1. On 31 October 2025, the Applicant applied to the Tribunal for review of that decision.[10] A telephone Directions Hearing was held on 19 December 2025 to manage the exchange of relevant documents and materials prior to the hearing of the review application.
2. The hearing took place by video link on 12 and 13 January 2026. Both parties were represented at the hearing.
3. The following documents were marked as exhibits:

(a) Exhibit A1 - Applicant's Tender Bundle (Version 2) filed 6 January 2026.

(b) Exhibit A2 - Applicant's SOFIC in Reply dated 6 January 2026 (Applicant's SOFIC Reply).

(c) Exhibit A3 - Applicant's signed Statutory Declaration dated 6 January 2026 signed 9 January 2026.

(d) Exhibit R1 - Hearing Book (including G Documents filed 17 November 2025, the Minister's updated SOFIC dated 2 January 2026 as well as the Minister's Tender Bundle filed 2 January 2026 being documents received via summons).

1. The Tribunal heard oral evidence from the Applicant, the Applicant's mother, the Applicant's father and the Applicant's 18-year-old daughter. All witnesses except the Applicant's father were cross examined.
2. The Tribunal was also assisted by:

(a) The Applicant's SOFIC dated 22 December 2025 (Applicant's SOFIC);

(b) The Minister's updated SOFIC dated 2 January 2026 (Minister's SOFIC)[11]; and

(c) The Applicant's SOFIC Reply (Exhibit A2).

1. In this statement of reasons, the Tribunal has refrained from using the names of co-accused and relatives and where applicable avoided using such names in any quotes from the sentencing remarks, out of respect for the privacy of those persons. Also, where the Tribunal has further below set out any quoted judicial text, for convenience, it has excluded any footnotes.

Migration Act

1. Under ss 501(3) and (3A), the Minister must cancel a person's visa if he or she is satisfied that the person does not pass the 'character test', and the visa holder is serving a full-time sentence of imprisonment in a custodial institution of the Commonwealth, a State or Territory (Original Decision).
2. Section 501(6)(a) states that a person does not pass the character test if the person has a substantial criminal record.
3. 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.
4. After a person's visa is cancelled under s 501(3A) of the Act, the Minister must give them written notice inviting them to make representations about revocation of the Original Decision. 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. Accordingly, to make a decision under s 501CA(4) of the Act, a decision-maker must first decide whether the person passes the character test under s 501CA(4)(b)(i) of the Act, and only if satisfied that the person does not pass the character test, decide whether, under s 501CA(4)(b)(ii) of the Act, there is another reason why the Original Decision should be revoked.[12]
2. Under section 499(1) of the Act, the Minister may give written directions to a person or body having functions or power under the Act, and a person or body must comply with any direction given by the Minster (section 499(2A)).

1. 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 (Direction 110) dated 7 June 2024.
2. Direction 110 sets out the considerations to be taken into account when considering a request to revoke a cancellation and states: 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. 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. The purpose of this Direction is to guide decision-makers in performing functions or exercising powers under ss 501 and 501CA of the Act.
3. Paragraph 5.2 of Direction 110 sets out the mandatory principles which 'provide the framework within which decision-makers should approach their task of deciding whether to ... revoke a mandatory cancellation under section 501CA'.
4. These principles include the following:

(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) ...

(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) ...

1. Informed by the principles in paragraph 5.2, Paragraph 8 of Direction 110 sets out the primary considerations that must be taken into account when deciding whether to revoke a mandatory cancellation of a non-citizen's visa under s 501CA(4) of the Act:
   • 8.1 protection of the Australian community from criminal or 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 Direction 110 sets out other considerations that must be taken into account, insofar as they are relevant, including:
   • 9.1 Legal consequences of the decision;
   • 9.2 Extent of impediments if removed; and
   • 9.3 Impact on Australian business interests.
3. Paragraph 7 of Direction 110 provides:

(a) Information and evidence from independent and authoritative sources should be given appropriate weight when applying the considerations;

(b) The protection of the Australian community is generally to be given greater weight that other primary considerations, and primary considerations should be given greater weight than the other considerations; and

(c) One or more primary considerations may outweigh other primary considerations.

1. The Applicant, by her counsel, concedes she does not pass the character test in s 501(6)(a) and 501(7)(c) of the Act.[13] Therefore, the sole issue for consideration is whether there is another reason why the Cancellation Decision should be revoked.[14]

1. As noted above, the Applicant concedes she fails the character test in s 501(6) of the Act.[15] That concession is properly made as her failure to pass the character test arises as a matter of law.[16] On the evidence before it, including the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission Check Results Report dated 13 March 2025 (Criminal Record), the Tribunal finds that on 2 August 2023 the Applicant was convicted of two counts of stealing for which she was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more, and for various other offences, for which she was sentenced to concurrent periods of imprisonment.[17]
2. The Tribunal finds the Applicant has a substantial criminal record and does not pass the character test set out in s 501(6)(a) of the Act.

Is there another reason why the Cancellation Decision should be revoked?

1. Given the power to revoke is only enlivened if there is 'another reason', within the meaning of s 501CA(4)(b)(ii) of the Act, and the Applicant's concession as to the character test, all of the evidence and submissions at the hearing were directed at this question.
2. In deciding whether there is 'another reason' why the Cancellation Decision should be revoked, the Tribunal must form a state of satisfaction about the existence or non-existence of 'another reason', which in turn occurs by forming a state of satisfaction about, among other matters, the considerations in Direction 110.[18] The Tribunal must assess and evaluate the factors for and against revocation, and if satisfied that the Cancellation Decision should be revoked, it is obliged to act on that view.[19] In order to meet the requirements of Direction 110, the Tribunal bears the burden first in evaluating the relative significance of the primary and other considerations, and undertaking 'a process of balancing the different considerations, or evaluating them against and in comparison to each other to arrive at a decision whether there is 'another reason' to revoke the Cancellation Decision.[20] Then, as explained by the Full Court in CRNL[21], the Tribunal's task is to 'evaluate the different considerations in relation to each other in a balancing exercise in order to reach the ultimate conclusion.'[22]
3. In making a decision, the Tribunal has considered each of the matters set out Part 2 of Direction 110 in turn, keeping in mind the principles in clause 5.2 of Direction 110.
4. The parties' submissions identified the following primary considerations as being relevant to the Tribunal's decision:

(a) protection of the Australian community[23];

(b) strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia[24];

(c) best interests of minor children[25]; and

(d) expectations of the Australian community[26].

1. The parties' each also identified the legal consequences of the decision[27] and the extent of impediments if removed[28] as being relevant.

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

1. This consideration requires the Tribunal to 'keep in mind that the safety of the Australian community is the highest priority of the Australian Government', and records 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'.
2. Paragraph 8.1(1) requires the Tribunal 'have particular regard to the principle that entering or remaining in Australia is a privilege that Australia confers on non-citizens in the expectation that they are, and have been, law abiding, will respect important institutions, and will not cause or threaten harm to individuals or the Australian community.'
3. Paragraph 8.1(2) requires the Tribunal to give consideration to 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.[29] It also requires an assessment of the likelihood of the Applicant engaging in such conduct.[30] There is no statutory constraint on the way the risk is assessed by the decision-maker other than that there must be a rational and probative basis for the assessment.[31]

1. The Applicant's criminal history, including the offending and sentencing that gave rise to the Cancellation Decision is set out in Annexure A to these reasons. The offending is extensive. Her Criminal Record confirms that the Applicant was found in Queensland to have committed 131 offences between 2005 and 2024 (as an adult).[32] This number excludes the Applicant's criminal history as a juvenile (minor).[33] In light of the decision in Thornton v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs[34], the Tribunal has not had taken into account any of the Applicant's juvenile offending (irrespective of whether a conviction was recorded) when considering this primary consideration.

1. This primary consideration involves taking into account the nature and seriousness of the Applicant's past offending. In BNY23 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [35], the Full Court of the Federal Court (comprising Rangiah and Rofe JJ in the majority) stated that the phrase "nature and seriousness" should be understood as a composite phrase, because the nature of criminal offending may affect its seriousness and vice versa.
2. Paragraph 8.1.1(1) states that when considering the nature and seriousness of the Applicant's criminal offending and other conduct to date, the Tribunal must have regard to a number of factors, which are addressed below. Paragraphs 8.1(1)(a) and (b) of Direction 110 respectively directs the Tribunal to certain types of crimes or conduct 'viewed very seriously by the Australian government and the Australian community'[36] and considered to 'be serious'.[37] The range of conduct that the Tribunal may either consider 'serious' or 'very serious', is not limited to those matters contained in Direction 110.[38]

1. As evidenced in Annexure A, the Applicant's adult criminal offending commenced in 2005 and involved offences of obstruct and assault police. She was then pleaded guilty to contravene a direction and public nuisance. She was convicted of all offences and fined.

1. The Applicant was convicted and fined for breaching bail on 10 February 2012. She then appeared before the District Court of Queensland on 23 August 2012 facing 6 charges: 3 counts of stealing, 2 counts of robbery with actual violence, armed in company/ wounded/ used personal violence, and 3 drug offences. She was sentenced to two years and six months imprisonment for the two counts of robbery with actual violence, armed in company/ wounded/ used personal violence and immediate parole, 12 months' imprisonment for the stealing offence served concurrently with immediate parole and 6 months imprisonment for the two possess dangerous drug offences served concurrently, and immediate parole. She was found guilty but received no further punishment for the possess utensils or pipes for use.
2. The Minister's SOFIC which emphasised the total sentence and conviction, stripped of its factual background, missed the significant point which was that the Applicant was granted immediate parole and hence, served no term of imprisonment for any of her 2011-2012 offending. This was because his Honour Judge Reid noted that the Applicant had a 'minor'[39] criminal history and her 'involvement in these crimes, severe as they were, was relatively minor, being confined to driving the getaway car on each occasion.[40] He noted that 'no physical violence was undertaken'[41] and '[t]here's no suggestion [the Applicant] knew that a knife was to be involved'.[42] His Honour's decision that a period of imprisonment is not required was based on the Applicant's personal circumstances (including that she had three children at that time, that she was pregnant (and due to bleeding was at risk of spontaneous miscarriage), and would likely be required to serve any prison time under protected custody), her 'cooperation with police, [her] expressed desire to give evidence against one of her co-accused [and] her relatively minor criminal history and lesser involvement.'[43]

1. In 2017, she appeared before the Court on nine (9) separate occasions facing 15 charges. Her offending involved one count of stealing, one count of trespass, two counts of unauthorised dealing with shop goods, five counts of failure to appear in accordance with undertaking, two counts of failure to take reasonable care and precaution re syringe or needle, one count of breach of bail, one count of unlawful use of a motor vehicle, aircraft or vessel, one count of breach order and one count of contravene direction or requirement. She received probation orders for three of the offences, was fined in relation to eight of the offences, was sentenced to terms of imprisonment for three offences (two were suspended and one was cumulative) and for the breach of order imposed on 29 August 2017, the suspended sentence was fully imposed.
2. The Applicant's criminal offending continued into 2018 where she racked up a further 16 convictions: six for stealing, three for possessing a dangerous drug, two for unauthorised dealing with shop goods, one for possession of a knife, one for trespass, two for breach of probation orders and one for failure to appear in accordance with undertaking. She received 11 terms of imprisonment: four 9-month terms of imprisonment, three 6-month terms of imprisonment and three 2-month terms of imprisonment. All were suspended for three years. For the breach of her earlier suspended sentence, the suspended sentence was fully imposed and she was sentenced to a further 6-month term of imprisonment (concurrent) suspended for three years.
3. In 2019, the Applicant's offending included stealing, fraud, unauthorised dealing with shop goods, receiving tainted property, and breach of an intensive corrections order. She received terms of imprisonment to be served as Intensive Corrections Orders, but she breached these orders and was sentenced to imprisonment to serve the outstanding balances of the Intensive Corrections Orders.
4. The offending for which His Honour Magistrate Simpson sentenced the Applicant on 23 June 2020 involved five counts of stealing. His Honour commented that the Applicant '...show[s] a complete contempt for the ... law when [she] come[s] back ... time after time for stealing after stealing after stealing.[44]. His Honour' noted the Applicant's past persistent history of stealing concluding that she needs to be punished for her 'persistent behaviour or persistence disobedience to ... behaving within the ... bounds of the law ...;'[45] As a result, she was sentenced to a 'head sentence [of] nine months on each to reflect the totality of [her] offending and [her] persistence'.[46] His Honour also pointed out that he has previously given the Applicant Intensive Corrections Orders to give her 'intensive help because [she] needed help [but she] has stuffed that up, being frank, and [is] back again... [He also observed that just because the stuff she steals involve] 'small amounts of money does not make it ... less serious'.[47]
5. The Tribunal notes that despite the Applicant telling his Honour Magistrate Simpson that he 'will not see no more stealing charges from [her] from [that] day'[48], the Applicant was convicted of 33 more stealing offences (and one attempted stealing offence) between that day in June 2020 and February 2025. She was also sentenced on 21 September 2020 to a term of three months' imprisonment to be served cumulatively for a stealing offence committed on 12 March 2020. And, this is in addition to the 34 other convictions recorded during that same period for assault, assault occasioning bodily harm, obstruct police officers, public nuisance, trespass, contravene police banning order, failure to appear in accordance with an undertaking, possessing dangerous drugs, and other drug related offences.
6. The offending that led to the Cancellation Decision involved convictions in the Magistrates Court of Queensland at Richlands on 2 August 2023 for:

(a) Failure to appear in accordance with undertaking for which the Applicant was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 1 month (cumulative);

(b) Two (2) counts of stealing for which the Applicant was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months (concurrent);

(c) Possessing dangerous drugs, fail to properly dispose of a needle and syringe for which the Applicant was sentenced to a term of 1 month imprisonment (concurrent); and

(d) Twenty-five (25) counts of stealing and 1 count of attempted stealing for which the Applicant was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 9 months (concurrent).

1. The Queensland Transcript of Proceedings from Richlands Magistrates Court before his Honour Acting Magistrate Simpson dated 2 August 2023 details the offending. The stealing primarily involved stealing alcohol from various liquor stores. The value of stolen property was $6,254.89.[49] The Applicant made full admissions and pleaded guilty to all offences.
2. On the Applicant's plea, it was put that the Applicant has 'some underlying mental health issues which are yet to be diagnosed'[50] and agreed with his Honour that 'she steals to fund her addictions'.[51] Her solicitor also informed the Court that she was '... trying to get off methylamphetamine addition, and [had] switched to using alcohol as her drug of choice ... effectively ... in relation to non-alcohol related items ...[she steals them and] sells [them] in order to fund her alcohol habit'.[52]
3. His Honour acting Magistrate Simpson described the Applicant as 'a persistent pest'[53] and 'habitual thief'.[54] His Honour noted that 'section 9, the aspects of punishment focus heavily on rehabilitation and personal deterrence [but the Applicant is] not deterred for a moment by a jail sentence.[55] ... It comes today - in my view ... to these remaining factors: punishment. Straight out punishment. And community protection. Every day she is behind a cell door is every day that Dan Murphy's, BWS and other people don't have their gear stolen from them'.[56] The Applicant's solicitor respectfully disagreed that the Applicant was not deterred by the sentence noting that 'she is obviously afraid that a lengthy sentence of actual incarceration may result in the cancellation of her visa and her being deported back to New Zealand ...'[57] His Honour however went on to note that the Applicant has 'known this forever [and] it hasn't deterred her'.[58]
4. The Applicant's last Court appearance was on 18 February 2025. The offences included a range of violent offences and dishonesty offences. She was convicted and sentenced in relation to 17 offences including common assault, two assault offences occasioning bodily harm and three offences of stealing. The Queensland Police Service Sentencing Schedule for the Assaults Occasioning Bodily harm indicates that the Applicant admitted assaulting the victim by punching them.[59]
5. In his sentencing submissions, the prosecutor told the Court that there are 'drug offences before the Court which is clear in the context of the offending that there's obviously an issue in relation to drugs [but] this 'continuous stealing offending is serious ... [and is] recidivist dishonesty offending.'[60]. He submitted that the Applicant committed assault occasioning bodily harm 'just out of nowhere' [61] by 'punch[ing] somebody to the face whilst carrying on in [a] store'.[62] His concluding submission was that 'a message needs to be sent that the community does not tolerate this type of behaviour and if [the Applicant] continues to engage in this type of behaviour, she will see herself spend more time in prison given her history ...'.[63]
6. The solicitor appearing on behalf of the Applicant submitted in her plea to the Court that the assaults are explained by 'poor impulse control' [64] but rehabilitation is not out of the question, particularly with the recent gap in her criminal history ...'[65] He submitted that she was of good behaviour for about 17 months before this period of offending commenced ... [and she] could be a contributing member of society if she has the requisite supports in place ...'.[66]
7. At the hearing, the Applicant denied 'punching' the victims but said she pleaded guilty. The Tribunal is entitled to receive evidence of a conviction and sentence and to treat it as probative of the factual matters upon which the conviction and sentence are necessarily based.[67] The overwhelming weight of authority is that where the conviction and sentence are the foundation of the exercise of the power vested in the Minister by ss 501(3A) and 501CA(4) of the Act, the Tribunal, when reviewing the decision of the Minister, may not impugn or go behind either the conviction or sentence.[68]
8. The Applicant was sentenced by the Magistrates Court of Queensland at Brisbane to nine months' imprisonment for the offence of Assaults occasioning bodily harm.[69] This sentence was the basis for the mandatory cancellation decision under s 501(3A) of the Act, which gave rise to the subsequent reviewable decision that is before the Tribunal. In those circumstances, it is not open to the Tribunal to go behind the essential facts of that conviction and sentence.[70]

1. In considering the nature and seriousness of the relevant criminal offending or other conduct to date, paragraph 8.1.1(1)(a) and (b) provide non-exhaustive examples of crimes and conduct that is '... viewed very seriously by the Australian Government and the Australian community', or alternatively is '... considered by the Australian Government and the Australian community to be serious'. An example of offending viewed 'very seriously' is 'violent ... crimes', and an example of the type of crime considered 'to be serious', is a 'crime committed against ... officials ... in the performance of their duties.' Paragraph 8.1.1(1)(a) does not require the Tribunal to characterise offending as "very serious"; it only requires that decision-makers have regard to, relevantly, the view of the Australian Government and the Australian community that violent crimes and crimes of a violent nature against women are "very serious". The Tribunal is not bound by that view but is instead required to assess for itself the nature and seriousness of the non-citizen's criminal offending and the weight that should be attributed to that factor.[71]
2. In the Applicant's SOFIC, it is conceded that 'her offending history is lengthy and serious'.[72] It is also conceded that her 'offending includes 'serious stealing offences'[73] and the Applicant 'does not dispute her Criminal Record'.[74]
3. Taking into account the nature of the offending the Tribunal has summarised above, for the purposes of paragraph 8.1.1(1)(a) and (b), the Tribunal is satisfied that:

(a) The Applicant has been convicted of violent crimes such as assault police (on 23 August 2005 and 22 June 2022), robbery with actual violence (23 August 2012), common assault (18 February 2025) and assault occasioning bodily harm (on 18 February 2025). It is satisfied that this offending constitutes 'very serious' offending pursuant to paragraph 8.1.1(1)(a)(i).

(b) The Applicant has more than one hundred convictions for stealing, drug-related and property/dishonesty offences. As his Honour Magistrate Simpson remarked, the Applicant is a habitual thief who shows a complete contempt for the law,[75] and just because the stuff she steals involves 'small amounts of money' does not make her offending less serious.[76] The Tribunal is satisfied that twenty years of frequent, recidivist property offences, dishonesty offences and drug-related offences constitutes 'serious' offending pursuant to paragraph 8.1.1(1)(a)(i).

(c) The Applicant has committed crimes against government officials in the performance of their duties. It is satisfied that the Applicant's convictions for obstruct police and assault police constitutes 'serious' offending pursuant to paragraph 8.1.1(1)(b)(ii).

1. The Tribunal accepts the Minister's submission that 'regard must be had to the fact that the Applicant has been sentenced to multiple terms of imprisonment for her offending ...'.[77] The Applicant's Criminal Record and the assessments made by the Courts in sentencing the Applicant (noted above) indicate that the Applicant's personal circumstances and the fact that her criminality was very much at the lower end of the scale, meant that personal deterrence and rehabilitation were a heavy focus on the punishment the Applicant received for much of her offending. However, post 2020 (and specifically in 2022, 2023 and 2025) the Court's sentencing remarks (referenced above) indicate that sentencing was directed at 'straight out punishment' and 'community protection'. This resulted in her being sentenced to 18 terms of imprisonment ranging from 14 days to 12 months.[78]
2. The Tribunal considers sentences of imprisonment as the most serious in the sentencing hierarchy. The Tribunal also accepts the Minister's submission that 'where a Court has sentenced an offender to a term of custodial imprisonment, this should be viewed as a reflection of the objective seriousness of the offences involved.'[79]
3. The number of terms of imprisonment imposed on the Applicant (albeit with some being served concurrently) engage the auspices of paragraph 8.1.1(1)(c) of the Direction which facilitates a finding that the totality of the Applicant's offending in this country has been of a "very serious" nature.

1. Based on the available material before it, there is nothing to indicate that victim impact statements were tendered in respect of any of the offences including the Assault occasioning bodily harm. This subparagraph is not applicable to the Tribunal's assessment.

1. Having regard to the Applicant's Criminal Record and her concession, the Tribunal finds that the Applicant has a long criminal history and is a recidivist offender. In the Applicant's SOFIC, it was submitted that 'there were significant periods during which the Applicant did not engage in offending. In particular, it was submitted that 'there was no offending between 12 September 2006 and 10 February 2012 (the date of her Court appearance), and again between 23 August 2012 and 30 May 2017.'[80] It was submitted that these extended periods of lawful behaviour demonstrate that the Applicant is capable of complying with the law when appropriately supported and stable.
2. The Tribunal accepts on the available evidence that there were gaps in the Applicant's offending. However, according to the Applicant's Criminal Record (which is accepted by the Applicant),[81] on 23 August 2012, the Applicant was convicted of stealing on 26 December 2009 and for five other offences committed in 2011. Accordingly, during the period of 2006 to 2017, the Tribunal accepts there was a gap in the Applicant's offending between 24 August 2006 and 26 December 2009, then 28 September 2011 and 28 April 2017.[82] The Tribunal would note that the Applicant gave birth to three of her four children during this period (namely, December 2007, July 2009, and December 2010).
3. Based on the available evidence including her Criminal Record, the Tribunal accepts that there is a likely cumulative effect of her repeated offending in the Australian community. The Tribunal places significant weight on these subparagraphs.

1. In her incoming passenger card dated 6 August 2005, the Applicant provided false and misleading information to the Department when she answered that she did not have any criminal convictions. This issue was not pressed by the Minister, and the Applicant was not given the opportunity to provide an explanation for her false and misleading answer.
2. In these circumstances and taking into account that the conviction related to her juvenile offending, the Tribunal has not had regard to this or given it any weight in its assessment of the nature and seriousness of her conduct.

1. The Minister submits that it is 'highly relevant and 'weighs heavily against the Applicant that she has reoffended after being given three warnings by the Minister.'[83]
2. The first formal written warning was issued by a delegate of the Minister on 18 September 2013 (First Warning). A decision not to cancel the Applicant's visa under s 501(2) of the Act was made and included the First Warning as follows:

'Please note that visa cancellation may be reconsidered if you commit further offences or otherwise breach the character test in future. Disregard of this warning will weigh heavily against you if your case is reconsidered.'

1. The second formal written warning was issued by a delegate of the Minister on 22 January 2019 (Second Warning). The Applicant's visa was mandatorily cancelled under s 501(3A) of the Act on 23 November 2018 (2018 Cancellation).[84] After consideration of the Applicant's response, a delegate of the Minister decided to revoke the 2018 Cancellation and issued the Second Warning[85] in the following terms:

'Warning: if you engage in further criminal or other serious conduct, this may again result in your visa being cancelled on character grounds.

NOTE: This decision does not mean that your case cannot be considered again on character grounds.

FURTHER WARNING: The delegate issues the following warning to you:

This case was finely balanced given your ongoing offending, despite previously being warned by the Department. You are very fortunate to have your visa cancellation revoked. You need to be absolutely aware, and understand that, if you commit any further criminal offence your visa may be cancelled and, you may be removed to New Zealand permanently.

It is in your best interests, and your children's best interests that you do not reoffend.'

1. The third formal written warning was issued by a delegate of the Minister on 13 April 2021 (Third Warning). The Applicant's visa was again mandatorily cancelled under s 501(3A) of the Act on 6 July 2020 (2020 Cancellation).[86] Again, after consideration of the Applicant's response, a delegate of the Minister decided to revoke the 2020 Cancellation and issued the Third Warning in the following terms[87]:

'Warning: if you engage in further criminal or other serious conduct, this may again

result in your visa being cancelled on character grounds.

In addition, the decision-maker wishes to convey the following information specifically to you;

"A stern warning should be issued to her on this occasion, that she must refrain from further offending and continue to rehabilitate especially given her criminal history involving substance abuses. She should not expect any further leniency especially as this will be her third section 501 warning. The protection and safety of the Australian community is of paramount importance and a salient consideration. The Government has a zero tolerance policy on serious offending and this kind of behaviour will not be tolerated again."'

1. There is in evidence copies of the notifications the Department sent the Applicant which included the three warnings: the First Warning was sent by registered post to the Applicant's then residential address, the Second Warning was delivered to her by hand at Villawood Detention Centre, and the Third Warning was sent to her authorised representative at Sisters Inside. There are no signed acknowledgements of receipt in evidence.
2. The Applicant was cross examined by the Minister's representative about the First, Second and Third Warnings. It was put to the Applicant that she had known since at least September 2013 that if she committed another offence in Australia her visa may be cancelled. The Applicant said that she could not 'remember knowing this'. The Minister's representative then took the Applicant through each of the three warnings which arose after the Minister determined either not to cancel or visa or to revoke the previous mandatory cancellations. The Applicant agreed that 'she may have' received the revocation letters with the warnings, but she did not specifically recall receiving the warnings. She also gave evidence that Sisters Inside were assisting her to 'get her visa back' in 2020. In re-examination, the Applicant gave evidence that when she received the warnings, she was abusing drugs and alcohol.
3. The Applicant's Criminal Record demonstrates that the Applicant:

(a) reoffended less than three months after being given notice that her 2018 Cancellation was revoked on 22 January 2019 and she was issued with the Second Warning;

(b) reoffended by committing a stealing offence on 23 September 2021 after her 2020 Cancellation was revoked on 13 April 2021 and she was issued with the Third Warning,

(c) has been convicted of four violent offences and committed in excess of seventy offences (including breaches of orders and failures to appear) since she was issued the Third Warning.

1. Accordingly, the Tribunal is satisfied that the Applicant did receive the First and Second Warning, and her authorised representative received the Third Warning. Having regard to the evidence before it, the Tribunal accepts the Minister's submission that heavy weight should be placed on the warnings.

1. The Applicant has been living in Australia since she was twelve years of age. According to Departmental movement records, she has returned to New Zealand since then on three occasions for very short vacations.[88] She has not travelled to any other country.[89] There is no evidence before the Tribunal that she has was committed any offences in New Zealand. This subparagraph is not applicable to the Tribunal's assessment.

Conclusion: paragraph 8.1.1 Nature and seriousness of the conduct

1. The Tribunal has had regard to the totality of the Applicant's criminal history and has sought to apply the relevant componentry of paragraph 8.1.1(1) of Direction 110 to it. Overall, those relevant components inform the Tribunal's finding that the nature and seriousness of the Applicant's criminal offending should be characterised as "very serious".

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

1. The Tribunal has had regard to the Government's view in paragraph 8.1.2 of Direction 110 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.
2. In assessing the risk that may be posed by the non-citizen to the Australian community, the Tribunal has also had regard to, cumulatively, the nature of the harm to individuals or the Australian community should the Applicant engage in further criminal or other serious conduct[90], and the likelihood of the Applicant engaging in further criminal or other serious conduct, taking into account:
   1. Information and evidence of the Applicant reoffending and
   2. Evidence of rehabilitation achieved by the time of the decision, giving weight to time spent in the community since her most recent offending.[91]
3. As Moshinsky J observed in BSJ16 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection[92], the Tribunal, is not under any duty to evaluate the risk of harm to the Australian community in any particular way or to ascribe any particular characterisation to the quality of the risk.[93] It needs only to adopt a rational and probative approach to the assessment.[94]
4. In essence, the Tribunal must then, on a cumulative basis, have regard to the nature of the harm to individuals or the Australian community should the Applicant engage in further criminal conduct, and the likelihood of her doing so.

Nature of harm should the Applicant engaged in further criminal or other serious conduct

1. For the reasons set out above, the Tribunal has found that the nature of the Applicant's offending is very serious. Whilst the offending history predominantly comprises a range of property, dishonesty offences and drug related offences, as well as a number of breaches of bail or failure to attend court, there is also a number of violent offences including the assaults occasioning bodily harm on 17 October 2024 (discussed above).
2. The Tribunal accepts the Minister's submissions that should the Applicant reoffend by committing violent offences, this would result in physical and psychological harm to victims. There is a real physical and financial harm to the wider community, which would arise if the worst of the Applicant's offences, being the violence offences were to be repeated. The Tribunal is satisfied that the potential for harm is real if she were to reoffend.
3. If the Applicant were to commit further property or dishonesty offences, 'the nature of the harm that may result includes financial loss to the Australian community members and businesses.'[95] The Tribunal notes His Honour Magistrate Simpson's remarks, that the Applicant is a persistent pest'[96] and 'every day she is behind a cell door is every day that Dan Murphy's, BWS and other people don't have their gear stolen from them'.[97] The risk of further harm also has the potential impost on the community of the costs of dealing with the Applicant's potential future adverse behaviour.
4. Accordingly, the Tribunal considers the potential harm to the Australian community if the Applicant were to reoffend in a similar manner to her past history to be serious. It also considers the nature of the harm which may be caused if the Applicant reoffended to be moderate.

Likelihood of the Applicant engaging in further criminal or serious conduct or evidence of rehabilitation

1. The Tribunal has considered the likelihood of any further re-offending by the Applicant as well as evidence of any rehabilitation by her. The Tribunal has considered and taken into account the Applicant's Statutory Declaration,[98] the parties' SOFICs and supporting material (as discussed below) including the Applicant's mental health, her history of drug and alcohol abuse and evidence of rehabilitation.
2. In her statutory declaration signed 8 January 2026[99], among other things, the Applicant declared that her 'reintegration plan involves relocating from Sydney to Melbourne so [she] can reunite with [her] family and make a genuine fresh start.[100] She declared that she is 'committed to making real and lasting change'.[101]
3. In the Applicant's SOFIC, it was contended that there were 'factors contributing to the [her] past conduct' including that the Applicant has experienced significant psychological and person challenges arising from longstanding alcohol abuse and drug dependence. It was contended that these challenges provide important context and assist in explaining the circumstances that led to the Applicant's offending.'[102] The Applicant's representative also contended that 'these underlying challenges constitute relevant mitigating factors and should be taken into account when assessing the weight to be attributed to the Applicant's past conduct.'[103]
4. Rehabilitation and remorse were addressed in the Applicant's SOFIC as follows:

(a) The Applicant has made a considered decision to relocate to Melbourne in order to reunite with her parents and children. At the time of her offending, she was unable to relocate from Queensland to be closer to her family. Her parents and children are willing and able to provide her with strong emotional and practical support. Importantly, the Applicant has expressed a genuine commitment and is in the process of engaging with rehabilitation and support services, including Odyssey Victoria and Odyssey House NSW (On-line programs).

(b) The Applicant accepts that she has experienced serious drug and alcohol issues and suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Her family understands that her previous reluctance to reunite with them and relocate to Melbourne was influenced by these underlying issues. Following extensive discussions, the Applicant and her family have agreed that the most appropriate pathway for her rehabilitation and long-term stability is for her to move to Melbourne and reside with her parents. She is willing and motivated to reach out to and engage with support services located close to her parents' home.

1. At the hearing, the Applicant maintained that she presents no risk of reoffending because she is 'recovering from drug addiction' and has been taking medically prescribed suboxone for the past three or four months. It is helping her not crave or think about wanting drugs anymore. She gave evidence that she has attended five Smart Recovery Sessions, with her last attendance being on 6 January 2026. Medical records tendered indicate that she attended sessions on 9 December 2025[104], 16 December 2025[105], 23 December 2025[106] and 31 December 2025.[107] The Applicant's representative indicated that the 6 January 2026 record of attendance is not included in Exhibit A1 because it was filed on 5 January 2026. The Tribunal accepts this to be the case.
2. The Applicant's evidence was that if her visa is reinstated 'she will go straight [to Melbourne to be] with her family' (her parents, and four children). She will also look 'to get a cleaning job' and indicated that she will 'definitely be making an effort to get through her past addiction and to follow through medication she is on'. She informed the Tribunal that she has contacted Odyssey House in Melbourne, will undertake any programs they offer, has looked up other support services in Victoria (such as Beyond Blue, Crisis Mental health, Lifeline, 1800 Respect and Alcohol and Drug Direct line), will have access to a general medical practitioner so she can continue taking her medication (suboxone) and 'her parents will help and guide her along the way to making sure she is doing well and good.' She also pointed out that she stayed on suboxone for the whole time she was in the community in 2024 and finished her parole in the community. Under cross examination, the Applicant conceded that she has only made preliminary enquiries with these support services and does not have a GP in place yet, but she will put this in place when she gets released.
3. The Minister made the following contentions:

(a) There is insufficient evidence to support a conclusion that the applicant is now rehabilitated.[108]

(b) The Tribunal should instead conclude that the risk of further offending by the Applicant is unacceptable for the following reasons:

(i) There is no psychological opinion providing any professional risk assessment of the applicant's likelihood of reoffending before the Tribunal.[109]

(ii) The Applicant's Criminal Record demonstrates the Applicant has committed an extensive number of crimes in Australia. Previous terms of imprisonment have not deterred her from reoffending[110], nor has the possibility of visa cancellation of removal from Australia. [111] The Applicant's offending has escalated in number and seriousness since the Third Warning. [112]

(iii) The Tribunal should not accept the Applicant's claim that she is remorseful. These claims have been made in the past and she has reoffended.[113]

(iv) The Tribunal can have no confidence that the Applicant will cease offending on the basis of her children. She has committed a lot of her offending despite being a mother.[114]

(v) There is insufficient evidence before the Tribunal to demonstrate that the issues of alcohol and drug abuse which she claims are the root cause and motivation for her offending in the past have been resolved.[115]

(vi) The Applicant has provided no independent evidence of any rehabilitation undertaken to address the factors that left to her offending in the past.[116]

(vii) The Applicant's recent conduct whilst in immigration detention also does not suggest that she has rehabilitated. There are recent reports of the Applicant being abusive and aggressive to staff and other detainees.[117]

1. In relation to her risk of reoffending and her drug and alcohol addiction:

(a) There is no evidence before the Tribunal on the information and evidence on the risk of the Applicant reoffending. There are no sentencing remarks addressing the risk of reoffending or rehabilitation before the Tribunal with respect to the Applicant's most recent sentencing on 18 February 2025, or the sentencing on 2 August 2023.

(b) The Applicant told the Department on 16 July 2020 that she will be attending Alcohol Anonymous (AA) and Narcotics Anonymous (NA).[118] Based on the evidence before it, the Tribunal is not satisfied that she ever attended AA or NA in the community after this date.

(c) On 2 August 2023, it was submitted to the Court by way of plea that the Applicant 'previously ... was an ice addict' [but] she's trying to get off her methylamphetamine addiction ... and has switched to using alcohol as her drug of choice'.[119]

(d) The Applicant had been taking suboxone (injected by syringe), for opioid dependence for around one year prior to being imprisoned on 14 December 2024.[120] On 18 February 2025, the Applicant pleaded guilty to drug-related offences including possess dangerous drugs and property suspected of having been used in connection with the commission of a drug. The Applicant told the Tribunal that she had suboxone which had been prescribed by her doctor and told this to police but was unable to produce a prescription to the police. This is consistent with the information in the Queensland Police Service Sentencing Schedule.[121] However, based on the available evidence and in the absence of evidence from her former general practitioner, the Tribunal is not satisfied that suboxone was medically prescribed prior to her incarceration and subsequent transfer to Villawood.

(e) The Applicant was abusing alcohol prior to being imprisoned on 14 December 2024.[122]

(f) The Applicant reoffended more than a dozen times in 2024 whilst she was taking suboxone.

(g) The Applicant told an Immigration Detention nurse she had undertaken rehabilitation at New Farm.[123] Based on the lack of independent evidence to substantiate her claim including where and when she attended the course, how long the course went for and whether the program undertaken was aimed to address the factors that led to her offending in the past, the Tribunal places no weight on this evidence in its assessment.

(h) Despite the Applicant's claims that she attended AA for 'the last few months' she was in prison in 2025,[124] there is no evidence before the Tribunal from Southern Queensland Correctional Centre to attest to this. These records could have easily been obtained by way of summons and tendered in evidence. In their absence, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the Applicant attended AA classes at Southern Queensland Correctional Centre. The Applicant has had not attended any Alcohol and Drug courses since her most recent convictions in 2025 and there is no other evidence before the Tribunal indicating that the Applicant made any effort to rehabilitate during her time in prison.

(i) The Applicant has refused to attend the medical centre to take her suboxone treatment on several occasions since she has been in immigration detention.[125]

(j) On 29 September 2025, a code blue was initiated by Detention Service Officers due to the Applicant having a possible drug overdose. The Applicant was not conscious but breathing. Two doses of naloxone were administered which awoke her from her unconsciousness.[126]

(k) The Applicant attended a session on 'Ice Effects and Harm Reduction Strategies on 23 October 2025.[127]

(l) The Applicant attended sessions on 9 December 2025[128], 16 December 2025[129], 23 December 2025[130], 31 December 2025[131] and 6 January 2025.

(m) The Applicant has been involved in a number of incidents since she has been at Villawood Immigration Detention Centre.[132] In addition to those mentioned by the Minister in paragraph 94(b)(vii) above, there were incidents involving physical altercations with other detainees (and the Applicant using a plastic drink bottle as a weapon), the Applicant assaulting another detainee, and the Applicant displaying threatening staff.[133]

(n) The Applicant has not spent any time in the community since she was imprisoned on 14 December 2024 and subsequently transferred to Villawood Immigration Detention Centre.

1. The Tribunal accepts the seriousness of the Applicant's offending is such that any risk of reoffending is unacceptable.
2. The Tribunal accepts the Minister's contentions in paragraphs 94(a), 94(b)(i) - 94(b)(ii), and 94(b)(iv) - 94 (b)(vii). With respect to the Minister's contention in paragraph 94(b)(iii), the Tribunal has considered the Applicant's remorse. The Tribunal accepts that the Applicant has expressed remorse in the past (including in a letter to the Department dated 23 November 2020) and has reoffended. The Tribunal also accepts that the Applicant has experienced serious drug and alcohol issues and as a result may struggle with feelings of remorse due to her addiction and the fact that she cannot recall a lot of her offending. For this reason, the Tribunal accepts that she may have some remorse but gives it limited weight in its assessment.
3. The Tribunal accepts that it is her intention to try to remain 'drug and alcohol free' once released. However, on the available evidence, it is apparent that the Applicant has claimed to be drug free at different times over multiple years and she has always relapsed. The evidence also indicates that she has taken drugs in prison and overdosed in immigration detention late last year whilst on suboxone program.
4. On the evidence before it, the Tribunal finds the Applicant has not participated in any intensive rehabilitation programs or an Intensity Violence Intervention Program, although the Tribunal accepts the Applicant has attended five sessions in the Smart Recovery Program and other very short sessions.
5. The Tribunal has given weight to the Applicant's oral evidence that if she remains in Australia, on her release she would immediately move to Melbourne to be with her family including her parents and children, away from the influence of her friends in Brisbane. She regrets her past actions and 'will definitely be making an effort to get through her past addiction' and keep taking the suboxone medication. Being with her family and having support networks, getting back to work, and being a positive influence in her children's life will be protective factors against the risk of her reoffending. She also indicated she would undertake courses that would support her in the community.
6. The difficulty with relying on any of her stated intentions singularly or together as indicating some lower likelihood of re-offending is that the Applicant lacks a genuine understanding of her wrongdoing and a genuine acceptance of responsibility. One example is in her Personal Circumstances Form where the Applicant explains her last stealing offences as not being drug related but as stealing for herself like this justified her wrongdoing.[134]
7. The Tribunal remains concerned that the Applicant has only undertaken five rehabilitation sessions, she has not completed any Alcohol and Drug programs (aside from a one-hour session in ice addiction) since her most recent incarceration and detention. The Tribunal also notes in each of the past sentencing remarks, the context of the Applicant's offending behaviour involved abusing alcohol or the drug methylamphetamine or both.
8. The Tribunal also notes that the Applicant has not spent any time the community since the Applicant's most recent offending behaviour in late 2024.
9. The Tribunal accepts the submissions that the Applicant had no family or work available to her prior to her most recent offending behaviour. Some reliance is placed on the fact that if released into the community the Applicant would have the support of a strong network of family including her four children led no doubt by her father and mother. Based on their evidence before the Tribunal, it does not doubt the motivations of her parents or her eighteen-year-old daughter, but the simple fact remains that that network did not assist much in the past even when they resided in Queensland. The Tribunal is not persuaded that the protective factors described by the Applicant provide her with new skills and strategies, or significantly change her circumstances, or the overall assessment that she represents a high risk of reoffending including in a violent manner.
10. The Tribunal finds the risk to the Australian community should the Applicant commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct is high.
11. Having considered all the factors mentioned above, cumulatively, the Tribunal considers the protection of the Australian community weighs heavily in favour of affirming the decision under review.

8.2 Family violence committed by the Applicant

1. This consideration is irrelevant to the circumstances of the Applicant.

8.3 The strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia

1. In accordance with paragraph 8.3, the Tribunal must consider the strength, nature and duration of the Applicant's ties in Australia.
2. As noted above, the Applicant arrived in Australia as a twelve-year-old girl with her parents, her two sisters and her brother. She has lived in Australia for more thirty years. Her last visit to New Zealand was 2005 to attend her grandmother's funeral.
3. The Tribunal has also considered the information provided by the Applicant in her Personal Circumstance Form provided to the Department,[135] including information about her family, siblings, aunts and cousins. The Applicant declared that she has a sister-in-law, four aunts and uncles, ten nieces and nephews and six cousins in Australia.[136] The Tribunal has also considered her Statutory Declaration wherein she states that all her support, all her children and her parents are in Australia. She states that she knows that her 'children would be very sad if [she] were removed from Australia ...'.[137]
4. The Applicant's mother and father made Statutory Declarations in support of the Applicant.[138]
5. The Applicant's mother is 65 years of age. She resides in Frankston, Victoria with her husband and the Applicant's four children. Her mother stated that she cares for the Applicant's four children with her consent but has had serious health problems and although she is stable at the moment, she is not getting younger. Her mother stated her belief that the Applicant's offending is directly related to her long-standing struggles with drug and alcohol addiction. She stated that the Applicant has strong family support in Australia and believes if she is permitted to live with them in Victoria that she can continue her rehabilitation, live a law-abiding life and reunite with her children in a stable supportive and supervised environment. She also stated that the Applicant's children need their mother and it is not in their best interests to relocate to New Zealand. Considering their emotional and developmental needs, it is in their best interest if the Applicant remains in Australia and continues to be physically.
6. At the hearing, the Applicant's mother gave evidence that she has cancer and she needs as much help as she can with the children. She is undertaking treatment and it is time the children reside with their mother: they need her.
7. The Applicant's father is 74 years of age. He is a retired truck driver. He declared that he and his wife are the full-time carers of the Applicant's children. He referenced the Applicant's problems with the law due to her drug and alcohol abuse and indicated his view that she was not of sound mind when she committed her offending. He noted that the Applicant's four children are Australian citizens and identify as Aboriginal. Relocating then to New Zealand would not be in their best interest particularly since they are of the age where their school and friends are in Australia. The Applicant's father requested that the Tribunal take into account his age, his wife's health and the fact that the children need their mother in Australia. He, his wife and the Applicant's children would be heartbroken if the Applicant was forced to return to New Zealand.
8. The Applicant's eldest daughter also provided a handwritten letter in support.[139] In essence, she states that she has great concerns with her mother going back to New Zealand as her family reside in Australia. She indicates that 'her 'siblings all agree with [her] statement as [they] need [their mum] back in [their] lives. [They] will support her in every way and with whatever it takes.'
9. During the hearing, the Tribunal heard evidence from the Applicant about her family and ties to Australia. The Tribunal accepts the Applicant has four children who lives with her mother in Melbourne, and who she has telephone contact with on a regular basis - mostly weekly. The Applicant's two sisters now both live in New Zealand but the Applicant does not have a close relationship with them, and she has not had much recent contact with either of them. Her brother and his family reside in Melbourne. The Applicant has a good relationship with her parents, her children and her brother and ongoing contact.
10. There is no evidence before the Tribunal about whether the Applicant has regular or ongoing contact with her uncle/aunts or her cousins.
11. The Tribunal accepts the Applicant has been in Australia since she arrived at the age of 12 in 1996. She has spent 30 years in Australia and aside from one year, attended high school in Australia. The Tribunal accepts the Applicant has held a number of jobs since leaving school and worked for a few years until she had her children. The Tribunal accepts that she has family in Australia as noted above.
12. While the Tribunal accepts the Applicant has ties to Australia through her family, the Tribunal also notes the Applicant has spent a significant amount of time away from her parents and children since 2016 when her parents moved to Melbourne which has limited her ties and face to face contact with her family and children in Australia over that period of time. She has seen her children one a year since 2016 and has not seen them physically since November 2024. Nevertheless, having heard oral evidence from her parents and eldest daughter, it is plain that the Applicant has deep and enduring ties with them and it is a credit to her (and them) that she has developed and maintained these ties despite her drug and alcohol addiction and the impact of that on her life and the poor choices she has made. The Tribunal does accept affirming the decision under review would cause some distress and emotional hardship for the Applicant's family who are Australian citizens, Australian permanent residents and/or people who have an indefinite right to remain in Australia, particularly her children.
13. The Tribunal has also had regard and given some weight to the positive contributions the Applicant made to the Australian community during the periods she was working as a factory hand, in a carvery, in hair salons, hospitality, and as a cleaner.[140]
14. The Minister has acknowledged the Applicant's ties and contributions to Australia and accepted that this consideration weighs in favour of revoking the Cancellation Decision. However, the Minister contended that the consideration does not outweigh the primary considerations of the protection of the Australian community and the expectations of the Australian community, that weigh heavily in favour of non-revocation. The latter issue is dealt with below.
15. The Tribunal accepts the strength, nature and duration of the Applicant's ties to Australia through her history and years spent in Australia, and family weighs moderately in favour of revoking the Cancellation Decision.

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

1. The Tribunal must consider the best interests of the minor children affected by the decision. Paragraph 8.4(1) requires the Tribunal to make a determination about whether non-revocation under s 501CA is, or is not in the best interest of any child affected by the decision (who is, or would be under 18 years of age at the time when the decision is expected to be made).
2. Based on the Applicant's oral evidence during the hearing, which was generally consistent with the information she had previously provided to the Department about her family, including their birth certificates[141], the Tribunal accepts the Applicant has four children, three are under the age of 18 years old at the time of the Tribunal's decision:

• a daughter who was born in Australia on 7 December 2007 (18-year-old daughter).
  • a son who was born in Australia on 9 July 2009 (16-year-old son).
  • a daughter who was born in Australia on 8 December 2012 (15-year-old daughter).
  • a son who was born on 2 February 2013 (12-year-old son).

3. Of relevance to the Tribunal's decision is the best interests of the three youngest children who are minors. The 18-year-old daughter turned 18 about 5 weeks before the hearing and gave evidence before the Tribunal. She also submitted a handwritten statement which the Tribunal has had regard to. She claims to speak on behalf of her other siblings.
4. The Applicant's representative submitted that the best interests of the children were that the cancellation of her visa be revoked and that significant weight should be given to this consideration having regard to her close relationship with all the children and the significant detrimental emotional impact her removal would have on them.
5. The Applicant confirmed she is not in a relationship with any of the children's fathers. The two eldest children have the same father. His name does not appear on the 16-year-old's birth certificate. The Applicant told the Tribunal that is because he was in prison when their son was born. The 12-year-old son and 15-year-old daughter both have different fathers. Their fathers' names do not appear on their birth certificates. The Applicant was not in a long-term relationship with the 15-year-old daughter's father at the time she became pregnant, and he is not involved in her life. The other two fathers reside in Brisbane and provide support from a distance. Since relocating to Melbourne, the children see their fathers once a year when their grandparents take them to Queensland to see their parents if they are not incarcerated. The Applicant's relationship with the fathers of her 12- and 16-year-old sons ended because of domestic violence.
6. According to the Applicant and her parents' consistent evidence at the hearing, the three minor children have lived with their maternal grandparents for many years including when they were still living in Brisbane. The Applicant's 12-year-old son and 15-year-old daughter have resided with them and been cared by them since they were newborn babies. The Applicant's 16-year-old son has resided with his grandparents since he was about two years old. The three minor children all moved to Melbourne with the Applicant's parents in 2016. They have lived in Melbourne and been in the full-time care of their grandparents since that time.
7. Since 2016, the Applicant has seen her children face to face on average once per year. If she is not incarcerated, her parents have brought the children to Queensland to see the Applicant and their fathers. Otherwise, they have remained in semi-regular contact via telephone calls.
8. At the time of the hearing, the Applicant has not seen any of the minor children for approximately two years. The Applicant stated that she last saw them in November 2024 but the Applicant's mother said the last visit was Christmas about two years ago. That aligns with the balance of the evidence before the Tribunal which indicates that the Applicant was imprisoned on 14 December 2024, meaning her last in person visit with her children was the previous Christmas 2023.
9. The Applicant also confirmed her time in prison and detention has meant he has had limited contact with her children over extended periods, there have been long periods of absence, and her mother has been their carer. The Applicant's mother told the Tribunal that the children want to be with their mother and would very much like to be reunited and have their mother back in their lives. She said that the children do not want to go to New Zealand and are happy in Australia. They attend school here and all their friends and family live in Australia. The Applicant's father echoed this evidence.
10. The Applicant's 18-year-old daughter gave evidence at the hearing. Her evidence was by telephone. The Tribunal was impressed by her evidence she was a caring, articulate and intelligent young lady. She had an understanding of her mother's struggles and that she was facing deportation. She said her mum is not a bad person and she needs her mum back in her life. She said she misses her. She expressed to the Tribunal that she does not want her mother to go to New Zealand. It has nothing to offer her. She said she would not go to New Zealand even to visit if her mother was returned there. She said she did not mean to sound disrespectful, but she does not plan in going to New Zealand and everything she knows about that country will not help her mum. Her evidence was emotive and indicated that her mother's circumstances had impacted her greatly and her absence affected her. She demonstrated great maturity.
11. The Tribunal notes the Applicant's mother's evidence that none of the minor children have passports. She told the Tribunal obtaining consent of the known Australian citizen fathers was difficult and would cause the children unnecessary disruption and distress.[142] The fact that she is not the legal guardian of the children also impacts her ability to obtain Australian passports.
12. While the Tribunal accepts the Applicant loves her children and wants to be reunited with them and wishes to become more involved in her children's lives, and the Tribunal has considered the information provided in the Applicant's Personal Circumstances Form[143] and her statement that a negative decision would impact her minor children immensely, the Tribunal also notes the children have been being cared for by their grandparents for a very many years. The Tribunal also notes the Applicant's oral evidence under questioning that she lost contact with her parents and children between November 2024 and July 2025 as a result of losing her phone and contact numbers. Since then, she has been in Immigration Detention in Sydney and her contact with them is limited to telephone calls approximately once a week or so. This has really been the case since her children moved to Melbourne 10 years ago.
13. While the children have different fathers, and ages they all share the same familial relationship with the Applicant and the Applicant did not suggest their interests were materially different. For this reason, the Tribunal has considered the best interests of each of each child to the extent that their interests differ.[144]
14. The Tribunal accepts that the 16-year-old son has resided with his grandparents since he was less than two years old, and the 15-year-old and 12-year-old since they were newborns. The Tribunal accepts that they have resided with their grandparents in Melbourne since 2016 and their mother has continued to reside in Brisbane.
15. The Tribunal accepts that the grandparents have fulfilled the parental role for each of the minor children since they commenced residing with them in Brisbane. This has continued since they relocated to Melbourne.[145] Based on the available evidence, the Tribunal accepts that they had face-to-face contact with their mother when they were living in Brisbane and the Applicant lived with them at the same address as well for a period.
16. The Tribunal accepts that they have maintained a relationship with their mother by telephone since they relocated to Melbourne in 2016. The Tribunal also accepts that they saw their mother in Queensland on average once a year (except when she was in prison) for a few days when they visited Queensland with their grandparents between 2016 and 2023. There have been long periods of absence and they have not seen their mother in person since Christmas 2023. They have not seen their mother since December 2024 as a result of the Applicant being in custody or immigration detention.[146]
17. There is no medical or other evidence before the Tribunal indicating that he could not maintain a relationship with his mother via telephone or video if she returned to New Zealand.[147] The Tribunal does however accept on the available evidence that any separation from the Applicant would affect the minor children.
18. With respect to the 15-year-old daughter and 16-year-old son, there is limited time before they turn 18 for the Applicant to play a positive parental role. While noting the Applicant's oral evidence and the information she provided in her Personal Circumstances Form as well as the letter of support the 18-year-old daughter provided, the other minor children have not provided a statement in relation to their own views.[148] The Tribunal however accepts based on his 18-year-old sister's evidence that they need their mother back in their life to play a parental role and will support and help her in any way possible.
19. There is no evidence before the Tribunal that any of the minor children have been or is at risk to family violence perpetrated by the Applicant or has otherwise been abused or neglected by the Applicant or that have suffered physical or emotional trauma arising from the Applicant's conduct. On the contrary, according to the Applicant's Statutory Declaration, when she was at her worst and in and out of custody, her parents stepped in and cared for her children, and ensuring that her children are well cared for, loved and protected has 'always been the most important part of [her] life.'[149]
20. The Tribunal finds it is in the best interests of the three minor children affected by the decision if the Cancellation Decision is revoked. Given the factors noted above in paragraphs 136-140, the Tribunal considers moderate weight should be given in favour of revoking of the Cancellation Decision to the best interests of minor children in Australia affected by the decision.

1. The Tribunal is required to consider the expectations of the Australian community as set out in paragraph 8.5 of Direction 110.
2. 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. This deems what the expectations of the community are, and precludes the Tribunal from undertaking any assessment of what, in any particular factual circumstances, the actual expectations of the Australian community might be.[150]
3. Paragraph 8.5(2) of Direction 110 sets out examples of conduct that would raise serious character concerns that the Australian community would expect that a person who undertook such conduct would not be granted a visa, including the commission of crimes against government officials in the performance of their duties.
4. Paragraph 8.5(2) also provides guidance in stating 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 that the person ... should not ... continue to hold a visa."

1. According to paragraph 8.5(3), the above expectations of the Australian community apply regardless of whether the non-citizen poses an immeasurable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community.
2. The Applicant accepted that this consideration weighs against revocation.[151]
3. The Minister contends that 'observing the norm stipulated in paragraph [8.5(2)] and in accordance with the guidance provided by Principles 5.2 of Direction 110, the Australian community would expect that the Applicant should not continue to hold a visa on account of the nature of the character concerns and offences.'[152]
4. As noted above, the Tribunal has found the Applicant has committed crimes of a violent nature, and crimes against government officials in the performance of their duties (i.e., police), and the Tribunal finds the Applicant has engaged in conduct in breach of the Australian community's expectations.
5. The Tribunal also finds the nature of the offences is such that the Australian community would expect the Applicant should not continue to hold a visa.
6. The Tribunal considers the expectations of the Australian community weighs heavily in favour of not revoking the Cancellation Decision and in favour of affirming the decision under review.

1. The Tribunal is required to consider the legal consequences of a decision on a non-citizen including having regard to Australia's non-refoulment obligations in respect of unlawful non-citizens.[153] The Applicant is a citizen of New Zealand and has not made any claims that would engage Australia's non-refoulment obligations, and there is nothing on the material before the Tribunal that suggests such obligations are enlivened.
2. This consideration also makes reference to the range of legal consequences of a decision not to revoke a cancellation decision including:

(a) the Applicant's unlawful status;

(b) becoming subject to detention and/or removal pursuant to ss 189, 196, 197C and 98 of the Act;

(c) the refusal of other visa applications and cancellation of other visa pursuant to s 501F of the Act;

(d) a prohibition on applying for other visas, pursuant to s 501E; and

(e) periods of exclusion and special return criteria may apply, pursuant to s 503 of the Act and special return criteria 5001 of the Migration Regulation 1994 (Cth) (Migration Regulation).

1. The Tribunal accepts that if it affirms the decision under review the Applicant will remain an unlawful non-citizen[154] and will remain in immigration detention and be liable for removal from Australia as soon as reasonably practicable.[155] This will mean her plans to remain in Australia and live and work in Melbourne with her parents and children will not occur.
2. The Tribunal accepts that the removal and visa limitations are an intended consequence of the operation of s 501 of the Act. Parliament has not evinced any preference as to the outcome of a Tribunal review, and a positive outcome (and revocation of the Cancellation Decision) will of course mean the Applicant avoids the adverse consequences of the legislative scheme including being detained, removed from Australia, returned to her home country, prohibited from applying for another visa or being subject to periods of exclusion and special return criteria.[156]
3. The Tribunal has had regard to the Applicant's SOFIC Reply which specifically deals with the legal consequences of not revoking the Cancellation Decision. The Minister contends that the legal consequences of non-revocation should be given neutral weight by the Tribunal in its assessment. The Applicant contends that the Minster is incorrect in its interpretation and the weight it affords. She contends that 'the foreseeable and enduring consequences of exclusion, including the impact on the Applicant's parental responsibilities and family unity, warrant significantly greater weight than that attributed by the Minister in the decision-making process.'[157] It is her submission that substantial weight should be given to this consideration in favour of revoking the Cancellation Decision.
4. The Tribunal accepts the Applicant's submission that the Applicant will be subjected to indefinite exclusion from Australia by operation of the Special Return Criteria in clause 5001(c) of Schedule 5 of the Migration Regulation. The Tribunal also accepts that this may result in a permanent bar unless the Minister were to exercise his personal intervention powers under s 195A of the Act.
5. The Tribunal has also considered the Minister's submissions that in the absence of engagement of Australia's non-refoulment obligations, in the circumstances where the Applicant's removal and indefinite exclusion from Australia is the intended purpose of the statutory scheme, and these purposes underlie the considerations of Direction 110, the Tribunal should afford neutral weight in favour of revocation. In doing so, the Tribunal has considered the Federal Court's decision in Stoneley.[158] In that case, as the Minister pointed out, the Federal Court rejected the applicant's argument that the Tribunal was in error by affording neutral weight to the legal consequences.[159]
6. Having said that, the Tribunal is conscious of the consequences that may flow for her children and in particular the three minor children if the Cancellation Decision is not revoked. The Tribunal accepts that in this Applicant's situation, removal would effectively mean that she is unable to see her children face to face for a further period. For the minor children, this could be between one and a half years and five years being when they are of age and can apply for a passport without the signed consent of their biological fathers to visit the Applicant in New Zealand. For her 18-year-old daughter, this may be years if not forever, given her evidence that she will never visit New Zealand even if the Applicant is forced to return there.
7. Notwithstanding, on the evidence before it and in accepting that removal and visa limitations are an intended consequence of the operation of s 501, the Tribunal does not accept the Applicant's contention that this consideration weighs significantly in favour of revocation. The Tribunal does however consider that the legal consequences of a non-revocation decision weigh slightly in favour of revoking the Cancellation Decision.

1. By virtue of paragraph 9.2 of Direction 110, the Tribunal must take into account the matters identified in sub-paragraphs 9.2(1)(a), (b) and (c) of Direction 110 and consider the extent of any impediments the Applicant may face if removed from Australia to his home country, in establishing herself and maintaining basic living standards (in the context of what is generally available to other citizens of that country), taking into account his age, health and whether there are substantial language or cultural barriers; and any social, medical and/or economic support available to them in that country.
2. The Tribunal accepts the Applicant is 42 years old and has lived in Australia since she was 12, and that she attended all but one year of high school in Australia. She has been a drug user for in excess of twenty years. While the Applicant stated in her Personal Circumstances Form that she has been diagnosed with PTSD there is no medical evidence before the Tribunal confirming that the Applicant has ever received a formal mental health diagnosis. However, based on the evidence that she was a victim of prolonged domestic violence over many years in two different relationships, the Tribunal is prepared to give her the benefit of the doubt and accept that she has suffered from PTSD.
3. The evidence indicates that the Applicant has been taking suboxone in an attempt to address her opioid dependence. However, the evidence before the Tribunal indicates that she has relapsed as recently as September 2025. Given that drug addiction is a difficult disease to manage, there is at least a possibility, if not probability, that she will relapse as a result of the stress of removal to New Zealand and the attendant issues this will lead to including mental health consequences arising out of the forced separation and estrangement from her children and family.
4. On the basis of the Applicant's oral evidence, the Tribunal finds the Applicant's two sisters live in New Zealand. The Applicant does not have a relationship with either sister and does not expect to be able to live with them if she returns to New Zealand or to obtain any support from either of them.
5. The Tribunal finds the Applicant was born in New Zealand and lived there until the age of 12 and has family in New Zealand. While the Applicant has been in Australia for most of her life, the Tribunal does not consider there are substantial language or cultural barriers that would be an impediment if she was removed to New Zealand.
6. The Tribunal accepts the submissions that the Applicant would have access to the same level of medical, social welfare and economic support as what is generally available to other citizens of New Zealand, and that the health support she currently requires would be available to her in New Zealand. The Tribunal also accepts on the available evidence that the Applicant would receive structured support to re-establish her life in New Zealand if returned through the operation of the Returning Offenders (Management and Information) Act 2013, 'which is designed to facilitate the safe reintegration of 'returning prisoners' into the New Zealand community. [The Tribunal accepts the Minister's submission that] the Applicant appears to meet the criteria for a determination that she is a 'returning prisoner' for the purposes of s 117 of the Returning Offenders Act.'[160]
7. While the Tribunal accepts the Applicant wishes to remain in Australia with her children and family being removed to New Zealand would cause some level of practical, emotional and financial distress and hardship, given her lack of family support in New Zealand, there is also nothing to suggest that the Applicant would be unable to re-establish herself and maintain basic living standards there, and the Tribunal does not consider the distress and hardship would be ongoing or insurmountable.
8. The Tribunal considers the extent of impediments if removed weigh slightly in favour of revoking the decision under review.

1. The Tribunal must consider any impact on Australian business interests if the Applicant is not allowed to enter or remain in Australia, noting that an employment link would generally only be given weight where the decision under section 501CA would significantly compromise the delivery of a major project, or delivery of an important service in Australia.
2. This consideration does not arise in this case.

1. The Tribunal has found that the Applicant does not pass the character test under s 501 of the Act.
2. The Tribunal has therefore considered whether there is another reason why the Cancellation Decision should be revoked, giving regard to the considerations set out in Direction 110, and weighing the various considerations in accordance with paragraph 7 of Direction 110, and in accordance with the authorities which bind the Tribunal's decision making.
3. There has been extensive judicial consideration of how the exercise of balancing and weighing the considerations contained in the relevant Ministerial Directions is to be undertaken.[161] Relevantly, the Full Court of the Federal Court considered the operation of Direction 90 in CRNL. As discussed above, the Court found that the Tribunal must weigh the various primary and other relevant considerations outlined in the Direction (in this case Direction no. 110) against each other and undertake an evaluation of whether there was 'another reason' why the cancellation should be revoked.
4. In determining the weight to be applied to each consideration, the Tribunal has considered all the primary and other relevant considerations and weighed them in light of the evidence and findings and according to the guidance provided by Direction no. 110. The Tribunal has ascribed weight to each of the primary and other relevant considerations under Direction no. 110 and explained the basis upon which it has assessed the weight to be given to each consideration.
5. Of the primary considerations, the Tribunal finds:

(a) The protection of the Australian community and the expectations of the Australian community both weigh heavily against revocation;

(b) The consideration of family violence is not relevant to the Applicant's case;

(c) The strength, nature and duration of the Applicant's ties to Australia weigh moderately in favour of revocation;

(d) The best interests of minor children weighs moderately in favour of revocation;

(e) The expectations of the Australia community weighs heavily against revocation.

1. In relation to the other considerations, the Tribunal finds:

(a) The legal consequences of the decision weigh slightly in favour of revocation of the Cancellation Decision;

(b) The extent of impediments if removed weigh slightly in favour of revocation of the Cancellation Decision.

1. Paragraph 7(2) of Direction 110 states that primary considerations should generally be given greater weight than the other considerations. It further provides that the primary consideration of the protection of the Australian community is generally to be given greater weight than other primary considerations. There is nothing before the Tribunal which would cause it to find that that general principle should not apply in the Applicant's case.
2. Having weighed the considerations in favour of the revocation of the cancellation of the Applicant's visa and the considerations against revocation, the Tribunal finds that the considerations weighing against revocation being the primary considerations of the protection of the Australian community and the expectations of the Australian community outweigh those weighing in favour of revocation being the primary considerations of the strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia and the best interests of minor children and the other considerations of the legal consequences and the extent of impediments if removed.
3. In summary, having regard to all of the primary considerations, and the relevant other considerations in Direction 110, the Tribunal is not satisfied that there is 'another reason' why the Cancellation Decision should be revoked. The correct or preferable decision is to affirm the decision under review.

1. The decision of the delegate dated 29 October 2025, not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant's Class TY Subclass 444 Special Category (Temporary) visa under s 501CA(4) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) is affirmed.

Solicitor for the Applicant: Wendy Milojkovic of Milojkovic Visa and Migration

Solicitor for the Minister: Jake Kyranis of Sparke Helmore

Robbery with actual violence, armed in company/ wounded/ used personal violence

Failure to take reasonable care and precaution re syringe or needle

Unlawful use of a motor vehicle, aircraft or vessel

Failure to take reasonable care and precaution re syringe or needle

Conviction Recorded, Imprisonment 6 months each charge

Imprisonment: 4 months served as Intensive Correction Order

Failure to properly dispose of a needle and syringe

Failure to take reasonable care & precautions in respect of a syringe or needle

Failure to take reasonable care & precautions in respect of a syringe or needle

Failure to properly dispose of a needle and syringe

Failure to take reasonable care & precautions in respect of a syringe or needle

Possess property suspected of having been used in connection with commission of a drug

Failure to properly dispose of a needle and syringe

Possess property suspected of having been used in connection with the commission of a drug

Failure to take reasonable care & precautions in respect of a syringe or needle

Failure to take reasonable care & precautions in respect of a syringe or needle

[1] Minister's SOFIC at [4]; Exhibit R1, HB 192.

[11] The Tribunal notes that the Minister filed a SOFIC dated 4 December 2025 (HB 175). An updated SOFIC was filed on 2 January 2026. The Minister's representative told the Tribunal at the hearing the Minister was relying on the updated version, being the Minister's SOFIC (HB 191).

[12] HZCP v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2019] FCAFC 202; (2019) 273 FCR 121 (HZCP), 136 [66].

[13] Applicant's SOFIC, at [7], HB 164.

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

[18] YNQY v MIBP [2017] FCA 1466 at [59].

[19] Gaspar v MIBP [2016] FCA 1166 at [38]. See also Au v MICMSMA [2022] FCAFC 125.

[20] C_RNL v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs_ [2023] FCAFC 138 (CRNL) at [27]-[28] per Colvin, Stewart and Jackson JJ.

[21] The Full Court in CRNL was considering Direction No 90, but it's observations would apply to Direction no. 110.

[31] See; BSJ16 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 1181 [68] per Moshinsky J; Hambledon v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 7 [41] per Kenny J.

[33] The Court had held that it is an error to take into account an applicant's criminal history as a juvenile. (see; Thornton v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2022] FCAFC 23 per Katzmann SC, Derrington and Banks-Smith JJ) at [38]. See also, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko-Wallsend (1986) 162 CLR 24 at 40.

[34] HB 46, Offending where Court appearances were held on 13 May 1999, 5 May 2000 and 30 March 2001 at Beenleigh Children's Court, Holland Magistrates Court and Wynnum Magistrates Court.

[35] [2025] FCAFC 14; 307 FCR 150 at [96].

[36] Paragraph 8.1(1)(a) of Direction 110.

[37] Paragraph 8.1(1)(b) of Direction 110.

[38] Paragraph 8.1(1)(a)-(b) of Direction 110.

[39] Transcript of Proceedings, Queensland District Court, 23 August 2012, p.1-3, line 11, HB 219.

[44] Transcript of Proceedings, Sentencing remarks of Magistrate Simpson, Richlands Magistrates Court, Queensland dated 23 June 2020, p.2, lines 25-26, HB 215.

[49] Transcript of Proceedings, 2 August 2023, p.14, line 21, HB 72.

[56] Ibid, p.18, line 45- p.19, lines 1- 2, HB 76.

[60] Transcript of Proceedings, 18 February 2025, p.1-5, lines 36-40, HB 51.

[67] Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Ali [2000] FCA 1385; (2000) 106 FCR 313 (Ali) at [41].

[68] Ali at [42]; HZCP at [63], [68], [71], [76]-[79] per McKerracher J, with whom Colvin J agreed at [179]; see also [181]-[196] per Colvin J.

[69] Criminal Record, at [HB 37], Verdict and Judgment Record for the proceedings on 18 February 2025, [HB 55], Integrated Offender Management System, Sentence Calculation Details report from the Queensland Department of Corrective Services created on 24 February 2024, at [HB 80].

[70] In this regard, the Tribunal notes the comments of his Honour McKerracher in HZCP, that revocation of a mandatory cancellation under s 501(3A) of the Act is predicated on a sentence, not a conviction. His Honour stated that the 'the power under s 501CA(4) arose after a cancellation decision having been made under s 501(3A)(a)(i), specifically that the appellant had a substantial criminal record by virtue of having been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more. The power under s 501CA(4) was enlivened after sentencing. Sentencing may be distinguished from conviction in that a sentencing judge is generally, depending on the state criminal statutory regime, required to consider the circumstances surrounding the commission of the offence for which the person was convicted and making findings of fact in relation to this inquiry.'

[72] Applicant's SOFIC, [20], HB 166.

[73] Applicant's SOFIC, [19], HB 166.

[74] Applicant's SOFIC, [20], HB 166.

[75] Ibid, p.2, lines 25-26, HB 215. August 2005,

[78] This excludes the multiple terms of imprisonment the Applicant was sentenced to that were either suspended, or, ordered to be served as Intensive Corrections Orders.

[84] Notice of Cancellation under s 501(3A) of the Act dated 23 November 2018, HB 133.

[85] Notice of decision to revoke visa cancellation under section 501CA(4) of the Act dated 22 January 2019,

[86] Notice of Cancellation under s 501(3A) of the Act dated 6 July 2020, HB 125.

[87] Notice of decision to revoke visa cancellation under section 501CA(4) of the Act dated 13 April 2021,

[90] Paragraph 8.1.2(2)(a) of Direction 110.

[91] Paragraph 8.1.2(2)(b) of Direction 110.

[92] [2016] FCA 1181 at [68].

[93] These observations were made in relation to the Tribunal evaluating the risk of harm for the purposes of clauses 8.1(1) and 8.1.2(2)(a) of Direction 99, which for all intent and purpose is identical to Direction 110 in this respect.,

[95] Minister's SOFIC, at [37], HB 198.

[97] Ibid, p.18, line 45- p.19, lines 1- 2, HB 76.

[98] Applicant's Statutory Declaration signed 8 January 2026, Exhibit A3. An unsigned statutory declaration was made and filed with the Tribunal on 5 January 2026, Exhibit A1, 1.

[102] Applicant's SOFIC, at [24], HB 167.

[103] Applicant's SOFIC, at [25], HB 167.

[104] Medical Records: Exhibit A1, 103.

[108] Minister's SOFIC, [38], HB 198.

[117] Ibid, [38.8], HB 200. See also, Client Incident Reports, HB 84-HB 94. See also, the Applicant's response to an incident at HB 96.

[118] Applicant's 16 July 2020 letter seeking revocation of the 2020 Cancellation, HB 260.

[119] Transcript of Proceedings, 2 August 2023, p.17, lines 28-31, HB 75.

[120] Medical Records, Exhibit A1,130. This was self-reported on 11 March 2025, to a general practitioner appointment organised at Immigration Detention. She also told the Tribunal this in her oral evidence. See also HB 114.

[121] Queensland Police Service Sentencing Schedule, p.2, HB 274.

[122] Integrated Offender Management System, Sentence Calculation Details Report from Queensland Corrective Services created 24 February 2024, HB 80.

[123] Medical Records, Exhibit A1,126.

[124] Email from the Applicant to the Department dated 16 August 2025, HB 114.

[125] Medical Records, Exhibit A1,110-111.

[128] Medical Records: Exhibit A1, 103.

[133] Ibid, HB 84-HB 94. See also, the Applicant's response to an incident at HB 96.

[134] Personal Circumstances Form, HB 108.

[136] Personal Circumstances Form, Exhibit A1, 107.

[137] Applicant's Statutory Declaration, Exhibit A3, at [17].

[138] Mother's Statutory Declaration, Exhibit A1, 6. Father's Statutory Declaration, Exhibit A1, 9

[139] Letter of support, Exhibit A1, 139.

[140] Personal Circumstances Form, HB 109. The Applicant gave oral evidence that she has worked a lot as a cleaner.

[141] Children's Birth Certificates, Exhibit A1, 134-137.

[142] Applicant's Mothers' Statutory Declaration, Exhibit A1, [11], 7.

[144] Paragraph 8.4(3) of Direction 110.

[145] Paragraph 8.4(4)(e) of Direction 110.

[146] Paragraph 8.4(4)(a) of Direction 110.

[147] Paragraph 8.4(4)(e) of Direction 110.

[148] Paragraph 8.4(4)(b) of Direction 110.

[149] Applicant's Statutory Declaration, Exhibit A3.

[150] FYBR v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCAFC 185 [67], [92]-[93].

[151] Applicant's SOFIC, [49] at HB 170.

[152] Minister's SOFIC, [51], HB 202. The Minister incorrectly referred to paragraph 8.5(1). It is abundantly clear by reference to Direction 110 that this was a typographical error.

[156] Stoneley v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2025] FCA 43 (Stoneley) at [38]. See also; [35]-[37]. See also; De Costa Junior v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2025] FCA 1423 (5 December 2025) at [28].

[157] Applicant's SOFIC Reply, Exhibit A2, pg.1.

[158] [2025] FCA 143.

[160] Minister's SOFIC, [63]-65], HB 204-206.

[161] These have considered a number of Ministerial Directions preceding Direction no. 110. See; Suleiman v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 594, Minister for Home Affairs v HSKJ [2018] FCAFC 217; (2018) 266 FCR 591.