] He said counselling has helped him engage in 'healing' and to learn strategies to 'maintain accountability in all areas of [his] life'. He refers to sobriety since being imprisoned in late 2023 and re-engaging with his faith as 'a central part of [his] rehabilitation'. He intends continuing with AA 'if needed' to support 'long term sobriety'.[125] The Tribunal notes that apart from a single referral relating to 'Woy Woy General Practice',[126] there is no corroboration for the Applicant's claims about Woy Woy Hospital or AA. In terms of the Wellnest Clinic, a letter from psychologist Ms Emma Diamond dated 20 December 2023[127] was considered by the Court in April 2024.[128] Ms Diamond refers to the Applicant only attending two sessions with her in late 2023. She also stated:

Following his initial assessment, including semi-structured interview and psychometric measures, it appears that Mr. Ranavue meets clinical threshold for provisional diagnoses of major depressive disorder, generalized anxiety, complex post-traumatic stress disorder, and alcohol use disorder. He reports a long history of chronic and significant abuse and neglect from an early age. It is recommended that Mr. Ranavue continue with trauma-informed psychological therapy. It is likely that this therapy will be required in the long term due to the pervasive nature of his developmental trauma. > > (Emphasis added.)

8. The Applicant claims in his most recent statement to be a 'low risk member of the community' and wants to show through his future conduct that he is 'not a risk' at all.[129] In terms of independent recidivism risk assessments:

(a) Mr Billel Rababi's oral evidence was set out earlier. In terms of recidivism risk, Mr Rababi stated in his report: > > > Risk of Recidivism > > > > Mr. Ranavue's risk of recidivism is closely aligned with his continued engagement in treatment, maintenance of sobriety, and the presence of stable social and occupational supports. His offending history demonstrates a clear nexus between alcohol misuse and criminal behaviour, with each offence occurring during periods of intoxication. Since achieving sobriety, he has demonstrated strong insight into the role of alcohol in his offending and has expressed a sustained commitment to abstinence. He recognises the importance of addressing his underlying mental health conditions and trauma as protective factors against relapse. > > > > He has repeatedly expressed accountability for his past actions, refraining from excuses and openly acknowledging the connection between his mental health, lifestyle, and offending behaviour. His participation in rehabilitation programs - including anger management, emotional regulation, domestic violence awareness, and stress management - has further enhanced his self-awareness and capacity for behavioural change. If Mr. Ranavue continues to maintain employment, access therapeutic support, preserve his social connections, and remain abstinent from alcohol, the evidence suggests his risk of reoffending is significantly reduced. His insight, remorse, and demonstrated willingness to engage in ongoing treatment collectively indicate a reduced risk of recidivism, provided these protective factors remain in place. > > > > Recommendations / Treatment Plan > > > > If Mr. Ranavue is granted permission to remain in Australia, it is recommended that he resume treatment with his previous psychologist at the Wellness Clinic in Woy Woy, where he has an established therapeutic rapport. The treatment plan should incorporate structured alcohol counselling alongside CBT to address maladaptive thought patterns linked to depression, anxiety, and substance use. CBT-T or EMDR should be used to process unresolved trauma, and DBT to strengthen emotional regulation, distress tolerance, and interpersonal effectiveness. > > > > A psychiatric referral is also advised for assessment and potential medication to manage mood and anxiety symptoms. A coordinated, trauma-informed approach addressing both mental health and substance misuse, while focusing on relapse prevention, maintaining sobriety, and enhancing coping strategies, will best support Mr Ranavue's sustained recovery and rehabilitation. > > > > (Emphasis added) > > (a) In April 2024, the Applicant was found to constitute a 'medium risk of reoffending according to the Level of Service Inventory Revised (LSI-R)'.[130]

9. The Applicant refers in his most recent statement to having 'completed 14 online courses in 11 months', claiming these have significantly addressed his emotional wellbeing, stress, anger, domestic violence awareness and alcohol abuse.[131] The Tribunal has considered course completion certificates from an online organisation called Universal Class dated between 15 January 2025 and 23 August 2025 as follows: [132]

(a) Understanding Drug and Alcohol Abuse dated 15 January 2025; > > (b) Depression Management dated 15 January 2025; > > (c) Anger Management Techniques dated 15 January 2025; > > (d) Domestic Violence Awareness dated 16 January 2025; > > (e) Healthy Relationships dated 20 January 2025; > > (f) Anxiety Therapy 101 dated 30 January 2025; > > (g) Stress Management dated 9 February 2025; > > (h) Critical Thinking Skills dated 18 February 2025; > > (i) Conflict Resolution dated 2 March 2025; > > (j) Emotional Healing 101 dated 7 May 2025; and > > (k) Life Coaching 101 dated 23 August 2025.

10. A review of the online presence for Universal Class discloses that these free courses are informative rather than therapeutic. Their completion is to the Applicant's credit, but the Tribunal is unpersuaded they have meaningfully advanced his rehabilitation as he claims. Consider, for example, that he completed three courses relating to alcohol, anger, and depression management in a single day. On balance, little weight is placed on the Universal Course certificates as meaningfully addressing the Applicant's unmet needs.
11. Little weight is placed on the Applicant's brief interaction with Ms Emma Diamond in late 2023. The two sessions he attended are of a preliminary nature and there is no persuasive evidence he has meaningfully advanced her treatment recommendations.
12. In terms of the Applicant's telephone counselling sessions with the Men's Referral Service ('MRS') between August and October 2025, this is relatively recent. A letter records his attendance at seven sessions without elaborating on what they involved, how the Applicant participated, or the extent of any progress made. The letter also states:

MRS programs are not a replacement for the Men's Behaviour Change Program ('MBCP') and do not meet MBCP requirements as mandated by the courts in Australia. > > Engagement in MRS programs does not guarantee that there has been a reduction in use of violent or abusive behaviour... > > (Emphasis in original)

13. Less weight is consequently placed on the MRS counselling sessions as an indicator of the Applicant's rehabilitative progress.
14. The Applicant claims in his most recent statement that he has 'enrolled in the 20-week Men's Behaviour Change Program starting in January 2026'. A letter dated 2 December 2025 from a counsellor with the Heavy M.E.T.A.L. Group states the Applicant completed an initial assessment on 28 October 2025 and a second on 19 November 2025.[133] The Applicant was noted to have shown 'insight into his past toxic behaviours, including physical and verbal abuse, financial defensiveness, and entitlement linked to male privilege'. The letter states he has since engaged with three sessions of a 10-week program to determine his eligibility for the next phase in 2026. This will run for about 60 weeks and only those 'who have demonstrated an understanding of the Phase 1 material, acknowledged the harm caused by their past behaviours, and shown readiness for deeper self-work are invited to progress'. The Applicant's uncorroborated evidence about already commencing this course was earlier summarised. Even if this were accepted, he is at an early stage and there is no basis to conclude how he might progress. This includes because of his past sporadic approach to rehabilitative opportunities. In any event, decisions should not be delayed for rehabilitative courses to be undertaken.[134]
15. In terms of protective factors, the Applicant invokes the interests of Ms BC, his stepchildren, children with Ms AA, and the prospect of a career change as a disability support worker:[135]

Although I have not worked in this field before, I believe this role will benefit me because I will be working with people who face challenges I can relate to. My lived experience gives me empathy, understanding and insight into how to support people who may be struggling. This job will give me structure, purpose and a strong routine while allowing me to contribute positively to the community.

16. Regarding the protective effects of work, the Tribunal has some concerns about the changing nature of job offers made to the Applicant by the NDIS services company that Ms BC works for. The prospect of him becoming an NDIS support worker is speculative at best. The Applicant has no relevant qualifications and is unaware of the job requirements. The website for this company states:

Our caregivers must have at the very least:

• NDIS Worker Background Check (this includes a police check, working with children check).
• CPR and a current first-aid certificate are required.
• Work-related experience is required.
• Completed the Covid-19 infection control training module.
• For each support worker that works for our organisation, a minimum of two professional references have been completed.

Many support workers have or are working towards a credential in their chosen sector, such as a Certificate III, IV, Diploma, or Bachelor's degree in Disability Care, Community Care and Services, Aged Care, education, or another comparable topic. Many members of our team have worked in nursing, disability, mental health services, and specialised care areas such as MND training, Autism, MS Multiple Sclerosis, 24/7 care, Dementia, and intellectual and physical disabilities

1. On 15 December 2025, after concerns were aired about the Applicant being unlikely to satisfy the NDIS Worker Background Check, a further letter was tendered from the same company offering him an alternative role as 'Logistics Coordinator (Property Readiness)'. The evidence of the company owner about this was earlier summarised. The prospect of the Applicant becoming a Logistics Coordinator, however, seems to depend on reference and other checks the company owner referred to.
2. Mr Nikjoo said the Tribunal should accept 'there is a job available to him' irrespective of whether it is with the NDIS services company or as a scaffolder. The Tribunal has considered letters from two past employers that are almost two years old. One expresses willingness to offer the Applicant reemployment with Scaffolding Company 1.[136] The letters only refer generally or in singular terms to the Applicant's past crimes and the authors were not called as witnesses. The Tribunal raised during the hearing that Scaffolding Company 1 appears to have been deregistered by ASIC. On 15 December 2025 and without explanation, the Applicant tendered two further letters. One is from the former operator of Scaffolding Company 1, in which he states the company 'ceased operations in February 2024' and he is now an employee of Scaffolding Company 2. An undated letter from the Director of Scaffolding Company 2 offers the Applicant 'casual employment' as a scaffolder. Reliance on the Applicant potentially returning to scaffolding work seems to conflict with his evidence that he does not want to do this because of the drinking culture in these jobs. While the Tribunal accepts the Applicant will seek and likely secure some sort of employment, it is noteworthy that past consistent employment did not prevent him from abusing alcohol and committing violent crimes.
3. In terms of the interests of the Applicant's children and other family members as a protective factor, the Tribunal notes these did not previously curtail his alcohol abuse and crimes. At the time of his very violent offending in 2010, for example, the Applicant was the father of a two-year-old son with another child expected.[137] He then committed a very violent offence in 2020 against Ms BC despite them having further children. The Applicant has also come to the attention of police during his relationship with Ms BC, despite invoking her interests and those of his stepchildren. Less weight is therefore placed on the protective effect of Ms BC, the Applicant's children, stepchildren and other family members.
4. In terms of the Applicant's claims about insight and reconnection with his faith in custody, there are several references since 2010 to him expressing remorse and claiming insight, only to reoffend.[138] The Tribunal has considered a brief letter dated 20 October 2025 from Hillsong City Care. It refers to the Applicant attending church services in immigration detention since March 2025. This is to his credit but constitutes a relatively short period. The letter only refers to the Applicant's October 2023 conviction and incorrectly states his offences. It is too early to accept that the Applicant's reconnection with his faith in custody will meaningfully ameliorate his recidivism risk.
5. The Applicant's crimes in Australia reflect a persistent pattern of alcohol abuse since a young age.[139] He has repeatedly acted on impulse when drunk, manifesting in aggression and violence without provocation. He has difficulty identifying warning signs or situations that lead to this. The Applicant has committed very serious violence against a stranger who was beaten into a coma in 2010, punched Ms AA repeatedly to the head, and manhandled/slapped/threatened his 15-year-old stepbrother in 2020. He also assaulted police and committed other crimes in 2024. A repeat of his conduct could cause serious physical or psychological harm, including the death of a victim. So could a repeat of his medium/high range drink driving.
6. It remains of concern to the Tribunal that despite considerable past supports the Applicant has been unable to overcome his alcohol addiction since 2010, regulate his emotions, or meaningfully change the course of his life. His past responses to community-based supervision have been sporadic[140] and there is a dearth of evidence about targeted treatment for persistent alcoholism. A formal warning from immigration authorities in 2011, non-custodial dispositions and periods of imprisonment have not curbed this repeated pattern of behaviour. He is yet to meaningfully undertake the interventions recommended by practitioners, with whom past engagement has been limited. Mr Rababi's assessment about the Applicant's potential to reduce his risk is highly conditional, is not based on all available documentary materials, relies entirely on clinical judgement during a relatively brief consultation, is unassisted by actuarial testing relevant to risk, and lacks a complete understanding of key circumstances that are relevant to the Applicant's risk or relapse and recidivism. Mr Rababi's moderation of the high AUDIT result is largely based on the Applicant's self-reported claims about protective factors relating to sobriety that Mr Rababi has not personally assessed.
7. The sobriety the Applicant refers to in custodial settings is to his credit but constitutes a relatively short period when regard is had for his conduct since 2010. Prison and immigration detention are contextually different environments to being at liberty in the community where the Applicant has persistently relapsed and committed crimes. He is likely to be confronted by stressors if released in Australia that are relevant to his risk of relapse and recidivism. This includes from his continuing dispute with Ms AA and financial issues that could emerge from a resumption of problem gambling. It remains unclear what work he intends returning to and whether potential employment with Scaffolding Company 2 would return him to an adverse drinking culture. In terms of the protective effect of Ms BC, there is no independent evidence about her sobriety, and she remains subject to a two-year Interlock condition after being caught drink-driving. The Applicant's romantic relationship with her is relatively brief and contextualised by AVOs put in place to protect her, which the Applicant breached. The extent to which Ms BC would be a supportive influence, help moderate the Applicant's future behaviours, or hold him accountable if further incidents occur, is uncertain on current evidence.
8. Considering the causal factors that contributed to the Applicant's crimes, the supports he has previously received, evidence of rehabilitation, and the protective factors he advances, the Tribunal considers he continues to have significant unmet rehabilitative needs. The Applicant constitutes at least a moderate risk of relapsing into alcohol abuse and committing further violence. Such conduct falls into a category where even a small probability of recurrence is unacceptable. When the very serious nature of his crimes and other conduct is coupled with an unacceptable risk of recidivism, 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. The seriousness of the Applicant's family violence is aggravated by its repeat nature despite orders being in place to protect victims. For example, he committed family violence against Ms AA in 2020 despite her telling authorities in 2011 that she did not hold any safety fears from the Applicant.[141]
2. The Applicant's family violence reflects an entrenched pattern of conduct that includes physical acts, aggression, intimidation, property damage, and repeated breaches of orders. The cumulative effect of his conduct has caused significant harm. His past acceptance of responsibility, including through guilty pleas, contrition, and undertakings to live a law-abiding life is diminished by the persistence of his conduct, which aggravates its seriousness. It is noteworthy the Applicant has been the subject of domestic violence orders relating to Ms BC, whom he has only been in an intimate relationship with since early 2023. He was noted in April 2024 by Corrective Services to demonstrate 'no respect for the conditions of the ADVO, failed to consider any consequences of breaching [it], and justified his behaviour'.[142] He was also noted to have continued to 'validate his behaviour by saying he had nowhere else to live and was supported by his partner'.[143] The Tribunal prefers the Corrective Services assessment to the Applicant's and Ms BC's views.
3. In terms of rehabilitation, the Applicant completed a six-session Remand Domestic & Family Violence Program in 2020.[144] Despite this he continued to commit domestic violence, only engaged sporadically with community-based supervision, and failed 'to attend as directed prior to...arrest'.[145] The online Universal Course modules completed by the Applicant in January 2025 titled 'Domestic Violence Awareness' and 'Healthy Relationships' are to his credit. As discussed earlier, however, these are largely informative rather than therapeutic. The Tribunal is unpersuaded the Applicant has yet fully understood the impact of his family violence. This includes because of his attempt to share blame for AVO breaches by claiming intimate partners requested or welcomed his presence. The Applicant is yet to meaningfully address the causes of his family violence and there is an unacceptable risk of repeat.
4. The Tribunal does not accept the Applicant's relationship with Ms BC is a protective factor ameliorating his future risk of family violence. This is despite her claiming not to fear him and rejecting the basis on which authorities previously made orders to protect her. The Tribunal found aspects of Ms BC's evidence sought to downplay the Applicant's conduct. It is of particular concern that Ms BC was arrested for drink driving in late 2023 while the Applicant was in her car and subject to an ADVO where she was the protected person.[146] There is no expert evidence about the status of any alcohol issues she may experience and Ms BC reportedly told community corrections staff she does not believe the Applicant has a drinking habit and 'nor is it problematic'.[147] Ms BC is not well placed to provide judgements about the Applicant's rehabilitative progress, future risk of committing family violence, or to modify his conduct / hold him accountable if further incidents did occur.
5. On balance, this primary consideration weighs very substantially against revocation.

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 since 1989, albeit with an intervening period of residence in Fiji as a child. He refers to many family members in Australia, including his parents, Ms BC, some of Ms BC's relatives and other family (aunt/uncle/cousins).[148] The Applicant's claims about parents and siblings are summarised as follows:[149]

My father...has been my guiding force throughout my life. He has always provided me with emotional support, guidance and stability. My relationship with him is close and essential. He has shaped the person I am today. Being forced to leave Australia would not just separate me from my father it would cause him immense grief and heartache. Losing his son would be devastating and the thought of permanently being apart from him is unbearable. > > I lost contact with my mother for many years ... Recently she moved to Australia to reconnect and rebuild the relationship we had lost over time. This reconnection has been incredibly important to both of us. Deportation would destroy the progress we've made in reconnecting and cause significant emotional pain for both of us. > > My siblings...are all in Australia and we share a strong lifelong bond. Being removed from Australia would sever these relationships and leave my family without my support, love and presence. The emotional impact on my father and siblings would be profound as they rely on me as much as I rely on them. > > My family has been my anchor through all the challenges I've faced including my past mistakes, incarceration and my rehabilitation journey. Being taken away from them would not just affect me it would ripple through every member of my family leaving a hole in all of our lives that cannot be replaced.

2. The evidence about the strength of the Applicant's familial links in Australia differs somewhat to his claims above. A Sentencing Assessment Report dated 2024 states his 'support network is limited to his partner and some close friends'.[150] There are references in custodial records to the Applicant's having relatively limited past contact with his parents, including because his mother lived in New Zealand for 20 years, and because his father kicked him out of the family home at the about the age of 15 or 16 and then lived interstate.[151] The Tribunal has considered a brief letter dated 18 January 2024 from the Applicant's father, which does not appear to reflect knowledge of the Applicant's relationship circumstances since 2023.[152] The Applicant's mother currently lives in southern Victoria whereas the Applicant resides in Sydney. She has only physically seen him once since 1998, during an Easter 2025 visit to Villawood Immigration Detention Centre. Any future intention for her to live geographically closer to the Applicant is aspirational.
3. The Tribunal has considered Ms BC's documentary and oral evidence. She has known the Applicant for about 20 years, but their romantic relationship only commenced in January 2023. They married on 30 October 2025, about a month prior to the commencement of this hearing. This occurred with full knowledge of the Applicant's visa status and possible outcomes of this hearing. Ms BC has two children, 12 and 17 years of age, from a previous relationship. The children have regular contact with their biological father.
4. The Applicant states Ms BC and her children are unable to accompany him to Fiji because of the opportunities they have in Australia.[153] He also asserts without evidence that his biological children 'wouldn't be allowed to visit Fiji, let alone move there', because Fiji is a 'developing country' and unsafe.[154] The evidence of the Applicant's eldest son, however, who turns 18 in early 2026, is that he would visit the Applicant in Fiji in the event of non-revocation and continue a relationship with him predominantly by telephone.
5. The Tribunal has considered letters or Statutory Declarations from Ms BC's mother,[155] her grandmother,[156] a sister,[157] two of her aunts,[158] and one of her sons who is approaching adulthood.[159] The Statutory Declarations appear somewhat templated and variously make no reference to or very general reference to the Applicant's past conduct. Some authors have only known the Applicant for a relatively short time. The Tribunal has also considered a Statutory Declaration from one of the Applicant's cousins.[160] The Applicant did not call friends, past employers or members of his faith community as witnesses but relied on supportive letters and Statutory Declarations.[161] These variously describe him as a valued family member, friend, or community/club participant. Some do not refer or make only general reference to his offending or refer to his 'exemplary' character.[162]
6. It cannot be said that the Applicant began offending soon after arrival in Australia, such that less weight is given to this primary consideration pursuant to cl 8.3(2)(a)(i) of the Direction.
7. In terms of positive contributions to the Australian community the Applicant refers to employment and community engagement, the latter particularly through sport.[163]
8. In terms of Aboriginality, the Applicant makes no claims about this. There is also a reference to him having no indigenous status[164] and he responded 'No' to questions asking if he is of Aboriginal or of Torres Strait Islander origin.[165]
9. Even if an applicant makes no submissions about Aboriginality, nor advances any connection to the Australian Aboriginal community, this is no longer the end of the matter. Justice Feutrill held in Brownlie that neither the absence of an express representation nor materials disavowing the relevance of this consideration are determinative.[166] Mr Brownlie was born in Wales and expressly stated he did not identify as an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander person. No claims about Aboriginality were advanced by Mr Brownlie or his barrister during the hearing. His Honour noted at [80] of Brownlie:

There is no reference to indigenous heritage or identification as Aboriginal person. Indeed, under Citizenship Details 'No' is circled in hand writing in response to the question 'Do you identify as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander? Similarly, in the applicant's application in the Tribunal for review of a decision 'No' is written in a box under the question: 'Are you of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander origin?

1. In quashing the Tribunal's decision, however, his Honour held that it should have searched for a connection to Aboriginality that may be 'unarticulated but manifest from the materials'.[167] The Tribunal is obliged to follow his Honour's decision, which requires detailed review of the evidence to identify any conflict between an applicant's express non-identification as Aboriginal and contrary unarticulated representations or 'integers'.[168] His Honour held that failing to do so is sufficiently material to constitute jurisdictional error.
2. Ms BC refers in her most recent statement to being an Aboriginal woman and 'deeply connected to [her] culture, land and community'. She has submitted a letter dated 14 October 2025 from a Family History Society to the effect that she and her two sons are of Aboriginal ancestry. No reference is made in this letter to the Applicant.
3. The Applicant's connection to the Australian community is very strong. He has lived here for most of his life and has strong ties to his biological children, Ms BC, members of her family, his stepchildren, through employment, and a network of supportive friends.
4. The Tribunal accepts a non-revocation decision would have negative emotional, practical and financial effects on Ms BC and her children. It is also likely to affect Ms AA and the Applicant's biological children through his ability to pay child support. The Tribunal accepts Ms BC does not currently intend accompanying the Applicant to Fiji, including because of opportunities she and her children have in Australia. Although not expressly stated, the Tribunal has inferred from Ms BC's Aboriginality claim that this may bear on her decision. In the event of non-revocation, Ms BC would be confronted by an undoubtedly difficult but ultimately personal decision. If she decided to remain in Australia, her ability to maintain contact with the Applicant would likely be limited to telephone communication and infrequent visits. If she accompanied him to Fiji on a permanent or intermittent basis, this could adversely impact the life she aspires to for herself and her children in Australia. Her eldest child turns 18 in early 2026, however, and can make his own choices. The Applicant's prosocial friends who have submitted supportive references would also likely be disappointed by a non-revocation decision. That said, the effect on them is unlikely to rise higher than disappointment or sadness.
5. The Applicant's long residence in Australia and breadth of ties are such that this primary consideration weighs substantially 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 is served by grant or refusal of the visa.[169] It is generally for an Applicant to 'identify the personal facts and circumstances relevant to the decision',[170] 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:[171]
   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 four biological children with Ms AA, Ms BC's two children, and five nieces and nephews.[172] Only the interests of 'two nieces and nephews', however, are advanced in the Applicant's SFIC.[173]
3. In terms of the Applicant's relationship with his biological children with Ms AA, the Tribunal has considered his recent claims[174] and the oral evidence of his eldest child, who turns 18 in early 2026. The other children are between 8 and 14. It is not possible on current evidence to reliably distinguish the younger children's interests except by age. Given that there is more time before they become adults, during which the Applicant could play a positive role, the interests of the three younger children are given more weight.
4. A Child Support Assessment for the period February to June 2025 states the children are '100%' in Ms AA's care and '100%' at her cost.[175] The Applicant has not had shared decision-making or financial responsibility for the children for some time. The evidence also discloses extended periods where he has been absent from the children's lives or had limited meaningful contact, including when an AVO was in place. A Sentencing Assessment Report dated 12 July 2023 states the Applicant only saw his children on weekends and his contact with them was impacted by 'ongoing arguments' with Ms AA.[176] Ms BC is noted to have told CCO staff in September 2023 that Ms AA is the 'main cause' of the Applicant's stress by withholding the children from him.[177] A CCO file note dated 4 March 2024 states the Applicant was 'not permitted to speak to his children'.[178] A Sentencing Assessment Report dated 2024 states he has 'limited contact' with his children but wants to recommence 'mediation to increase his visitation following release from custody'.[179] The Applicant's and Ms BC's evidence, earlier summarised, is to the effect that they are in a continuing dispute with Ms AA about access and child support.
5. There is no independent evidence about the extent to which the Applicant may be permitted to engage with his three younger biological children if released. That said, the Tribunal accepts he remains as close to them as he can within custodial constraints and his dispute with Ms AA. He talks with them by telephone and aspires to a closer relationship.
6. Ms AA has played the primary parental role for the Applicant's four children since their relationship ended some years ago. It is unknown if she has re-partnered. The Tribunal had the benefit of hearing from the Applicant's eldest biological child but there is no direct evidence from the younger children or Ms AA about the extent to which the Applicant's involvement would be welcomed. The evidence suggests the Applicant's desire for more meaningful involvement with his younger children is currently aspirational. The Tribunal accepts that if released in Australia he would continue to try to gain better access. This could occur if his dispute with Ms AA is amicably resolved through mediation, or he is granted access orders. The prospect of either occurring remains speculative. The Applicant's ability to play a positive role in the lives of these minor children also turns somewhat on his ability to remain law-abiding and abstinent. For the reasons earlier adduced, the Tribunal is unpersuaded of this.
7. In terms of the Applicant's stepchildren, they are 12 and 17 years of age and their biological father remains involved in their lives. The older child turns 18 in early 2026 so more weight is placed on the interests of the youngest stepchild given there is about six years during which the Applicant could play a positive role. The Applicant's relationship with his stepchildren predates his relationship with Ms BC, but he only started living with them in February 2023. For some months prior to his arrest in October 2023, he and Ms BC did not live together because ADVOs were taken out to protect her. He has therefore played a stepfather role for only a limited time. The Applicant contends that his removal could adversely impact his stepchildren's 'mental health, motivation, and ability to focus on goals'. He also claims without evidence that his youngest stepchild has been 'struggling at school and at home', which requires 'counselling to help him cope'. In her most recent statement, Ms BC claims the following without independent corroboration:[180]

My youngest son...has been struggling emotionally and academically. The school has now stepped in and he's been referred to a counsellor because of how hard he's taking everything that's going on here at home and the uncertainty of our future. > > Every part of our family is breaking under the weight of this. Orisi's absence isn't just emotional it's practical and financial too. We need him home.

8. In terms of nieces and nephews, neither the Applicant nor Mr Nikjoo advanced their interests during the hearing. The evidence rises no higher than an inference that the Applicant aspires to play a more prominent avuncular role if permitted to remain in Australia. There is a dearth of current evidence about the nature of his relationship with nieces or nephews, or if the children's parents would welcome greater involvement. On the best reading of the evidence, the effect of a non-revocation decision on any nieces or nephews appears to rise no higher than sadness or disappointment.
9. Mr Nikjoo submitted that a non-revocation decision 'would cause substantial detriment to [the Applicant's] minor children and would, in effect, breach Australia obligations under the Convention on the Rights of the Child (see articles 3, 5, 9, 14, 18, 20, 27 and 31)'[181] ('Convention'). Australia is a signatory to the Convention and has agreed to act in a manner consistent with recognising the best interests of children in Australia under 18 years of age. The four core principles of the Convention are non‑discrimination, devotion to the best interests of the child, the right to life, survival and development and respect for the child's views. Articles 54 and two optional protocols set out fundamental rights of children to: survival; being able to develop to the fullest; protection from harmful influences; protection against abuse and exploitation; and to participate fully in family, cultural and social life. The Convention also sets out standards regarding healthcare, education, legal and civil rights.
10. The Tribunal notes many of the fundamental rights of children under the Convention are already included as mandatory considerations under the Direction:

(a) Article 3 of the Convention provides that the best interests of a child are to be a primary consideration. This is already the case under cl 8.4 of the Direction. > > (b) Article 5 of the Convention refers to States Parties respecting the: > > ...responsibilities, rights and duties of parents or, where applicable, the members of the extended family or community as provided for by local custom, legal guardians or other persons legally responsible for the child, to provide, in a manner consistent with the evolving capacities of the child, appropriate direction and guidance in the exercise by the child of the rights recognized in the present Convention... > > (c) It remains unclear to the Tribunal what non-compliance is being advanced in respect of Article 5. > > (d) Article 9 refers to a child not being separated from their parents 'against their will, except when ... such separation is necessary for the [child's] best interests'. Justice French stated in Sundrampillai[182] that Article 9 of the Convention 'does not impinge upon the right of a State to deport the parent of a child'. In Teoh,[183] Mason CJ and Deane J similarly confirmed that Article 9 'does not seem to address decisions to deport or, for that matter, decisions to refuse permanent entry'. More recently in NRFX,[184] the Full Court held: > > It can thus be concluded that the text of Art 9(1) indicates that the sub-article does not apply in circumstances where a parent is deported, and that nothing in the immediate context of the sub-article warrants any other conclusion. > > (e) Article 12 refers to a child who can form their own views having the right to be heard in matters affecting them, with these being given 'due weight'. This is already provided for at cl 8.4(4)(f) of the Direction. In the current proceeding, for example, the Applicant presented the views of his eldest child and stepchild.

11. The Applicant did not meaningfully advance submissions about the other articles invoked under the Convention (14, 18, 20, 27 and 31). Article 14, for example, relates to a child's right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. Article 18 relates to recognising the principle that both parents have common responsibilities to raise a child. Article 20 relates to special protection and assistance from the State when a child is deprived of their family environment or who cannot be allowed to remain in that environment. Article 27 recognises a child's right to an adequate standard of living. Article 31 recognises a child's right to rest, leisure and engagement in play and recreational activities. Again, it remains unclear what actual or prospective non-compliance is being advanced. Absent any persuasive link to the circumstances of the Applicant's case, the Tribunal does not consider these further.
12. For the reasons adduced earlier, the Tribunal has continuing concerns about the Applicant's risk of relapse and recidivism. He has also committed family violence against his 15-year-old stepbrother in 2020. Notwithstanding the evidence of the Applicant's oldest son and stepson that they have not observed the Applicant act violently in the past, these factors leave open a risk of children being exposed to family violence in future within the meaning of cl 8.4(4)(g) of the Direction.
13. Notwithstanding the Tribunal's concerns, it is accepted that revocation is in the best interests of the minor children. Removal would impede the Applicant's efforts to gain greater access to his children with Ms AA, to assist Ms BC with parenting, and ability to provide financial, practical, and emotional support. Any continuation of these relationships if he was removed would be by telephone, videocalls, social networking, or perhaps infrequent visits to Fiji. This is suboptimal compared to a close, in-person relationship in Australia.
14. On balance, this primary consideration weighs substantially 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 the non-citizen poses a measurable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian 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[185] 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'.[186] The High Court refused an application for special leave to appeal from the orders in FYBR.[187]
3. The High Court has held in Ismail,[188] albeit in the context of an earlier Direction (90):

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.

1. The following submissions are advanced on the Applicant's behalf:[189]

Given that the Tribunal retains discretion in determining the appropriate weight to be attributed to this primary consideration, the views of Deputy President J Block in Waits v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs are particularly helpful. > > ...the expectation of the Australian community should be taken to be the expectation of the informed, reasonable member of the Australian community, rather than a member of the Australian community who is only prepared to consider the punitive aspects of the power under s501. Also in Leha v Minister for Immigration [2000] AATA 1054, Deputy President McMahon further emphasised that "there would be a general expectation in the community that the Act would be administered fairly and humanely". > > And also, those of senior member R Cameron in Dang: > > The Australian nation has always been prepared to extend the hand of compassion, assistance and humanity...The Australian community has always recognised the concept of rehabilitation and of second go. It has an exception that when a person is dealt with by the criminal justice system that they will reform and not reoffend. > > This is by no means intended to diminish the seriousness of the offences applicant committed, which led to significant charges and convictions he received. The applicant expresses deep remorse and offers a sincere apology for his actions. He respectfully submits that the commission of these offences should not define his overall character, nor should he be regarded as a person with a criminal disposition. Rather, his offending should be viewed through the lens of his lived experience as a traumatised life and with no chance of survival in his country of origin. His actions occurred during a period of extreme vulnerability and distress, not from an ingrained tendency toward criminal behaviour. > > All of these factors, compounded by the applicant's gambling addiction and the loss of self-respect, severely impaired his decision-making ability. This deterioration manifested as anger directed both inward and toward those around him, and was further exacerbated by a need to support his gambling addiction. The sense of worthlessness and hopelessness that once consumed him has now dissipated, replaced by a growing sense of responsibility and hope for the future. > > That being said, the applicant acknowledges that this primary consideration weighs against him. However, he respectfully submits that it should not be afforded such weight, either individually or collectively, as to outweigh the other considerations that support the revocation of his visa cancellation. > > (References removed. Errors in original.)

2. The Minister submits that the Applicant's criminal history reflects 'a sustained pattern of serious misconduct across many years, [which] reflects a continued disregard for legal obligations and community standards'. The Minister contends this consideration weighs strongly against revocation.
3. The Applicant's reliance on Waits and Dang pre-dates FYBR and Ismail. The Tribunal is also not bound by the decisions of other Tribunal members because there is no doctrine of stare decisis or equivalent to judicial comity. To the extent the Applicant invites the Tribunal to infer for itself community expectations by reference to the specific circumstances of his case, this is impermissible.
4. Pursuant to cl 8.5 (1) of the Direction, the Applicant has not obeyed Australian laws and engaged in conduct that raises serious character concerns within the meaning of cls 8.5(2)(a), (c), and (d) of the Direction. He has breached community expectations and, for the reasons adduced earlier, there is an unacceptable risk he may do so again. Pursuant to the principles at cls 5.2(3)-(4) he should expect to forfeit the privilege of staying in Australia. That is despite spending most of his life here, for which the community may afford him a higher level of tolerance: cl 5.2(6) of the Direction.
5. This primary consideration weighs very substantially against revocation.

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. Section 5 of the Act defines non-refoulement obligations as including Australia's obligations as a party to certain Conventions, Protocols and Covenants, and 'any obligations accorded by customary international law...of a similar kind to those mentioned' in those treaties.[190] As held in Ibrahim,[191] non-refoulement obligations are 'not confined to the protection obligations to which s 36(2) refers'. Legal consequences of a Tribunal decision can also be quite broad and encompass duration of detention and prospects of removal.
2. The Tribunal is required to give active intellectual consideration to the Applicant's clearly articulated representations about risk of harm, regardless of characterisation.[192] This is in the context of 'another reason' for revocation under s 501CA(4) of the Act, where claims are not required to meet predetermined benchmarks and can be less categorical than the more comprehensive assessment process conducted under s 36A of the Act.[193] Active intellectual consideration of claims requires the Tribunal to:

...bring their mind to bear upon the facts stated in them and the arguments or opinions put forward, and appreciate who is making them. From that point, the decision-maker might sift them, attributing whatever weight or persuasive quality is thought appropriate.[194]

1. The Tribunal is satisfied that the country of reference in this application is Fiji.
2. The Applicant is not covered by a protection finding and his circumstances fall under cl 9.1.2 of the Direction. Neither he nor his lawyer advanced non-refoulement claims in documentary submissions or during the hearing. The Applicant's evidence instead focussed on impediments to removal, which is more relevantly considered under cl 9.2 of the Direction.
3. Cancellation of the Applicant's visa in January 2024 resulted in him becoming an unlawful non-citizen under s 14 of the Act. The immediate legal consequence of revocation is return of his permanent visa and release from detention. Non-revocation results in continuing detention under s 189 of the Act and liability for removal as soon as reasonably practicable under s 198. There is no evidence that removal to Fiji is not reasonably practicable. Continuing detention is permissible pending removal or while other valid applications are considered[195] or appeal rights exercised under Part 7 of the ART Act. It is accepted that a non-revocation decision, subject to any appeal, would likely preclude the Applicant's return to Australia in future, which is consistent with the intention of the Act.
4. This consideration is not enlivened and weighs neutrally.

(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 currently 40 years of age. He refers to an eye condition called keratoconus and claims he 'can only get [the] help' he needs from the Sydney Eye Hospital.[196] He further claims, without persuasive corroboration, that 'Fiji does not have specialized eye care services or the resources required to manage advanced keratoconus', which leaves him 'at risk of complete and irreversible blindness'[197] and will impact his employment prospects if removed. The Tribunal has considered his documentary claims about this.[198]
2. The Tribunal has considered the following health records:

(a) Clinical notes between July 2016 and September 2022 relating to the Applicant's eye health and past procedures performed.[199] > > (b) A clinical note from a surgeon referring to 'graft failure after trauma...underlying keratoconus'.[200] Ms BC's evidence is that the Applicant played rugby after an earlier corneal graft and got poked in the eye, which is the 'trauma' referred to above. > > (c) An undated handwritten note from a 'Cornea Fellow' whose name cannot be discerned states that the Applicant is under 'follow-up for Bilateral Eye Keratoconus'.[201] The note further states: > > Left eye history of cornea transplant in April 2022. However, the graft is currently failed due to trauma. We are planning to do a repeat cornea transplant for the left eye. His right eye is stable with contact lens. He needs to have 6 monthly follow-up under us. > > (d) A letter dated 18 December 2023 from an optometrist stating:[202] > > RE: Mr Orisi Ranavue > > To whom it may concern: > > In 2006 he was diagnosed with the eye condition Keratoconus. This has progressed over the years and is now advanced. > > His uncorrected vision measures R 6/36 L 6/48 (this level of vision is well below the driving standards without correction) > > Orisi's left eye has marked corneal scarring and there is little hope of improving the vision until he has a corneal graft/transplant. > > The right eye has undergone some procedures to prevent further thinning and risk of scarring. > > The right eye's vision may be able to be improved to driving standard, but only with the fitting of a rigid contact lens. This has been achieved and with a contact lens he achieves 6/9. > > (e) A letter referring to the Applicant having an appointment booked at the Sydney Eye Hospital on 24 November 2025.[203] > > (f) During the hearing the Applicant tendered a letter dated 11 December 2025 stating he is on an elective surgery wait list at the Sydney Eye Hospital with an 'approximate waiting time' of 365 days. The Recommendation for Admission document consists of five largely blank pages preparatory to a future admission for 'LE graft failure after trauma underlying kertaconus'. The Tribunal infers that 'LE' refers to Left Eye. The initiating event for these documents appears to be a referral by an outpatient clinic on 26 May 2025. The patient's consent section is yet to be fully filled in, although it appears the Applicant signed it on 26 May 2025.

3. The medical documents tendered are to the effect that the Applicant is awaiting elective surgery to re-do a corneal graft in his left eye, vision in his right eye has been improved to driving standard with a rigid contact lens, he is being managed with six-monthly reviews, and there is currently no confirmed date for surgery to occur.
4. On the first hearing day the Applicant was referred to open-source information about the Pacific Eye Institute being established in Suva in 2006 to train regional eye specialists,[204] the existence of ophthalmology clinics, and a study relating to treatment of keratoconus patients in Fiji.[205] The Applicant's evidence about this was earlier summarised. There is currently no persuasive independent evidence about the availability of treatment for the Applicant's eye condition in Fiji or whether this can be arranged by Fijian authorities if required. Out of an abundance of caution, the Tribunal has proceeded on the basis that treatment for the Applicant's keratoconus is not readily available.
5. The Applicant does not advance any language or cultural barriers, nor can these be discerned from the evidence. He comes from a large, extended family with relatives in Australia, New Zealand, and Fiji.[206] The Applicant claims not to have spoken to family members in Fiji since leaving as a child nor to have access to accommodation or other sources of practical, emotional, or financial support.[207] His evidence during the hearing, however, is that his father still owns a house in Fiji in which an aunt lived before she migrated to Australia. He may be able to ask his father about accommodation if removed. His mother's evidence is that she has some relatives in Fiji but due to stigma relating to incarceration has not shared the Applicant's circumstances with them. It remains uncertain whether the Applicant can receive any emotional or practical support from family members in Fiji or the other countries they reside in if he is deported.
6. The Applicant submits that the cousin responsible for his mistreatment as a child still lives in Fiji.[208] His evidence during the hearing is that a paternal aunt and uncle have chased this cousin out of their village. There is no evidence the Applicant would have to live in the same area as this cousin. The Tribunal accepts the potential at least of an unplanned encounter if the Applicant is removed to Fiji.
7. The Applicant claims to have no savings or superannuation. He refers, however, to a consistent ability to find work in Australia and support himself / dependents. Notwithstanding keratoconus, his evidence is that he aspires to immediate reemployment if released in Australia. There is an incongruity between submissions advanced on the Applicant's behalf that his 'deteriorating eyesight makes it extremely unlikely he could secure reliable employment in Fiji',[209] while concurrently claiming he intends immediately commencing work if released in Australia and, in respect of business interests, there 'would be a significant adverse impact...if the applicant [could not] return to work as a scaffolder'.[210]
8. There is no evidence the Applicant's eye condition, which currently appears well managed, impedes removal or travel in the event of a non-revocation decision, or a return to work irrespective of location. There is also no evidence that the type of work the Applicant has performed in Australia is unavailable in Fiji. The Applicant's contention about not earning as much in Fiji compared to Australia, which would prevent him from supporting family members here, is not the basis on which cl 9.2 of the Direction turns. The reference to per-capita spending on health in Fiji compared to Australia is also not to the point. The Tribunal must consider impediments arising in the context of what is generally available to other Fijian citizens, based on cls 9.2(1)(a)-(c) of the Direction. There is no evidence the Applicant would be treated differently to or denied benefits available to other Fijian citizens.
9. The Tribunal accepts that after a lifetime in Australia the Applicant would be confronted by significant impediments if deported to Fiji. This includes because of uncertainty about treatment for keratoconus and because he would find himself in an unfamiliar work, family, and living environment without his strongest sources of support in Australia. That said, the Applicant is only 40 years of age, has a commendable employment history, and a consistent ability to provide for himself and his family. The impediments confronting him are not insurmountable. On balance, however, substantial weight is placed on this consideration in favour of revocation.

1. The Applicant initially contended that a non-revocation decision will result in 'a significant adverse impact on Australian business interests' because he 'has secured ongoing employment' with Scaffolding Company 1.[211] It was further submitted:

The 2024 Occupation Shortage List identifies "scaffolder" as a skills shortage occupation in most jurisdictions. Current reporting also highlights serious construction sector workforce shortages, particularly in scaffolding, which are materially affecting national housing supply and broader economic outcomes. > > In light of these critical shortages, the applicant's skills, experience, and readiness to work in the Central Coast region of New South Wales are highly relevant. His removal would exacerbate existing industry constraints and result in further operational and financial strain on Australian businesses. > > Accordingly, his absence would significantly affect [Scaffolding Company 1's] ongoing projects and commercial standing, given the loss of a valued, skilled worker. This is a factor that should properly attract significant weight in favour of revocation.

2. The Minister contends there is no evidence the Tribunal's decision would significantly compromise the delivery of a major project, or delivery of an important service in Australia, such that this consideration should be assigned neutral weight.[212]
3. The reference to the Applicant securing a job opportunity as a scaffolder relies on a letter dated 12 January 2024 from the owner of Scaffolding Company 1. This states the Applicant worked for the company for about two years.[213] Prior to 15 December 2015, there was no evidence this employment offer, which is almost two years old remained open or whether Scaffolding Company 1 had recruited a replacement. On the first hearing day, open-source information was shared with parties about a Published Notice from ASIC regarding an intention to deregister Scaffolding Company 1 pursuant to s 601AB(1) or (1A) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).[214] A letter from the owner of Scaffolding Company 1 dated 14 December 2025 then confirmed that he ceased operations in February 2024. It is of concern to the Tribunal that dire business consequences were advanced in this proceeding relating to the Applicant not returning to work with Scaffolding Company 1[215] in circumstances where that company ceased operating more than a year prior. Moreover, the Applicant said he does not intend returning to work as a scaffolder because of the drinking culture in such workplaces and instead intends working variously as a disability support worker[216] or as a 'Logistics Coordinator'.
4. The Tribunal accepts there is a shortage of scaffolders in Australia, but there is no evidence in the letter from Scaffolding Company 2 that there is any business effect if the Applicant does not take up their offer of 'casual' employment. The Tribunal does not accept on current facts that a non-revocation decision would affect the operation of any business within the meaning of the Direction. Neutral weight is afforded to this consideration.

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

1. Because of the combined effects of ss 501(6)(a) and 501(7)(c) of the Act, the Applicant does not pass the character test. In determining whether there is 'another reason' for revocation, the Tribunal has applied the Direction to the specific circumstances of his case. 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 crimes and other misconduct are collectively very serious. He constitutes at least a moderate risk of relapsing into alcohol abuse and reoffending. His violence falls into a category of conduct where even a small probability of recurrence is unacceptable. Pursuant to the principles of the Direction he should expect to forfeit the privilege of staying in Australia. This is despite spending most of his life here, for which the community may afford him a higher level of tolerance.
3. The strongest aspects of the Applicant's case are his ties to Australia through family, friends and community associations. The Tribunal accepts a non-revocation decision would variously have adverse emotional, practical, and financial effects on those who support him. The Tribunal also accepts that after a lifetime in Australia the Applicant would be confronted by significant impediments in establishing a life for himself if deported to Fiji. This includes because of the uncertainty about obtaining appropriate treatment for his eye condition and because he would find himself in an unfamiliar environment and separated from his strongest sources of support in Australia.
4. 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 considerations favouring non-revocation considerably outweigh the combined weight of countervailing primary and other considerations.

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

1. I certify that the preceding one hundred and ninety-three (193) paragraphs are a true copy of the written reasons for the decision herein of Senior Member A. Nikolic

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

[4] Ibid 80, 94, 115, 121, 132, 146, 152, 186.

[21] Ibid ss 4(1) and 4(4); Falzon v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] HCA 2; (2018) 351 ALR 61, [45].

[22] 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).

[23] The Act, s 499(2A; Khalil v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2025] HCA 33, [1]; 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).

[24] 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].

[25] 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).

[26] 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.

[55] Exhibit R1, 328; Exhibit R2, 134, 142.

[74] https://www.hollows.org.nz/where-we-work/clinics/pacific-eye-institute

[75] Vinod Kumar, 'A Retrospective Study on keratoconus patients living in the central division, Fiji, 2015-2019' [2020], School of Advanced Education, Research and Accreditation.

[76] Exhibit R1 174-181, 213-218; Exhibit A7.

[99] Exhibit R2, 94 [09/01/2012],115 [09/10/2020], 116 [21/10/2020]; 149 [16/12/2024].

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

[102] Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs v EYR19 [2021] FCAFC 133, [81] (Wigney, Lee and Wheelahan JJ).

[103] Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Guo (1997) 191 CLR 559, 574, 575 ('Guo').

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

[106] Exhibit R2, 67, 132, 186; Exhibit R1, 158 [9], 160 [10], 161 [17]; Exhibit A1, 3.

[107] Exhibit R1,81, 133 [2.2], 140, 151, 154.

[110] Ibid 53 [36]-[40], 68, 161 [17].

[112] Ibid 73-74, 95 [28 March 2012].

[116] Exhibit R2, 130 [19/11/2021], [21/11/2021.

[120] Ibid 94,115-16; Exhibit R1, 80-81; Applicant's SFIC, 19 [70].

[122] Ibid 79, 82, 86 [5]; Exhibit A1, 10-11.

[130] Exhibit R2, 32. See: Don Andrews and James Bonta, The Level of Service Inventory-Revised (Multi-Health Systems Inc. 1995). This assessment is based on an internationally validated actuarial tool used in custodial settings to assess an offender's recidivism risk and identify their criminogenic needs.

[131] Exhibit A1, 2 [final paragraph].

[132] Exhibit R1, 250-260. Universal Class is an online provider of both free and fee-based self-paced courses.

[134] The Direction, cl 8.1.2(2)(b)(ii).

[151] Ibid 80, 94, 115, 132, 152, 186.

[163] Ibid 125, 168 [56], 243; Exhibit A1, 11-12.

[166] Brownlie v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FCA 436 ('Brownlie').

[169] RGCZ v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2022] FCAFC 201; (2022) 295 FCR 365, [44].

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

[181] Applicant's SFIC, 17 [63]; Convention on the Rights of the Child (opened for signature 20 November 1989, 1577 UNTS 3, entered into force 2 September 1990).

[182] Sundrampillai v Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (1992) 29 ALD 479, 485.

[183] Minister of State for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Teoh [1995] HCA 20; (1995) 183 CLR 273, 288-289.

[184] NRFX v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FCAFC 187, [61].

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

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

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

[190] For example, Australia is a signatory to the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees as amended by the 1967 Protocol (together called the 'Refugee Convention'), the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment ('CAT'), and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and its Second Optional Protocol ('ICCPR').

[191] Ibrahim v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCAFC 89; (2019) 270 FCR 12, 35 [103].

[192] YKSB v Minister for Home Affairs [2020] FCAFC 224, 5; Minister for Home Affairs v Omar [2019] FCAFC 188; (2019) 272 FCR 589, 602-10 [34]-[44].

[193] The Direction cl 9.1.2(2); Plaintiff M1/2021, 605 [39]; Ayoub v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2015] FCAFC 83; (2015) 231 FCR 513, 521 [27]-[28]; Ali v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 650 at [28] ('Ali').

[194] _Plaintiff M1/_2021, 592 [9], 598 [24].

[195] CZA19 and the Commonwealth of Australia; DBD24 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2025] HCA 8 [38], [59].

[196] Exhibit A1, 10; Applicant's SFIC, 20 [75], Exhibit R1, 126, 326.

[198] Exhibit A1, 10; Exhibit R1, 153-154; Applicant's SFIC, 20-21

[204] https://www.hollows.org.nz/where-we-work/clinics/pacific-eye-institute

[205] Vinod Kumar, 'A Retrospective Study on keratoconus patients living in the central division, Fiji, 2015-2019' [2020], School of Advanced Education, Research and Accreditation.

[214] ASIC Deregistration Notice [redacted].