1. The Applicant's conviction was according to the provisions of Paragraph 2 of Article 20 of the Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China. The Direction requires consideration of whether that offence is also classified as an offence in Australia.[17] I am satisfied that it is equivalent to s 421 of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) whereby a person may be convicted of manslaughter instead of murder where they acted in self-defence, but the response was unreasonable.
2. It is submitted on behalf of the Applicant that should the offending have occurred in Australia, it is possible he may have been acquitted as the absence of intent was not taken into account by the Chinese law. I acknowledge that the Court determined that the Applicant acted in self-defence. Nonethless, the offending involved two men being stabbed by the Applicant - one of whom died - and his being sentenced to a term of imprisonment and required to pay substantial compensation to the victim. Having regard to the Direction, I consider the offending to be very serious, as it was a violent crime that resulted in the death of the victim. The objective seriousness of the offending is also reflected in the five-year term of imprisonment received by the Applicant.[18]

1. The Applicant does not dispute having provided false or misleading information to the Department on at least four separate occasions. He failed to disclose the conviction in his visitor visa application in June 2017. He failed to disclose conviction on his incoming passenger card in July 2017. He failed to disclose conviction in his protection visa application submitted in August 2017. He concedes that the information provided in the (subsequently withdrawn) statement of 22 February 2023 contained false information.
2. The Applicant has provided explanations as to why he provided false information and did not disclose his criminal conviction when required. He claims to be genuinely remorseful for having done so. He has explained in his statements that the application for the visitor visa was made by an agent who provided information on his behalf which he was not aware of. He then said that the agent had informed him he was not required to provide information regarding his criminal conviction. He said someone else filled out the incoming passenger card after initially claiming - thought later withdrawing - he had completed the card incorrectly because of the poor lighting and being rushed as others wanted to use the pen.[19]
3. On 14 December 2021, the Applicant said he had signed a false statement that he was a refugee when he was not. The Applicant claimed he had attempted to identify the agent who lodged his false protection claim but had been unsuccessful.[20] In his statement of 8 May 2025, he claimed to have been advised by his landlady, Ms Meng, and that he did not know her full name. He also claimed she had completed and lodged the protection claim. This statement is inconsistent with Ms Liu's lodgement of a complaint to the Department on 3 December 2020 about Ms Meng, in which she provided her full name.
4. The Applicant's evidence at the hearing was at times inconsistent, contradictory and unhelpful. He maintained that he only provided Ms Meng with his passport prior to her lodgement of the protection visa application on his behalf. When taken to the application where the names of his parents are listed, he initially claimed he did not know who the person listed as his mother was, before confirming that both the name and date of birth of his mother were recorded correctly. Asked how Ms Meng would have obtained this information, the Applicant speculated she obtained it from the agent in China who arranged his tourist visa.
5. Paragraph 8.1.1(1)(g) provides that providing false or misleading information to the Department, including by not disclosing prior criminal offending is considered serious. It is not disputed that the Applicant has provided false or misleading information to the Australian government. His explanations for having done so varied over time and lack credibility. I find that he has consistently, frequently and recently provided false and misleading information to the Department, and the conduct is at the higher end in terms of seriousness.
6. I accept the Respondent's submission that the repeated provision of false or misleading information to the Department is a grave matter and deception directly undermines the integrity of Australia's migration system. The severity of the conduct is reflected in the serious penalties associated with the provision of false or misleading information which include imprisonment, visa refusal and exclusion periods.
7. Having regard to the Applicant's criminal offending in China and provision of false and misleading information to the Australian government, I consider the nature or his criminal and other conduct to be very serious.
8. I am required to consider the risk to the Australian community should the Applicant commit further offences. Paragraph 8.1.2(1) of the Direction provides:

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.

9. In assessing the risk that may be posed by the non-citizen to the Australian community, I must have regard to, cumulatively:

a) the nature of the harm to individuals or the Australian community should the non-citizen engage in further criminal or other serious conduct; and > > b) the likelihood of the non-citizen engaging in further criminal or other serious conduct, taking into account:

i. information and evidence on the risk of the non-citizen re­ offending; and

ii. evidence of rehabilitation achieved by the time of the decision, giving weight to time spent in the community since their most recent offence (noting that decisions should not be delayed in order for rehabilitative courses to be undertaken).

1. The Respondent submits that should the Applicant engage in further offending of a similar nature to his 1999 offence, which resulted in the death of one person, the harm that would be caused is so serious that any risk it may be repeated is unacceptable.
2. The evidence supports the Applicant's contention that the 1999 crime was an aberration. It was an isolated incident which occurred more than 25 years ago and remains his only criminal conviction. The Applicant claims he is remorseful for the offence and feels sorrow for what happened. There is no evidence that casts doubt on his claim to no longer place himself in situations where similar offending may occur.
3. While character references speak of the Applicant's caring and honest nature, there is no evidence he has engaged in formal rehabilitation. Nonetheless, I consider the risk of further such offending is remote for the reasons I have outlined. However, I note that the Direction provides that the Australian community's tolerance of risk becomes lower as the seriousness of the potential harm increases.[21]
4. The Applicant has repeatedly and consistently engaged in the provision of incorrect, misleading or false information to the Department, or withholding information, which reflects a pattern of dishonesty and deception in order to achieve favourable outcomes.
5. The Applicant has expressed his 'genuine remorse' for his failure to declare his offending and the provision of false information to the Department. He points to the voluntary disclosure of his driving record as evidence of his reform. He says with the guidance of Ms Liu and their partnership has been a significant influence.
6. The Applicant stated Ms Liu has been instrumental in uncovering his prior immigration history and using a registered migration agent. He regrets that he did not stand firm and ask those who had previously submitted false information on his behalf to correct it. He said that it is in his family's interests that he always understands that what may have been acceptable in China is not acceptable in Australia. He gave the example of arranging to be paid in cash to avoid paying tax and how he had been scolded by Ms Liu for doing so. He believes these are significant protective factors which will prevent further similar conduct.
7. In a statutory declaration, Ms Liu has also identified herself as a protective factor, stating that the Applicant knows to refer all official matters to her so she can ensure they are 'truthfully and appropriately dealt with'.[22] I accept the Respondent's submission that this is of limited utility in circumstances where she conceded - albeit in difficult personal circumstances - to having organised the 22 February 2023 statement which she now concedes contained false information.
8. I place little weight on the Applicant's expressions of remorse for provision of false and misleading information to the Department. He has consistently sought to apportion responsibility to others or circumstances outside his control. He claims to have limited agency and of being dependent on others. While the language barrier may provide some explanation, it is not a blanket excuse which devolves him of responsibility of visa applications and representations made on his behalf. To the extent that the Applicant, with the assistance of Ms Liu, has sought to 'put things right', he appears to have done so in order to obtain the visa.

Protection of the Australian community - conclusion

1. The nature and seriousness of the Applicant's offending weighs heavily in favour of exercising the discretion to refuse the visa. Although there is a low risk of further violent criminal offending, there is a considerable risk the Applicant may provide false or misleading information to the Australian government.

Primary consideration 2: Family Violence committed by the non-citizen

1. Paragraph 4(1) of Direction 110 defines family violence as violent, threatening or other behaviour by a person that coerces or controls a member of the person's family or causes the family member to be fearful.
2. Paragraph 8.2(1) of Direction 110 provides that the Australian government has serious concerns about conferring on non-citizens who engage in family violence the privilege of entering or remaining in Australia.
3. There is no evidence that the Applicant has engaged in conduct that meets the definition of family violence, and this consideration weighs neutrally.

Primary Consideration 3: The strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia

1. I am required to consider the impact of the decision on the Applicant'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. The Applicant's partner Ms Liu, along with their daughter, reside in Australia. Ms Liu and the Applicant have been in a relationship since 2018. Both speak of their strong bond and dependence on each other. Ms Liu would be emotionally impacted should the Applicant not be granted the visa. Ms Liu's general practitioner Dr Albert Nguyen reported in July 2024 that she has health issues including anxiety, depression and fatty liver which leaves her fatigued. He writes that the Applicant is 'instrumental' in supporting her and managing her day-to-day care.[23]
3. The Applicant contends that his ties to the Australian community extend beyond just his partner and daughter and include a 'small circle of friends and acquaintances' primarily friends and associates he has met through Ms Liu or her business.
4. In evidence are statements of support from other individuals who have a right to remain in Australia indefinitely. These individuals include Ms Liu's clients and a former colleague. When asked at the hearing, the Applicant was unable to identify two of them by name and provided limited information as to their interactions. The evidence indicates they are familiar acquaintances and the decision would have very limited impact on them.
5. The Applicant held paid employment in Australia, including at three fire protection firms. He now works in Ms Liu's business cleaning, transporting clients and providing 'handyman' support.
6. It is submitted on behalf of the Applicant that his community ties and contribution weigh in favour of the Applicant. The impact of visa refusal on individuals other than Ms Liu and the Applicant's daughter are not relevant to this consideration.[24] However, for the avoidance of doubt, I find the Applicant's connections in the community and broader contribution are limited and carry little weight.
7. The interests of the Applicant's daughter are considered in the following primary consideration. Primarily on account of his relationship with Ms Liu, this consideration is afforded moderate weight in favour of not exercising the discretion to refuse the visa.

Primary Consideration 4: Best interests of minor children affected by the decision

1. Paragraph 8.4 of the Direction requires the Tribunal to decide whether the cancellation is, or is not, in the best interests of minor children in Australia affected by the decision. This consideration applies only if the child is under 18 years old at the time of the decision. In considering the best interests of each child, the factors that must be considered where relevant include:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. The Applicant has a 5-year-old daughter for who is the primary carer as Ms Liu works up to six days per week, often at irregular hours. The Applicant states that the effect on his daughter's development and well-being if he returns to China will be 'devastating'.[25]
2. The family's general practitioner Dr Nguyen provided a report in which he states the Applicant 'has been the cornerstone' of his daughter's care. Dr Nguyen writes that the Applicant's continued presence is essential for his daughter's health and the stability of her family unit. Psychologist Deborah Salkovics wrote in a report dated May 2025 that Ms Liu struggles with low mood and symptoms of anhedonia and anxiety.[26] Ms Salkovics states that Ms Liu had difficulty bonding with her daughter when she was born and would struggle financially and physically to raise their child without the Applicant. She reports that the child presents as happy and energetic and gravitated towards the Applicant and demonstrate a secure attachment and strong bond with him.
3. The evidence strongly supports the Applicant is responsible for his daughter's care and that Ms Liu may struggle with practical and emotional aspects of parenting without the Applicant.
4. I find that is in the best interests of the Applicant's daughter that the discretion to refuse the visa is not exercised. This primary consideration is afforded very significant weight in favour of not exercising the discretion to refuse the visa.

Primary Consideration 5: Expectations of the Australian community

1. Paragraph 8.5 of the Direction relevantly provides:

(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.

1. Paragraph 8.5(3) of Direction 110 states that these expectations apply regardless of whether the non-citizen poses a measurable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community.
2. Paragraph 8.5(4) of Direction 110 provides that this consideration is about the expectations of the Australian community as a whole. It is not for the Tribunal to determine for itself the expectations of the Australian community by reference to an applicant's circumstances or evidence about those expectations. Rather the Tribunal must give effect to the 'norm' stipulated in the Direction.[27]
3. In accordance with the principles set out in paragraph 5.2 of the Direction, the serious nature of the Applicant's offending - which resulted in a death - is such that the Australian community would expect the Applicant should not continue to hold a visa.
4. Having regard to the Direction this consideration weighs strongly in favour of affirming the decision under review.

Legal consequence of decision under section 501 or 501CA

1. Paragraph 9.1(1) of Direction 110 requires decision makers to be mindful that unlawful non-citizens are liable to removal from Australia as soon as practicable, and in the meantime, detention.
2. I note the Applicant was previously refused a protection visa and he is not the subject of a protection finding. He has not made any claims in relation to returning to China which may give rise to Australia's non-refoulement obligations.
3. If the reviewable decision is affirmed, the Applicant remains an unlawful non-citizen liable for removal from Australia as soon as reasonably practicable under ss 189 and 198 of the Act. He will not be able to apply for another visa while in Australia in accordance with s 501E of the Act. He will be subject to periods of exclusion and the special return criteria in Schedule 5 of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) which is required for the grant of most visa types.
4. I accept the Respondent's submission that the Applicant's detention prior to removal to China would not be expected to be lengthy. With reference to Stoneley v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs,[28] the Respondent submits that the Applicant's removal from Australia and indefinite exclusion are intended purposes of the statutory scheme, and the purposes underlie the considerations in the Direction. In so much as there are consequences of the decision beyond the Applicant's removal and indefinite exclusion from Australia, they have been dealt with elsewhere in this decision.
5. Overall, this consideration weighs neutrally.

1. Paragraph 9.3 of the Direction requires that decision makers consider any impact on Australian business interests if a non-citizen is not allowed to enter or remain in Australia. The Direction provides that an employment link would generally only be given weight where the decision would significantly compromise the delivery of a major project, or delivery of an important service in Australia. However, the Tribunal is not precluded from giving weight to impacts on business interests in other circumstances.[29]
2. The Applicant submits that his removal would impact Ms Liu's ability to provide occupational therapy to her clients. Many of her clients are children who she sees after school or on Saturdays. She plans to expand her service and build a day program and respite care centre for people with disabilities, which the Applicant claims would be jeopardised without his support.
3. Ms Liu has provided an excerpt of her work schedule to demonstrates she works 6 days a week when she is medically well and has the Applicant's support to take her to appointments and care for their daughter.[30]
4. I accept that the Applicant's absence may impact on Ms Liu's business, and her capacity to delivery therapy to her clients or expand her business. However, refusal of the Applicant's visa would not impact a major project and it would not significantly compromise the delivery of her services in Australia. This consideration weighs neutrally.

1. Paragraph 9.2 of the Direction provides that the Tribunal must consider the extent of any impediments that the Applicant may face if removed to China in establishing himself and maintaining basic living standards (in the context of what is generally available to other citizens of that country). I am required to take into account the Applicant's age and health, whether there are substantial language or cultural barriers, and any social, medical, and/or economic support available to him in China.[31]The Applicant does not claim he would face impediments to establishing himself and maintaining basic living standards in China.
2. The Applicant primarily resided in China until 2017. He was 43 years-old when he left China and will not experience substantial language or cultural barriers having spent his formative years there.
3. Should the Applicant return to China he will be separated from Ms Liu and his daughter which will be emotionally difficult. He will be required to establish himself and secure employment, but any difficulties he may be expected to face are likely to be temporary and would not be insurmountable.
4. This consideration is afforded very limited weight in favor of not refusing the visa.

1. The Applicant claims his removal would result in 'unjustifiable hardship' to Ms Liu and his daughter, noting Ms Liu's health and his central role in the family.[32] I am satisfied that their interests have been taken into account when addressing the considerations provided in the Direction.
2. The Applicant's 1999 offending was serious, but the risk of reoffending of a similar nature is remote. The Applicant wilfully provided false or misleading information in order to obtain favourable visa outcomes. The frequency and extent of his misrepresentations lead me to conclude there is a real risk that this conduct may continue, which would be harmful to the Australian community. I note the protection of the Australian community should generally be given greater weight that other considerations and this primary consideration weighs heavily in favour of exercising the discretion to refuse the visa.[33] The Australian community would expect that the Applicant would not hold a visa, and this primary consideration weighs moderately in favour of refusal.
3. The best interests of the Applicant's daughter weigh in favour of the Applicant being granted the partner visa and is afforded very significant weight. It is important to Ms Liu that the visa is not refused, and the primary consideration of the Applicant's ties to the Australian community weigh moderately against refusing the visa. The impediments the Applicant would be expected to face in China are given limited weight against exercising the discretion.
4. Having regard to the Direction, on balance the considerations for refusal of the visa are outweighed by the considerations against refusal. It follows that the reviewable decision will be set aside.

1. The reviewable decision is set aside, and the matter is remitted to the Respondent with the direction that the discretion provided in s 501(1) to refuse to grant the visa is not exercised.

[2] Applicant's statement of facts, issues and contentions (ASFIC) [5]

[12] Direction no. 110 - Visa refusal and cancellation under section 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under section 501CA (7 June 2024)

[13] Ibid part 2.

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

[17] Direction 110, paragraph 8.1.1(1)(i)

[18] Direction 110, paragraph 8.1(1)(a)(i) and 8.1.1(1)(c)

[25] Applicant's Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions [37]

[27] See FYBR v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCAFC 185; 272 FCR 454 at [75] (Charlsworth J).

[28] See Stoneley v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2025] FCA 143.

[29] See Arachchi v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2022] FCA 1311 at [69] - [70]