1. Section 501CA(4) of the Act states the Minister may revoke the original decision if:

(a) the person makes representations in accordance with the invitation; and

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

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

1. Section 501(6)(a) states that a person does not pass the character test if the person has a substantial criminal record. Section 501(7)(c) states that, for the purposes of the character test, a person has a substantial criminal record if the person has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more.
2. A non-citizen who has had their visa cancelled under section 501(3A) may request revocation of that decision under section 501CA of the Act. The Minister has issued Direction 110, Visa Refusal and Cancellation under section 501 and Revocation of a Mandatory Cancellation of a Visa under section 501CA (the Direction) dated 7 June 2024 which sets out the considerations to be taken into account when considering a request to revoke a cancellation. Where the decision-maker considering the request is not satisfied that the non-citizen passes the character test, the decision-maker must consider whether there is another reason to revoke the cancellation given the specific circumstances of the case.
3. Paragraph 6 of the Direction provides that decision-makers be informed by the following principles in paragraph 5.2 of the Direction when deciding whether to revoke a mandatory cancellation under s 501CA:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. The Direction also sets out matters to be considered in deciding to refuse a visa application, or to revoke (or not) the cancellation of a visa, identifying primary considerations and other considerations. Paragraph 8 of the Direction sets out the primary considerations to be taken into account as follows:
   • 8.1 protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct including the nature and seriousness of the non-citizen's conduct to date and the risk to the Australian community should they commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct;
   • 8.2 whether the conduct engaged in constituted family violence;
   • 8.3 the strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia;
   • 8.4 the best interests of minor children in Australia;
   • 8.5 expectations of the Australian community.
2. Paragraph 9 of the Direction sets out other considerations to be taken into account including:
   • 9.1 Legal consequences of the decision;
   • 9.2 Extent of impediments if removed;
   • 9.3 Impact on Australian business interests.

1. The Applicant concedes that he does not pass the character test in s 501(6)(a) of the Act.[3] Therefore, the sole issue to be determined in this application is whether there is another reason why the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant's visa should be revoked under section 501CA(4), having regard to the Minister's Direction No. 110.

1. Section 501(6)(a) provides that a person does not pass the character test if they have a substantial criminal record. Section 501(7)(c) states that, for the purposes of the character test, a person has a substantial criminal record if they have been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more.
2. The Tribunal accepts on the evidence before it, including the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission Check Results Report dated 20 October 2025 (criminal check results report),[4] that the Applicant was convicted of supply prohibited drug >= large commercial quantity - S1 for which he was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 5 years.
3. Accordingly, the Tribunal finds the Applicant has a substantial criminal record and does not pass the character test.

Whether there is another reason why the cancellation should be revoked?

1. The Tribunal has considered each consideration set out in Direction 110, having regard to the principles in clause 5.2.

8.1 The protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct

1. The first primary consideration in the Direction is the protection of the Australian community from criminal and other serious conduct. This requires the Tribunal to consider the nature and seriousness of the non-citizen's conduct to date and the risk to the Australian community should the non-citizen commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct.[5]
2. When considering protection of the community, the Tribunal is required to keep in mind that the safety of the Australian community is the highest priority of the Australian Government, and that the Government is committed to protecting the Australian community from harm as a result of criminal activity or other serious conduct by non-citizens. The Direction also requires the Tribunal to have particular regard to the principle that entering or remaining in Australia is a privilege that is conferred and comes with the expectation that a person has been, and will be, law abiding, will respect institutions and will not cause or threaten harm to individuals or the Australian community.[6]
3. The Tribunal should also consider the nature and seriousness of the non-citizen's conduct to date and the risk to the Australian community should the non-citizen commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct.

8.1.1. Nature and seriousness of the Applicant's conduct

1. Paragraph 8.1.1(1) of the Direction sets out the factors which the Tribunal must have regard to in considering the nature and seriousness of the Applicant's offending and other conduct to date and includes, in summary:
   • violent and/or sexual crimes, crimes of a violent and/or sexual nature against women or children and acts of family violence are viewed by the Australian government and the Australian community very seriously. (8.1.1(1)(a))
   • causing a person to enter into or being party to a forced marriage; crimes committed against vulnerable members of the community (such as the elderly and the disabled) or government representatives or officials; any conduct that forms the basis for a finding that a non-citizen does not pass an aspect of the character test; and crimes committed while the non-citizen was in immigration detention are considered by the Australian government and the community to be serious conduct. (8.1.1(1)(b))
   • the sentence imposed by the court for the crime(s). (8.1.1(1)(c))
   • the impact on any victims of offending or other conduct and their family. (8.1.1(1)(d))
   • the frequency of the non-citizen's offending and/or whether there is any trend of increasing seriousness. (8.1.1(1)(e))
2. The offending that led to the cancellation of the Applicant's visa occurred on 11 June 2022, for which he was convicted on 16 February 2024 for possess prohibited drug and supply prohibited drug >= large commercial quantity - SI and possess prohibited drug. The Applicant was sentenced to 5 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 3 years for the supply offence. No other penalty was applied to the possession offence.[7]
3. According to the sentencing remarks of His Honour Judge Harris of the District Court of New South Wales, the facts as agreed between the parties, are that at about 2pm on 11 June 2022, the co-offender JZ, left his residence and drove to the Applicant's home, which he entered carrying a white shopping bag. An hour later JZ and the Applicant returned to JZ's car, the Applicant carrying a white shopping bag. JZ drove the car, while the Applicant was in the front passenger seat. Police followed and stopped the vehicle. Both offenders were cautioned. During a search of the vehicle, in the front passenger footwell, police located a David Jones shopping bag. Inside the shopping bag was a black garbage bag containing a plastic bag with 501 grams of methylamphetamine. Police also found an unopened packet of resealable bags. Both offenders were placed under arrest. Both denied ownership of the drugs. The applicant stated that he walked from the train station to Oxford Road where he was picked up by JZ.[8]
4. The sentencing remarks note that both offenders were conveyed to the police station. At the time of the vehicle search the Applicant was in possession of an iPhone. A Cellebrite of this phone contained numerous conversations related to the supply of prohibited drugs. An examination of JZ's phone found a series of WeChat messages and voice notes between the offenders discussing drug supply jobs and ultimately arranging to meet on 11 June 2022. Judge Harris observed that the phone evidence demonstrated that both offenders were involved in the supply of prohibited drugs and the offences of 11 June 2022 were not an isolated event.[9]
5. With respect to the seriousness of the Applicant's offending, Judge Harris emphasised that the illicit trade in drugs is one of the principal sources of crime in the community and there was community interest in appropriate and just punishment for such offences. His Honour explained that an assessment of the objective seriousness of a particular drug supply offence will involve consideration of the quantity and, where known, the purity of the drug, the motivation for the supply, the planning involved and importantly, as much as it is possible to determine, the role of the offender in the supply.[10]
6. His Honour stated that it was the case the Applicant's involvement in the offences was the result of his long-standing illicit use of methylamphetamine and referred to the psychological report and sentence assessment report tendered on his behalf as evidence of his drug addiction. While it was the Applicant's case that his role in the enterprise was less than that of JZ, Judge Harris disagreed with the submission the Applicant was further down the hierarchy or less culpable than JZ and in fact found on the totality of the messages that it was JZ who played the lessor role.[11] His Honour noted while not aggravating the objective seriousness of the offence, in determining the Applicant's role, he had a criminal history of supplying methylamphetamine on 18 December 2019, albeit in a markedly smaller quantity. Judge Harris stated he was unable to find that the two offenders were anything other than equally culpable for the particular supply subject of the principal charge, even if it was JZ who physically sourced it.[12]
7. As to the motivation for the supply, while Judge Harris accepted the Applicant's participation in drug supply was to fund his own addiction, he was also satisfied that it was to a degree for financial reward, having regard to the contents of the messages, the indicia of supply at the Applicant's home and the quantity of drugs involved.[13]
8. His Honour noted that the lower threshold quantity for an offence of supplying a large commercial quantity of methylamphetamines is 500 grams and the quantity involved in the Applicant's case was approximately 100 grams above the base threshold. With respect to the purity, Judge Harris observed that it was reasonably high, at almost 80% purity and noted the greater the purity, the greater the value and extent to which it can be cut and sold.[14]
9. Finally, Judge Harris noted that across each offence there was no evidence of planning or a sophisticated criminal enterprise.[15]
10. The Applicant confirmed in the hearing the conviction in 2024 (as well as in 2020) as detailed in the criminal history report.[16]

1. As was noted by His Honour, Judge Harris in his sentencing remarks, the Applicant's criminal history is not extensive by any means.[17] The Sentencing Assessment Report dated 31 January 2024 (prepared for the index offences) states that the Applicant's criminal history consists of three prior convictions related to drink and drug driving and drug supply/possession. It notes that substance abuse appears to be a prevalent factor through his offending history which commenced in 2017.[18]
2. The Applicant was convicted of special category driver drive with special range PCA on 17 December 2007 and was fined $300 and disqualified from driving for 3 months.[19] The NSW Police Fact Sheet notes that on 9 September 2007 the Applicant was subjected to a roadside breath test that proved positive and was arrested as a result. He was taken to the police station where he was subjected to a breath analysis that returned a reading of 0.040 grammes of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood. At the time, the Applicant had a P1 provisional licence.[20]
3. On 25 January 2017, the Applicant was convicted of special category driver drive with special range PCA - 1st off and fined $350 and disqualified for 3 months. On that occasion, the Applicant who had a P2 provisional licence (which has a legal Prescribed Concentration of Alcohol limit of 0.000) was submitted to a breath test on 24 December 2016 that returned a positive result. The Applicant was arrested and taken to the police station where he was submitted to a breath analysis which returned a result of 0.029 grammes of alcohol in 210 litres of breath.[21]
4. The Applicant was convicted of supply prohibited drug >small & small & small & = large commercial quantity - SI).[28]
5. While the Applicant's representative submitted that the Applicant's significant offending was limited to the single incident in 2022, referring to previous incidents in 2020 and 2021 as being related to possession connected to the Applicant's longstanding addiction, the Tribunal accepts the Respondent's contention that the Applicant's criminal history displays escalation from earlier driving offences to possession offences and progression to supply-level offending, which amplifies the seriousness of the Applicant's offending conduct to date.

1. The Respondent submits that the Applicant's repeat offending has had a profound impact on the wider Australian community, the effect an impost on the community of the accumulated cost of dealing with the Applicant's behaviour. The Tribunal also notes the comments of His Honour, Judge Harris regarding the illicit trade in drugs being one of the principal sources of crime in the community and accepts that the potential impact of the sale of drugs such as methylamphetamine in the Australian community, both on an individual and broader level, is serious.[29]
2. The Tribunal also observes Judge Harris' reference to the Applicant being subject to an 18-month Community Corrections Order at the time of the index offending, which was imposed after he was called up in breach of a seminal order imposed for the offence of drug supply. His Honour noted the fact the Applicant was on conditional liberty for a drug supply offence was an aggravating feature of the sentence.[30]

1. There is evidence before the Tribunal that the Applicant provided false or misleading information to the Department when he completed incoming passenger cards on his return from Malaysia on 16 January 2014 and 30 January 2019 when he failed to disclose his convictions for driving offences. When asked about this in the hearing, the Applicant explained that he did not know that he had a criminal record because of the driving offences.
2. The Tribunal accepts as plausible that the Applicant may have been under the belief that despite being convicted of the two driving offences in December 2007 and January 2017 (which the Tribunal notes he confirmed during the hearing he was aware of), he did not appreciate that they are criminal convictions and for this reason he did not disclose them. The Tribunal therefore give this particular factor neutral weight.

1. The Tribunal notes that there is no material before it to suggest the applicant has re-offended since being formally warned or since otherwise being made aware in writing of the consequences of further offending in terms of his immigration status.

1. The offences and conduct that is the subject of this application occurred in Australia. There is no material before the Tribunal to suggest the applicant has offended or committed criminal conduct in another country.
2. The Respondent submitted that whilst the Applicant's conduct, the conviction of supply prohibited drug >=Large commercial quantity - S1, is not captured by the defined list in cl 8.1.1(1)(a) of Direction 110, it should be considered very serious when considering the underlying facts and the Court's sentencing remarks. In particular, the Respondent noted when considering the objective seriousness of the offence, the Court noted, as discussed above, that the quantity involved was approximately 100 grams above the base threshold, the purity was reasonably high, and the Applicant was equally culpable for the supply and was otherwise motivated by financial reward. Further, the Respondent noted that the offence carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment and/or a fine of $550,000 which is indicative that the offence is considered in law as a high severity offence within a similar class of offences. The Respondent submitted that the Applicant was integral to the operation. The Respondent also noted that the Court had remarked that the Applicant committed the offence while on conditional liberty for a drug offence, which was an aggravating factor, and while the Applicant had expressed remorse, there was little before the Court to find that he was genuinely remorseful. Finally, the Respondent observed that the Court considered a sentence of fulltime imprisonment appropriate.
3. In addition to the above, the Respondent submitted the Tribunal should consider the offence as very serious having regard to the broader community impacts and public costs of commercial drug distribution. The Respondent referred to the Tribunal previously recognising on numerous occasions that drugs cause real and serious harm to the community. It was submitted whilst the Applicant's possession and driving offences are not expressly identified in the Direction as conduct that is viewed seriously or very seriously by the Australian Government and community, they are inherently serious, carrying public health concerns and risk to the safety of the community, including pedestrians.
4. The Applicant's representative submitted that the Applicant's offending which formed the basis of his convictions that resulted in the cancellation of his visa resulted from an activity regarding supply of methylamphetamine while the applicant was heavily addicted to that substance and was seeking to supply his longstanding addiction. The representative contended that the court and police documents suggest that the drugs at issue appear to have been provided by the Applicant's co-offender, JZ who brought the drugs to the Applicant's home, and communications show JZ was in control of and determined the purity of the drug. Despite what appears to be the Applicant's representative's suggestion that the Applicant's role was less than his co-offender, the Tribunal refers to the sentencing remarks in which Judge Harris disagreed with the submission made to the court that the Applicant was further down the hierarchy or less culpable than JZ and found that in fact JZ was relying on the Applicant's expertise and was acting on his instruction. As noted above, Judge Harris was unable to find that the two offenders were anything other than equally culpable for the supply subject of the principal charge, even if it was JZ who physically sourced the drugs.[31]
5. It was noted by the Applicant's representative that the sentencing remarks of Judge Harris indicated there was no evidence of planning or a sophisticated criminal enterprise. It was submitted that the Applicant's significant offending was limited to a single incident in 2022, with previous incidents in 2020 and 2021 related to possession which is linked to the Applicant's longstanding addiction. The representative also highlighted that the Applicant's offending occurred after he was forced to close his restaurant due to the COVID-19 pandemic, which caused him considerable financial distress. It was submitted the Applicant's concurrent divorce from his then-partner with the restaurant's forced closure and other COVID-19 related circumstances created major stress for the Applicant and resulted in his drug addiction increasing. The representative contended in light of the Applicant's circumstances, his actions were not those of a sociopathic "career criminal" offender who may be prone to create sophisticated criminal operations but rather the actions of a person experiencing extraordinarily difficult circumstances. The representative submitted that any risk imputed by the Applicant's actions must be considered in the context in which those actions occurred. The Tribunal agrees with the Respondent that the submission that the Applicant is not a "career criminal" introduces an irrelevant threshold as Direction 110 does not require persistent offending or the ability 'to create sophisticated criminal operations' before cancellation is justified.[32] It also accepts that Respondent's submission that none of the subjective features listed by the Applicant's representative, as discussed above, were found by the sentencing Court to mitigate the seriousness or moral culpability of the Applicant's offending.
6. The Tribunal has also taken into consideration the Applicant's representative's submission made during the hearing that the Applicant was acting on impulse, asserting that on the evidence it appears to have occurred over a relatively short period of time and in the context of the Applicant being severely addicted. The representative submitted that the Applicant was not a cold, calculated planned career criminal with an extensive record, and this was instead an opportunistic situation he found himself in. The Tribunal refers to the sentencing remarks in which Judge Harris accepted that ice use likely impacted the Applicant, as it would any other heavy drug user attracted to the business of supplying drugs because of ready or ease of access to prohibited drugs. However, His Honour noted that the agreed facts and contents of annexure 1 (voice messages between the Applicant and JZ) demonstrate a deliberate and considered involvement and does not support an overtly impulsive approach such that the Applicant's moral culpability is relevantly reduced.[33] Accordingly, the Tribunal does not accept the representative's contention regarding the impulsive nature of the Applicant's conduct.

Conclusion 8.1.1 Nature and seriousness of the conduct

1. The Tribunal has taken into consideration the submissions made by the Respondent and on behalf of the Applicant, as detailed above, and on the information before it, having regard to the cumulative factors in 8.1.1(1), finds the nature and seriousness of the applicant's offending and conduct to date to be serious within the definition provided by 8.1.1(b). The Tribunal has particularly given weight to His Honour Judge Harris' comments regarding the illicit drug trade being one of the principal sources of crime in the community and the sentence of 5 years imprisonment imposed which it considers, reflects the seriousness of his offending.

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

1. Paragraph 8.1.2 of the Direction requires decision-makers to have regard to the Government's view that the Australian community's tolerance of any risk of future harm becomes lower as the seriousness of the potential harm increases. That is if some conduct were to be repeated, the harm that would be caused is so serious that any risk that it may be repeated may be unacceptable.[34]
2. In assessing the risk to the Australian community should the non-citizen commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct, Direction 110 requires decision-makers to have regard to the nature of the harm to individuals or the Australian community and the likelihood of the non-citizen engaging in further criminal or other serious conduct.

1. The Respondent submits that having regard to the nature of the Applicant's offending conduct in the past, any future offending of a similar nature would have the potential to cause physical, psychological and/or financial harm to members of the Australian community. Further, it was contended, any future offending would have the potential to cause harm to the community as a whole by the Applicant's continued failure to abide by the rules or norms of behaviour in Australia.
2. The Tribunal accepts that should the applicant engage in further criminal or other serious conduct, there is a risk of serious harm to individuals and the Australian community.

Likelihood of engaging in further criminal or other serious conduct

1. In considering the likelihood of the non-citizen engaging in further criminal or serious conduct, the Tribunal is required to take into account evidence of the risk of re-offending and of rehabilitation achieved by the time of the decision.
2. With respect to the risk of re-offending, the Tribunal has taken into consideration the Sentencing Assessment Report dated 11 March 2020 prepared by Mr Glenn Stewart, Community Corrections Officer (for the purposes of the offences before the Kempsey Local Court in 2020) which assessed the Applicant at a low risk of re-offending according to the Level of Service Inventory - Revised (LSI-R). It was noted in the report that the Applicant tended to minimise his drug use and characterised his use of methylamphetamine as social and occasional. The Applicant was said to have admitted to providing an associate with drugs however tended to avoid the concept of supplying others, describing it as "just sharing with friends". He claimed to have ceased drug use following the offences and abstinence from that time. The Applicant was reported to have demonstrated good insight into the impact of his offending and a willingness to engage in any supervision requirement and interventions discussed.
3. The Tribunal has also had regard to the Sentencing Assessment Report dated 31 January 2024 prepared by Ms Dionne McGee, Senior Community Corrections Officer, which re-assessed the Applicant at as medium/low risk of reoffending according to the Level of Service Inventory - Revised (LSI-R). It was noted that substance abuse appeared to be a prevalent factor through the Applicant's offending history which commenced in 2017. The Applicant admitted to problematic ice use leading up to his arrest. He denied a history of drug supply claiming that this was a one-off venture despite his criminal history contradicting this information.[35]
4. The Tribunal has given weight to the psychological assessment report from Ms Erica Zhou and Mr Mitchell John McLean dated 9 February 2024 which was prepared for his sentencing before the District Cout on 15 February 2024. The report noted that the Applicant's offending behaviour appeared to have been motivated by the need to support his ice dependence and that at the time of the index offences, the Applicant would have met the criteria for severe methamphetamine use disorder. It was noted that at the time of assessment, his condition appeared to be in sustained remission, and he was in a controlled environment with restricted access to drugs. It was believed there was a nexus between the Applicant's methamphetamine use disorder and the index offence. His prognosis with respect to his methamphetamine use disorder was considered good. The Applicant's abstinence and engagement with the drug rehabilitation program were considered favourable prognostic indicators. Overall, the Applicant's risk of general reoffending appeared to be low, as per the Risk-Need-Responsiivity (RNR) model. It was believed that the level of intervention needed to manage the applicant's risk was low and as the Applicant's index offending appeared to have occurred within the context of his ice dependence, his risk of reoffending rested heavily on his ability to maintain abstinence.[36] However, the Tribunal accepts the Respondent's contention that the positive prognosis and rehabilitation prospects assessed by Ms Zhou and Mr McLean in their report dated 9 February 2024 were undermined once the Applicant continued to use drugs whilst imprisoned.
5. In the sentencing remarks, Justice Harris stated that there was little material upon which he could find that the Applicant was genuinely remorseful. It was noted that the psychological report referred to him stating he had feelings of regret and being ashamed and that he now hates drugs and wants to return to the normal life he had before he began to use ice. However, His Honour noted that while the Applicant may well be remorseful, he was "not satisfied on balance and his favour" that he was. Despite the absence of a finding of remorse, having regard to the totality of the material, Judge Harris was of the view the Applicant's risk of reoffending was low to average and his prospects of rehabilitation at least reasonable.[37]
6. The Tribunal has also given weight to the Pre-release report prepared by Corrective Services NSW Community Corrections which assessed the Applicant at a T2 medium-low risk of reoffending according to the Level of Service Inventory - Revised. It was noted that the Applicant had verbalised since experiencing separation from his ex-wife and experiencing financial stress he commenced his offending behaviour after associating with anti-social peers. His index offence represents an escalation in his supply of illicit substance charges. The Applicant accepted limited responsibility for the offence however was able to recognise the negative impact it has caused to the greater community. The Tribunal notes that with respect to responsivity, the report provided that the Applicant stated his willingness to undertake intervention to address his criminogenic needs. However, it was observed that the Applicant had received 4 institutional misconduct charges during his time in custody two of which were for possession of drugs. With respect to his response to supervision, it was noted that the Applicant's previous response to a Community Corrections Order was characterised by poor attendance which ultimately resulted in him receiving formal warnings due to compliance issues and that the index offence was committed prior to the expiration of the Community Corrections Order.
7. The Tribunal has however given more weight to the recent report prepared by Mr Tim Watson-Munro dated 16 February 2026 submitted by the Applicant. Mr Watson-Munro stated that the Applicant presented as a co-operative though psychologically troubled man. It was noted that the Applicant described a complex clinical and developmental history and of significance, in the lead-up to his offending he had had developed a significant substance use disorder as a means of self-medication against a backdrop of experiencing emotional and financial duress related to the breakdown of his marriage and losing his restaurant due to COVID-19 restrictions. The Applicant was said to have expressed appropriate remorse for his behaviour and maintained that he is now entirely substance free, which has been the case since he was transferred to immigration detention (noting that whilst in custody he continued to use illicit drugs including methamphetamine). Mr Watson-Munro observed that the Applicant's rehabilitation is very much in its early phase. He has had no treatment in custody or immigration detention, and this is clearly indicated referable to the issue of reducing his risk of recidivism. Mr Watson-Munro stated that he believes the Applicant's current risk of reoffending is moderate, trending towards low and that with ongoing psychotherapy, maintaining a position of abstinence, gaining work in the Australian community, in addition to the support of his uncles, coupled with his expression of remorse and improved judgment, the Applicant's prognosis will continue to improve.[38]
8. During the hearing, Mr Watson-Munro was asked by the Applicant's representative to explain his assessment of the Applicant's current risk of reoffending as moderate trending to low. Mr Watson-Munro noted that he had been provided with two sentencing assessment reports, one report related to earlier matters in the local court which assessed the risk of the Applicant reoffending as low at that time and the other report proximate to the index offending which elevated the risk of the Applicant reoffending from low to moderate-low. Mr Watson-Munro also observed that a psychologist was of the view the Applicant's risk of offending was low. Mr Watson-Munro explained that he believed the risk is moderate on the basis that the Applicant offended between the local court matter and being presented in the District Court of NSW. He also noted that the Applicant has not had any consistent therapeutic intervention. Although the applicant had undertaken 10 sessions of the SMART Recovery program, that is educative and not therapy. Mr Watson-Munro stated that while the Applicant indicated that he is keen to have treatment, until that commences and he develops insight, or better insight, into his conduct, one could not really describe the Applicant's risk of reoffending low.
9. The Tribunal accepts on the information before it that the Applicant's drug use was a predominant factor in his offending. The Applicant's evidence in the hearing was that he began taking methylamphetamine (or ice) in 2016/2017. It has been submitted that the Applicant's divorce from his then wife and the closure of his restaurant and other COVID-19 related circumstances created major stress for the Applicant which resulted in his drug addiction increasing and that his offending was precipitated by these factors. The Tribunal notes the Applicant's evidence in the hearing that his relationship with his wife ended in 2016 or 2017. With respect to the closure of his business, the Applicant claimed in the hearing that the last business he owned was in 2019. He explained that he started the business in 2019, but it only was in operation for a week or so and then COVID-19 started. The Tribunal acknowledges the Respondent's submission that the Applicant's last offence occurred in June 2022, so the dates do not match up. Considering all the evidence before it, the Tribunal is satisfied that the breakdown of the Applicant's marriage and the closure of his restaurant contributed to the Applicant's increased use of drugs. However, it is not satisfied that the Applicant's offending in 2022 is attributable to these life events which occurred several years earlier.
10. In the Applicant's statement to the Tribunal,[39] he acknowledged the seriousness of his offending, the harm his offending caused to individuals and the Australian community and the actions he is actively taking to change his life. The Tribunal has also taken into consideration the evidence provided by members of the Applicant's extended family regarding the Applicant's demonstration of a significant level of remorse and shame and their strong belief that he will not re-offend because he has taken responsibility for his actions and understands the consequences of his behaviour, both legally and personally. In this respect, the Tribunal refers to KP's evidence during the hearing regarding the family's expectation that the Applicant continues to refrain from using drugs if he wishes to continue to be a part of their family network. The Tribunal accepts the Applicant has expressed regret for his past offending and the impact that it has had, particularly with respect to his relationship with his wife and son. It also accepts the Applicant's evidence during the hearing that his relationship with his family members, both immediate and extended, are strong motivating forces for him not to re-offend.
11. The Tribunal accepts on the evidence before it, particularly the evidence of PP and KP, that the Applicant's family members in Australia constitute a significant protective factor. It accepts that the Applicant's uncle and his cousin PP have both expressed a willingness to house the Applicant on his release and that PP is prepared to employ the Applicant in his tiling business. The Tribunal accepts the Applicant's family members in Australia are committed to supporting the Applicant in re-establishing some stability in his life and remain accountable.[40] However, it has also taken into consideration the Respondent's submission that the Applicant's family did not prevent the Applicant offending previously and there is no compelling evidence to suggest the same or similar support would be any more effective in the future.
12. With respect to the rehabilitation the Applicant has achieved, the Applicant stated that since his incarceration and detention, he has taken concrete steps towards rehabilitation, having engaged in online educational courses and structured rehabilitation programs, including SMART Recovery, which has assisted him in understanding his thinking patterns, recognise triggers and develop healthier coping strategies and bible study programs which have encouraged accountability, reflection and personal responsibility.[41]
13. The Tribunal accepts the Applicant has completed various courses whilst he has been imprisoned and in immigration detention including Understanding Drug and Alcohol Abuses, Understanding Addictions, Stress Management, Personality Development and How to Improve Your Concentration, as evidenced by the certificates of completion submitted.[42] While the Applicant asserted that he had not undertaken these activities for appearance or convenience and that they represented a genuine effort to change, the Tribunal found the Applicant's evidence during the hearing regarding what he has learnt from these programs vague and limited in nature, as compared to his written evidence. The Tribunal notes when asked by his representative during the second day of the hearing about the impact the SMART Recovery program has had on his life, the Applicant stated, "it helped" him and that it teaches him "how to live as a human being". The Tribunal highlights the Applicant's confirmation that there was no problem with the interpreter, in response to his representative's query as to whether "everything is going fine with the interpreter" following his answer to the representative's question. The Tribunal finds the Applicant's inability to articulate in any detail his learnings from participating in the SMART Recovery program or its influence on him raises concerns regarding the potential value and effectiveness of his engagement in this program in maintaining his current abstinence and reducing the risk of him reoffending. To this end, the Tribunal has also taken into consideration the Applicant's evidence in the hearing, when asked by his representative about the courses he had completed whilst incarcerated, because his English language standard is "not that good", the majority of the time other people had to explain it to him. The Applicant subsequently went on to say that he had learned that drugs are not good to the health of the body, they are not good to the society and family and there are many problems arising from that.
14. The Tribunal has taken into consideration the Respondent's submission regarding the Applicant's use of drugs in prison after completing the Positive Lifestyle Programme in 2023 and the Remand Addiction Program in 2024 being indicative of the Applicant not effectively onboarding rehabilitation resources to curb his addiction. The Applicant's evidence in the hearing was that he last took drugs in March or April 2025, which was when he was in prison. This is supported by evidence before the Tribunal from the NSW Department of Corrective Services.[43] The Tribunal accepts the Respondent's submission that the fact the Applicant was able to procure drugs in a controlled environment works against him with respect to the likelihood of him maintaining his abstinence. Further, the Respondent noted that the Applicant had committed offences while under a corrections order and his participation with requirements under those orders have been described as poor and he was found difficult to engage.
15. Although the Tribunal is satisfied the Applicant has engaged in rehabilitative programs to address factors relevant to his offending, particularly his use of drugs, having regard to the circumstances in which his engagement has occurred, that being whilst he has been incarcerated and in immigration detention, that his abstinence has been of a relatively short duration (8 months according to his evidence in the hearing) and within a controlled environment, and his poor engagement in the community in the past, the Tribunal has some reservations as to the long term effectiveness of the changes the Applicant has made in his life. The Tribunal notes the Applicant's evidence that it is his intention to resume working within the hospitality industry if he is released into the community. The Tribunal refers to the psychological assessment report dated 9 February 2024 in which it was stated that the Applicant could be at risk of using drugs to cope with stress, especially if he were to return to his previous job.[44] When asked about this in the hearing by his representative, particularly if he was concerned that the stress of a cooking job might lead him to want to take drugs to deal with the stress, the Applicant responded he will not take drugs because he had only taken drugs for five years. The Tribunal observes that this does not appear to be consistent with the Applicant's evidence that he began using drugs in 2016/2017 and last used in March/April 2025. It is also of the view it demonstrates a lack of insight into substance abuse. When this is taken into consideration with Mr Watson-Munro's cautionary note that the Applicant's rehabilitation is very much in its early stages and that he has not received any treatment for his underlying addiction[45], the Tribunal considers the likelihood of the Applicant engaging in further criminal or serious conduct is moderate.

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

1. In considering the need to protect the Australian community from harm, Direction 110 provides that decision-makers should have regard to the government's view that the Australian community's tolerance of any risk of future harm becomes lower as the seriousness of the potential harm increases and that some conduct and the harm that would be caused, if it were to be repeated, is so serious that any risk that it may be repeated may be unacceptable.[46]
2. Taking into consideration the nature of the harm to individuals or the Australian community should the Applicant engage in further criminal or other serious conduct related to drug supply and possession is serious, and the likelihood of the Applicant engaging in further criminal or other serious conduct is moderate, the Tribunal considers the risk to the Australian community should the Applicant commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct is moderate.

Conclusion: 8.1 The protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct

1. Having considered the nature and the seriousness of the Applicant's conduct to date and the risk to the Australian community should the Applicant commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct as moderate, the Tribunal concludes that this primary consideration weighs heavily in favour of not revoking the visa cancellation.

1. The second primary consideration in Direction 110 relates to family violence and is said to reflect the Australian Government's serious concern about conferring on non-citizens who engage in family violence, the privilege of entering or remaining in Australia. The government's concerns in this regard are said to be proportionate to the seriousness of the family violence engaged in by a non-citizen.[47]
2. The consideration is relevant where the person has been convicted or otherwise had charges proven of family violence, or there is information or evidence from independent sources indicating the Applicant has committed family violence.[48] There is no evidence of any family violence committed by the applicant, as agreed by the parties. Accordingly, the Tribunal gives this primary consideration neutral weight.

8.3 The strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia

1. The third primary consideration requires the Tribunal to consider the impact of the non-revocation 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 the right to remain in Australia indefinitely. It also requires the Tribunal to consider the strength, nature, and duration of any other ties the non-citizen has to the community.
2. Immediate family members is not defined in the Direction or the Act however the definition of member of the immediate family in regulation 1.12AA[49] limits this to an adult's spouse or de facto partner and dependent children. The applicant confirmed in the hearing that his daughter resides in Malaysia. The applicant also has a son, who is an Australian citizen. In the hearing the Applicant stated that he has no knowledge of where his son is living. However, in the Personal Circumstances Form the Applicant declared that his son was living in Hong Kong.[50] In the Applicant's statement dated 10 February 2026 he stated that his son is living overseas with his wife.[51] The Tribunal is therefore satisfied on the information before it that the Applicant does not have any immediate family members in Australia.
3. The Tribunal accepts the applicant has several extended family members, who are Australian citizens, living in Australia. Despite the Applicant's representative's assertion, the Tribunal observes that the Applicant's evidence is clear that his brother does not reside in Australia but in the United Kingdom.[52] Further, the Tribunal is not satisfied on the material before it that his brother is an Australian citizen, permanent resident or person with an indefinite right to remain in Australia. It refers to the Applicant's personal circumstances form in which he declared his brother's nationality as "Malaysia".[53]
4. The Applicant's representative submitted that the Applicant enjoys close relationships with his aunts, uncles, a brother and their families in Australia and these family members are extremely supportive of the Applicant. The representative noted, that as indicated in their witness statements, the Applicant's family members are willing to provide the Applicant with accommodation and support if he is released from immigration detention.[54]
5. The Applicant claims to have two uncles, an uncle-in-law, an aunt, seven cousins and five nieces and nephews in Australia.[55] The Tribunal has taken into consideration the numerous letters provided by the Applicant's family members[56] and accepts the Applicant has a strong and supportive bond with them. It accepts that members of his family are committed to assisting him with re-establishing stability in his life, maintain employment and remain accountable.[57] To this end, the Tribunal refers to the evidence of the Applicant's cousin PP during the hearing that he is willing to provide the Applicant with a place to live and employment in his tiling business. The Tribunal accepts PP and KP's evidence that the Applicant is an important member of their family network and that his presence has been missed over the last few years whilst he has been incarcerated and in detention. Accordingly, it accepts that if the Applicant was removed from Australia, this would have a negative impact on his extended family members.
6. With respect to the Applicant's employment, the representative submitted that the applicant has managed and owned multiple restaurants over his career as a chef and restaurant owner and that he looks forward to reopening his restaurant and working in the restaurant industry in the future, if he is allowed to remain in Australia. The representative highlighted the fact that the occupation of Chef is currently in demand in Australia, particularly in regional areas where there is a significant shortage of this particular profession.[58]
7. In response, the Respondent contends that the Applicant's employment contributions must be moderated in circumstances where the Applicant admitted to using drugs to support his work patterns.[59] Also, with respect to the demand for chefs in Australia, the Respondent submitted that this was irrelevant to cl 8.3 which requires consideration of existing ties and links to Australia.
8. The Tribunal accepts that the Applicant has an extensive employment history within the hospitality industry in Australia and that through this experience he has made social links, particularly within the Asian community in Newcastle, as KP explained.
9. The Respondent submitted in circumstances where the Applicant has engaged in relatively frequent criminal conduct and spent several years in custody, as opposed to contributing to the benefit of the Australian community, the quality of the Applicant's ties to Australia have diminished: Ali v Ministers for Home Affairs [2018] FCA 1895 at [21].[60] Overall, the Respondent contended that the Applicant's ties to Australia are low to moderate and that this primary consideration carries low to moderate weighting in favour of revocation.
10. The Tribunal accepts that Australia has been the Applicant's home for the last 23 years, having arrived in Australia at the age of 17, which it does not consider to be in the Applicant's formative years. The Tribunal accepts during this time the Applicant has worked within the hospitality industry as a chef and cook, including operating his own businesses, and has established social ties within the Australian community. The Tribunal also accepts that the Applicant has family ties to Australia through his connection with members of his extended family. Considering all the evidence before it, the Tribunal places moderate weight on the strength, nature and duration of the Applicant's ties to Australia in favour of revoking the decision to cancel his visa.

8.4 Best interest of minor children in Australia affected by the decision

1. The best interest of minor children in Australia is the fourth of the primary considerations outlined in the Direction.[61] 'Minor' is defined as a person who is under 18 years old. The Direction provides that if there are two or more relevant children, the best interests of each child should be given individual consideration to the extent that their interests may differ.[62]
2. The Applicant is uncle to four minor children in Australia, the children of his cousins, PP and EP.
3. The Applicant's evidence in the hearing, when asked about his relationship with these children prior to his incarceration, was that he had a close relationship with them. He would see them two to three times a week at family meals, and he would play with them and take them shopping.
4. The Applicant's representative submitted the Applicant's important and loving family bond with these children is significant and relevant. It was contended beyond the family bond, the Applicant can guide and advise these children as they grow up and face their own challenges in their formative years, particularly as teenagers and young adults, about the dangers and consequences of illegal drugs and engaging in criminal behaviour. This would potentially have great value to the minor children in terms of their lives and career pathways. The Respondent submitted such assertions were speculative, unsupported by evidence and irrelevant to the sub-considerations outlined in cl 8.4(4) of Direction 110.

1. The Tribunal accepts KP's evidence that the Applicant has a good relationship with BP and MP. It accepts that prior to his incarceration and detention, the Applicant regularly saw BP and MP during family dinners. It accepts that they would visit him at the restaurant/shop and the Applicant would come to their home and spend time with them outside of work on weekends or on Monday nights, as KP claimed. KP referred to the Applicant as being the "fun uncle", who makes jokes and spoils them a little bit. She spoke in particular of BP's love for the Applicant and how he speaks to the Applicant about his soccer and asks when he will be able to come and watch him play.
2. The Tribunal is satisfied that the Applicant has continued to maintain his relationship with BP and MP since he was incarcerated. KP explained in the hearing when she and her husband (PP) speak to the Applicant on the phone the children speak to him to say hello and converse with him about what is going on in their lives. KP confirmed the children have not been to see the Applicant in person as she does not believe it is appropriate for them to attend a prison or detention facility. The Tribunal accepts KP's evidence that if the Applicant was removed from Australia, the BP and MP will be incredibly sad they would not get to see him and that this could ruin the connection they currently have with him, particularly for BP who is a bit older and can recall spending time with the Applicant prior to his incarceration. The Tribunal also notes KP's evidence that while BP and MP could continue to maintain contact with KP with similar arrangements that are currently in place, it would be a bit harder because of the time difference between Malaysia and Australia and BP's sports commitments.
3. The Tribunal accepts that if the Applicant were released into the community, he would continue to maintain a close relationship with BP and MP, particularly in circumstances where he may be living in the same home with them if supported by PP and KP. While the Tribunal accepts the Respondent's submission that the Applicant does not fulfil a parental relationship with BP and MP, it is satisfied that they will be affected to some extent if the Applicant is removed from Australia and therefore considers it is in their best interests for the Applicant to remain in Australia.

1. With respect to EP's children, IP who is 13 years old and XP who is 12 years old (and are both Australian citizens), the Tribunal has taken into consideration EP's evidence during the hearing that the Applicant's relationship with them prior to his incarceration was "fine". EP confirmed their main contact with the Applicant was during family functions. However, the Tribunal notes EP's evidence that he did not go to many family functions because he works a lot but his children know who the Applicant is and would say hello. When asked what sort of relationship his children have with the Applicant, EP stated that they know him but do not know that he has been incarcerated, although he also suggested they might know. His clear evidence was that he had not taken his children to visit the Applicant since he was incarcerated and that he himself had not seen the Applicant for the last 5 to 6 years. EP also confirmed that IP and XP had not had phone contact with the Applicant at all since he was incarcerated, as "that's not the sort of thing I would want to go advertising to the kids".
2. Based on EP's evidence, as discussed above, the Tribunal does not accept the Applicant's relationship with IP and XP could be characterised as being significant and relevant as his representative submitted. Given the somewhat limited extent of IP and XP's contact with the Applicant prior to his incarceration and detention and the lack of any contact he has had with them for what appears at least the last 5 years, the Tribunal is satisfied that the Applicant's removal from Australia would have little to any impact on the best interests of IP and XP.
3. The Respondent contended that the Applicant did not appear to have a materially close relationship with any of the minor children, especially IP and XP. It was noted that a non-revocation decision is likely to result in the continuation of the status quo of the Applicant's relationship with the children who are either having no contact or limited remote contact with him. The Respondent acknowledged that the best interests of some of the children would be best served by a non-revocation decision. Accordingly, the weight given to this consideration should be limited potentially more for BP and MP, as opposed to IP and XP.
4. Taking into consideration the nature of the Applicant's relationship with these four children, the fact he does not play a parental role to any of them and the extent of his contact with them in the last 5 years or so, the Tribunal gives this consideration limited weight towards revoking the cancellation of the Applicant's visa.

1. The fifth primary consideration relates to expectations of the Australian community. Paragraph 8.5 provides that the Australian community expects non-citizens to obey Australian laws while in Australia and that 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 them to enter or remain in Australia.
2. Paragraph 8.5(2) indicates that 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 the person should not be granted or continue to hold a visa, and that the Australian community expects that the Australian Government can and should refuse entry to non-citizens, or cancel their visas, if they raise serious characters concerns through their conduct, in Australia or elsewhere. The Direction identifies specific kinds of conduct considered to raise serious character concerns including acts of family violence and the commission of serious crimes (in this context 'serious crimes' includes crimes of a violent or sexual nature) against women, children and other vulnerable members of the community such as the elderly and disabled.
3. Paragraph 8.5(3) confirms that the stated expectations apply regardless of whether the non-citizen poses a measurable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community. Direction 110 states that the primary consideration is about the expectations of the community, and in this respect, decision-makers should proceed on the basis of the Government's views, as articulated above, without independently assessing the community's expectations in a particular case.[63]
4. The Applicant's representative submitted that the Applicant's low risk of future reoffending, combined with his established professional, employment and family ties in Australia., suggests the Australian community would not necessarily expect that he should lose his visa and be removed from Australia. The representative contended that as the job of the Tribunal is to predict, and not punish, it must focus on making active, information-based decisions that are properly and fully informed by the factors present in the case. It was submitted that while this consideration must be given weight as a primary consideration, the fact that the interpretation in Direction 110 of this is so extreme, rigid and intolerant as to represent an unfair, cruel and ultimately non-representative basis of what the Australian community believes, it should be given low weighting.[64]
5. In the hearing, the Applicant's representative contended that it was not expected that this consideration be given no weight. However, it was submitted that due to the way the consideration is worded, which requires the Tribunal to proceed on the Government's views without independently assessing the community's expectations in a particular case, it should be given low weight.
6. In response, the Respondent submitted the Applicant's representative's contentions as outlined above are an expression of disagreement with policy and seek to import views not permissible as to the expectations of the Australian community. The Respondent referred to cl 8.5(4) of Direction 110 and the decision in FYBR v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCACF 185 at [74]-[75], which as discussed above requires the Tribunal to proceed on the basis of the Government's views as articulated in the Direction, without independently assessing the community's expectations in this case. The Respondent reiterated in the hearing, that the Tribunal is not to undertake an exercise to identify the community's expectations other than those set out in the Direction.
7. The Respondent contends that given the nature and seriousness of the Applicant's offences, including that they involved serious drug offences, the Australian community will expect that his visa remains cancelled. This applies irrespective of whether the Applicant poses a measurable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community. Accordingly, the Respondent submits that this primary consideration weighs very heavily against revocation.[65]
8. The Tribunal has taken into consideration the decision of RCLN v MICMA [2024] FCA 876 which confirms that the assessment of community expectations is not a matter of evidence and does not turn on the personal circumstances of the individual non-citizen.[66] Further, as the High Court stated in Ismail v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2024] HCA 2 with respect to the equivalent paragraph of an earlier version of the Direction:

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.

1. The Tribunal has therefore taken into consideration the principles in paragraph 5.2 of the Direction that the safety of the Australian community is the highest priority of the Australian Government, and its finding that there continues to be a moderate risk of the Applicant reoffending or engaging in serious conduct, as he did in the past.
2. Accordingly, the Tribunal gives this consideration substantial weight in favour of non-revocation of the visa cancellation.

1. Paragraph 9.1(1) of the Direction requires the Tribunal to be mindful that unlawful non-citizens are liable to removal from Australia as soon as reasonably practicable, in accordance with s 198 of the Act and in the meantime, detention under section 189 of the Act (noting also that section 197C of the Act provides that for the purposes of s 198, it is irrelevant whether Australia has non-refoulement obligations in respect of a non-citizen).
2. The Applicant is a citizen of Malaysia and has not raised any claims that would engage Australia's non-refoulement obligations, as confirmed by the Applicant's representative both in writing and in the hearing. Nor does the Tribunal find that there is any evidence before it to suggest that the applicant is at risk of persecution or other forms of serious harm on his return to Malaysia which would enliven Australia's non refoulement obligations.
3. The Tribunal accepts the Respondent's submission that if it affirms the decision under review, the applicant will be liable for removal from Australia as soon as reasonably practicable and will continue to be in immigration detention for a period of time.[67] It also accepts the Applicant will be unable to apply for another visa while in Australia (with the exception of a protection visa) in accordance with s 501E of the Act and would be subject to special return criteria in Schedule 5 of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth). The Tribunal has considered the Respondent's submission that these factors are the intended consequences of the statutory scheme, and which follow a decision not to revoke a visa cancellation, and as such, this consideration should be given neutral weight.
4. The Applicant's representative submitted that the punishment of being expelled from Australia with no opportunity to return is far more severe than violent criminals such as rapists and murderers receive and has the potential to permanently separate and alienate the Applicant from his family members and everyone he knows in Australia. The representative referred to previous Tribunal cases which have established that the law operating as it is intended is not generally considered a "legal consequence" for the purposes of Direction 110 and the obligation on the Tribunal to consider any issues or considerations made by the Applicant. In this respect, the representative highlighted the Applicant's request that it consider the lifetime ban from Australia per PIC 5001 that would be imposed on him if the cancellation decision is not revoked.
5. Taking into consideration the circumstances as outlined above, the Tribunal considers the legal consequences of the decision provides limited weight in favour of revocation.

1. Paragraph 9.2 requires decision makers to 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. Living standards in this context are those that are generally available to citizens of that country.
2. When considering the impediments, the Tribunal must take into account the non-citizen's age and health, any substantial language or cultural barriers and any social, medical and/or economic support available in their home country.
3. The Applicant is a 41-year-old Malaysian citizen who first arrived in Australia in 2002, as a 17-year-old. The Applicant confirmed in the hearing that he returned to Malaysia numerous times to visit his mother and daughter including from 25 December 2010 to 10 January 2011, 25 December 2011 to 9 January 2012, 23 December 2012 to 7 January 2013, 11 February 2013 to 1 May 2013, 21 October 2013 to 16 January 2014 and 19 July 2019 to 30 July 2019.[68]
4. The Tribunal accepts the Respondent's submission that the Applicant would not encounter any cultural or language barriers if he were removed to Malaysia given that he spent his formative years there, had worked there for several years prior to coming to Australia in 2002 and had returned to Malaysia several times since.
5. The Respondent submitted that the Applicant appears to be in good health. In any event, he should have access to the same medical and health services as other Malaysian nationals. Reference was made to the Smart Traveller report on Malaysia which it was contended, evidenced that a good range of medical services are available in the country.[69] The Tribunal accepts the Applicant will have access to medical services he may require.
6. It was submitted by the Applicant's representative that the Applicant has lived and built his entire life in Australia and that he has very limited family resources and no adult employment experience in Malaysia. In response, the Respondent contended the fact the Applicant may not have had adult employment experience in Malaysia is moderated by his familiarity with the language and culture and his skills as a chef, which he is able to apply in Malaysia.
7. While the Applicant suggested in the hearing that his primary work experience in Australia as a chef and a cook would not be of any assistance to him finding employment in Malaysia for various reasons including because the cooking style is different, the Tribunal is satisfied the Applicant has transferable skills acquired through his employment experience working as a chef/cook over many years and running his own restaurant businesses in Australia which will assist him in finding employment in Malaysia. The Tribunal notes the Applicant's representative's contention that the Applicant's lack of suitable qualifications may impact his ability to find employment in Malaysia. However, the Tribunal has weighed this against the Applicant's confirmation in the hearing that before he came to Australia at the age of 17, he began working in Malaysia in hospitality from the age of 13 or 14, first by serving tables and then helping out with other things including in the kitchen with cooking.[70] In circumstances where the Applicant was able to secure employment as a teenager with no prior work experience or training, the Tribunal is satisfied the Applicant's lack of formal qualifications will not be an impediment to him finding employment in Malaysia. The Tribunal also finds the Applicant's representative's submission regarding the extent his convictions in Australia may adversely impact the Applicant's employment in Malaysia, which he noted there was no evidence of "one way or another", purely speculative.
8. The Respondent noted that the Applicant has his daughter in Malaysia, who is employed, as well as his mother, ex-partner and some friends (as confirmed by the Applicant during the hearing). Although the Applicant's evidence in the hearing was that his mother and daughter would not support him if he was removed to Malaysia because his mother is sick, the Tribunal is satisfied the Applicant is likely to have some social support and assistance with re-establishing himself in Malaysia. While the Applicant suggested he will have nowhere to stay, the Tribunal has taken into consideration the fact the Applicant's mother and daughter are living in a home which, according to his mother's evidence, he helped to pay for.[71] Given the significant and ongoing support the Applicant has provided his mother and daughter over a substantial number of years (as detailed by the Applicant's mother in her letter [72]) the Tribunal is satisfied the Applicant would be afforded their assistance in establishing himself and maintaining basic living standards if removed to Malaysia.
9. The Applicant's representative referred to evidence provided during the hearing regarding his mother's ill health and her dependence on him to assist her financially and otherwise. The representative noted that Applicant's testimony that he should be allowed to remain in Australia so he can continue to work and help his mother. While the Tribunal acknowledges the support, particularly financial, the Applicant may have provided his mother (and daughter) in the past especially prior to his incarceration and detention, the Tribunal notes that this consideration focuses on the extent of the impediments the Applicant would face in establishing himself and maintaining basic living standards if he was removed to Malaysia and not what difficulties might be experienced by others who are residing in Malaysia if he was removed from Australia.
10. The Respondent submitted overall, the Applicant is likely to experience some impediments in re-establishing himself in Malaysia. Accordingly, this consideration should be given limited weight in favour or revocation.
11. The Tribunal accepts the evidence provided during the hearing by KP regarding the Applicant's concern about what will happen if he is removed to Malaysia including what opportunities will be available to him and what life there will look like for him. However, taking into consideration all the factors above, the Tribunal gives this consideration limited weight in favour of revoking the decision under review.

1. Paragraph 9.3 requires the Tribunal to consider any impact on Australian business interests if the Applicant is not allowed to enter or remain in Australia. It is not confined to business interests of a particular scale or importance.[73] However, an employment link would generally only be given weight where the non-revocation decision would significantly compromise the delivery of a major project or important service in Australia.[74]
2. The Respondent submitted that there is no evidence that an Australian business interest would be affected by a non-revocation decision and should be given neutral weight. The Applicant's representative agreed in the hearing that this consideration did not apply in the Applicant's case.
3. The Tribunal notes the Applicant's previous work in Australia, the offer of employment with his cousin in his tiling business and his future plans which include possibly opening his own business again. However, there is nothing before the Tribunal to suggest that any of the Applicant's potential positions or roles involves the delivery of a major project or important service in Australia.
4. Accordingly, the Tribunal has given this consideration neutral weight.

1. As discussed above, the Applicant does not pass the character test as defined by section 501 of the Act because he has a "substantial criminal record" as defined in section 501(7) of the Act. The Tribunal has to decide whether there is another reason why the cancellation should be revoked under s 501CA(4), having regard to Ministerial Direction 110. The weight to be given to each factor is a matter for the Tribunal to determine.[75]
2. The Tribunal has had regard to the primary and other considerations in the Direction, the guiding principles as set out in paragraph 5.2 of the Direction and the evidence and material before it. Relevantly, the Tribunal notes that the Direction states the safety of the Australian community is the highest priority and that non-citizens who engage or have engaged in criminal and other serious conduct should expect to be denied the privilege of coming to, or to forfeit the privilege of staying in Australia.
3. For the reasons discussed above, the Tribunal has found the nature and seriousness of the Applicant's conduct to date to be serious and that there is a moderate risk to the community should the Applicant commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct. For this reason, it considers the protection of the Australia community weighs heavily against revocation. It also has found that the expectations of the community weigh strongly against revocation.
4. The Tribunal finds the strength, nature and duration of the Applicant's ties to Australia, the best interest of minor children and extent of the impediments to the Applicant if removed from Australia provides limited weight in favour of revocation.
5. Of the other considerations, the legal consequence of the decision provides some weight in favour of revocation. The impact on Australian business interests is neutral for the reasons provided.
6. While the Tribunal has found that there are a number of considerations which weigh in favour of the Applicant, it has taken into consideration the fact that the primary consideration in 8.1 is generally given greater weight than the other primary considerations.
7. Having weighed all the relevant considerations, for the reasons outlined above, the Tribunal is not satisfied that there is another reason to revoke the original decision to cancel the Applicant's Subclass 155 visa.

1. The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

Solicitor for the Respondent: Mr Alvin Sharma, HWLE Lawyers

[46] Direction 110, pt 2, para 8.1.2(1).

[49] Migration Regulations 1994 - Reg 1.12AA.

[61] Direction 110, pt 2, para 8.4(1), (2).

[63] Direction 110, paragraph 8.5(4) and FYBR v MHA [2019] FCAFC 185.

[66] RCLN v MICMA [2024] FCA 876.

[73] Arachichi v MICMSMA [2022] FCA 1311 at [68]; Rowe v MIAC [2025] FCA 805 at [74].

[74] Direction 110, pt 2, para 9.3(1).

[75] CRNL and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FCAFC 138 at [28] and [35]; Nguyen v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCAFC 128; [2019] 270 FCR 555, [33].