1. The applicant has an extensive criminal history spanning from 2002 to 2021, detailed at Schedule 1 of this decision. His offending includes violent conduct (grievous bodily harm, assault, and malicious wounding), property offences (larceny, destroy or damage property), and drug and weapons-related offences (possess prohibited drug, possess or attempt to possess a prescribed restricted substance, wield knife in public place and carry cutting weapon upon apprehension).[8]
2. His history also records multiple driving and traffic offences, namely driving while suspended, using an unregistered registerable vehicle, negligent driving, unlicensed driving, and, as the responsible person or custodian, failing to provide a driver's particulars. In addition, the applicant has been dealt for other offending, namely failing to comply with a COVID-19 notice of direction without a reasonable excuse, refusing or failing to submit to breath analysis, and resisting an officer in the execution of duty.[9]

15 November 2021 Conviction (cancelation offence)

1. The applicant's most serious offence is the conviction for cause grievous bodily harm to person with intent. The applicant pleaded not guilty to the charge and was arraigned before a jury on 7 November 2021. On 15 November 2021 the jury returned a guilty verdict.[10] On 17 December 2021, the applicant was sentenced by Judge Zahra of the District Court of NSW to six years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of three years and nine months. The applicant sought leave to appeal and, on 22 May 2024, the NSW Court of Criminal Appeal dismissed the appeal.[11]
2. The sentencing remarks describe the circumstances of the offending as follows. On 28 May 2020, the applicant and the other residents hosted a party at their home. The sentencing remarks record that, by hosting the party, the applicant did not comply with a COVID-19 notice of direction without a reasonable excuse. The party continued into the following day.[12]
3. On 29 May 2020, the victim attended the party with a friend. The victim did not know any of the other people at the residence. During the party, guests consumed alcohol, with some consuming significant quantities. In his evidence to the court, the victim stated he had 'quite a bit to drink' and had been drinking since he arrived at the party at around 8:30 am.[13]
4. In the evening of 29 May 2020, the victim was involved in a fight with some other guests and deliberately smashed a bottle onto the kitchen floor. The applicant approached the victim and told him to clean the broken glass. The victim refused, and the conflict escalated. A group of people, including the applicant and his friend Mr Salazar, removed the victim from the house. During that confrontation, the victim was pushed and shoved, and Mr Salazar punched the victim in the face. The sentencing remarks note that the extent to which the applicant was responsible for any physical assault inside the house could not be determined with precision.[14]
5. After being removed from the house, the victim became aggressive. He picked up a large rock and struck the front door and an adjoining glass panel, causing damage to the door and breaking the glass panel.[15]
6. Shortly afterwards, the applicant and Mr Salazar confronted the victim outside of the house. The sentencing judge found that the evidence showed that the victim was assaulted by the applicant and Mr Salazar, and the victim fell to the ground. His Honour noted that an inference that the victim stumbled during scuffling or fighting could not be excluded on the evidence.[16] After the victim fell, the applicant picked up a brick or a piece of a brick and threw it at the victim, striking him in the head. The sentencing judge was unable to determine if the applicant intentionally aimed for the victim's head, but found the applicant intended to strike the victim with a heavy object while the victim was prone and defenceless. His Honour regarded that circumstance as making the offending particularly serious.[17]
7. The victim was hospitalised and observed to have multiple injuries, including bruising over the nose and mouth, extensive facial and scalp bruising, bleeding from both ears, a three centimetre cut behind his right ear, a displaced fracture to the right side of the skull behind the ear, a fracture to the right joint of the jaw bone, two fractures to the right and left middle ears, bleeding in the skull, bruising to the right side of the chest, tenderness of the breastbone, and bruising and tenderness to the right chest wall and armpit area.[18]
8. In a victim impact statement, the victim described ongoing physical and psychological injuries. He reported drooping in the left side of his face and eye, and that his eye closes when eating or yawning. He reported depression, self-consciousness and difficulties with emotional regulation. The victim stated that doctors told him he has 'an injury in my brain' affecting problem-solving and emotional control, and that this has affected his relationships. The victim also reported suicide attempts, including being hospitalised and placed in an induced coma following one attempt.[19]
9. The sentencing judge noted that there were issues as to which injuries could be attributed to the applicant's actions and referred to multiple possible mechanisms for the victim's injuries.[20] His Honour nevertheless found that the applicant caused an injury to the victim's head, specifically the left side of the head. However, his Honour was not satisfied that the applicant caused injuries resulting in permanent disability described by the victim.[21]
10. His Honour considered whether provocation by the victim should be taken into account when assessing the objective seriousness of the offence. His Honour found that while the victim's conduct was relevant background, it did not significantly reduce the applicant's moral culpability. His Honour took into account the nature of the act, the nature of the object used, and the fact that the victim was prone and vulnerable. His Honour also noted the conduct could be described as impulsive and that there was no prior relationship between the applicant and the victim.[22]
11. Ultimately, after considering the circumstances leading up to the offending and the impulsive nature of the conduct, His Honour assessed the offending as falling just below the middle of the range of objective seriousness for the offence, while noting that the offending was of a very serious kind and exposed the applicant to a lengthy period of custody.[23]

Violent criminal offending prior to 15 November 2021

1. The applicant's most recent prior violent offence occurred approximately 12 years before the events of 29 May 2020. In sentencing the applicant on 17 December 2021, Judge Zahra summarised the applicant's prior violent offending as follows:

[The applicant] has a lengthy criminal record dating back to 2002. Significantly in July 2003 [he] was sentenced to imprisonment for six months on account of malicious wounding and placed on a s 9 bond on a count of common assault. Those offences were committed in October 2002. > > On 2 November 2002 he was again charged with one count of assault and carrying a cutting weapon for which he was again, when sentenced in July 2003, placed on a s 9 bond for 12 months. > > In September 2007 [the applicant] was convicted on a count of assault occasioning actual bodily harm and was again placed on a s 9 bond for a period of 18 months. It was a condition of the bond that he complete the Bridge Program. [He] breached the condition to the s 9 bond on two occasions. On the first occasion in December 2007 he was sentenced to imprisonment for a period of nine months which was suspended. He was then sentenced on the second breach to imprisonment for nine months with a nonparole period of three months. > > In March 2008 [the applicant] was convicted on one count of common assault and a count of destroy or damage property. He was imprisoned for a period of ten months with a non-parole period of six months. He was ordered to accept supervision from the Probation and Parole Service with a condition that he undertake treatment in respect of anger management and management of alcohol issues. On appeal the non-parole period was reduced to four months.[24]

1. In addition to his violent offending, the applicant has been convicted of numerous driving offences including negligent driving and driving without a licence, property offences including larceny and destroy or damage property, weapons-related offences including wield knife in public place, and drug possession offences. The applicant has also been convicted for resist officer in execution of duty, not supply driver's particulars, refuse or fail to submit to breath analysis and not complying with a COVID-19 notice of direction without a reasonable excuse.[25]
2. The applicant has also been involved in three incidents in custody. Based on an inmate discipline action form dated 8 July 2023, the applicant pleaded guilty to the offence fail prescribed drug test. The applicant tested positive for Buprenorphine in urine where Buprenorphine was not prescribed to him and he was placed under a behavioural management contract for 8 weeks.[26] In another inmate discipline action form dated 14 September 2023, the applicant pleaded guilty to the offence fight or engage in other physical combat.[27] In an interview for the preparation of a pre-release report, the applicant admitted he was present when the assault occurred between inmates but denied any involvement.[28] In a further inmate discipline action form dated 24 April 2024, the applicant pleaded guilty to the offence have possession of tobacco, tobacco-related accessory, e-cigarette or e-cigarette accessory within a correctional centre due to being found with a BIC lighter.[29]
3. On 6 September 2010, the applicant completed an incoming passenger declaration card and ticked 'no' in response to the question 'do you have any criminal conviction/s?'. In a letter to the Department dated 17 July 2023, the applicant stated that his girlfriend at that time completed the card for him because her English and writing were better than his, but he acknowledged that he had signed the card and apologised for the error.[30]

1. The matter was heard on 21 and 22 January 2026. At the hearing, the applicant was self-represented. Ms Meaghan Prefontaine of the Australian Government Solicitor appeared for the Minister.
2. Over the course of the hearing, the applicant has filed multiple sets of submissions many of which are duplicates of one another and overlap with the G documents. For simplicity and clarity, duplicate submissions have been removed from the following list.
3. In deciding this matter, I have considered:

a) The G documents; > > b) The Ministers bundle of documents submitted 9 January 2026; > > c) The Ministers Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions submitted 9 January 2026 (RSFIC); > > d) The Ministers further supplementary book or documents submitted 16 January 2026 > > e) The applicant's Statement of Facts and Contentions (SOFIC) dated 16 November 2025 (November ASFIC); > > f) The applicant's personal statement dated 16 November 2025; > > g) The applicant's SOFIC dated 20 December 2025 (December ASFIC); > > h) The applicant's 'Personal Statement/Statement in Support of Visa' dated 20 December 2025 > > 1. The applicant's 'Statement about my son Anderson - Best Interests' dated 20 December 2025; > > > j) The applicant's 'Short Combined Statement - Summary of Facts, Contentions and Personal Circumstances' undated; > > > > k) Consolidated bundle of applicant's submissions (aide-memoire) tendered by the Minister at the hearing (Exhibit R1); > > 1. The oral evidence given by the applicant; and > > > m) The oral evidence given by the applicant's witnesses: Ms Katherine Berrio, Mr Anderson Gonzales and Mr Cyril Mundine.

4. All documents except Exhibit R1 are contained in the Hearing Book (HB). Unless otherwise indicated, all footnote references are to the HB. The relevant parts of the oral evidence and submissions are considered in my reasons below.

1. The Migration Act provides special powers for the Minister to refuse or cancel visas on character grounds.
2. Under s 501(3A), the Minister must cancel a visa that has been granted to a person if the Minister is satisfied that the person does not pass the character test due to having a substantial criminal record under s 501(6)(a) and further specified in s 501(7), and if that person is currently serving a full-time sentence of imprisonment in a custodial institution for an offence against the law of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory.
3. The character test as set out in s 501(6) of the Migration Act essentially deems that a person does not pass the character test if the circumstances listed in that provision apply. Section 501(6)(a) of the Migration Act relevantly provides that:

(6) For the purposes of this section, a person does not pass the character test if:

(a) the person has a substantial criminal record (as defined by

subsection (7)); ...

1. A 'substantial criminal record' is relevantly defined by s 501(7)(c) of the Migration Act as follows:

(7) For the purposes of the character test, a person has a substantial criminal record if: ...

(c) the person has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of

12 months or more; ...

1. A person whose visa has been cancelled under s 501(3A) may seek revocation of that decision pursuant to s 501CA(4) of the Act. This provision enables the Minister to revoke the original cancellation if the person makes representations in response to the invitation to do so, and if the Minister is satisfied either that the person passes the character test, or that there is another reason why the cancellation should be revoked.

1. By reason of s 499(2A) of the Act, the Tribunal must comply with written directions about the performance of its functions or the exercise of those powers which are given by the Minister pursuant to s 499(1) of the Act.
2. On 7 June 2024, the Minister made Direction No. 110 under s 499 of the Act, which commenced operation on 21 June 2024 (the Direction). The Direction replaced the previous Direction No. 99.
3. The purpose of the Direction is to guide decision-makers in exercising powers under ss 501 or 501CA of the Act.

1. Paragraph 5.1 of Direction No.110 sets out of the Act. Specifically, paragraph 5.1(2) of the Direction provides:

Specifically, under subsection 501 (1) of the Act, non-citizens may be refused a visa if they do not satisfy the decision-maker that they pass the character test. Under subsection 501(2), non-citizens may have their visa cancelled if the decision-maker reasonably suspects that they do not pass the character test, and the non-citizens do not satisfy the decision-maker that they do pass the character test. Where the discretion to refuse to grant or to cancel a visa is enlivened, the decision-maker must consider the specific circumstances of the case in deciding whether to exercise that discretion.

1. Paragraph 5.2 of the Direction sets out the 'principles' which must be taken into account by decision-makers under ss 501 and 501CA of the Act. These principles 'provide the framework within which decision-makers should approach their task of deciding whether to refuse or cancel a non-citizen's visa under section 501' and are expressed as follows:

(1) Australia has a sovereign right to determine whether non-citizens who are of character concern are allowed to enter and/or remain in Australia. Being able to come to or remain in Australia is a privilege Australia confers on non‑-citizens in the expectation that they are, and have been, law-abiding, will respect important institutions, such as Australia's law enforcement framework, and will not cause or threaten harm to individuals or the Australian community. > > (2) The safety of the Australian Community is the highest priority of the Australian Government. > > (3) Non-citizens who engage or have engaged in criminal or other serious conduct should expect to be denied the privilege of coming to, or to forfeit the privilege of staying in, Australia. > > (4) The Australian community expects that the Australian Government can and should refuse entry to non-citizens, or cancel their visas, if they engaged in conduct, in Australia or elsewhere, that raises serious character concerns. This expectation of the Australian community applies regardless of whether the non-citizen poses a measurable [sic] risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community. > > (5) Australia has a low tolerance of any criminal or other serious conduct by visa applicants or those holding a limited stay visa, or by other non-citizens who have been participating in, and contributing to, the Australian community only for a short period of time. > > (6) With respect to decisions to refuse, cancel, and revoke cancellation of a visa, Australia may afford a higher level of tolerance of criminal or other serious conduct by non-citizens who have lived in the Australian community for most of their life, or from a very young age. > > (7) Decision-makers must take into account the primary and other considerations relevant to the individual case. In some circumstances, the nature of the non-‑ citizen's conduct, or the harm that would be caused if the conduct were to be repeated, may be so serious that even strong countervailing considerations may be insufficient to justify not cancelling or refusing the visa, or revoking a mandatory cancellation. > > (8) The inherent nature of certain conduct such as family violence is so serious that even strong countervailing considerations may be insufficient to justify not cancelling or refusing the visa, or revoking a mandatory cancellation, even if the information available at the time of consideration suggests that the non-citizen does not pose a measurable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community.

2. Informed by the principles set out in paragraph 5.2 of the Direction, the Tribunal must take into account the 'primary considerations' listed in paragraph 8 of the Direction, and the 'other considerations' listed in paragraph 9 of the Direction, where relevant to the decision.

Primary considerations - paragraph 8 of the Direction

1. In making a decision under s 501CA(4) of the Migration Act, the five 'primary considerations' the Tribunal must take into account are:
   • protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct:
   • whether the conduct engaged in constituted family violence;
   • the strength, nature, and duration of ties to Australia;
   • the best interests of minor children in Australia; and
   • expectations of the Australian community.

Other considerations - paragraph 9 of the Direction

1. The 'other considerations' the Tribunal must take into account, as far as they are relevant, include (but are not limited to):
   • legal consequences of the decision;
   • extent of impediments if removed; and
   • impact on Australian business interests.

Primary & other considerations - further guidance

1. Further guidance as to how a decision-maker is to apply the considerations in

the Direction can be found in paragraph 7, which provides:

(1) In applying the considerations (both primary and other), information and evidence from independent and authoritative sources should be given appropriate weight. > > (2) The primary consideration at 8.1 below (protection of the Australian community) is generally to be given greater weight than other primary considerations. Otherwise, primary considerations should generally be given greater weight than the other considerations. > > (3) One or more primary considerations may outweigh other primary considerations.

1. The applicant has been convicted of several offences. For his 15 November 2021 conviction of cause grievous bodily harm to person with intent-SI, he was sentenced to six years imprisonment with a non-parole period of three years and nine months. I find that the applicant has a substantial criminal record within the meaning of s 501(7)(c) of the Act and does not pass the character test under s 501(6)(a).
2. As the applicant does not pass the character test, the remaining issue is whether there is 'another reason' to revoke the mandatory cancellation. That evaluative task requires that I take into account the relevant primary and other considerations in the Direction, and any other relevant considerations.

Primary consideration 1: Protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct

1. The first primary consideration, in paragraph 8.1(1) of the Direction, focuses on the protection of the Australian community. The Direction requires decision-makers to keep in mind that the safety of the Australian community is the highest priority of the Australian Government and to that end the Government is committed to protecting the Australian community from harm because of criminal activity or other serious conduct by non-citizens. Entering or remaining in Australia is a privilege that Australia confers on non-citizens in the expectation that they are, and have been, law abiding, will respect important institutions, and will not cause or threaten harm to individuals or the Australian community.
2. Paragraph 8.1(2) of the Direction provides that decision-makers should also give consideration to:

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

Nature and seriousness of the applicant's conduct

1. Under paragraph 8.1.1 of the Direction, the Tribunal must assess the nature and seriousness of the applicant's criminal offending or other conduct, having regard to the types of crime or conduct viewed by the Government as very serious (8.1.1(a)) or serious (8.1.1(b)). Except for the specified categories where sentence is not determinative, the Tribunal must have regard to the sentence imposed by the courts, the impact on victims and their families where information is available and procedural fairness has been afforded, the frequency of offending and whether there is any trend of increasing seriousness, the cumulative effect of repeated offending, whether the applicant has provided false or misleading information to the Department (including failure to disclose prior offending), and whether the applicant has reoffended after a formal written warning about migration consequences. Where relevant conduct occurred overseas, the Tribunal must also consider whether it would be classified as an offence in Australia.
2. As noted earlier, the applicant has been convicted of multiple offences between 2002 and 2021. The most serious conviction is for cause grievous bodily harm to person with intent-SI, committed in May 2020 and resulting in conviction and sentence in 2021. The circumstances of that offending are summarised earlier in this decision. As the sentencing judge observed, the offence carries a maximum penalty of 25 years' imprisonment and a standard non-parole period of seven years.[31] The applicant was sentenced to six years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of three years and nine months. He is presently on parole for that offence until 21 September 2026, subject to conditions including that he must abstain from alcohol and must not use prohibited drugs or substances.[32]
3. The applicant's criminal history includes convictions for violent offences, including cause grievous bodily harm to person with intent, as well as multiple convictions for common assault, assault occasioning actual bodily harm, and malicious wounding. For violent offending, he has received custodial sentences of six months, nine months, ten months, nine months (suspended), as well as the six-year sentence imposed for the cancellation offence.[33]
4. On 14 August 2008, the applicant received a letter from the Department, which stated:

The purpose of this letter is to warn you that any further criminal convictions, or any other conduct on your behalf that comes within the scope of subsection 501 (6), could result in fresh consideration of the cancellation of your visa. The consequences of visa cancellation under section 501 of the Act include removal of the former visa holder from Australia and, in certain cases, bars on re-entering Australia.[34]

5. Notwithstanding that warning, the applicant was later convicted of two driving offences in 2012, an offence of refuse or fail to submit to breath analysis in 2020, and offences in 2021 of not comply with a COVID-19 notice/direction and cause grievous bodily harm to person with intent-SI.
6. In the RSFIC and in closing submissions, the Minister submitted that revocation should be refused because the applicant's criminal history culminate in a very serious act of interpersonal violence and the evidence does not establish that the risk of future serious harm is acceptably low. The Minister submitted that the applicant's offending was not a one-off mistake and demonstrated a pattern of conduct and disregard for Australian law overtime.
7. The Minister submitted that the applicant's cancellation offence clearly constituted a violent crime which, having regard to cl 8.1.1(1)(a)(i), is to be viewed very seriously by the Australian Government and the Australian community. The Minister relied on the conviction for cause grievous bodily harm to person with intent, the length of the custodial sentence imposed, and the sentencing judge's characterisation of the offending as particularly serious because it involved the applicant intending to strike the victim with a heavy object when the victim was prone and defenceless. The Minister submitted that the Tribunal was required to proceed on the basis of the conviction and sentencing findings and could not go behind them. It was submitted that the sentencing outcome is a probative indicator of objective seriousness and that the seriousness is not reduced by the applicant's subsequent description of the incident as self-defence.
8. The Minister further submitted that the applicant's criminal history demonstrates prolonged non-compliance with Australian law, including repeated violent offending, and that the offending had escalated in seriousness overtime. The Minister pointed to convictions for malicious wounding, common assault, and assault occasioning actual bodily harm, which appeared to arise in the context of alcohol-related problems. The Minister relied on the Department's warning letter of 14 August 2008 as evidence that the applicant was put on notice of the potential migration consequences of further offending yet offended again. In addition, the Minister submitted that, notwithstanding the formal warning in 2008, the applicant provided false information to the Department by answering 'no' to having any criminal convictions on an incoming passenger card in 2010.
9. In his December ASFIC, the applicant acknowledged that he had a 'substantial criminal record,' stating:

I understand that my past behaviour caused fear and harm, and that members of the community would rightly be concerned about the seriousness and frequency of my offending.[35]

10. The conviction for cause grievous bodily harm to person with intent is, by its nature, a very serious violent offence. The sentence imposed, being six years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of three years and nine months, reflects the criminal court's assessment that the offending warranted substantial punishment. While sentencing does not determine the Direction's evaluation, it is a significant indicator of seriousness.
11. The seriousness is further informed by the sentencing judge's findings about the manner of offending. The proven conduct involved the use of a heavy object against the victim in circumstances where the victim was on the ground and vulnerable. The applicant's own characterisation of the incident as situational and arising in his home provides context, but it does not meaningfully reduce the objective gravity of deliberately applying serious violence in circumstances where a victim is prone and defenceless.[36] The applicant's repeated references to self-defence have been addressed below. While his description of fear and the 'fast and chaotic'[37] nature of events provides context, the conduct is assessed by reference to the facts established by the conviction and sentencing remarks, including the nature of the act and the harm caused.
12. The impact of the offending on the victim is a further indicator of seriousness for the purposes of cl 8.1.1(1)(d). The sentencing remarks record that the victim was observed to have suffered multiple injuries, including bruising to the face and scalp, bleeding from both ears, a cut behind the ear, a displaced skull fracture behind the ear, a fracture to the jaw joint, fractures to both middle ears, bleeding within the skull, and bruising and tenderness to the chest. The sentencing remarks also refer to the victim impact statement describing ongoing effects, including that the left side of the victim's face and eye were 'droopy' and that his eye shuts when eating or yawning; that he became depressed and self-conscious; that he experienced problems with emotional regulation; and that doctors had informed him that he has 'an injury in my brain that does not allow me to solve problems, small things become really big. After the injuries my temper changed and are very hard for me to control them (sic)'.[38]
13. The victim reported that these impacts affected relationships and reported two suicide attempts, including being hospitalised and placed in an induced coma after one attempt. The sentencing judge noted that there was an issue as to which injuries could be attributed to the applicant's acts and identified multiple possible mechanisms for the injuries sustained. His Honour nevertheless found that the applicant caused an injury to the victim's head, specifically to the left side of the head, but was not satisfied the applicant caused injuries resulting in a somewhat permanent disability as described in the victim impact statement. I treat that qualification as important. Even so, the sentencing remarks establish that the offending resulted in serious physical injury and that the victim experienced significant ongoing distress and functional impact following the incident.
14. The Department's warning letter of 14 August 2008 is also relevant under paragraph 8.1.1(1)(h) insofar as it demonstrates the applicant was expressly warned that further criminal conduct could lead to visa cancellation and removal, yet offending occurred after that warning. The warning strengthens the significance of post-warning offending in evaluating the seriousness and nature of the applicant's criminal offending and other conduct.
15. Having considered the relevant factors under this consideration concerning the nature and seriousness of the applicant's conduct, I find that the applicant's offending was very serious. This weighs strongly against revocation of the mandatory cancellation decision.

Risk to the Australian community should the applicant commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct

1. Under paragraph 8.1.2, the Tribunal must assess the risk to the Australian community should the applicant commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct, recognising the Government's view that community tolerance for risk decreases as the seriousness of the potential harm increases, and that some kinds of conduct are so serious that any risk of repetition may be unacceptable.
2. The Tribunal must make a cumulative assessment of both (a) the nature of the harm that could occur if similar conduct were repeated and (b) the likelihood of the applicant engaging in further criminal or other serious conduct. In assessing likelihood, the Tribunal must consider any available information and evidence about reoffending risk, and the extent of rehabilitation achieved by the time of decision, giving particular weight to any time spent in the community since the most recent offending. Where the decision concerns whether to refuse to grant a visa rather than cancellation or revocation, the Tribunal must also consider whether the risk may be affected by the duration and purpose of the intended stay, the type of visa sought, and whether there are strong or compassionate reasons to grant a short-stay visa.

a) The nature of the harm to individuals or the Australian community should the non-citizen engage in further criminal or other serious conduct

1. In the RSFIC and closing submissions, the Minister submitted that, if the applicant were to engage in further offending of a similar kind to the cancellation offence, the resulting harm could be very serious. The Minister pointed to the proven conduct, namely that the applicant threw a heavy object at the victim while the victim was on the ground and the object struck the victim in the head. The Minister submitted that repetition of such conduct could foreseeably cause serious physical injury or death. The Minister also submitted that further offending of that nature could cause very serious psychological and financial harm to individuals and to the broader Australian community.
2. The Minister relied on paragraph 8.1.2(1) of the Direction, which recognises that some conduct, and the harm that would be caused if repeated, is so serious that any risk of repetition may be unacceptable. In closing, the Minister submitted that the evidence established there was a medium to low risk that the applicant would reoffend, but that, due to the nature of the harm should he reoffend, that risk was 'unacceptable'. The Minister also submitted that this was particularly so where the primary risk factors associated with the applicant's offending had not been adequately addressed, and where his rehabilitation had not yet been tested in the community.
3. In his November ASFIC, the applicant sought to contextualise the index offending as an isolated, situation-specific event rather than random or opportunistic public violence. He contended that it occurred inside his home in what he described as an extreme confrontation, involving a drunk intruder who had forced entry and was armed with a brick.[39] He relied on that account to submit that the circumstances were atypical and that the incident was not indicative of an ongoing propensity for violence and therefore should be taken into account in assessing the likelihood and the nature of any future risk.
4. I accept the Minister's submission that the nature of the harm that could result if the applicant were to engage in further violent offending of a similar kind is very serious. The cancellation offence involved the use of a heavy object directed at the victim, resulting in impact to the head. Conduct of that kind creates an inherent and obvious risk of catastrophic consequences, including serious and permanent injury and, in some circumstances, death.
5. I also accept that the harm contemplated by paragraph 8.1.2(2)(a) is not confined to physical injury. Violent offending of this nature can reasonably be expected to cause significant psychological harm to victims and witnesses and can impose broader costs and impacts on the community, including through medical treatment, policing and criminal justice resources, and diminished community confidence and sense of safety.
6. Consistently with paragraph 8.1.2(1), I consider that the seriousness of the conduct and the potential consequences of repetition are such that the community's tolerance for any risk is low. I find that the potential harm if serious violent reoffending of the kind demonstrated in the cancellation offence were repeated is grave. I am of the view that an overly expansive approach to 'unacceptable risk' would tend to render 'more otiose' the required assessment of likelihood of engaging in further criminal or other serious conduct.[40] I am also mindful of the Full Federal Court's caution against a 'ritualistic incantation' of risk being unacceptable in light of the serious consequences that follow from cancellation.[41] That said, I accept the Minister's submission that the gravity of the potential harm substantially lowers the community's tolerance for risk and requires a cautious approach to the assessment of likelihood, where the evidence indicates a medium to low likelihood of the applicant engaging in further criminal or other serious conduct and where rehabilitation has not been tested in the community.

b) The likelihood of the non-citizen engaging in further criminal or other serious conduct

1. In the sentencing remarks, Judge Zahra gave weight to the long period between the applicant's last violent conviction prior to the index offending and found that, with long-term supervision upon release, the applicant had good prospects of rehabilitation and was unlikely to re-offend.[42]
2. The applicant's attitude toward his offending is mixed. In his statements he expressed remorse and accepted responsibility for his past offending and stated that he was determined not to reoffend. However, in relation to the cancellation offence, he continued to express disagreement with the court outcome and repeatedly described the incident in terms of self-defence. Against that background, the applicant submitted that his present risk was low and that he did not present an unacceptable risk to the Australian community if permitted to remain. He submitted that the index offending was situational, arose in the context of a frightening confrontation at his home, and did not reflect an ongoing propensity for violence in the community.[43]
3. In the revocation request form dated 19 April 2023, the applicant stated that although he was found guilty, the circumstances that brought him to gaol were 'purely in self-defence,' and that he reacted in a situation of extreme distress where he feared for his life. He stated that he had used his time in custody to reflect on his decisions and had worked hard to participate in interventions.[44] He further stated that he was not the instigator, that he stopped an altercation between Mr Salazar and the victim in the kitchen, and that he then evicted the victim from the house. He stated the victim was violent and drunk, was smashing and banging on the door, and that everything happened quickly, in circumstances where he was concerned for his own safety and the safety of other guests.[45]
4. In an undated statement attached to his personal circumstances form, the applicant expressed strong disagreement with the outcome of the criminal proceedings and again asserted that he acted defensively and without premeditation, stating:

My case has been reviewed by several lawyers and they find it extremely unfair that I was incarcerated, I WAS NOT the instigator, I did not pre-meditate anything, I stopped a violently drunken man from entering my home after he smashed my window and door and came at me with a brick in my home , in the process of split seconds of the altercation, he received a 4cm cut to the back of his head , NOT ON PURPOSE, it just happened because he was violently drunk and I do not understand how this has not been seen in my case. I genuinely have no understanding why this has happened in my life, I have nothing against the fellow that fell, I tell you before God and my mother in heaven and my son that it was in the process of getting the drunken man out. How can it be fair to serve 3yrs and 9 months and then be deported.[46]

5. In a letter requesting ministerial intervention dated 24 June 2025, the applicant advanced a similar characterisation and added criticisms about the fairness of the process, stating:

While I acknowledge the conviction that resulted in the cancellation of my visa, I stress that this incident arose from an act of self-defence in my own home against a drunken intruder who violently forced entry. I was not the aggressor, and the wound suffered by the other individual was accidental. This case was not properly represented in court due to language barriers, lack of understanding of the legal system, and ineffective legal representation.[47]

6. In a statement dated 16 November 2025, the applicant again described his fear and the immediacy of the events in the following terms:

A man came to my home very drunk, carrying a brick, and started smashing my window and front door. He forced his way into my house, yelling and threatening to kill me. I was terrified. It was my home. In that moment, I honestly believed that I could die. > > There was a struggle inside my house. In the middle of that fast and chaotic moment, the man suffered a cut to the back of his head (about 4 cm). I did not plan it. I did not wake up wanting to hurt anyone. I was trying to defend myself inside my own home, but the force I used went too far.[48]

I do not minimise the harm that occurred or the fear experienced by the victim. I am deeply remorseful for the injury and for the consequences of that night. I sincerely apologise to the victim and to the Australian community.[49]

I understand and accept that the court found that the force I used went beyond lawful self-defence.[50]

9. The applicant also relied on express statements of remorse and responsibility. In the December ASFIC, he stated:

I accept full responsibility for my past offending and I am genuinely remorseful. I understand that my behaviour in the past caused fear and harm in the community and that I failed to meet the standards expected of a non-citizen living in Australia.[51]

10. In his oral evidence, the applicant acknowledged that his statement in his earlier undated material to the effect that the victim received a cut 'not on purpose' was not correct, and he accepted that he acted on purpose (as he described it) to stop what he perceived to be a threat. When taken to the sentencing judge's findings, he ultimately accepted that the offending was very serious and expressed regret, while maintaining his account of fear and self-defence.
11. With regard to risk of reoffending, in his written statements the applicant submitted that his risk had reduced because he was now older than when much of his offending occurred, he no longer had the same lifestyle, and he now wanted peace and family time. He submitted that he had insight and remorse, understood the impact of his crimes on victims and the community, and had undertaken rehabilitation. He further submitted that he had maintained good behaviour in custody and immigration detention and had a strong and stable support network in the community.[52] In his closing statement, the applicant submitted that his offending was in the past, that he had served his sentence and accepted responsibility, and that he had demonstrated sustained rehabilitation, including stable conduct in custody, undertaking education programs, and maintaining a steady work history in custody.
12. The applicant identified 'protective factors' that reduced his likelihood of reoffending, including his relationship with his son, his feelings toward his late mother, employment, religion, self-reflection and rehabilitation in prison, and ties to friends and the community including Tribal Warrior. He stated that his mother's death while he was incarcerated was a 'wakeup call' to better himself and live in a way that would make her proud.[53]
13. As to programs and rehabilitation, the applicant relied on completion of the Salvation Army Positive Lifestyle Program. He stated that the program helped him to understand his triggers and reactions and develop strategies to manage anger and stress and to avoid turning to substances or aggression.[54] The applicant also stated in his November ASFIC that he completed rehabilitation programs including anger management and emotional regulation, alcohol and other drug education, conflict resolution and positive communication, and other faith-based and community programs.[55] He further stated that he was not eligible for criminogenic programs in custody because he was assessed as low risk of reoffending and referred to a letter from NSW Communities and Justice dated 26 May 2023 which recorded (as at that date) no breaches of discipline, regular family visits, and employment in business units during custody.[56]
14. In his oral evidence, the applicant said he had completed additional programs, including alcohol awareness, cannabis awareness and anger management, and he described learning about the effects and harms of alcohol and drugs and the need to make different choices and avoid bad company. He accepted that there was no documentary evidence before the Tribunal of completion of those additional courses, and stated he did not know such evidence was required. He also accepted in his oral evidence that his rehabilitation was incomplete and still required work.
15. The applicant also submitted that his employment history and work ethic demonstrated stability and rehabilitation. He relied on evidence including: a letter from Will Caskey, Offender Employment Officer at Corrective Services NSW, describing his employment at Belmore Engineering and stating he was hardworking and well-liked, and a case note report describing him as polite and respectful with work performance exceeding expectations.[57] He also relied on a letter from Mr Rickie Thompson, a SafeWork NSW assessor, stating that he had taken responsibility for his past and had worked to give back to the community, including by mentoring local youth. The applicant submitted that this evidence supported that he had positive structure, pro-social relationships and capacity for lawful employment upon release.[58]
16. The applicant submitted that involvement with the Tribal Warrior Association and the Aboriginal community had been an important positive influence. He stated that he has participated in the 'Clean Slate Without Prejudice' program. He submitted he intended to continue this engagement if allowed to remain in Australia, and that having strong mentors and a community that expected the best from him was part of his plan to avoid reoffending.[59]
17. The applicant stated that his relationship with his son was a further motivation not to reoffend. He acknowledged his offending and imprisonment had caused his son pain, confusion and embarrassment, and stated that becoming a better father was his 'top priority', stating: 'I want to show him, by my actions, that a man can admit his mistakes, change, and live a good life.'[60]
18. He further submitted that his post-release plans included obtaining employment in construction, welding or related work, avoiding antisocial peers, continuing involvement with Tribal Warrior, avoiding drugs and alcohol abuse, focusing on rebuilding his relationship with his son, and supporting Ms Berrio.[61] He also referred to an employment offer from a friend, Charlie, reported in the November ASFIC, although it was unclear whether that offer still stood.[62] In his closing statement, the applicant stated that if released he would pursue welding or a trade, take any available employment immediately, comply with all reporting conditions, and engage with support services.
19. Finally, the applicant relied on the professional risk assessment evidence in the pre-release report dated 27 March 2024, which assessed him as Medium/Low risk of reoffending according to the LSI-R.[63] He submitted that this assessment supported his contention that he did not present an unacceptable risk if allowed to remain in Australia.
20. In the RSFIC, the Minister submitted that, in assessing the likelihood of further offending, the Tribunal was required to have regard to the available evidence about the applicant's risk of reoffending and the evidence of rehabilitation achieved by the time of decision, giving weight to time spent in the community since the most recent offence.
21. The Minister contended that the applicant's current expressions of responsibility and remorse should be treated with caution. Reliance was placed on the applicant's police interview on 2 June 2020, in which he repeatedly denied hitting the victim with a brick; the fact that he pleaded not guilty and the matter proceeded to a jury trial where the jury found beyond reasonable doubt that he threw a brick at the victim; and the sentencing judge's observation that, at the time of sentence, there was no evidence to suggest the offender had expressed remorse. The Minister contended that, in light of this history and the applicant's repeat offending, it was open to the Tribunal to find that the applicant's current expressions of remorse were insincere. In closing submissions, the Minister also submitted that the applicant's statements of remorse and rehabilitation in his oral evidence were not consistent with other evidence before the Tribunal, including the sentencing remarks and the pre-release material, and that this reduced the weight that could be given to those statements.
22. The Minister further contended that the applicant's ongoing use of self-defence language undermined his claimed insight. It was argued that the applicant's statement that he 'now understands that the Court found the force I used went beyond lawful self-defence' misrepresented the Court's findings, because the applicant did not ultimately rely on self-defence at trial and no findings of self-defence were made. The Minister also placed reliance on the sentencing remarks to the effect that any provocation did not significantly reduce the applicant's moral culpability. The Minister submitted, by reference to the applicant's oral evidence, that the applicant had difficulty accepting aspects of the court's findings and that the Tribunal should be cautious about the weight placed on the applicant's claimed insight, remorse and rehabilitation.
23. The Minister also referred to three incidents of misconduct in criminal custody for which the applicant faced disciplinary action: failing a prescribed drug test for buprenorphine on 30 June 2023;[64] 'fight or engage in other physical combat' on 14 September 2023;[65] and a contravention of 'smoke, or use tobacco or e-cigarette, within a correctional centre' on 20 April 2024.[66] It was contended that the conduct was inconsistent with the applicant's assertions that he had 'no incidents of bad behaviour'[67] during his custodial sentence. It was submitted that it was open to the Tribunal to characterise these breaches as incidents of bad behaviour and not demonstrative of rehabilitation. In closing submissions, the Minister further submitted that the applicant's oral evidence about incidents in custody was inconsistent, including maintaining there were no incidents while also accepting a drug test breach and disputing involvement in a fight despite the evidence showing otherwise.
24. In addition, the Minister contended that there was no evidence of the applicant having undertaken alcohol and other drug programs during his most recent custodial sentence. The Minister submitted in closing that, while the applicant claimed in his oral evidence to have completed additional courses, there was no documentary evidence of those courses and they had not been identified by name in his written submissions.
25. Referring to the Pre-Release Report dated 27 March 2024, the Minister noted that the applicant was assessed as presenting a medium to low risk of reoffending on the LSI-R but submitted that the report nevertheless identified a need for ongoing intervention. The Minister relied on the report's recommendations for further supports, including referral to anger management programs, alcohol and other drug services, and a GP for a mental health assessment, and the imposition of an abstinence from alcohol condition.[68] The Minister also relied on the report's observation that the applicant had not accepted accountability for the significant impact on the victim and the seriousness of his offending. The Minister submitted in closing that the principal risk factor associated with the applicant's offending, alcohol, had not been adequately addressed, and that the applicant's stated willingness to undertake further alcohol intervention should be treated with caution where he did not accept that he had an alcohol problem.
26. On that basis, the Minister submitted that the Tribunal should find that the applicant's risk of reoffending was real and unacceptable, particularly given that he had not been released into the community and his conduct in the community had not been tested.

Conclusion as to protection of the Australian community

1. The Direction requires a forward-looking assessment of likelihood of engaging in further criminal or other serious conduct based on evidence, including evidence of rehabilitation achieved by the time of decision and the extent to which the person has been tested in the community since the most recent offence.
2. There are aspects of the evidence which, considered in isolation, may support the applicant's contention that his likelihood of reoffending is low. In particular, Judge Zahra expressed the view that, with long-term supervision upon release, the applicant had good prospects of rehabilitation and was unlikely to reoffend. The March 2024 Pre-Release Report assessed the applicant as presenting a medium to low risk of reoffending and recorded a low result on the Violence Risk Scale Screening Version. However, that evidence must be weighed against other material which tempers the confidence that can be placed in an assessment of low to medium re offending risk.
3. First, the applicant has not been tested in the community for a lengthy period since the index offending. He has been in custody and then immigration detention. The absence of a sustained post-offence period of demonstrated lawful conduct in the community limits the Tribunal's capacity to evaluate whether any claimed changes have been maintained outside institutional controls, and in the context of ordinary community stressors and triggers.
4. Secondly, the Pre-Release Report itself recommended further targeted intervention, including referral to anger management programs, AOD services, and a GP for a mental health assessment, and recommended an abstinence from alcohol condition. Those recommendations indicate that, notwithstanding the screening outcomes, relevant dynamic risk factors remained to be managed. Those observations are directly relevant to the assessment of likelihood because they bear on insight and the stability of behavioural change.
5. Thirdly, the applicant's evidence about insight and responsibility is mixed. In his written evidence, he made express statements of remorse and responsibility.[69] The applicant also ultimately accepted in his oral evidence that the offending was very serious when he was taken to the sentencing judge's findings. Further, contrary to the Minister's submissions, I note that the Pre-Release Report recorded that, in discussions about the victim, the applicant expressed regret and appeared genuine in his concern about the injuries caused, and that he had written an apology letter to the victim. However, elsewhere the applicant's evidence tended to frame the offending primarily through his own fear and the 'fast and chaotic' circumstances. His acceptance of responsibility was not always matched by the way he described the incident, including the victim's experience and the extent to which his own actions could have been avoided. He repeatedly framed the cancellation offence as 'purely in self-defence', asserted 'I was not the aggressor, and the wound suffered by the other individual was accidental'[70] and criticised the criminal process as unfair due to language barriers and ineffective representation. I accept that these matters warrant caution in treating the applicant's later expressions of remorse and responsibility as evidence of settled insight, particularly where they sit alongside ongoing disagreement with the outcome of the criminal proceedings and an ongoing self-defence narrative.
6. Fourthly, the evidence of rehabilitation is limited. The evidence before me establishes that the applicant completed the Salvation Army Positive Lifestyle Program (certificate dated 28 October 2022).[71] Beyond that, while the applicant asserted participation in other programs including anger management and AOD education, I accept the Minister's submission that there was no evidence of the applicant having undertaken AOD or other programs during his most recent custodial sentence. While I give weight to the completion of the Positive Lifestyle Program, I am not satisfied the other programs were completed and I do not place weight on them as evidence of rehabilitation achieved.
7. Fifthly, the applicant's conduct in custody is a further consideration that reduces my confidence in the applicant's account of sustained change. The three incidents of misconduct in criminal custody for which the applicant faced disciplinary action post-date the Corrective Services letter of 26 May 2023 recording no breaches up to that date. At the hearing, the applicant accepted the drug related breach and accepted he was present when the fighting incident occurred, while denying involvement. I accept that behaviour in custody is only one indicator and does not establish how the applicant will conduct himself in the community. However, these incidents are inconsistent with a stable pattern of compliance over that period and qualify the weight I give to the applicant's claims of behavioural change.
8. I have also considered the protective factors the applicant has identified, including family ties, community ties and employment intentions. The applicant's closing statement emphasised his intention to work, and comply with all reporting conditions, and engage with support services. In his evidence to the Tribunal, Mr Cyril Mundine stated, if the cancellation of the applicant's visa was revoked, the applicant would be invited to attend Tribal Warriors' Men's Program to further support his rehabilitation. However, there was no evidence before me to indicate any other programs have been identified or put in place directed at the risk factors identified in the Pre-Release Report. I am not satisfied that the identified risks will be meaningfully managed upon release.
9. Nonetheless, I take into account Judge Zahra's sentencing remarks giving weight to the lengthy period between the applicant's last violent offending and the index offence. His Honour found that with long term supervision upon his release, the applicant has good prospects of rehabilitation and is unlikely to re-offend. I accept that the applicant has support and oversight through his relationships with Ms Berrio and Mr Mundine, and strong motivation not to reoffend arising from his relationship with Andreson and Ms Berrio's children. I also note that the applicant engaged with Tribal Warrior on his own accord during the period between 2008 and 2020. I place limited weight on the gap in offending as evidence of an ability to self-rehabilitate and avoid future offending.
10. I have found that the applicant's conduct to date is very serious. I have also found that the nature of the harm that could result if similar conduct were repeated is grave, such that the Australian community's tolerance for risk is low. While there is evidence which may suggest a reduced likelihood of reoffending, including the sentencing judge's view and the screening outcomes in the Pre-Release Report, I am not satisfied that those matters, either alone or together, sufficiently address the features of the evidence that bear on future risk. In particular, the applicant has not spent any meaningful period of time back in the community since the index offence, showing he can live lawfully and manage conflict outside custody and detention; the Pre-Release Report identifies ongoing intervention needs relevant to violence related risk factors; there is little evidence that the applicant has completed rehabilitation that directly addresses the causes of his violent offending; there were misconduct incidents in custody; and the evidence shows that the applicant's remorse, insight and accountability remain mixed. For these reasons, I am not satisfied that the likelihood of further criminal or other serious conduct can be treated as acceptably low. Given the serious violence involved in the offending and the catastrophic harm that could result if it happened again, the residual risk that still exists on the evidence is not compatible with the Direction's priority of protecting the Australian community. Therefore, overall, I give primary consideration 1 significant weight against revocation.

Primary consideration 2: Whether the conduct engaged in constituted family violence

1. Paragraph 8.2 of the Direction requires the Tribunal to consider any family violence perpetrated by a non-citizen, reflecting the Government's serious concern about allowing a person who has engaged in family violence to enter or remain in Australia, with the weight to be given being proportionate to the seriousness of the conduct.
2. This consideration is engaged where the non-citizen has been convicted of, found guilty of, or had charges proven for an offence involving family violence (8.2.(2)(a)), and or where there is information from independent and authoritative sources indicating involvement in family violence and procedural fairness has been afforded (8.2.(2)(b)). Where engaged, the Tribunal must consider the seriousness of the conduct having regard to matters such as frequency or escalation, any cumulative pattern, evidence of rehabilitation and acceptance of responsibility, and whether the person has re-offended after being warned about the consequences of further family violence.
3. The material produced under summons included NSW police fact sheets describing reported domestic or personal violence incidents in 2014 and 2019 and referring to the possible making of apprehended violence orders (AVO). The 2014 material comprised more than one event. A 27 June 2014 entry recorded allegations that the applicant threw a glass of water at a partner and threw her clothes out, with an alleged physical struggle and injury. The relevant fact sheet recorded that police concluded a non-urgent AVO would be applied for.[72] A 2 July 2014 fact sheet recorded a verbal argument and a misunderstanding about AVO conditions and referred to a 'current AVO' and an order number, but also recorded 'nil threats, nil violence' and nil fears.[73]
4. The 2019 fact sheet recorded allegations of a domestic altercation in which the applicant, after drinking alcohol, was alleged to have thrown a partner's clothing around, damaged property and thrown items around a bedroom in circumstances that included an initial report of mutual physicality and the partner expressing concern about escalation. The fact sheet recorded that the applicant's partner had stated she did not have fears for her safety and was unwilling to provide a formal statement. It also recorded that a provisional 'non-urgent' AVO was applied for by the police. The Tribunal does not have the AVO or ADVO instruments, if any, before it, nor any court outcome in relation to any application.[74]
5. In cross examination, after being advised of his privilege against self-incrimination, the Minister questioned the applicant about the police fact sheets, the suggestion that it involved domestic or family violence and the making of an apprehended violence order. The applicant initially said he could not recall the alleged 2014 incidents. When it was put to him that it allegedly involved an argument, yelling and him throwing water, he responded that the charges were withdrawn and that 'they' went to court and 'said they were lying.' The applicant's evidence moved between the 2014 and 2019 material. He denied hitting anyone and disputed key aspects of the more serious allegations. He accepted that he had been drinking on one occasion, that there was pushing and shoving, and that he threw a partner's clothes out of the house because he wanted her to leave. He disputed aspects of the police allegations about throwing electronic equipment and bottles, and said he was not currently subject to any apprehended violence orders.
6. In closing, the Minister relied on paragraph 8.2(2)(b) of the Direction and submitted that primary consideration 2 was engaged because the police fact sheets were from an independent and authoritative source. It was submitted that this evidence was served on the applicant on 16 January 2026 and put to the applicant in cross examination, so procedural fairness was afforded to him. The evidence suggested domestic altercations in 2014 and 2019 with former partners, identified by the applicant as [Redacted] and [Redacted], and that the applicant was named as a defendant in apprehended violence orders. The Minister acknowledged that the AVOs themselves were not before the Tribunal and that there are only police facts available. The Minister submitted that while the conduct, if accepted as reported would be at the lesser end of seriousness, the applicant's limited insight into domestic violence and his evasiveness were concerning and that this primary consideration should be given minor weight against revocation.
7. Paragraph 8.2 of the Direction provides that the Tribunal must have regard to family violence perpetrated by the non-citizen when deciding whether to revoke a visa cancellation decision. Relevantly, this paragraph is only engaged if paragraph 8.2(2)(a) or paragraph 8.2(2)(b) is engaged. On the evidence before me, there is no conviction, finding of guilt, or charges proven in relation to the 2014 or 2019 incidents. Accordingly, paragraph 8.2(2)(a) is not engaged. The Minister's reliance is therefore necessarily confined to paragraph 8.2(2)(b).
8. I accept that the police fact sheets and related police records may constitute 'independent and authoritative sources' for the purposes of paragraph 8.2(2)(b). However, consistent with MVPF v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship,[75] that does not provide a basis for the Tribunal to treat the incidents as 'family violence' without applying the Direction's definition of family violence in paragraph 4(1), which is confined to conduct that coerces or controls a family member or causes the family member to be fearful. I also approach the fact sheets with caution. They record allegations and police observations and are not determinative of the underlying facts. In this case, that caution is reinforced because the underlying AVO or ADVO instruments, if any, are not in evidence, and the allegations have not been determined in any criminal or civil proceedings. It is not sufficient to treat an applicant's partial agreement to background facts, or an imprecise acceptance of an incident as the meaningful admission of 'family violence' as defined.
9. The references to a provisional AVO or a 'current AVO' in the fact sheets, without more, do not establish that the alleged conduct occurred as described or that it met the definition of family violence in the Direction. Having regard to the 2014 fact sheets, I am not satisfied that establish is conduct meeting the directions definition of family violence. The 2 July 2014 entry records a misunderstanding about AVO conditions and a verbal argument, with 'nil threats, nil violence' and 'fears held by the victim: nil' and 'fears held by police: nil'. The applicant's oral evidence did not identify conduct amounting to coercion or control, or causing fear, and he denied violence.
10. In respect of the 2019 incident, the fact sheet recorded the police observing alleged volatile behaviour and property being thrown in a bedroom, the presence of broken glass and flammable liquid, and a contemporaneous concern expressed by the complainant about the applicant burning the house down. However, the same police fact sheet also states that the complainant 'did not have fears for her safety' and declined to provide a formal statement,[76] and the applicant's oral evidence disputed key aspects and characterised the interaction as mutual conflict, accepting only that he had been drinking and that he threw a partner's clothes out.
11. For the reasons above, I am not satisfied on the evidence before me that either incident involves conduct that meets the Direction's definition of family violence in paragraph 4(1). Even if paragraph 8.2(2)(b) is technically engaged, I am not prepared to make a finding that the applicant has been involved in the perpetration of family violence as defined, given there are no tested findings of fact, the AVO or ADVO instruments, if any, were not in evidence and the police narratives are both disputed and limited in detail. I therefore give this primary consideration no weight in the overall evaluative balance.

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

1. Paragraph 8.3 of the Direction requires the Tribunal to consider the strength, nature and duration of the non-citizen's ties to Australia. This includes considering the impact of the decision on the non-citizen's immediate family members in Australia who are Australian citizens, permanent residents, or otherwise have an indefinite right to remain. The Tribunal must also consider other ties to the Australian community, having regard in particular to the length of residence in Australia, including whether the person arrived as a young child, whether offending commenced soon after arrival, and the extent of positive contribution to the Australian community. The Tribunal must also have regard to the strength, duration and nature of family and social links with people who are Australian citizens, Australian permanent residents, and/or who have an indefinite right to remain in Australia.
2. The applicant arrived in Australia in December 2000 when he was 21 years old and has lived in Australia for about 25 years. He is divorced and has one adult child in Australia who is an Australian citizen.
3. In the RSFIC and in closing submissions, the Minister accepted that the applicant has established ties to Australia through his length of residence and through family and social connections in Australia, including his adult son, Anderson, and his ongoing relationship with his former spouse, Ms Berrio, and his claimed community links. The Minister submitted, however, that the weight of these ties should be reduced because the applicant commenced offending shortly after arriving in Australia, and he has spent at least five years in prison, and much of the first decade of his life in Australia was spent engaging in criminal activity. While the Minister ultimately conceded that this consideration should weigh very strongly in favour of revocation, it was submitted that it is not outweighed by the other primary considerations.
4. In his personal circumstances form, the applicant stated he has a close relationship with his son and supports him financially and emotionally. He also described ongoing ties to Ms Berrio and his current partner, Ms Cano, and described Ms Berrio's parents as family members in Australia. The applicant also claimed positive community contribution, including donating clothing and food to homeless shelters in Sydney.[77]
5. In a supporting statement, the applicant said his son was born in Sydney, he remains extremely close friends with Ms Berrio, and she supported him through his criminal trial and imprisonment. He also stated he wished to support Ms Berrio and her two minor children after the death of her second husband and described himself as committed to supporting them emotionally and financially.[78] He asserted that his deportation would harm his son and other family members in Australia, and that his son had already experienced emotional and psychological distress due to their prolonged separation.[79]
6. The applicant relied on an email from Anderson, describing a good upbringing and a positive relationship with the applicant, and stating that he found the prospect of the applicant's removal 'extremely difficult' and would significantly affect him. Ms Berrio provided multiple emails to the Department describing the continuing supportive relationship between her and the applicant and her view that the applicant's removal would greatly impact Anderson.[80]
7. The applicant also relied on a written statement from Ms Cano, who acknowledged awareness of his history of assault offending and the cancellation offence but described him as a person of positive qualities and reported that, when he lived with her on parole in 2021, he was respectful, contributed to domestic responsibilities and attended work daily.[81] The evidence also included other letters written in Spanish without an English translation.[82]
8. In addition, the applicant relied on statements from friends. Ms Rosheen Rodriguez, a primary school teacher, described a 25-year friendship, ongoing contact during custody and immigration detention, and her view that the applicant has reflected and developed a different outlook for the future.[83] Mr Rickie Thompson, a SafeWork NSW assessor, stated that the applicant has taken responsibility for his past and has volunteered to mentor local youth, with the aim of supporting them to avoid trouble and make better choices.[84]
9. As to broader community ties, the applicant provided a statement describing a respectful connection to the Aboriginal community in Sydney, including being welcomed and accepted by local Aboriginal Elders and families and participation in community activities and cultural practises.[85] Mr Cyril Mundine of Tribal Warrior Aboriginal Corporation, provided evidence that he had known the applicant for over 20 years, and that the applicant had a strong connection to, and is accepted within the Aboriginal community, including participation in Tribal Warrior programs. In his oral evidence, Mr Mundine similarly described knowing the applicant since 2001 and that the applicant is active with in Tribal Warrior.
10. The applicant further relied on his employment history and skills developed in Australia, including work in construction and related trades and vocational training. He stated he had worked for over 20 years in Australia and could return to work if permitted to remain.[86]
11. In his oral evidence, the applicant reiterated that he has lived in Australia for about 25 years. He gave evidence that he has close family connections in Australia and that he is involved with the Aboriginal community and Tribal Warrior, including his participation in a boxing program. With regard to his relationship with Ms Cano, the applicant gave qualified evidence about its status. He said he was unsure whether their relationship was ongoing, and that it was sometimes 'quiet,' although he had spoken with her about a week before the hearing and had not seen her for more than six months. He said he did not ask questions about whether she was seeing other people and gave equivocal answers about exclusivity of their relationship. However, he later stated that Ms Cano would regard the relationship as exclusive.
12. Ms Berrio's oral evidence was that she had known the applicant since 1998, they were married and had one child together, and she continues to have a supportive relationship with him. She gave evidence that the applicant has a close relationship with her two younger children from her second marriage, including playing a supportive role for them. She further stated that she would benefit from the applicant contributing financially to the family.
13. Anderson's oral evidence was that he maintains regular contact with the applicant, including by phone. He described the relationship as close and stated the applicant's removal would be emotionally devastating to him and would 'break [his] heart.' He gave evidence that the applicant has acted as a mentor and that separation has already had a significant impact on him. Anderson also stated that he is financially struggling and is currently residing in public housing.
14. I find the applicant has substantial ties to Australia through his long residence since 2000 and having spent most of his adult life here. I accept that his relationship with Anderson is a significant tie, characterised by ongoing contact and strong mutual emotional support. I accept that Anderson would be significantly affected if the applicant were removed. In reaching that view, I have taken into account and accept Ms Berrio's evidence that she would be reluctant to allow Anderson to travel to Colombia to visit the applicant if he were removed, due to safety concerns, which would likely limit their practical ability to maintain their relationship in person. I further accept that the applicant has enduring social and family links through Ms Berrio and her household, including a continuing and supportive relationship with Ms Berrio, a close relationship with her two younger children, and ongoing connections with her parents, who are all Australian citizens.
15. I further accept that the applicant has established community links through the Aboriginal community and through Tribal Warrior programs, and that Mr Mundine's evidence supports the existence of a real, ongoing support network in Australia beyond immediate family.
16. As to the applicant's relationship with Ms Cano, she did not give evidence at the hearing and there was no independent or current evidence before me to clarify the present nature of the relationship, including whether it is ongoing, the extent of mutual dependence, or the practical impact the decision would have on her. The applicant's oral evidence about the relationship was limited and at times vague. In those circumstances, I place only limited weight on the claimed strength of their relationship as it currently stands.
17. I have considered the Minister's admission that the applicant's offending commenced relatively soon after his arrival in Australia. Even so, the evidence overall demonstrates longstanding and meaningful connections to Australia that have endured over many years. In my view, the nature of those established connections, including close family relationships and stable community supports, is of sufficient depth and duration to warrant significant weight in favour of revocation.

Primary consideration 4: The best interests of minor children in Australia

1. Paragraph 8.4 of the Direction requires the Tribunal to determine whether cancellation, refusal or non-revocation, is in the best interests of any child affected by the decision who is under 18 at the time of the decision. Where there is more than one relevant child, the Tribunal must consider the best interests of each child individually to the extent their interests differ.
2. In assessing best interests of minor children, the Tribunal must consider relevant factors including the nature and duration of the relationship between the child and the non-citizen, the likelihood of a positive future parental role, any negative impact of the non-citizen's past or likely future conduct, the likely effect of separation, including the practical ability to maintain contact, the presence of other parental figures, any known views of the child, and any evidence of exposure to family violence, abuse, neglect, or trauma arising from the non-citizen's conduct.
3. In the RSFIC, the Ministers submitted that the applicant's own son, Anderson, is an adult and therefore not a minor child for the purposes of this consideration. The Minister noted the applicant's statement that he wished to help his ex-wife, Ms Berrio, with her two minor children, Benjamin and Samantha, but contended that limited information had been provided about the nature of the applicant's relationship with them or how they would be affected. The Minister also contended that the applicant did not identify Benjamin and Samantha as minor children affected by the decision in his personal circumstances form and submitted that only limited weight should be given to this consideration in favour of revocation.
4. In cross examination, the applicant described Ms Berrio's minor children as important to him and stated he spoke to them frequently, almost every day, because he spoke with Ms Berrio daily and the children wanted to speak with him. When challenged by the Minister about not providing information regarding the children in his personal circumstances form, he stated he thought the question referred to biological children, and he rejected the proposition that he did not include them because they had no role in his life. He further stated that, before entering criminal custody, he saw the children when he saw his son, but he did not play a caregiving or parenting role for them, explaining that at that time their father was alive and living with them. He also accepted that the children never stayed with him but reiterated that he saw them as important.
5. Ms Berrio gave evidence that her two minor children, who are aged 13 and 10, were about eight and five years old respectively when the applicant went to prison. She described the applicant's relationship with them as akin to family ('like an uncle'). She stated that the children felt 'very safe' with him, and that Benjamin saw him as a male figure. She said that before the applicant's incarceration the children saw him about every three weeks and found him 'very fun.' She also stated that the applicant spoke to them every time he spoke to her, and that the children had visited him in custody a few times (about four visits). Ms Berrio further gave evidence that her husband (the children's biological father) had died from brain cancer, and that the children had experienced trauma. She said the children would be very sad if the applicant were removed. Anderson's evidence also supported the assertion that the applicant has played a role in Ms Berrio children's lives.
6. In closing, the Minister submitted that Benjamin and Samantha are the two minor children relevant to primary consideration 4. The Minister emphasised that the applicant did not initially identify them in his personal circumstances form or in earlier representations but accepted that the evidence of Ms Berrio and Anderson established that the applicant has played a role in the children's lives and that they would be impacted by the decision. The Minister submitted that, because Ms Berrio is the primary caregiver and the applicant's relationship is not parental or caregiving, the consideration should be given only moderate weight in favour of revocation.
7. I accept Ms Berrio's evidence about Benjamin's and Samantha's ages and their relationship with the applicant. On that evidence, the applicant has had an established, positive and safe relationship with the children over a number of years, including regular contact prior to incarceration, continued contact through Ms Berrio, and some visits while he was in custody. I also accept that the children's circumstances include bereavement, given their biological father died from brain cancer, and that Ms Berrio described the children as having experienced trauma. In that context, I am satisfied that the applicant's removal would likely cause the children additional sadness and emotional disruption, particularly given the role Ms Berrio described the applicant as playing for Benjamin (as a trusted male figure) and the children's sense of safety with him.
8. I have considered the evidence directed to the children's relationship with the applicant, the likely impact of separation, the practical capacity for maintaining contact from overseas, and available evidence about their particular circumstances and vulnerabilities. I find that the applicant's relationship with Ms Berrio's children is not parental in the ordinary sense and she remains the children's primary caregiver. However, I accept that the applicant has maintained regular contact with the children through Ms Berrio and intends to continue that contact, and that he would provide practical and emotional support to Ms Berrio in relation to the children if required.
9. Balancing these matters, I find that it is in Benjamin's and Samantha's best interests for the applicant to remain in Australia, because maintaining their ongoing relationship with him would likely support their emotional wellbeing and stability. I give primary consideration 4 reasonably significant weight in favour of revocation.

1. Paragraph 8.5(1) of the Direction provides that 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 would not allow them to enter or remain in Australia.
2. Paragraph 8.5(2) of the Direction directs that visa cancellation or refusal, or non-revocation of the mandatory cancellation of a visa, may be appropriate simply because the nature of the character concerns or offences is such that the Australian community would expect that the person should not be granted or continue to hold a visa. In particular, the Australian community expects that the Australian Government can and should refuse entry to non-citizens, or cancel their visas, if they raise serious character concerns through certain conduct including 'commission of crimes against government representatives or officials...in the performance of their duties' and 'commission of serious crimes against women, children or other vulnerable members of the community', in this context, 'serious crimes' include crimes of a violent or sexual nature...' (subparagraph 8.5(2)(c) Direction 110).
3. Paragraph 8.5(3) of the Direction further confirms that the stated expectations apply regardless of whether the non-citizen poses a measurable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community.
4. Paragraph 8.5(4) provides that decision-makers must apply the Government's stated expectations and are not to conduct an independent assessment of those expectations in light of the individual's circumstances.
5. In the RSFIC and in oral closing submissions, the Minister submitted that the Australian community expects non-citizens to obey Australian laws and, as a norm, would expect a non-citizen who has engaged in serious conduct in breach of that expectation not to be allowed to remain in Australia. The Minister further submitted, by reference to FYBR v Minister for Home Affairs,[87] that this is a deeming consideration and it is not for the Tribunal to determine for itself the expectations of the Australian community by reference to the applicant's circumstances or evidence about those expectations. In light of the applicant's very serious offending, the nature of the potential harm if similar conduct were repeated, and the relevant principles in the Direction, the Minister submitted that this primary consideration should be given very significant weight against revocation.
6. In his written submissions, the applicant acknowledged that the Australian community expects non-citizens to obey Australian law and accepted that serious offending has serious consequences. He nevertheless submitted that the community also values rehabilitation and second chances, and that it would not want a person who has genuinely changed, has strong support, and is willing and able to work and contribute to be permanently separated from his child and community if that is not necessary to protect the public.[88] He contended that, in his case, the community's expectations can be met without removal because of his claimed rehabilitation, support network and intention to live lawfully and contribute through work.
7. I accept the Minister's submission that the expectations of the Australian community in paragraph 8.5 of the Direction are stated in a normative manner. The consideration concerns the expectations of the Australian community as a whole. In applying it, the Tribunal is to rely on the Government's stated views, rather than independently assessing the community's expectations in the particular case. Given that the community expectations are not expressed in relation to any particular case, I reject the applicant's submissions in this regard.
8. Referring to paragraph 8.5 of Direction No. 99, Horan J in RCLN v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs[89] noted that the Direction does not 'require decision-makers to moderate the expectations of the Australian community in light of the specific circumstances of the non-citizen.'[90] His Honour stated:

The articulation of community expectations is directed to the kinds of criminal conduct or other serious conduct in respect of which the Australian community expects that the Government can and should refuse or cancel visas, "regardless of whether the non-citizen poses a measurable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community"... > > The assessment of community expectations is therefore not a matter of evidence, and does not turn on the personal circumstances of the individual non-citizen... > > [T]he decision-maker can take into account the personal circumstances of the individual non-citizen in so far as they are relevant to another primary consideration or one of the other considerations, and adjust the relative weight to be given to each of the primary and other considerations accordingly.[91] (Horan J's emphasis)

9. Justice Horan referred to the decision of High Court in Ismail,[92] which confirmed that a decision maker is not required to attribute to the hypothetical Australian community knowledge of the individual's personal circumstances as known to the delegate.'[93] In discussing paragraph 8.4(4) of Direction 90, which was expressed in identical terms to paragraph 8.5(4) of Direction No. 99 and Direction No. 110, the Court stated:

Paragraph 8.4(4) is to be understood as directing the decision maker not to attempt to infer what the expectations of the Australian community would be "in the particular case" (that is, with the knowledge of the delegate about the applicant's personal circumstances), but to proceed on the basis that the views of the Australian Government set out in para 8.4(1) (3) are the relevant norm described as the expectations of the Australian community. That norm, as applicable by reference to the terms of para 8(1) (3), is then to be weighed with other relevant matters as required by paras 6 and 7 of Direction 90.[94]

10. The applicant has engaged in very serious conduct, including violent criminal offending, in breach of this expectation. I find that the Australian community expects that the Australian Government should not allow the applicant to remain in Australia by cancelling the visa. I find that this consideration weighs significantly against revocation.

1. Paragraph 9 of the Direction identifies a non-exhaustive list of other considerations that must be taken into account when making a decision under section 501(1), 501(2) or 501CA (4), where relevant. These considerations include:

1. The Tribunal is required to consider the legal consequences of a decision on a non-citizen, including having regard to Australia's non-refoulement obligations in respect of unlawful non-citizens. This includes the statutory consequences that flow if the cancellation is not revoked, and the practical impact of those consequences on the applicant.
2. While this consideration in the Direction refers to non-refoulment obligations, it also makes reference to detention and removal, highlighting that there are a range of legal consequences of a visa refusal or cancellation under s 501 or related provisions, including unlawful status, the likelihood of being detained and/or removed, and refusal or cancellation of other visas. I consider these matters in their practical operation for this applicant, and not merely by reference to their characterisation as consequences that follow 'by operation of law.'
3. If the mandatory cancellation of the applicant's visa is revoked, he will retain his visa and be eligible to apply for a new RRV.
4. As submitted by the Minister, if the mandatory cancellation is not revoked, the applicant becomes an unlawful non-citizen. As a result, he would be liable to removal from Australia as soon as reasonably practicable under s 198, and in the meantime, detention under s 189 of the Act. Section 197C of the Act provides that for the purposes of s 198, it is irrelevant whether Australia has non-refoulement obligations in respect of a non-citizen. In such circumstances, the applicant would face significant restrictions on applying for another visa. Under s 501E of the Act, an application for a visa other than a protection visa cannot be made from within the migration zone, unless it is for a Bridging Visa R (Class WR) in limited circumstances.
5. Furthermore, certain visas are subject to Special Return Criteria (SRCs). SRC 5001(c) is of particular relevance as it provides for permanent exclusion if the visa applicant previously had a visa cancelled under section 501 and that cancellation has not been revoked under s 501CA. There is no provision for a visa applicant to whom SRC 5001 applies to request a waiver of the permanent exclusion. However, SRC 5001 will no longer apply if the Minister acts personally to grant a permanent visa to a person whose visa was cancelled under s 501. In practical terms, absent personal ministerial intervention, non-revocation may therefore carry the consequence of ongoing exclusion from return.
6. The applicant applied for a Protection visa on 18 July 2024. In that application, he claimed that a friend was killed in Colombia in December 2023 and that the perpetrator had subsequently made threats to harm him if he returned to Colombia.[95] The application was refused by a delegate of the Minister and that decision was affirmed on review by this Tribunal, differently constituted.[96] In those proceedings, the applicant's protection claims, including any claims capable of engaging Australia's non-refoulement obligations, were considered and the applicant was found not to satisfy the criteria in s 36(2)(a) and 36(2)(aa) of the Act.[97]
7. In the RSFIC and oral closing submissions, the Minister relied on the applicant's Protection visa history and submitted the Tribunal should conclude the applicant's claims do not engage Australia's non-refoulement obligations. The Minister acknowledged that the applicant raised claims of fear of harm in his November 2025 submissions and statements, including claims of harm from gang members in Medellin who had allegedly murdered his friend's brother and threatened to harm the friend and his associates if they returned to Colombia. However, the Minister submitted these claims were materially the same as those previously advanced and rejected in the protection visa proceedings, there was no basis to depart from the earlier Tribunal findings, and the applicant is not the subject of a 'protection finding,' such that s 197C(3) is engaged to prevent removal. The Minister submitted that, if the Tribunal affirms the non-revocation decision, the applicant would be liable for removal as soon as reasonably practicable and mandatory detention in the meantime, would be precluded from applying for another visa while in Australia, and would be subject to SRCs. The Minister characterised this as intended statutory consequences and submitted this other consideration should be given minimal weight in favour of revocation.
8. The applicant's contentions about the legal consequences of the decision focused primarily on the practical consequences of removal, in particular his claimed fear of harm if returned to Colombia. In written submissions, he stated he was 'genuinely afraid' to return to Colombia, referred to gang activity and murders in his home suburb in Medellin, and stated he believed he could be 'seriously harmed or killed' if sent back, particularly given his limited support network there after almost 25 years in Australia.[98]
9. In his oral evidence, when asked what difficulties he would face if returned to Colombia, the applicant stated he would be killed, referring to the killing of his friend's brother and reporting that his friend had told him they would both be killed. It was put to him that similar claims had been raised in his Protection visa application and were rejected, and he was asked whether there were any other claims. The applicant referred instead to having no home in Colombia, being not close to family there, and having lived in Australia for 25 years. He disagreed with the proposition that the hardship associated with those matters would be merely temporary.
10. As already noted, the applicant has been found not to be owed protection obligations on the basis of the claims advanced in his Protection visa application, including his fear of being targeted by those who might assume he is wealthy upon his return, which he continues to maintain.[99] However, I have separately considered the applicant's more general and broader claims about insecurity in Colombia, including high levels of gang activity, murder and violence, as part of the practical consequences of removal. Consistently with authority recognising that, in a s 501 revocation context, a decision-maker may accept that return will involve hardship from unstable country conditions without undertaking the same assessment required to determine protection visa criteria, I accept that the applicant would likely face practical hardship arising from those general security conditions and his expressed concerns for his safety on return.[100] I do not, in this proceeding, make any finding that these general country conditions engage Australia's non-refoulement obligations, particularly in light of the earlier Tribunal findings in the protection jurisdiction. I take these matters into account as part of the practical consequences of removal. I also address them under impediments on return further below.
11. I accept that if the applicant's visa cancellation is not revoked, he would become an unlawful non-citizen and subject to detention and removal as soon as reasonably practicable. There would be significant restrictions on his ability to apply for another visa before his removal and SRC will prevent his return to Australia if he is removed.
12. I do not accept that the Minister's invocation of legislative intent is, of itself, a reason to reduce or give neutral weight to this consideration where the consequences are adverse.[101] I have therefore considered these consequences by reference to their practical realities in human terms for this applicant, not merely as abstract features of the statutory scheme. The fact that consequences are contemplated by the statutory scheme does not permit them to be dismissed or treated as neutral without evaluative consideration of their practical impact. Where consequences of this kind form part of the legal framework of the decision, the Tribunal must consider them, and the focus is on their practical reality in human terms rather than their characterisation in the abstract.[102] As explained in Doan v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs,[103] it is an error to treat serious consequences as neutral, or to effectively dismiss them, merely because they are described as 'intended' consequences of the statutory scheme, without tethering the evaluative assessment to the person's circumstances.
13. Having regard to the legal consequences of the decision in practical terms, I am mindful that non-revocation would leave the applicant liable to continued detention pending removal and to removal as soon as reasonably practicable, would significantly constrain any further visa options, and would have the practical effect of ongoing exclusion from return. I also take into account the hardship consequences I have accepted would arise from general security conditions in Colombia and the applicant's expressed concerns for his safety on return. I find this 'other consideration' weighs moderately in favour of revocation.

1. Paragraph 9.2 of the Direction requires the tribunal to consider the extent of any impediments an applicant may face if removed to their home country in establishing themselves and maintaining basic living standards, in the context of what is generally available to other citizens in that country, having regard to:

(1) The applicant's age and health;

(2) Whether there are substantial language or cultural barriers; and

(3) Any social, medical and/or economic support available to the applicant in their country.

1. In the RSFIC and oral closing submissions, the Minister submitted that the applicant would not face substantial language or cultural barriers, noting that he lived in Colombia until the age of 21 and is familiar with the language and culture. The Minister also noted the applicant's statement that he has no diagnosed medical or psychological conditions. The Minister accepted that the applicant may experience some impediments and that these may affect his mental wellbeing but submitted they would be temporary and not insurmountable. The Minister further submitted that the applicant's vocational and employment history should mitigate claimed employment and financial hardship on return, and that, as a Colombian national, he would have the same rights to social, medical and economic support available to other Colombian citizens, 'regardless of whether there are considerable differences in these supports as between Colombia and Australia.'[104]
2. In his written statements and submissions, the applicant contended that removal would leave him effectively without a support base in Colombia. He stated that he has "no family left" there, that his mother died in 2022, and that he has had little contact with his father.[105] He asserted that, if returned, he would have no familial support and no means to support himself, and he claimed that returning without family, resources or security would pose a serious threat to his safety.[106]
3. In his oral evidence, the applicant reiterated that he has no remaining family support in Colombia and that he would struggle to support himself because he would be "alone" and "have nothing".
4. In her oral evidence, Ms Berrio confirmed her understanding that the applicant has no family in Colombia and no accommodation there. She rejected the Minister's suggestion that members of her extended family would be able to provide accommodation and support to the applicant.
5. In weighing the extent of the impediments the applicant would face, I have taken into account his age and health. He is 46 years old and, on the evidence before me, he has reported no diagnosed medical or psychological conditions. While at the hearing he noted in passing that he is taking Buprenorphine to manage pain caused by an injury to his arm when he was in prison, he did not pursue this matter further. There is no persuasive evidence before me to suggest that his age or health, of itself, would prevent him from establishing himself in Colombia at a basic level. I accept, however, that removal after a lengthy period of residence in Australia and prolonged detention can carry a real psychological burden, and the Minister accepted that impediments may have an impact on his mental wellbeing.[107]
6. As to language and culture, I accept the Minister's submission that the applicant lived in Colombia until age 21, speaks Spanish and is familiar with the culture. I am also mindful that the applicant resided in Colombia for a period of approximately 11 months from July 2015 to June 2016 and claimed at the hearing that he had faced difficulties in finding employment during that period. With regard to language and culture, I am not satisfied that there are substantial language or cultural barriers of the kind contemplated by paragraph 9.2(1)(b) of the Direction.
7. The more substantial issues arise in relation to social, medical and/or economic support available to the applicant in Colombia. The applicant has consistently claimed that his mother, his only meaningful contact in Colombia, died in 2022, that he has little or no relationship with his father, and that he would return without family support or accommodation. Ms Berrio's oral evidence was consistent with that position. I accept that the absence of stable family network and accommodation on return would create immediate practical impediments to reestablishment, particularly in securing housing and accessing informal supports.
8. I take into account the Minister's submission that the applicant's work history and vocational experience may mitigate, to some extent, the employment and financial hardship he claims he would face, and that he would have access to whatever social, medical and economic supports are generally available to Colombian citizens. However, I have also considered the applicant's broader claims about insecurity and violence in Colombia, including gang activity and violence in Medellin. These claims are relevant not only to the applicant's capacity to secure work and accommodation upon return, but also to the safety and stability of his resettlement, given his claimed lack of family or community support. I accept that the general security conditions and applicant's stated concerns about personal safety may add to the hardship he would experience upon return, even if those matters do not establish that Australia's non-refoulement obligations are engaged.
9. Weighing the evidence as a whole, I find the applicant would face real, practical impediments to establishing himself and maintaining basic living standards (in the context of what is generally available), if removed to Colombia, primarily due to the absence of family supports, the lack of any secured, stable accommodation on return, at least initially, and the added hardship associated with general security conditions. While I accept that the applicant is likely to be able to re-establish himself in Colombia over time, I find the impediments he would face in the short to medium term would be significant. I therefore give this consideration moderate weight in favour of revocation.

1. Paragraph 9.3 of the Direction requires consideration of any impact on Australian business interests if an applicant is not allowed to enter or remain in Australia, noting that employment link would generally only carry weight where the decision would significantly compromise the delivery of a major project or an important service in Australia.
2. I have considered whether the decision would have any impact on Australian business interests. There is no evidence before me that the applicant's removal would significantly compromise the delivery of a major project or an important service in Australia. I find that non-revocation would not impact Australian business interests in the manner contemplated by the Direction. I give this consideration neutral weight.

1. Weighing the considerations arising under the Direction involves a complex and finely balanced evaluative exercise. As noted by the Full Court of the Federal Court in CRNL v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs:[108]

The balancing process is directed to determining whether there is 'another reason' why the visa cancellation should be revoked. It requires an identification of the matters that may constitute 'another reason' and bringing to bear the considerations that the Direction requires the Tribunal to take into account where relevant in determining whether or not the Tribunal is satisfied that there is another reason (or reasons) to revoke the visa cancellation. Some of the considerations set out in the Direction, where relevant, may weigh in favour of revocation, and so may constitute 'another reason' capable of supporting the state of satisfaction required in order for revocation under s 501CA(4)(b)(ii) to occur. But whether they do qualify as a reason of that kind will need to be assessed in the context of different considerations set out in the Direction which may weigh against revocation, where relevant. That is why it is appropriate to describe it as a process of weighing and balancing. But to go beyond that to treat the Direction as mandating some sort of calculation of the net weight to be given to the considerations on each side is to lose sight of the ultimately evaluative nature of the statutory task.[109]

2. I have found that the applicant does not pass the character test under s 501 of the Act. In considering whether I am satisfied that there is 'another reason' to revoke the cancellation decision, I have had regard to the specific circumstances relating to the applicant. I have also had regard to the considerations referred to in the Direction. The evaluative exercise of weighing up the factors in the Direction is not subject of some ritualistic formula.[110]
3. The Direction provides that the protection of the Australian community is the Government's highest priority. Paragraph 7(2) expressly states that primary consideration 1, protection of the Australian community, is generally to be given greater weight than other primary considerations and primary considerations should generally be given greater weight than the other considerations. However, the Direction does not prescribe a mechanical hierarchy and it requires that appropriate weight ultimately be given to both primary and other considerations.
4. I have given primary consideration 1 (protection of the Australian community) significant weight against revocation, having considered the seriousness of the applicant's offending and the risk of harm should similar conduct recur. I have also given primary consideration 5 (expectations of the Australian community) significant weight against revocation, noting the normative expectation in the Direction that non-citizens who engage in serious conduct, or who present an unacceptable risk of doing so, should not be permitted to remain Australia.
5. On the other hand, I have given primary consideration 3 (the strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia) significant weight in favour of revocation, having regard to the applicant's lengthy residence in Australia, the depth of his family connections, including with his adult son, and his broader community and support networks. I have given primary consideration 4 (best interests of minor children in Australia) reasonably significant weight in favour of revocation as I am satisfied that non-revocation is not in the best interests of Ms Berrio's children due to the likely effect that separation from the applicant would have on them.
6. I have given primary consideration 2 (family violence committed by the non-citizen) no weight, as I am not satisfied on the evidence before me that the applicant has engaged in family violence as defined under the Direction.
7. Among the other considerations, I have given moderate weight in favour of revocation to the legal consequences of non-revocation, including the practical realities in human terms for this applicant of continued immigration detention pending removal, the likelihood of removal as soon as reasonably practicable, and the restrictive consequences for future visa options and return. I have also given moderate weight in favour of revocation to the extent of impediments the applicant would face if removed to Colombia, including difficulties establishing himself and maintaining basic living standards in the context of what is generally available there, taking into account his age and health, language and cultural familiarity, and the availability of social and economic supports. I have given neutral weight to the impact on Australian business interests.
8. Having considered all of the matters required by the Direction and undertaking the overall evaluative assessment, I am satisfied that the considerations in favour of revocation, taken commutatively, outweigh the considerations against revocation in this particular case. Although primary considerations 1 and 5 weigh significantly against revocation, I am satisfied that the applicant's substantial ties to Australia, the best interests of the minor children, the legal consequences of non-revocation and the impediments that the applicant may face if removed, taken together, warrant the exercise of the discretion to revoke the mandatory cancellation. Accordingly, I am satisfied there is another reason to revoke the cancellation.

1. The decision of the delegate of the Respondent not to revoke the cancellation of the applicant's Class BB Subclass 155 Five Year Resident Return visa is set aside and substituted with a decision that the cancellation of the applicant's visa is revoked under s501CA(4)(b)(ii) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth).

SCHEDULE 1: Applicant's offending[111]

Imprisonment: 6 years commencing 22/09/2020 concluding 21/09/2026, non-parole period: 3 years and 9 months.

Drive when licence suspended under s 66 Fines Act-1st off

Dismissed S10

S9 bond - 12 months

Appeal to Sydney District Court (16 April 2008) for sentence severity.

Assault occasioning actual bodily harm-T2 (CALL UP)

16/06/2008 non parole period with conditions: 6 months release subject to probation and parole supervision in respect to anger management and alcohol issues.

Imprisonment : 9 months commencing 16/03/2008 non parole period with conditions : 3 months release subject to supv

Conviction confirmed in relation to call up offences.

In relation to contemporaneous offences: Conviction confirmed: in lieu imprisonment: 10 months non parole period with conditions : 4 months commencing 16/06/2008 release subject to supv with particular emphasis to rehabilitation in relation to alcohol abuse.

Possess/attempt to, prescribed restricted substance

Assault occasioning actual bodily harm-T2 (CALL UP)

s12: 9 months

Bond s9 : 18 months supervision by NSW probation service

Responsible person/custodian not supply drivers particulars

Appeal to Sydney District Court (23 September 2003) for sentence severity.

Bond s9: 12 months supv NSW prob service

Appeal in relation to sentence for two counts maliciously wound-T1. Conviction confirmed on appeal

Dismissed s10

Bond s10: 9 months

[40] JZQQ v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2022] AATA 2988, [97].

[41] Ayoub v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2015] FCAFC 83, [46].

[75] (2025) FCA 1263.

[87] [2019] FCAFC 185.

[89] [2024] FCA 876.

[92] [2024] HCA 2.

[94] Ismail v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2024] HCA 2, [52].

[100] See, for example, Sowa v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCAFC 111.

[101] See Doan v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2025] FCA 1411.

[108] [2023] FCAFC 138.

[110] Howells v MIMIA [2004] FCAFC 327; (2004) 139 FCR 580, [127].