1. In order to determine the risk to the Australian community should the Applicant commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct, the Tribunal must also consider the likelihood of the Applicant reoffending if he were permitted to remain in the Australian community This requires an assessment of the nature of the harm should the Applicant engage in further criminal or other serious conduct.[26] It also requires an assessment of the likelihood of the Applicant engaging in such conduct.[27]
2. There is no statutory constraint on the way that risk is assessed by the decision-maker other than that there must be a rational and probative basis for the assessment.[28]
3. The Tribunal and superior courts have extensively considered the issues surrounding the risk under s 501(6)(d) of the Act, from which paragraphs 8.1.2(1) and (2) of the Direction are drawn.
4. The Tribunal's task is to ascertain the realistic level of risk posed by the Applicant at the time of its decision, with the 'possible level of violence of the conduct being at least one measure (but not the only measure) of how serious the risk [is], or whether the risk should be "tolerated"', such that it would be considered an unacceptable risk.

1. Judge Noman SC acknowledged that the Applicant's childhood and upbringing were characterised by an element of disadvantage. Her Honour considered that the 'explosion of violence is likely informative of his poor peer associates and his substance abuse.'[29]
2. The Applicant maintained his poly-substance abuse even when relocating to Australia and the trial Judge accepted at the time of offending he was significantly affected by illicit drug usage.
3. The conclusion drawn by Her Honour was that the Applicant's offending was not planned, and that he acted out of character and sexually abused a stranger who he believed to be asleep was explained by his drug and alcohol intoxication
4. The Applicant's evidence as to the events on the day of the offending, has been that he would not have sexually violated the victim if he had not been impaired by illicit substances and alcohol.[30]
5. As the Respondent submits, prior to the Applicant's statement dated 19 June 2025[31], the Applicant had not been forthcoming regarding the full extent of his past drug addiction. During his oral evidence before the Tribunal, he confessed to using a wide variety of illicit substances and spoke of his focus on the next 'fix' and his misplaced sense of control over his addiction. The full nature, extent, and duration of his drug-related issues is still somewhat opaque and there still remains some doubt as to the amount and frequency of polysubstance, use but the Tribunal concludes that the basis for a substance abuse disorder made out as opined by Mr Watson Munroe.
6. Whilst in incarceration he had limited opportunities for rehabilitation - he was not eligible for any criminogenic or custody-based programs, including drug and alcohol intervention. His institutional case plan confirms that he did not meet the risk threshold for inclusion in sex-offender programs based on completed sex-offender assessments.
7. During his incarceration, his most tested positive for marijuana in January 2024 which he describes as an 'act of stupidity'.
8. He also was caught smuggling contraband into the prison in March 2024, which led to him losing his work role in prison. The Applicant stated that he had succumbed to the pressure from other inmates[32]. He was reinstated in another position shortly thereafter.

1. While on bail, the Applicant attended 36 counselling sessions to address addiction and anger issues, both linked to poor impulse control[33];
2. the Applicant undertook approximately 15 sessions with a psychologist at Strategic Psychology[34].
3. He engaged regularly at the Chaplain Service with Mr Glen Berry, who gave written evidence to the Tribunal. He has attended bible studies, chapel service and communion. He submits that this has proved to be a useful service for him in respect to seeking religious guidance. Through his engagement with the Chaplain Service, he had completed 'Valiant Man', a sexual integrity program and a 19 week 'Fathering From a Distance' program which he considers has assisted him in his relationship with his daughter whilst incarcerated.[35]

1. The Applicant appealed his conviction for those aspects to which he pleaded not guilty. The Minister contends that should be construed as him not taking full responsibility, as remarked upon by the trial Judge. He appealed those counts, however he was entitled to exercise that legal right and no adverse inference is drawn by the Tribunal in relation to his decision to appeal his conviction.
2. In a statement made by the Applicant dated 29 January 2024, he stated at paragraph [25],

[a]s I think about my possible deportation, I cannot help but feel a profound sense of injustice. My life in Australia was not perfect, but it was a life of contribution, of being a part of a community, of building a family. Being uprooted from this life feels like a punishment far exceeding the confines of my current situation [36].

1. The Respondent contends that this statement demonstrates that the Applicant lacks sufficient remorse and insight into the significant harm caused by his sexual offending, and that he rather considers the consequences of his offending to be unfair on him.
2. The Applicant has, on other occasions, expressed remorse and his evidence to the Tribunal, the evidence of Mr Berry and his account to Mr Watson-Munroe express a much fuller appreciation of his culpability.

1. The Applicant has the support of his extended family, friends and the Church with which he is affiliated, some of whom provided statements and gave oral evidence. His wife, Ms G, has at least weekly contact with the Applicant and describes a mutually supportive relationship. After he was charged with the offences and on bail, they reconciled. The Applicant said, '[G] has been by my side throughout my imprisonment and during my time in immigration detention".[38] Her situation is stark - her Mother continues to be in poor physical and mental health, suffering, amongst other conditions, anorexia and has had suicidal tendencies. Ms G works with children with special needs and -TR has the sole care of R their daughter. It is submitted that her experience equips her well to observe the impacts of the Applicant's absence on her daughter, R.
2. The Applicant enjoys the support of his extended family:
   1. Mrs AD, the aunt of Ms G, described a close relationship to her niece and the applicant characterising his offending as a 'mistake';
   2. Mr BD, husband of Mrs AD, who has offered employment to the applicant should he remain in Australia;
   3. Mr CK, brother-in-law of the Applicant, who is a Deacon of the Greek orthodox church. He was supportive of the Applicant, deposing to a close relationship with him, empathising with his substance abuse and mental health. He was unaware of the offending until recent times and describes it as a "mistake". Mr CK has a baby daughter and is keen for her to know the Applicant.
   4. Mr L, the Applicant's brother, who has a daughter S aged 11 and to whom the Applicant stands as godfather. The fraternal relationship did not appear to be particularly close and at the hearing he appeared to be shocked at the Applicant's offending.

Assessments of the Applicant's risk of reoffending

1. In his pre-release report dated 23 July 2024, the Applicant was assessed as a medium/low risk of offending according to the Level of Service Inventory - Revised (LSI-R), which is a tool used to identify an offenders' likelihood of reoffending and their criminogenic needs. However, the LSI-R assessment was overridden to medium on the grounds that the Applicant had a current STATIC 99R assessment, being a tool used to estimate the risk of sexual recidivism among adult male sex offenders[39]. A psychologist also assessed the Applicant as being in the average range of committing a further sex offence.[40]
2. A report was obtained from Mr. Watson-Munroe, a psychologist with a considerable body of experience in providing medico-legal assessments. He proffered an opinion as to the Applicant's risk of reoffending should he be permitted to return to reside in the Australian community. He gave oral evidence and was cross-examined at the Tribunal hearing. The Applicant's history was supplemented by documentation and collateral information provided by Ms G.
3. Psychometric testing was administered to the Applicant[41] and the results of that confirmed Mr Watson-Munro's clinical assessment of the Applicant suffering a Depressive Disorder (severe and recurring) according to DSM-5-TR.
4. Mr Watson-Munro opined that the time of the offending, the Applicant was suffering a range of mental health conditions according to DSM-5-TR. After separation from Ms G and approximately 2 years prior to his offending conduct, the Applicant attempted suicide by way of overdose. It was apparent that he was experiencing symptoms of severe and recurring depression against the backdrop of the breakdown of his marriage and substance use disorder. The Applicant was not receiving treatment during this time and his behaviour, in part, was being fuelled by adverse peer group dynamics.
5. Mr. Watson-Monroe offered the opinion that at the time of the offending it was a confluence of poly-substance use which involved a range of illicit and dangerous drugs in addition to him using benzodiazepines against a backdrop of severe and recurring depression and anxiety materially contributed to the commission of the offence.
6. The Applicant pleaded not guilty to some of the charges laid against him and later appealed against the conviction and the severity of the sentence which was dismissed in the court of criminal appeal. In Mr Watson-Munro's opinion, with the effluxion of time which has involved considerable counselling and treatment, in addition to other programs the Applicant has undertaken, he has clear insight to the impact of his substance use on his mental health. Consequently his judgement referable to poor impulse control and an absence of consequential thinking has matured.
7. Mr Watson-Munro assessed the protective factors in place, expressions of remorse, abstinence of substance use (beyond the one incident in 2024), his strong commitment to and focus on his wife and daughter and his motivation to seek employment which will be therapeutic in terms of structure and income to support his family.
8. He acknowledged the prior pre-release report's assessment of reoffending - but distinguished the static factors addressed in the former contributing to an individual's offending, from the dynamic factors which are highly relevant and include expressions of remorse, commitment to treatment, insight to the dynamics surrounding the offending and protective factors in an individual's life such as the support of his family and desire from employment in addition to continuing treatment in the community. Against that backdrop he assessed the Applicant's risk of engaging in the same or similar offending conduct in the future if released into Australian community, is now trending from moderate to low.
9. The report was subject to robust cross-examination focusing in particular on those dynamic factors which lowered the risk of further offending. The protective factors identified by him as being the Applicant's extended family, the church and employment were already present at the time of his offending, albeit he was separated from his wife and child; his separation from his wife being directly attributable to the substance misuse issues. The subsequent reconciliation with his wife and child acted as powerful motivation for his continued abstinence and compliance.
10. It is also notable that some of the extended family expressing support were not aware of the convictions until preparing this matter for hearing. Mr L expressed shock at the conviction.
11. Mr Watson-Munro did not have the advantage of seeing the Applicant in person. He explained that is why he had 2 telephone conferences with the Applicant and sought collateral information from Ms G.
12. One aspect which troubled the Tribunal was the repeated comment made by the Applicant's immediate and extended family, that the offending conduct was a 'mistake'. Sexual assault committed on a vulnerable woman would hardly be considered as an error and he was pressed as to this. Mr Watson-Munroe explained this as a way that the family reconcile his behaviour with their own experiences of the Applicant.
13. At the outset of his report, Mr Watson-Munro said that he was encouraged by the Applicant's absence of a prior forensic history, his repeated expressions of remorse, the positive steps which the Applicant has undertaken while in custody to improve upon his prospects of successful rehabilitation into the Australian community and the renewed love and support of his wife and daughter.
14. An additional relevant consideration the Applicant reported was that during the period of his offending, he was experiencing symptoms of a substance use disorder preferable to alcohol cannabis and cocaine. Beyond one occasion of using cannabis in January 2024 he has remained drug free; he also has not also consumed alcohol since the time of his arrest. In this setting he could now be considered to be in a state of full remission. Nothing elicited in cross-examination altered his views.[42]
15. Mr Watson- Munroe's evidence was of significant value to the Tribunal. He was forthright in his oral evidence and demonstrated a nuanced understanding of the relevant events and history up to and including the offences. Equally his opinion as to recidivism was clearly articulated as were the factors underpinning it.

Consideration as to risk to the Australian Community

1. The Respondent contends, without demur by the Applicant, that any further offending by the Applicant of a similar nature to the offences would have the potential to cause physical, psychological and/or financial harm to the victims and members of the Australian community. As such, it is submitted that the harm that would be caused is so serious that any risk of similar future offending is unacceptable[43].
2. The impact on the victim have been severe and are likely to be of a long term nature.
3. As conceded on the Applicant's behalf the potential harm if it recurs would heighten the community's intolerance for risk-8.1.2.(2)(a).[44] It is also submitted that when that likelihood is assessed cumulatively under para 8.1.(2)(b) the evidence points to a markedly diminished risk of such serious conduct.
4. It is accepted that the applicant was on bail for 18 months prior to trial without reoffending and that together with his period in incarceration and detention largely being incident free apart from the two examples above.
5. The Applicant has undertaken significant rehabilitation prior to his conviction and during his incarceration including 'Valiant Man' and 'Fathering from a Distance'. He has also continued to receive pastoral care from Mr Berry. He has also been gainfully employed whilst in prison and detention.
6. The Applicant has also been on the Buprenorphine Program for over 8 months and has been compliant taking his Opioid Agonist Treatment injection. Together with the matters discussed in paragraphs 78 and 79 below, his commitment to rehabilitation and abstinence serve to underpin Mr Watson Munroe's opinion that the Applicant is in remission.
7. The Applicant has protective factors in the community including extended family, social interaction and an offer of employment, however those were present up to the time of the offending. The Tribunal is of the view that the most significant development since his offending has been his reconciliation with his wife and his appreciation of the heavy burden of responsibilities she has borne. He seemed genuine in his desire to rejoin the family unit and this serves as the strongest deterrent to reoffending. He is acutely aware that his removal from Australia would render that impossible.
8. The Tribunal accepts that whilst the offending conduct is very serious and any repetition of it would cause significant physiological and physical harm, the evidence of Mr Watson- Munroe is that the risk of reoffending is trending to low and significant weight can be placed on the matters in paragraphs 77 and 78 of these reasons. I accept the conclusions reached by Mr Watson-Munroe as to the applicant's risk of reoffending as trending from moderate to low.
9. Whilst this consideration must weigh against the Applicant, the Tribunal accords it moderate weight.

Primary consideration 2 - Family violence committed by the Applicant

1. Paragraph 8.2 of Direction 110 states that the government has serious concerns about conferring on non-citizens who engage in family violence the privilege of entering or remaining in Australia. The Government's concerns are proportionate to the seriousness of the family violence engaged in by the non-citizen. Paragraph 4.1 of Direction 110 defines family violence to mean violent, threatening, or other behaviour by a person that coerces or controls a member of the person's family or causes the family member to be fearful.
   1. There is no evidence before the Tribunal that the Applicant has engaged in any family violence. This consideration is therefore neutral.

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

1. This consideration requires the Tribunal to have regard to the strength, nature and duration of the Applicant's ties to Australia. Paragraph 8.3 of The Direction provides that:

1. Decision-makers must consider any impact of the decision on the non-citizen's immediate family members in Australia, where those family members are Australian citizens, Australian permanent residents, or people who have a right to remain in Australia indefinitely. 2. Where consideration is being given to whether to cancel a non-citizen's visa or whether to revoke the mandatory cancellation of their visa, the decision-maker must also consider the strength, nature and duration of any other ties that the non-citizen has to the Australian community. In doing so, decision-makers must have regard to:

(a) how long the non-citizen has resided in Australia, including whether the non-citizen arrived as a young child, noting that: > > > (i) less weight should be given where the non-citizen began offending soon after arriving in Australia; and > > > > (ii) more weight should be given to time the non-citizen has spent contributing positively to the Australian community > > (b) the strength, duration and nature of any family or social links with Australian citizens, Australian permanent residents and/or people who have an indefinite right to remain in Australia.

1. The Applicant has resided in Australia for approximately 14 years, arriving as an adult when he was 19 years old[45]. Accordingly, while he did not spend any of his childhood in Australia, he has lived here from late adolescence.
2. As outlined earlier in these reasons, he has immediate and extended family in Australia, including[46]:
   1. pivotally his wife, Ms G, and their daughter R. Ms G's evidence, which is accepted, is that she and the Applicant talk daily and she is struggling to care for R, her immediate family and work full time;
   2. his brother, Mr L;
   3. His extended family in Australia, comprising 8 aunts/uncles, 9 cousins, and 13 nieces/nephews (G3/110-112),including :
      1. his niece, SP,
      2. his cousin, LA;
      3. his cousin's husband, WP;
      4. his brother-in-law, CK;
      5. his mother-in-law, MK;
      6. his father-in-law, BK;
      7. his aunt, AD; and
      8. his uncle, BD.

1. It should be noted that from 2018-2020 the Applicant was separated from Ms G, so it is unclear how much he saw of his wife's family in that time. The Applicant has been incarcerated or in detention since 2022, and he has only had sporadic, if any, physical contact with his extended family. A number of his nieces and nephews are still very young children and he could not have any significant relationship with them.
2. The Applicant has undertaken the following education in Australia:

"[s]tudied English for one year. Then completed Diploma in Networking. Did Diploma and Advanced Diploma of Project Management and Certificate IV of Business"[47]

1. The Applicant has been employed in Australia as a cleaner and kitchen hand from 2012 to 2015 and as a labour contractor from 2018 to 2022.
2. The Applicant deposed to providing 'voluntary services to [a] local church at Kogarah'[48] and sets out informal acts of community support he has participated in - namely, 'attending church parish events...helping an elderly couple cross a busy intersection, and attending homelessness awareness events'[49]
3. The Applicant has worked intermittently and made desultory contribution to the community. The Minister accepts that he has developed family ties and that if he was deported it would have a very significant effect upon his family, especially his wife and daughter.
4. I am satisfied that the Applicant has substantial significant ties to the Australian Community. This factor weighs significantly in favour of revocation of the cancellation decision.

Primary consideration 4 - Best interests of minor children in Australia affected by the decision

1. Paragraph 8.4 of Direction 110 requires decision-makers to make a determination as to whether non-revocation under section 501CA of the Act is, or is not, in the best interests of a child affected by the decision. Where there are two or more relevant children, the best interests of each child should be given individual consideration to the extent that their interests may differ. In considering the best interests of the child, the following factors are among those which must be considered, where relevant:
   • the nature and duration of the relationship between the child and non-citizen (and less weight should generally be given where the relationship is non- parental and/or there is no existing relationship);
   • the likely effect that any separation from the non-citizen would have on the child, taking into account the child's or non-citizen's ability to maintain contact in other ways; and
   • whether there are other persons who already fulfil a parental role in relation to the child.
2. The Applicant has one daughter, R. He has a parental role with R. She is currently 10 years old[50]. He expresses that the relationship has developed as R has matured from a very young child. He has a close relationship with her, maintaining contact with her via weekly visits and daily telephone and video calls[51]. The Applicant and Ms G have both expressed concern that separation from her father has adversely impacted R and that she has missed him being able to part of her daily activities. She is very keen to reunite with him[52].
3. SP is the Applicant's niece[53]. She is currently 11 years old. The Applicant has submitted that he is SP's godfather and that they had a close bond prior to his incarceration. He further submitted that SP would suffer emotional hardship if he was removed from Australia [54]
4. The Applicant has a second newborn niece, AK born in 2025[55]. The Applicant has not yet met AK due to his incarceration and immigration detention.
5. There are 3 other children identified by the Applicant and minor children in Australia affected by the decision - namely, J, V and E. The father of J, V and E has given a brief statement dated 15 June 2025.
6. The Minister contends and the Tribunal accepts that:
   • there is no corroborating evidence from SP or otherwise to establish that SP will be particularly affected by the non-revocation of the cancellation decision.
   • the limited evidence provided by SP's father as to their relationship and contact suggests that the Applicant has not been part of SP's life since 2022 and it is unclear before then how frequent the contact was;
   • there is no existing relationship between the Applicant and SK;
   • the Applicant's relationship with each of SP, AK, J, V and E is non-parental, and accordingly less weight should be given to these relationships as the Applicant does not play a role of critical importance in their daily lives;
   • if the Applicant is returned to Colombia, he will be able to maintain contact with each of these children in other ways, such as by telephone and video, but it will be hard to establish given their ages and lack of interaction to date; and
   • there is no evidence from J, V or E (or their parents, JK and PK) to establish that these children will be particularly affected by the non-revocation of the cancellation decision or to substantiate the nature of the relationship between these children and the Applicant, other than the Applicant's statement that his connection with his wife's extended family is significant and that her cousin's children are closely bonded with his daughter[56].
7. The Respondent accepts that it in the best interests of the Applicant's daughter R, that the visa cancellation is revoked and accepts that there is some evidence that revocation may be in the best interests of at least SP and AK.
8. The practical loss of the seminal relationship between the Applicant and R is likely to have a profound impact upon her at her age and her stage of development. As discussed earlier in these reasons, Ms G is struggling to cope as a single parent, and understandably so. Her employment also provides her with insight into the likely impact of the Applicant's absence upon R. Neither Ms G nor R could relocate to Columbia given Ms G's relationship with her mother, and that R is settled at school and that all of R's family, including cousins, live in Australia.
9. I find that a decision not to revoke the cancellation of the Applicant's visa would have a very significant effect upon R and some effect upon SP and AK. I find that the children J, V and E would not be impacted to any significant degree by a decision not to revoke the cancellation of the Applicant's visa.
10. This factor weighs very heavily in favour of revocation.

Primary consideration 5 - Expectations of the Australian community

1. Paragraph 8.5(1) of Direction 110 relevantly states 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 to not allow such a non-citizen to enter or remain in Australia.
2. Paragraph 8.5(2) of Direction 110 directs that:

In addition, 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 conduct, in Australia or elsewhere, of the following kind:

c) commission of serious crimes against women...in this context, 'serious crimes' include crimes of a violent or sexual nature...

1. Paragraph 8.5(3) of Direction 110 states that the expectations of the Australian community apply regardless of whether the non-citizen poses a measurable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community.
2. In Cargill and Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (Migration) [2025] ARTA 50, the Tribunal stated at [143] that:

paragraph 8.5(3) arguably further qualifies the 'norm' expressed in para 8.5(1), which refers to the 'unacceptable risk' of conduct being engaged in. This makes it clear that a 'measureable [sic] risk' of physical harm to the community is not required for the community expectation that the non-citizen not hold a visa to be engaged, where serious character concerns are raised through the persons conduct or offending.

1. Paragraph 8.5(4) of Direction no. 110 directs that:

[t]his consideration is about the expectations of the Australian community as a whole, and in this respect, decision-makers should proceed on the basis of the Government's views as articulated above [i.e., in paragraph 8.5], without independently assessing the community's expectations in the particular case_._

1. The Minister contends that as the Applicant has been convicted of an objectively very serious offence and one of a sexual nature against a vulnerable woman, the Australian community would expect the Applicant's visa to remain cancelled.
2. As such, the Minister submits that this primary consideration weighs very heavily against revocation of the cancellation decision and the Tribunal accepts this conclusion.

Other consideration 1 - Legal consequences of the decision

1. Paragraph 9.1 of Direction 110 requires the Tribunal to consider the legal consequences of its decision, taking into account any non-refoulement obligations and whether the applicant is covered by a protection finding.
2. The Applicant has made claims that he will face threats to his safety and wellbeing if he is returned to Colombia, due to his numerous tattoos which commemorate his favourite soccer team covering much of his body. The Applicant contends that the soccer culture in Colombia elevates it to religious status, and that he fears being harmed or killed by supporters of other teams. The Applicant's brother supports that claim in his statement. Voluminous material was relied upon by the Applicant[57] concerning the violence perpetrated following games - one fan every 20 days is killed and serious harm to those considered fans of rival teams.
3. The delegate considered this claim and proceeded on the basis that it was open to the Applicant to make an application for a protection visa and that Australia's non-refoulement obligations would be fully assessed during the processing of any such application[58]. The Minister contends that the Tribunal ought to similarly take this approach, noting that it is open to the decision-maker to defer assessment of whether the Applicant is owed non-refoulement obligations on the basis that it was open to the Applicant to apply for a protection visa (Plaintiff M1/2021 v Minister for Home Affairs (2022) 275 CLR 582; [2022] HCA 17 at [30]). To date the Applicant has not made application for a protection visa and no protection finding has been made in relation to the Applicant.[59]
4. It is also accepted by the Minister that the applicant will be subject to an indeterminate exclusion from Australia by operation of the special return criteria in clause 5001(c) of Schedule 5 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), which is a relevant legal consequence that the Tribunal must take into account: Rano v Minister for Home Affairs, Minister for Cyber Security [2024] FCA 1003 per Feutrill J at [12]-[14].
5. As to the weight this consideration, the Respondent contends in effect this ought have no weight for or against the revocation.
6. There has been judicial consideration of what, if any weight should be accorded to this consideration .The Full Court of the Federal Court in Taulahi v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection[60] found that where a decision is made by the Minister personally under s 501(3) of the Act, the Minister is bound to take into account the legal consequences of the decision because of the legal construct in which the decision is made. In in the current context, the Direction requires the legal consequences to be taken into account and the immediate consequences which flow from it. The consequences to be taken into account are the direct and immediate consequences of the particular decision.
7. The Tribunal considers that as the Applicant has not sought a protection visa and he is at imminent risk of being deported to Columbia, he will return to a country where he holds fears for his safety and his family are likely to be unable to provide more than emotional support.
8. This factor weighs moderately against revocation of the cancellation decision.

Other consideration 2 - Extent of impediments if removed

1. Paragraph 9.2 of Direction 110 relevantly provides that decision-makers must consider the extent of any impediments that the non-citizen may face if removed from Australia to their home country, in establishing themselves and maintaining basic living standards (in the context of what is generally available to other citizens of that country), taking into account: the non-citizen's age and health; whether there are substantial language or cultural barriers; and any social, medical and/or economic support available to them in that country.
2. The Applicant was born and raised in Colombia, and lived there until moving to Australia in 2011, at the age of 19[61]. As such, the Minister contends and the Tribunal accepts that the Applicant would not experience any cultural or linguistic difficulties in Colombia.
3. While the Applicant has immediate family members in Colombia, consisting of his parents and sister, as well as extended family[62], his family have limited financial resources based upon the failure of a family business. The Minister contends that the Applicant will likely be able to rely on his family for at least emotional support. It is questionable what practical support they can provide as he attempts to re-establish his life in Colombia.
4. The Respondent submits that the Applicant is currently 33 years old[63] and that due to his youth and relatively good physical health, the Applicant would not experience any long-term difficulty with finding employment. The Tribunal accepts that he suffers from longstanding mental health vulnerabilities including depression, anxiety, substance dependency, and a history of suicidal ideation.
5. These conditions are currently being managed in Australia, with access to structured treatment, counselling, and community support. Removal would abruptly remove these remedial measures and exacerbate his psychological distress, particularly due to permanent separation from his wife and young daughter.
6. His mental health is likely to decline and it would appear that the health system in Columbia is inferior to that offered in Australia.
7. As canvassed above, the Applicant claims to be at risk because he has numerous tattoos of his favoured soccer team, which are displayed prominently on his body and may mark him as a target for hostility or violence from supporters of other teams[64]. He submits that his return to Columbia could expose him to unemployment, social isolation, psychological deterioration, and possibly renewed substance misuse. The cumulative effect of these factors - limited support, risk of violence, and inability to maintain basic standards of living - are significant impediments under clause 9.2 of Direction No. 110.
8. I give this consideration serious weight in favour of revocation of the cancellation of the Applicant's visa.

Other consideration 3 - Impact on Australian business interests

1. Paragraph 9.3 of Direction 110 relevantly provides that decision-makers must consider any impact of Australian business interests if the non-citizen is not allowed to enter or remain in Australia, noting that an employment link would generally only be given weight where the decision under section 501 or 501CA would significantly compromise the delivery of a major project, or delivery of an important service in Australia.
2. There is no evidence that this consideration is relevant to the Applicant's case. This consideration has neutral weight.

1. The Applicant and the Respondent did not raise any other consideration. I cannot identify any other consideration relevant to the Applicant's case.

1. The Tribunal has assessed the considerations as follows:
   1. Primary Consideration 1, Protection of the Australian community, should weigh moderately against revocation of the cancellation decision;
   2. Primary Consideration 3, Strength, nature, and duration of ties to Australia, should weigh significantly in favour of revocation of the cancellation decision;
   3. Primary Consideration 4, Best interest of minor children in Australia, should weigh heavily in favour of revocation of the cancellation decision;
   4. Primary Consideration 5, Expectations of the Australian community, should weigh very heavily against revocation of the cancellation decision;
   5. Other Consideration 1, Legal Consequences, weighs moderately in favour of revocation of the cancellation decision; and
   6. Other Consideration 2, Extent of the impediments, weighs moderately in favour of revocation of the cancellation decision.
2. The task of weighing the considerations must be undertaken noting paragraph 7 of the Direction regarding the weight to be given to primary consideration 1 and that one or more primary considerations may outweigh other primary considerations. I have determined that the weight I give to Primary Considerations 3 and 4, together with Other Considerations 1 and 2 outweigh the weight I give to Primary Considerations 1 and 5.
3. Application of the Direction therefore favours the revocation of the cancellation of the Applicant's visa. As a result, the Tribunal finds that there is another reason to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant's visa.
4. Pursuant to section 105 of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth), the Tribunal sets aside the decision under review, and substitutes a decision that the cancellation of the applicant's visa is revoked.

[5] The Direction, cl 5.1(4); s 499(2A) of the Act.

[10] Suleiman v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 594 at [23].

[11] Gaspar v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCA 1166; (2016) 153 ALD 337 at [38] per North ACJ

[12] Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth) ss 9, 54, 56(1)(a); Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No 1) Act 2024, s 3 and Sch 16 Item 24.

[14] Plaintiff M1/2021 v Minister for Home Affairs [2022] HCA 27; [2022] 275 CLR 582 at [22]. See also Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs v Viane (2021) 274 CLR 398 at [13]-[15]; Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs v McQueen [2024] HCA 11; (2024) 94 ALJR 594 at [6].

[15] Gray v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2024) AATA 3363

[16] See Plaintiff M1/2021 v Minister for Home Affairs [2022] HCA 27; (2022) 96 ALJR 497 at [22], LPDT v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2024] HCA 12 at [35].

[17] See Gaspar v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCA 1166 (Gaspar); [2016] FCA 1166; (2016) 153 ALD 337, at [38], cited with approval by the Full Court in Minister for Home Affairs v Buadromo [2018] FCAFC 151. See also ibid, [21], citing, inter alia, Gaspar v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCA 1166; 153 ALD 337, [38] (North ACJ); Marzano v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCAFC 66; 250 FCR 548, [31] (Collier J, with whom Logan and Murphy JJ agreed).

[18] See also The Direction, para 8(1).

[25] See paragraph 8.1.1(1)(c) of the Direction; also see, for example, Pavey and Minister for Home Affairs [2019] AATA 4198 at [44] per Senior Member Tavoularis.

[28] See BSJ16 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCA 1181 at [68] per Moshinsky J; Hambledon v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 7 at [41] per Kenny J.

[33] G3/78-79; Applicant's statement dated 19 June 2025 at [26]

[34] Applicant's statement dated 19 June 2025 at [26]

[43] paragraph 8.1.2(1) of Direction 110.

[53] Applicant's statement dated 19 June 2025 at [11].

[55] Applicant's statement dated 19 June 2025 at [12]

[56] Applicant's statement dated 19 June 2025 at [13]

[60] [2018] FCAFC 22; (2018) 357 ALR 467