1. The Applicant accepts and the Tribunal finds he fails the character test as his sentence extended beyond 12 months, pursuant to s 501(7)(c) of the Act. Hence the character test is not in issue.
2. The Tribunal is to determine whether there is another reason why the cancellation should be revoked under s 501CA(4)(b)(ii) of the Act, having regard to the principles and considerations prescribed by Direction 110 - Visa refusal and cancellation under section 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under section 501CA (Direction 110).
3. The approach the Tribunal is to take (in place of the Minister) is relatively settled and conveniently summarised by the Respondent as set out below:[1]

11. When a visa is mandatorily cancelled pursuant to s 501(3A), the Minister must give the person concerned written notice of the cancellation which sets out the original decision and particulars of the relevant information, and invite the person to make representations to the Minister about revocation of the original decision: s 501CA(3)(a) and (b).

12. Pursuant to s 501CA(4) of the Act, the Minister may revoke the original decision if:

(a) representations have been made by the person concerned in accordance with the invitation to make such representations about revocation of the cancellation: s 501CA(4)(a); and

i. the person passes the character test: s 501CA(4)(b)(i); or

ii. there is another reason why the original decision should be revoked: s 501CA(4)(b)(ii).

13. A decision under s 501CA(4) of the Act involves an assessment and evaluation of the factors for and against revoking the cancellation.[2] The decision-maker must then ask themselves whether they are satisfied that there is "another reason" to revoke the visa cancellation.[3]

14. A determination under s 501CA(4) must be carried out in accordance with any written directions under the Act: s 499(2A). In considering a request for revocation of a mandatory s 501(3A) cancellation, the decision-maker must comply with Direction 110 in considering a request for revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under s 501(3A) of the Act. Direction 110

15. Paragraph 5.2 of Direction 110 sets out that the Principles stated in the Direction provide the framework within which decision-makers should approach the task of deciding whether to revoke the mandatory cancellation of a non-citizen's visa under s 501CA of the Act. A key part of those Principles is that the safety of the Australian community is the highest priority of the Australian Government (paragraph 5.2(2) of Direction 110).

16. Informed by the Principles, the decision-maker must take into account the primary considerations in Part 2 of Direction 110 in deciding whether to revoke a mandatory cancellation of a visa under s 501CA(4) of the Act. The primary considerations are:

(a) protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct of non-citizens;

(c) the strength, nature and duration of the non-citizen's ties to Australia;

(d) the best interests of minor children in Australia affected by the decision; and

(e) the expectations of the Australian community.

17. The decision-maker must also take into account other considerations insofar as they are relevant pursuant to paragraph 9 of Direction 110. These include but are not limited to:

(a) the legal consequences of decision under s 501 or s 501CA;

First primary consideration: Protection of the Australian Community

20. Paragraph 8.1 of Direction 110 exhorts decision-makers to keep in mind that the safety of the Australian community is the highest priority of the Australian government and the Government is committed to protecting the Australian community from harm as a result of criminal activity or other serious conduct by non-citizens. Decision-makers should have particular regard to the principle that entertaining 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 the Australian community. This factor involves a consideration of 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.

21. Paragraph 7(2) of Direction 110 provides that this primary consideration is generally to be given greater weight than other primary considerations

1. The Tribunal has considered the documentary material before it, including a helpful Agreed List of the Applicant's completed courses, the testimony of the Applicant, his Aunt Ms B, younger sister Ms M, Dr Nathani (Consultant Psychiatrist), Mr Q (friend and former and potential future employer of the Applicant), Ms K (friend of the Applicant and Ms B) and Mr A, a friend and potential future employer of the Applicant. Each witness was consistent in their credibility in giving testimony, including the Applicant, who did not shy away from responding to questions in cross-examination and from the Tribunal.
2. In summary, the Applicant submits that, and with the Respondent accepting, he is at low risk of re-offending, and there is no unacceptable risk to the Australian community if he should be permitted to stay. This is put on the basis that the Applicant now has a strong resolve not to re-offend, he has strong supports awaiting him and it is highly unlikely that he will relapse into either illicit drug use or re-offending. Whilst accepting the low risk, the Respondent submits that the offending is of such magnitude that any risk is unacceptable and that the primary considerations of protection of the Australian community and its expectations outweigh all other considerations, hence the Applicant should not be permitted to remain in Australia.

1. Paragraph 8.1(2) of the Direction requires Decision-makers to give consideration to

(a) the nature and seriousness of the non-citizen's conduct to date; and > > (b) the risk to the Australian community, should the non-citizen commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct

1. As to Primary Consideration 1, the sentencing remarks of Judge Cannon, of the County Court of Victoria, provided an overview of the offending. The Applicant's testimony is consistent with Judge Cannon's remarks.
2. The offending was serious but not of the serious or very serious type of offending covered by 8.1.1(1)(a)-(b) of the Direction. In February 2022, early in the morning, police found the Applicant in the driver's seat of a rental car. As Judge Cannon summarised:[4]

6. ... When police searched the vehicle, they found two mobile phones in the centre console, a ziplock bag containing a white powder which turned out to be cocaine and a small safe in the boot of the car. You were subjected to a pat down search and two further mobile phones and $380 cash was found on your person.

7. You refused to give police the combination to the safe. The safe was seized and later opened with a police issue tool. Inside the safe was a black plastic bag containing multiple ziplock bags and a Coles shopping bag with a large square shaped block of white powder. There were 20 plastic bags, one of which contained another 29 plastic bags. All 20 of the plastic bags contained a white powder substance which, upon scientific analysis, was found to contain cocaine. The cocaine in the 20 bags ranged in purity from 34-78 per cent. In total, there was 912.1 grams of white powder, of which 635.8 grams was pure cocaine. The safe also contained a set of scales.

8. The prosecution case was put on the basis that you were in possession of the cocaine for sale.

9. The Prosecution Opening went on to indicate that you exercised your right to answer 'no comment' to questions put to you, apart from Question 79, where you admitted that the safe was yours.

10. ... your offending is most serious and deserving of a punishment which is just in all the relevant circumstances of your case. Your conduct must be firmly denounced.

11. The quantity of cocaine of which you were in possession was most significant and just short indeed of the threshold for large commercial quantity of a mixture containing this drug.

12. Although there is no evidence of you actually selling the drug, it is obvious from the other items found by police that you were in possession of the drug for sale and therefore prepared to assist in the distribution of illicit substances.

13. As has often been said by the Courts, drugs are a scourge on our community- they negatively impact not only those who consume them but also others in the community in a variety of most undesirable ways.

14. I have insufficient material before me to precisely ascertain your role in relation to distribution of the cocaine found in your car.

1. The Applicant, having been reminded of his general right to decline answering questions on the grounds of self-incrimination, conceded in his testimony that he was involved in the selling of drugs. This is consistent in part with his evidence that his offending was somewhat motivated by his desire to help his family financially, in circumstances where his father was not properly supporting his family. Also, the Applicant's evidence shows that he is now remorseful of, and has insight into, the dangerous consequences of his offending, a component of that being, at least implicitly, an acknowledgement by him that he was involved in the distribution and sale of illicit drugs. The Tribunal proceeds on the basis that the Applicant would have been involved in the selling of some drugs at or around the time of the offending, without obviously making any actual findings in that regard, noting that there was insufficient evidence to establish sales before the Sentencing Judge.
2. The Respondent placed some focus on paragraph 20 of the Applicant's statutory declaration of 25 June 2025, and the Applicant was cross examined about this. The Respondent fairly submitted that it conveys the impression that the Applicant is, consistent with the Sentencing Judge's remarks, limiting his involvement to "being delivered drugs to keep on me. I was using myself because I was addicted, and I was being paid to keep drugs on me."[5] However, in the context of the rest of the Applicant's evidence including his remorse as to his offending and its dangerous consequences (for example in paragraphs 3 and 22 of that statutory declaration) and more importantly his testimony conceding his involvement in some sales of drugs and his remorse generally, the Tribunal is not satisfied that this paragraph detracts from the Tribunal's view that the Applicant is not only genuinely remorseful for his offending but also now has a mature insight into it.
3. The Tribunal adopts the Sentencing Judge's view that "drugs are a scourge on out community - they negatively impact not only those who consume them but also others in the community in a variety of most undesirable ways."[6] As the Respondent highlights the Sentencing Judge found the offending "most serious", that it should be "firmly denounced" and that it involved possession of a "most significant" quantity of cocaine.[7] As the Respondent submitted:[8]

26. ... The Judge had insufficient evidence to establish the applicant's role in relation to the distribution of the cocaine found in his vehicle, but considered it was "obvious from the other items found by police" that the applicant was "in possession of the drug for sale and therefore prepared to assist in the distribution of illicit substances (G4/41 [12]). The Judge did not find the applicant was "at the head of the [drug trafficking] enterprise" and noted that it remained unclear how the applicant had paid for the rental car or the large quantity of drugs that he was found in possession of (G4/42 [16]). The applicant was sentenced on the basis that he was in possession of the cocaine for sale, which was consistent with the fact the drug was found in "deal bags" and that scales were also located (G4/42 [19]).

1. The sentence imposed was a serious and substantial one but nowhere near the maximum penalty for the offence being 25 years. The Sentencing Judge noted the Applicant had an "itinerant lifestyle" at the time of offending, was not leading a lavish lifestyle, and was unable to find what the precise role the Applicant played in respect of the drug trafficking enterprise save to say that she did not find that the Applicant was at the head of such enterprise.[9] With no evidence of 'actual' trafficking the Applicant was sentenced on the basis that he was in possession of the cocaine for sale, there was the wherewithal to sell the cocaine but not on the basis that he actually was selling the drug.
2. The Sentencing Judge stated that the Applicant's own drug use and addiction was "at least in part, a form of self-medication due to the Applicant's past trauma and in light of the Applicant's depression and anxiety at the time of his offending. The Sentencing Judge made a "less than moderate reduction in [his] moral culpability in relation to the offending" because this had an "impact upon [his] ability to exercise good judgement and engage i sound reasoning, as well as to apply consequential thinking."[10]

1. The Applicant was just 22 at the time of the offending. The Sentencing Judge stated relevantly:[11]

72. ... The law provides that in a situation such as yours, it is important to maximise an offender's prospects of rehabilitation, as this is both good for you and protecting the community. I am most mindful of this aspect in your case and bear in mind that, in general, the maturity of a 22-year-old male is not optimal and no doubt had a role to play in your offending.

1. Consistent with the Sentencing Judge's view that the Applicant was relatively young and immature that the time of offending in February 2022, she stated the Applicant's "prospects of rehabilitation as being rather good, and I do not place much weight on specific deterrence or protection of the community."[12]
2. The Respondent concedes and accepts that there is a low risk of the Applicant re-offending. Nonetheless the Tribunal must assess and consider such risk. The Tribunal adopts the Applicant's submission that:[13]

59. The Full Court of the Federal Court, citing the High Court's discussion in Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Guo (1997) 191 CLR 559 of the process of reasoning necessary to make administrative findings about the likely occurrence of future events, has said:

... the task of assessing the degree of likelihood of an event occurring in the future requires more than mere speculation. It must be based on a logical process of reasoning based on the known facts. A conclusion that a risk "cannot be ruled out" does not, of itself, logically establish the existence of a risk. Further ... a risk may be so low that it must properly be disregarded. In assessing the likelihood of a future event, the key facts will include the regularity with which the event has occurred in the past, the conditions under which the event occurred in the past and the likelihood that those conditions have since changed or other events have intervened to interrupt the cycle of regularity.

1. Although the Applicant was somewhat reluctant to plead guilty to the offending[14] and despite the equivocal nature of paragraph 20 of the Applicant's statutory declaration, the Tribunal is satisfied, on balance, that the Applicant is remorseful for his offending, now has a matured insight into such offending and has accomplished much by way of rehabilitation.
2. The Applicant lived in the community for many months without incident post bail in September 2023 and prior to sentencing in July 2024, he has completed a significant number and range of courses consistent with rehabilitation and self-improvement as set out in the Agreed List lodged by the parties, has been of exemplary behaviour whilst incarcerated evolving to a minimum security facility and has significant protective factors awaiting him with living and employment arrangements in place, should he be released. As the Applicant has stated:[15]

Later, I got out on bail and went into rehab, which helped even more to beat the addiction. I haven't touched drugs since 5 September 2023. l have been clean medically and in every other way. I gotten a lot of guidance in prison on how to stay off drugs, and my time in prison has been much better.

I am determined to remain drug free for life. I want to think more about my family and more about my future. My experience on bail taught me this. I was bailed from 5 September 2023 to 25 July 2024, and during that time, I did the rehab program and I worked as an apprentice in a barber shop while living with my aunt Selina. I went straight to work on my second day. I would go straight from work to home and kick back with my family. I didn't touch alcohol or drugs during that time. I signed in at the police station three times per week, and obeyed a curfew.

1. Apart from a difficult and at present broken relationship with his father, the Applicant otherwise has strong familial support[16] particularly from Ms B, his aunt who considers him like a son. Further, the Applicant has been assessed as suitable for parole and was considered a low risk of general offending.[17] It is also evident that he has broken ties and no longer has contact with those connected with his offending, who clearly had a negative influence upon him at least around the time of the offending, if not before. Dr Nathani stated that the Applicant had "significant protective factors" available and that he his engagement with rehabilitation had been "meaningful."[18]
2. The Tribunal finds that this Primary Consideration weighs only slightly against revocation.

1. The parties accept that the Applicant has not engaged in family violence, consistent with the evidence before the Tribunal, hence this consideration weighs neutrally.

The strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia

1. In considering the third Primary Consideration the evidence establishes that the Applicant's mother and each of his siblings Mr S, Ms M and Mr Y will be significantly adversely affected if he is removed from Australia. He and his family have had many challenges in establishing their new life in Australia and remain very close. The Applicant has helped out in the past and it is his intention to continue to help his family in the future if he is permitted to remain in Australia. The testimony of his younger sister Ms M underscored the great negative impact any removal would have upon each of these immediate family members. The Applicant has a difficult and intermittent relationship with his father and it is difficult to determine the extent of the negative impact his removal will have upon his father, save to say that there will be some negative impact. They are presently estranged but the Applicant remains open to re-establishing a relationship with his father in the future.
2. Beyond immediate family members the Applicant has significant ties to his grandmother Ms FHB, his aunt Ms B and her husband (who are both Australian citizens) and his aunt Ms ZHB. A further 11 relatives or close friends will also each be negatively impacted if the Applicant is removed.[19] In particular, Ms B states: [20]

He is not just my nephew, he is like a child to me. I have tried my best to be there for him, however, he has been there for me more than I could expect. He is such a kind and caring young man. He is loving and always ensures that I am doing well, too. I have been able to share things with ... that I have not been able to share with anyone before. This is because of the person that he has become.

1. The Applicant has lived in Australia since he was 16 years old and has significant familial, friendship and employment ties with Australia. He has made some positive contributions to Australia, including volunteering at the rehabilitation clinic in Traralgon for about 5-6 months, once he had finished, to cut the hair of other attendees and "talk to them about their situation, how drugs ruined [his] life, and how [he's] trying to make [himself] better...".[21] He also worked as an apprentice in a barber shop during this period.
2. The Tribunal finds that this Primary Consideration weighs moderately in favour of revocation.

The best interests of minor children in Australia

1. The evidence before the Tribunal establishes that minor children negatively impacted by a decision against the Applicant include his younger brother Mr Y (15 years) - to whom the Applicant plays a quasi-parental role[22] - his cousins DH (12 years) and SH (10 years)[23] and to a lesser extent cousin HH (15 years) and HH2 (15 years). Each of these minor children will be negatively impacted by the Applicant's removal from Australia, in particular his younger brother Mr Y. The Tribunal notes the recent period of incarceration of the Applicant and the fact that he does not play the actual parental role in respect of any of those minors, yet remains satisfied that a negative impact will result. Further, contact only through electronic means with those minors would be less than optimal.
2. The Tribunal finds that this Primary Consideration weighs moderately in favour of revocation.

1. The principles applicable to the fifth Primary Consideration are well established and fairly summarised by the Respondent as follows:[24]

Fifth primary consideration: Expectations of the Australian community

49. Paragraph 8.5(1) of Direction 110 provides that the Australian community expects non-citizens to obey Australian laws while in Australia. Where a noncitizen has engaged in serious conduct and breached this expectation, or where there is an unacceptable risk that they will breach it, the Australian community expects as a norm that the Government will not allow such non-citizens to remain in Australia. 50. Paragraph 8.5(2) further provides that it may be appropriate not to revoke the mandatory visa cancellation of such a person 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.

51. In having regard to this consideration, paragraph 8.5(4) provides that the decision-maker should proceed on the basis of the Government's views about the community's expectations articulated above and must not independently assess the community's expectations as they may pertain in a particular case.

52. To the extent the ASFIC at [100]-[104] invites the Tribunal to have regard to the applicant's personal circumstances under this consideration, the Minister respectfully submits the assessment of community expectations "does not turn on the personal circumstances of the individual non-citizen" which are properly taken into account under other considerations.

53. Observing the norm stipulated in paragraph 8.5(1), and in accordance with Principles 5.2(3)-(5) of Direction 110, the Australian community would expect that the applicant should not hold a visa on account of his serious criminal offending, the risk of further offending and infliction of harm.

1. Although a 'once off' the Applicant's offending was serious and incurred a substantial term of imprisonment. The Tribunal finds that this Primary Consideration weighs significantly against revocation.

1. The legal consequences of the decision is a relevant other consideration since it is agreed that no protection finding pursuant to s197C of the Act has been made. Paragraph 9.1.2(1) provides for a claim which may give rise to international non-refoulment obligations can also be raised by a non-citizen who is not the subject of a protection finding and must be considered. By paragraph 9.1.2(2) where it is open to a non-citizen to apply for a protection visa, as here, the Tribunal at this s501CA stage is not to consider the non-refoulement issues with the same scrutiny as as they are considered in a protection visa application.
2. The Tribunal agrees with and adopts the Respondent's submission that:[25]

59. In Plaintiff M1/2021 v Minister for Home Affairs [2022] HCA 17 the majority (Kiefel CJ, Keane, Gordon and Stewart JJ) held at [9] that in deciding whether there was another reason to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the applicant's visa pursuant to s 501CA(4)(b)(ii) of the Act where the applicant was able to lodge an application for a protection visa:

(a) the delegate was required to read, identify, understand and evaluate the representations made in response to the invitation issued to the applicant under s 501CA(3)(b) that raised a potential breach of Australia's international non refoulement obligations;

(b) Australia's international non-refoulement obligations unenacted in Australia were not a mandatory relevant consideration; and

(c) to the extent Australia's international non refoulement obligations are given effect in the Act, one available outcome for the delegate was to defer assessment of whether the applicant was owed those non-refoulement obligations on the basis that it was open to the applicant to apply for a protection visa under the Act.

1. The Applicant submits he would face significant danger if he was returned to Afghanistan due to his Shia religion and Hazara ethnicity and the Tribunal notes the DFAT country information the Applicant relied upon.[26] The Respondent submits and the Tribunal accepts that the Applicant is entitled to apply for a protection visa and, if granted, he would not be refouled to Afghanistan, by reason of s197C(3) of the Act.
2. Should it not be reasonably practicable to remove the Applicant to Afghanistan, which on a preliminary view seems to be the case, there are possible consequences including immigration detention (and hence ineligibility for parole), exposure to third-country removal arrangements (including Nauru) and the imposition of a bridging R visa with invasive and perhaps debilitating conditions attached. The parties are at issue with regard to the likelihood (or otherwise) of any of these potential legal consequences and the Tribunal has considered their competing submissions.
3. As best as the Tribunal can ascertain there are potential legal consequences in the nature of those discussed above. Due to their 'potential' nature the Tribunal finds that they weigh only slightly in the Applicant's favour.

Extent of impediments if removed

69. Paragraph 9.2 of Direction 110 requires consideration of the extent of any impediments that the non-citizen may face if removed from Australia to their home country, in establishing themselves and maintaining basic living standards (in the context of what is generally available to other citizens of that country), taking into account: the applicant's age and health; whether there are substantial language or cultural barriers; and any social, medical and/or economic support available to them in that country.

1. The Applicant does not have any physical or current mental health issues, per paragraph 9.2(1)(a). The Respondent accepts that the Applicant would face cultural and language barriers if returned to Afghanistan (para 9.2(1)(b)and the Tribunal finds that the Applicant would face severe impediments if removed to Afghanistan including the risk of persecution, a lack of any family support, an absence of any social or community ties and these combined with the acute and widespread humanitarian challenges in Afghanistan would be a threat to his mental health. It is unlikely he would be able to live and work safely there. The impediments would be very substantial.
2. The Tribunal is satisfied that this other consideration weighs heavily in favour of revocation.

1. The predecessor of paragraph 9.3(1) of Direction 110, para 9.4.2 of Direction 90 was recently discussed in QXNS v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2024] FCA 1369. The Court stated:[28]

111. Before this Court, the applicant now contends that para 9.4.2 of Direction 90 permits consideration of any Australian business interest, and is not restricted to business interests that involve an impact on a major project or service: see Singh v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCA 905 at [10]- [11] (Middleton J); Arachchi v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2022] FCA 1311 at [67]- [71] (Rangiah J); Tonga v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FCA 1179 at [29]- [35] (SC Derrington J); Ross v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2024] FCA 734 at [32]- [35] (Meagher J); Tabuarua v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2024] FCA 748 at [101]- [102] (Rangiah J); Verrill v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2024] FCA 802 at [19] (Thawley J); Luckman v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2024] FCA 851 at [28]- [36] (Derrington J); compare Kim v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2024] FCA 294 at [11]- [12] (Jackman J).

112. In each of those cases, it was held that there is a requirement under para 9.4.2 (and its analogues in other versions of the Ministerial direction) to consider any impact on Australian business interests, which is not confined to impacts on the delivery of a major project or an important service in Australia. The qualification about giving weight to an "employment link" only where the decision would significantly compromise the delivery of a major project or delivery of an important service in Australia does not limit the general requirement to consider any impact on Australian business interests, irrespective of the scale or importance of the business, if the non-citizen is not allowed to enter or remain in Australia. As Rangiah J subsequently stated in Tabuarua (at [102]):

Whether any such impact compromises the delivery of a major project or an important service in Australia is a matter affecting the weight to be given to that consideration, not a prerequisite for its application. Accordingly, where there is a clearly articulated submission that the removal of the person from Australia will have an impact on even a small business, the Tribunal is required to consider any such impact.

1. Two witnesses lodged statements with the Tribunal and testified as to job opportunities awaiting the Applicant should he be permitted to remain in Australia, namely Mr O and Mr A. Mr O's evidence was to the effect that the loss of the Applicant from his barber business had had a negative impact and that it was difficult to find a replacement of the calibre of the Applicant. Accepting the Respondent's submission that there is a tentative aspect to the Applicant's re-employment by Mr O, the unchallenged evidence remains that his absence has had a negative impact and a re-employment offer to the Applicant is on offer.
2. The Tribunal is satisfied that this other consideration weights slightly in favour of revocation.

1. The Tribunal has conducted the evaluative exercise of weighing up the considerations to determine whether it is satisfied that the available discretion should be exercised.

On balance, having applied the findings above as the weight respectively to be applied to each of the considerations, the Tribunal is satisfied that those in favour of revocation outweigh the considerations against revocation of the decision.

Appearances for the Applicant: Mr Joseph Bourke, Counsel

Appearances for the Respondent: Mr Jesse Slankard, Sparke Helmore Lawyers

[1] The Respondent's Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions dated 29 September 2025 ('RSFIC') at [11] - [14], [20] - [21].

[2] Gaspar v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2016) 153 ALD 338 at [38].

[3] Au v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2022] FCAFC 125 at [21]- [26].

[4] Documents lodged pursuant to section 501G of the Act ('G Documents') at G4, 40-42 [6] - [14].

[5] Applicant's Statutory Declaration dated 25 June 2025 at [20].

[13] The Applicant's Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions dated 15 September 2025 ('ASFIC') at [59].

[14] Hearing Bundle 1 ('HN1') at [58] - [59].

[15] G Documents at G11, 114 [33] - [37].

[16] Ibid at G15, 142 [12]; G13 124 [8].

[17] Applicant Tender Bundle 1 ('ATB1') at 5.

[18] Applicant Tender Bundle 2 ('ATB2') at 11 [3.3]; 25 [7.29].

[21] Applicant's Statutory Declaration dated 25 June 2025 at [47].

[28] QXNS v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2024] FCA 1369 [111] - [112].