1. Because of the 5 year sentence imposed on the Applicant on 12 June 2024, he has a substantial criminal record and fails the character test. The Applicant conceded at the hearing that he does not pass the character test.
2. The remaining issue is whether there is 'another reason' to revoke the mandatory cancellation of his visa. [6]

1. In applying s 501CA(4) of the Act, the Tribunal is bound by s 499(2A) to comply with any directions made under the Act. In this case, 'Direction No 110 - Visa refusal and cancellation under section 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under s 501CA' (the Direction) applies.
2. For the purposes of deciding whether to revoke the mandatory cancellation of a non-citizen's visa, paragraph 5.2 of the Direction contains 8 principles which provide the framework for decision making to revoke a mandatory cancellation under s 501CA:

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

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

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

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

(5) Australia has a low tolerance of any criminal or other serious conduct by visa applicants or those holding a limited stay visa, or by other non­citizens 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 non­citizen's conduct, or the harm that would be caused if the conduct were to be repeated, may be so serious that even strong countervailing considerations may be insufficient to justify not cancelling or refusing the visa, or revoking a mandatory cancellation.

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

1. Paragraph 8 of the Direction sets out 5 'Primary Considerations' that the Tribunal must take into account:

(1) The protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct;

(2) Whether the conduct engaged in constituted family violence;

(3) The strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia;

(4) The best interests of minor children in Australia; and

(5) The expectations of the Australian community.

1. The Direction contains three other considerations, which are the legal consequences of the decision, the extent of impediments if removed, and the impact on Australian business interests.
2. The primary and other considerations have been considered in turn.

PRIMARY CONSIDERATION 1: PROTECTION OF THE AUSTRALIAN COMMUNITY

1. 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 that the Government is committed to protecting the Australian community from harm as a result of criminal activity or other serious conduct by non-citizens, and entering or remaining in Australia is a privilege conferred in the expectation that non-citizens are and have been law abiding, respect important institutions and will not cause or threaten harm to individual or the Australian community.[7]
2. In determining the weight allocable to this Primary Consideration 1, paragraph 8.1(2) of the Direction requires decision-makers to consider:

(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.

The Nature and Seriousness of the Applicant's Conduct to Date

1. In assessing the nature and seriousness of a non-citizen's criminal offending or other conduct, paragraph 8.1.1(1) of the Direction specifies the criteria I must have regard to.
2. In BNY23 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2025] FCAFC 14, the Full Court of the Federal Court, per Rangiah and Rofe JJ, stated at [107]:

In so ruling, the Tribunal misconstrued paragraph 8.1.1. It misconstrued paragraph 8.1.1(1)(a) because that provision does not require the Tribunal to characterise offending as "very serious". Paragraph 8.1.1(1)(a) only requires that decision-makers "have regard to", relevantly, the view of the Australian Government and the Australian community that "violent" crimes and "crimes of a violent nature against women" are "very serious". It is evident that such crimes may range from common assault to murder and that their seriousness and nature may also vary widely. The Tribunal was not bound by the expressed view of the Australian Government and the Australian community to regard the appellant's offending as "very serious". The Tribunal was required to assess for itself, "the nature and seriousness of the non-citizen's criminal offending", and the weight that should be attributed to that factor.

1. The Applicant's offending history is set out in the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission 'Check Results Report' dated 3 October 2024 (Check Results Report):[8]
   • 7 April 2004:
   • Unlawful entry of vehicle with intent to commit indictable offence - conviction recorded, sentenced to 12 months imprisonment.
   • Stealing - conviction recorded, sentenced to 2 years imprisonment.
   • Enter or in dwelling with intent to commit indictable offence (on 7.01.03) - conviction recorded.
   • Enter or in dwelling with intent to commit indictable offence and Arson (on 28.1.03) - conviction recorded, sentenced to 2 years imprisonment.
   • Unlawful use of motor vehicles aircraft or vessels - conviction recorded, sentenced to 12 months imprisonment.
   • Unlawful entry of vehicle with intent to commit indictable offence - 3 charges - conviction recorded, sentenced to 2 years imprisonment each charge.
   • Stealing - 3 charges - conviction recorded, sentenced to 12 months imprisonment.
   • Enter or in premises with intent to commit indictable offence and break - conviction recorded.
   • Unlawful use of motor vehicles aircraft or vessels - 2 charges - conviction recorded.
   • 8 April 2004:
   • Receiving stolen property with circumstances of aggravation - no conviction recorded, recognizance $400 and to be of good behaviour for 12 months.
   • 8 April 2004 - Breach bail undertaking - no conviction recorded, fined $300.
   • 10 April 2006 - PPRA contravene direction or requirement - convicted, fined $200.
   • 19 April 2006 - Breach of community service order - convicted, sentenced to 3 years imprisonment, compensation $1,900.
   • 18 February 2008 - Failure to appear in accordance with undertaking -conviction recorded, fined $900.
   • 28 February 2008 - Breach of bail condition -conviction recorded, no further punishment.
   • 26 June 2008:
   • Receiving stolen property or property fraudulently obtained - conviction recorded, fined $300.
   • 26 June 2008 - Fraud - dishonestly gain benefit/advantage -conviction recorded, restitution $20.
   • 11 September 2008 - Breach of suspended sentence -ordered to serve imprisonment 6 months.
   • 21 July 2022 - Producing dangerous drugs - Possessing dangerous drugs - Possess utensils or pipe etc for use - Property suspected of having been acquired for the purpose of committing a drug offence - no conviction recorded, fined $1,500.
   • 12 June 2024:
   • Robbery armed in company - conviction recorded, sentenced to 5 years imprisonment.
   • Attempted robbery - use threaten violence, armed/pretends to be armed or in company etc - conviction recorded, sentenced to 3 years imprisonment.
   • Deprivation of liberty - unlawfully detain/confine - (2 charges) conviction recorded, sentenced to 18 months imprisonment.
   • Unlawful entry of vehicle with intent to commit indictable offence - conviction recorded, sentenced to 12 months imprisonment.
   • Stealing - wilful damage - conviction recorded, sentenced to 6 months imprisonment.
   • 18 July 2024 - Unlawfully enter or remain in yard or place for business, attempted stealing, failure to appear in accordance with undertaking, possessing dangerous drugs, possess property suspected of having been acquired for the purpose of committing a drug offence, receiving tainted property, breach of bail condition - convictions recorded, not further punished.
2. There are other matters listed in the Check Results Report for which no conviction was recorded when the Applicant was dealt with by the Children's Court of Queensland in August 2002 and June 2003.
3. The Minister submitted, correctly, that the Tribunal should not have any regard to those offences, following the High Court's decisions in Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services v Thornton [2023] HCA 17 276 CLR 136 and Lesianawai v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2024] HCA 6.
4. The Checks Results Report includes records, whilst the Applicant was an adult, of offences (6) for which no conviction is recorded (the Non-convictions).
5. Citing the decision of Kiefel J (as her honour then was) in Hartwig v PE Hack [2007] FCA 1039, and its subsequent consideration in Thornton, the Minister contends that the Tribunal can have consideration to the Non-convictions.
6. The Minister may be correct as to the contention that Hartwig remains authority that the Tribunal can have regard to adult non-convictions in the context of the interplay between the Penalties and Sentencing Act 1992 (Qld) and section 85ZR(2) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) as considered in Thornton.
7. I note that the Non-convictions relate to summary offences, with the earliest being in April 2004 (2) and the most recent being in July 2022 (4) and in the context of the Applicant's history of approximately 40 offences over 20 years are of little significance.
8. Out of an abundance of caution, I will not have regard to the Non-convictions. To be clear, the Tribunal has not had any regard to any of the matters in the Check Results Report for which no conviction was recorded in considering the Applicant's conduct and offending, including in respect to determining whether the Applicant passes the character test and whether there is another reason why the cancellation of the visa should be set aside.

8.1.1(1)(a) of the Direction - Very Serious Offences/Conduct

1. Applying paragraph 8.1.1(1)(a) of the Direction the Index Offence falls within the category of 'very serious offence'[9], namely, 'robbery armed in company - attempted robbery - use/threaten violence, deprivation of liberty - unlawfully detain/confine', with the Applicant sentenced to 5 years imprisonment.[10]
2. The Minister contends the Applicant's offending history should be viewed as very serious, detailing the circumstances of the Index Offending.[11]
3. In her sentencing remarks for the Index Offending, Judge Holliday KC states:[12]

(a) The Applicant entered the massage parlour premises with his face covered and carrying what appeared to be a handgun. > > (b) The Applicant demanded money from the 2 adult female victims and their phones. > > (c) The Applicant used zip ties to restrain the victims. > > (d) The Applicant demanded the PIN for one of the victim's phone, and when she refused, the Applicant smashed the phone. > > (e) Once arrested, the Applicant made full and frank admissions, saying he knew how the massage business operated as he had been previously employed in the massage industry as a money collector. > > (f) The Applicant decided to go to the massage parlour after drinking a lot and had purchased a replica handgun the previous day for protection and used that during the robbery. > > (g) The Applicant was responsible as the principal offender along with the co-accused. > > (h) The Applicant was sentenced to a 3 year wholly suspended sentence and 240 hours community service in 2004, and he subsequently breached the community service, and he was resentenced to three years, wholly suspended. > > (i) There was a substantial gap in offending for some 14 years. > > (j) The psychological report tendered states the Applicant came from a stable upbringing but associated with antisocial peers after school. The Applicant had three children; a son died in infancy. > > (k) The report stated that the passing of the Applicant's mother occurred about a week prior to the offending and opined that the Applicant experienced accumulated grief that was outside his coping mechanisms, 'the complex relationship between bereavement and drug addiction precipitated the offending behaviour and, the diagnoses' of cannabis use disorder, stimulant sue disorder and prolonged grief disorder. > > (l) Treatment of these conditions would improve the Applicant's prognosis and risk of recidivism. > > (m) It was said in the report that the Applicant's risk of re-offending was associated with the mismanagement of addiction and pro-criminal attitudes and associates and thus he would be required to break off all communication with pro-criminal associates to improve the likelihood of rehabilitation. > > (n) The Applicant expressed shame and guilt about the offence and appeared genuine in potential avenues for rehabilitation. > > (o) The offending was clearly serious, and the Applicant had a larger role than his co-accused. > > (p) There are some matters in mitigation in addition to the Applicant's pleas of guilty, it was accepted that he had prospects of rehabilitation, as a young man he had accumulated a serious criminal history but managed to break that cycle of drug addition and antisocial behaviour, he worked, started a family and purchased a home. He did not reoffend for 14 years, and the criminal offending occurred at a time where he had significant stressors and he had smoked cannabis, drank excessively and taken methamphetamine.

8.1.1(1)(b) of the Direction - Serious Offences/Conduct

1. The Applicant's approximately 23 convictions spanning from 2004 to 2008 range from arson, stealing, enter premises to commit indictable offences and break, unlawful use of a motor vehicle, breach of undertaking, community service, and bail, and do not fall squarely within the categories in paragraph 8.1.1(b) of the Direction.
2. The Minister contended prior to the hearing that the Tribunal should consider those offences to be very serious having regard to the sentencing remarks of 7 April 2004 where the sentencing judge described the arson and other property offences as 'very serious'.[13]
3. In closing submissions the Minister, appropriately conceded, that these offences should be considered as serious offences. I agree. The Applicant's convictions from 2004 to 2008 show a flagrant disregard for following the law and the seriousness of them is reflected in the head sentences imposed for them. Additionally, despite the sentence of imprisonment being wholly suspended, the Applicant subsequently was in breach of court directed orders showing his disrespect to the Courts and the expectations of the Australian Community.
4. The Applicant has an extensive traffic history, most recently with a conviction for driving without a licence and a 6-month disqualification imposed (18/07/2024), accumulating 116 demerit points from 2005 (for speeding, use of handheld mobile phone, failure to stop at traffic lights), and a low range driving under the influence (reading 0.056 BAC).[14]
5. Traffic offences are not specified in paragraph 8.1.1(1)(b) of the Direction as 'serious' conduct.
6. When asked about this history of traffic offences the Applicant downplayed them and described them as mainly some speeding offences and going through amber lights. In his evidence he described how in his pest control work he drove long distances, including to regional towns in Queensland and Northern New South Wales to attend jobs and his intention, if not removed, to live with his father on the Gold Coast and by driving maintain contact with his youngest daughter who lives in the Northern suburbs of Brisbane.
7. The Minister contends that Applicant's driving offences are of a serious nature and the adverse consequences should be considered.[15] I agree, there is a theme of recklessness and indifference by the Applicant to Australian traffic laws and rules governing the operation of a motor vehicle that go to the safety of the community.

8.1.1(1)(c) of the Direction - Sentence Imposed

1. Sentences of imprisonment are the most serious in the sentencing hierarchy. The Applicant has been sentenced to imprisonment for a head sentence of 5 years for the Index Offending for 'armed robbery in company' with concurrent terms of imprisonment of an aggregate of 6 years for the sentences for 'attempted robbery - use/threaten violence, armed/pretends to be armed or in company etc, deprivation of liberty - unlawfully detain/confine, wilful damage and unlawful entry of vehicle for committing indictable offence'[16]
2. I accept the Respondent's submissions that the sentence imposed reflects the seriousness of the Applicant's conduct.[17]

8.1.1(1)(d) of the Direction - Impact of Offending

1. The Tribunal did not have any evidence before it of the impact on the victims of the Applicant's offending. I can infer from the sentencing remarks that the Index Offending had a negative impact on the victims, particularly the threat of violence with a weapon and being restrained with cable ties. The statements of remorse by the Applicant in various documents, including the psychological reports, attests to the Applicant understanding that he had caused fear and distress to the two female victims during the Index Offending.

8.1.1(1)(e) of the Direction - Frequency and Trend of Offending

1. I accept the Respondent's submissions that the Applicant's offending was frequent, albeit in 2 distinct periods separated by some 14 years, and escalated from property and drug offences to armed robbery and threats of violence.
2. So much is clear from the Check Results, the sentencing judge's remarks and the evidence of the Applicant in cross-examination. Due to the significant gap in criminal offending this is given little weight.

8.1.1(1)(f) of the Direction - Cumulative Effect of Repeated Offending

There is limited evidence before the Tribunal as to the cumulative effect of repeated offending and no weight is given to this issue.

8.1.1(1)(h) of the Direction -Re-offending after warning

1. On 27 March 2013, the Minister notified the Applicant of the decision not to cancel his visa under s 501 of the Act. The Minister issued the Applicant a formal warning, which the Applicant acknowledged receiving, that if the Applicant committed further offences or breached the character test in the future that disregarding the warning would weigh heavily against him.[18]
2. The Minister contends the Applicant's disregard of the warning by offending and failing the character test is highly relevant and weighs heavily against him.
3. I agree, the Applicant's offending in 2024, as well as his continuing traffic offences demonstrates the Applicant's disregard for the warning and the serious consequences of him not following the law.
4. Paragraph 8.1.1(1)(h) must therefore strongly militate in favour of a finding that totality of the Applicant's unlawful conduct in this country has been of a very serious nature.

8.1.1(1)(g) & (i) of the Direction - (False or Misleading Information, Offending in another country)

1. There was no evidence of any conduct in respect of the other considerations in paragraph 8.1.1(1)(g) and (i) of the Direction.

Conclusion on Nature and Seriousness of Conduct to Date

1. On the evidence before me I find the Index Offending is 'very serious' pursuant to paragraph 8.1.1(1)(a) of the Direction because:

(a) the Index Offending included the threat of violence to women and their unlawful detention; and > > (b) the sentences imposed of 5 years for the 'armed robbery in company' and the aggregate 6 years imposed for the other convictions reflects the seriousness of the offending as considered by the sentencing judge.

2. I find that the remainder of the Applicant's criminal offending and traffic offences as serious.
3. I have applied each of the relevant paragraphs appearing in paragraph 8.1.1(1) of the Direction to the evidence. The relevant paragraphs in paragraph 8.1.1(1) informing my own assessment of the Applicant's offending cumulatively led me to the conclusion (and finding) that the totality of his unlawful conduct in this country can be readily characterised as 'very serious'.

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

1. The Tribunal must also consider the risk to the Australian community should the Applicant commit further offences. Clause 8.1.2 of the Direction states, in part:

(1) In considering the need to protect the Australian community (including individuals, groups, or institutions) from harm, decision-makers should have regard to the Government's view that the Australian community's tolerance for any risk of future harm becomes lower as the seriousness of the potential harm increases. Some conduct and the harm that would be caused, if it were to be repeated, is so serious that any risk that it may be repeated may be unacceptable.

(2) In assessing the risk that may be posed by the non-citizen to the Australian community, decision-makers must have regard to, cumulatively:

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

b) the likelihood of the non-citizen engaging in further criminal or other serious conduct, taking into account:

1. information and evidence on the risk of the non‑citizen re-offending; and
2. evidence of rehabilitation achieved by the time of the decision, giving weight to time spent in the community since their most recent offence (noting that decisions should not be delayed in order for rehabilitative courses to be undertaken). ...

1. This requires an assessment of the nature of the harm should the Applicant engage in further criminal or other serious conduct.[19]
2. It also requires an assessment of the likelihood of the Applicant engaging in such conduct.[20]

1. To determine the risk to the Australian community should the Applicant commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct, the Tribunal must consider the nature of the harm to individuals, or to the Australian community should the Applicant reoffend.[21]
2. The concept of 'risk' and whether it is 'unacceptable,' for the purpose of paragraph 8.1.2(1) of the Direction, is not the same thing as the 'likelihood of the non-citizen engaging in further criminal or other serious conduct', for the purpose of paragraph 8.1.2(2) of the Direction.
3. In Tanielu v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2014] FCA 673, Justice Mortimer (as her Honour then was) said (at [103]):

It is well established that, where the harm which might be caused by future conduct is particularly serious, a lesser likelihood of the conduct occurring may be required for the risk to be identified at a level requiring a particular decision to be made. It is also well established that the likelihood of a person engaging in conduct in the future is affected by both static and dynamic factors: that is, factors which can be assessed objectively against statistical models to predict the risk category a person falls into, and dynamic factors personal to an individual which may moderate or exacerbate the risk the person otherwise could be said to pose. Those factors might include family support, alcohol and drug abuse patterns, employment and the like.

1. As contended by the Respondent, the potential harm caused by further acts of criminal or other serious conduct committed by the Applicant could:[22]

Any future offending of a similar nature would have the potential to cause physical, emotional and/or psychological harm to members of the Australian community. If the applicant were to reoffend by committing violent offences (including armed robberies), the nature of the harm that may result includes physical and psychological harm to the applicant's victims.

If the applicant were to reoffend by committing further driving offences of a like nature, the harm that could flow from that may be physical harm, up to and including death, to other innocent road users including drivers, cyclists, passengers and pedestrians. Further property offending has the potential to cause loss to Australian citizens and businesses

1. I accept the Respondent's contention and give it significant weight.

Likelihood of the Applicant engaging in further criminal or serious conduct

1. This likelihood is to be assessed considering information and evidence of the risk of reoffending and evidence of rehabilitation achieved by the time of the decision.[23]
2. The Applicant relied on a report of Mr Greg Hutcheon, an educational and developmental psychologist, dated 13 October 2025, that relevantly provides:[24]

He re-connected with his previous wife [DFP] one year ago. They had previously separated in 2011 after being together for 8 years. They had two children together [C1] (18) and Willian who passed away at 14 months. James has another daughter [C2] (13) who lives with her mother in Albany Creek.

His incarceration history includes two years served for armed robbery and drug-related charges, with 15 months at Borallon and additional time in other facilities. In 2023, he spent five months in custody before being granted bail to attend a rehabilitation program, after which he was sentenced and served further time.

James experienced the loss of his mother to breast cancer two years ago which he reports impacted him greatly and contributed to a period of deterioration and eventual criminal charges and incarceration. He carries significant guilt over past events.

He has a history of polysubstance abuse, including alcohol, methamphetamines, and opiates. He is currently on the Opioid Substitution Therapy Program (OSTP), receiving Buvidal 96mg monthly. He also takes Amitriptyline (50-100mg nocte) to assist with chronic pain and sleep.

James began smoking marijuana at age 12-13 and started drinking alcohol at 15. He attended a six-month rehabilitation program at Logan Clinic through Lives Lived Well. He began using methamphetamine in his late twenties, following the death of his son and continued for five years. He has never injected drugs. His opiate use began with prescription medications.

He has received some counselling following the death of his son, though he notes that the effectiveness depends on the therapeutic relationship...He expresses an ardent desire to contribute meaningfully to society, particularly through the creation of a rehabilitation centre.

In the context of an immense personal tragedy with his 1-year-old son's death. James coped maladaptively with unresolved grief and loss with increased substance use and social withdrawal however his commitments as a father and husband in addition to managing his own business mitigated the degree of withdrawal and isolation.

When Jame's mother passed away resulting in depression and unresolved grief without sufficient social support or family connection to limit James's urge to withdraw and isolate. This social withdrawal and resultant increased substance use resulted in maladaptive substance use and escalating criminality in the context of untreated depression.

He has identified that his urge to withdraw from supports when low in mood and continuing to process grief can be combatted by remaining connected and engaged with support. His current low mood is well managed and understood as a reasonable response to prolonged incarceration and separation from family and likely to resolve should he be released into the community and able to engage in employment and have regular contact with his family. Currently his guild and hurt about being limited from supporting his father (during a significant deterioration in his health) are the primary factor leading to distress however James in engaging well openly discussing this and allowing his upset to be present without overwhelming him. James reports being heavily concerned regarding his father's declining health and dementia and wants to be present to support him.

It is likely that James will require to continue to engage in long-term psychotherapy in navigating interpersonal relationships and tendencies to self-blame and isolate.

James has engaged well in appointments progressing with established treatment goals. He will continue with a further 3 psychology appointments as part of the current treatment episode should he remain in immigration detention.

1. The Respondent contends that the report of Mr Hutcheon should be given limited weight as it does not address the Applicant's risk of recidivism. When pressed in closing, the Respondent conceded that it at least identified the triggers for the Applicant's offending, namely his substance abuse issues and his unresolved grief disorder. I agree, the report is useful in identifying the Applicant's triggers and provides some insight on how they might be treated but does not opine on the Applicant's risk of reoffending so is of limited use and I give it limited weight.
2. The Applicant provided a letter from a clinical psychologist Mr Kevin Cloete, dated 27 February 2019, where he opined that the Applicant was a low risk of reoffending.[25] As the Applicant very seriously reoffended in 2024, that opinion is of no assistance.
3. In a report by Oliver Brecht, psychologist, dated 9 June 2024, provided to the Applicant's solicitor for the purpose of his sentencing for the Index Offending, it relevantly states:[26]

Mr Daniel stated that he became more rebellious when he left school partway through year 12 when he became associated with peers who displayed antisocial behaviours such as criminal activity and drug use.

As for children, Mr Daniel stated that he had a daughter aged 18. 11 months after she was born; he said that also had a son who died at 18 months old due to misdiagnosis by medical professionals. He said he never seemed to recover from the grief. He reported having a third child, who is now aged 12, from a separate relationship. He described his relationship with his daughters as mostly positive, although he wished he could be around more for them.

Following his arrest and moving into the inpatient rehabilitation facility, Mr Daniel said that he blocked and deleted contact information to all pro-criminal acquaintances and other drug users. He reported one positive and supportive friend who checked in with him frequently.

Mr Daniel stated that he was introduced to cannabis when he was in his young adolescence, which developed into an addiction throughout adulthood. He said as an adult, he often grew and sold cannabis.

Following his back injury, he said he was prescribed various pain medications such as Tagin, Endone, and Tremaine, which he abused.

Mr Daniel listed a series of life stressor that precipitated and augmented his drug abuse over time. Particularly circumstances that surrounded grief and loss. Such as the death of his son, the breakdown of his second relationship, his mother's death due to cancer, selling his home and moving to a lower socioeconomic area where illegal drugs were more accessible. He said that he would smoke up to a quarter of an ounce a day and a gram of methamphetamine taken orally or smoked per day around the time of the offence. He reported an increase in alcohol at this time also.

Mr Daniel reported that he had successfully abstained from drugs since his arrival at the rehabilitation facility at the time of the assessment. He reported that a few weeks ago, some residents had smuggled and used drugs in the rehab centre. He was invited to join but refused...He said he was also drug tested, and it came back negative.

At the time of the offence and assessment, Mr Daniel suffered from the following diagnoses according to the ...DSM...

• Cannabis Use Disorder, severe, in sustained remission in a controlled environment...
• Stimulant Use Disorder, severe, in sustained remission in a controlled environment...
• Prolonged Grief Disorder...

Regardless, upon re-entering society, he would require ongoing monitoring to track progress and maintain commitment towards rehabilitation. His criminal history largely indicated that the risk of reoffending was associated with mismanagement of addiction and pro-criminal attitudes and associates. Thus, he would be required to break off all communication with pro-criminal associates, to improve the likelihood of rehabilitation. He expressed shame and guilt about the offence and appeared to have generated potential avenues for rehabilitation such as drug addiction treatment and grief counselling. His positive education and employment history also suggest positive prospects for paid employment.

1. The Respondent contends that the Applicant's offending history:[27]

demonstrates a concerning theme of the applicant committing very serious offences in Australia. Previous sentences imposed, including the applicant to serve actual time in jail, have not deterred him from reoffending. His offending has also increased in seriousness with the passage of time, since his most recent robbery escalated to brandishing a gun at the complainants, making threats to shoot them and tying them up.

The applicant has provided evidence of a number of rehabilitation courses completed in 2025 for topics relating to drugs and alcohol, addiction, stress management and psychology. He also completed rehabilitation with Lives lived Well. However, the Minister submits that the applicant's rehabilitation attempts are not substantive enough to instil the Tribunal with confidence that he is no longer at risk of re-offending. While the applicant has made some attempts at rehabilitation, they are not comprehensive when viewed in the context of the applicant's long-standing issues with drinking alcohol excessively and abusing drugs. There is also insufficient evidence before the Tribunal that the applicant has addressed the underlying issues which have caused him to take drugs and drink alcohol excessively.

1. I note that there is a factual inaccuracy in the Respondent's contention, namely that until the sentencing of imprisonment for the Index Offending, the Applicant had not served any actual jail time, his sentences for imprisonment being wholly suspended. Despite that factual correction, I agree that the imposition of sentences of imprisonment and the warning given by the Minister in 2013 have not deterred the Applicant from his most serious offending in 2024.
2. The Applicant has expressed remorse to the Australia community for his offending and taken accountability for his conduct, he did so again in his oral evidence. The evidence of his participation in rehabilitation programs, including the inpatient program with Lives Lived Well after obtaining bail from remand and prior to sentencing for his Index Offending is in his favour. He has not wasted his time whilst in prison and in detention, completing over 20 courses addressing various topics.[28] Character referees[29] were supportive of their belief of the Applicant's remorse and his prospects of being re-integrated into the Australian Community. His stated intention to live and care for his ailing father, take up an offer for work and re-establish his relationships with his partner and children are protective factors in considering the risk of re-offending.
3. I do not have the benefit of any probative expert evidence as to the Applicant's risk of reoffending. He says that he has had ample opportunity in prison and detention to access drugs but has not and is committed to staying sober and off drugs and to continue to seek psychological support and attending alcoholic anonymous meetings. He has supplied his reintegration[30] and relapse prevention plan[31] that provide some level of detail of the supports available to him if he was returned to the community.
4. I accept on face value that to be true, and he seemed to be genuine about his resolve to not resort to his previous substance abuse as well as managing his grief disorder. But that resolve has not been tested in the community. I note that he has had access to the 'Opioid Substitution Therapy Program' whilst in immigration detention and there was no evidence before me on whether that would continue if he was released into the community.
5. I am not convinced that the Applicant has established that he is at low risk of not returning to his substance abuse and reoffending. As to his commitment to seeking professional psychological support for his grief disorder I believe he was genuine in that regard, albeit with Mr Hutcheon's caveat that this was dependent on the therapeutic relationship.
6. I consider the Applicant's risk of offending to be in the low to moderate range based on the evidence before me with significant adverse consequences if he did so.

Conclusion: Protection of the Australian community

1. Informed by the 'Principles' stated in paragraph 5.2 of Direction 110, and considering: (i) the nature and seriousness of the Applicant's conduct to date; and (ii) the risk to the Australian community should he commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct, I consider that the first 'primary consideration' (Protection of the Australian community), in paragraph 8.1 of the Direction, weighs heavily against revocation, noting that the safety of the 'Australian community' is the highest priority of the Australian government: paragraph 5.2(2) of Direction.

PRIMARY CONSIDERATION 2: FAMILY VIOLENCE COMMITTED BY THE NON-CITIZEN

1. Clause 8.2 of the Direction provides that decision-makers, such as the Tribunal, must have regard to family violence perpetrated by the non-citizen when deciding whether to revoke a visa cancellation decision.
2. There is no information before me that the Applicant has committed family violence, and this consideration does not weigh for or against revoking the cancellation of his visa.

Conclusion: Family Violence Committed by the Non-citizen

1. I consider that the 'second consideration' (Family Violence Committed by the Non-citizen), in paragraph 8.2 of the Direction, weighs neutrally against revocation.

PRIMARY CONSIDERATION 3: THE STRENGTH, NATURE AND DURATION OF TIES TO AUSTRALIA

1. Paragraph 8.3 of the Direction says I must consider any impact of the decision on the Applicant'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. This consideration requires the Tribunal to have regard to the strength, nature and duration of the Applicant's ties to Australia. Clause 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 arrived in Australia as a minor (15) in 2001 and his adult criminal offending commenced in 2004, some 3 years after arrival. The Applicant is now 40 years old and has lived primarily in Australia for 24 years. Put another way, the Applicant has spent approximately 60 percent of his life in Australia.
2. The Applicant completed year 11 and part of year 12 in Australia and has a history of employment from 2017 to 2023 being self-employed and 2018 to 2021 as an employee in in pest management. He also stated he was gainfully employed in the construction industry and had a job offer to work with a cleaning company doing maintenance work using his carpentry skills.
3. The Applicant provided numerous referees statements that spoke to his integrity and strong moral compass, his devotion to his family and his desire to rehabilitate and make a positive contribution to Australia.[32] It is clear from the statements provided that the Applicant has strong links with friends and the community in Australia.

1. The Applicant's immediate family in Australia consists of:

(a) His de facto partner DFP (Australian citizen of first nations heritage). > > (b) His Father Mr Alan Daniel (Permanent resident of Australia). > > (c) His biological children, C1 (born 20 November 2012 (13)) and C2 (born 18 May 2006 (19)) (Australian citizens). > > (d) His stepchild, SC1 (born 10 April 2017 (8)) (Australian citizen).

2. Mr Daniel provided medical evidence that he said showed that his father had early onset dementia. In particular a letter from Dr Joseph Varga, a consultant physician, dated 17 October 2025, that provides an MRI scan showed his father had 'amyloid angiopathy' and was taking 'souvenaid'.[33]
3. The Applicant said that was a diagnosis of early onset dementia and the medication was to treat that diagnosis. The Minister in closing did not dispute that the medical evidence pointed to the Applicant's father having early onset of dementia. I agree. I am reasonably satisfied that the medical evidence shows the Applicant's father has early onset of dementia and accept the Applicant's evidence of his intention, if not removed, to care for his father. There was no evidence of any other immediate family who could care for the Applicant's father.
4. On 10 May 2022, the Applicant resumed a de facto relationship with DFP, the mother of his biological child C1 and SC1. DFP lives on the Gold Coast with C1 and SC1.[34]
5. The Applicant says that C1 has stopped studying to work part time to support her mother and that if he was able to return to the community, he would support her financially so that C1 could return to study. He emphasised DFP's and C1's indigenous connection and culture and how that has positively impacted him. He says he has been adopted by DFP's people and accepted by the elders of her indigenous community.[35]
6. DFP provided an email to the minister who states:[36]

I am a proud First Nations woman of Australia, and together we share a daughter, [C1], who is also First Nations. The proposed removal of her father from Australia will have devastating impact on our daughter's emotional wellbeing, cultural identity, and connection to family and Country.

[Partner's Name] has made mistakes in the past, and he deeply regrets the actions that led to his visa cancellation. However, he has shown a strong commitment to change and becoming a better father and partner. Since his detention, our family has suffered greatly. Our daughter misses him every day and cannot understand why her father is being taken from her.

As a First Nations family, connection to culture, kinship and stability are vital. Our daughter's identity and emotional development are closely tied to the presence of both her parents, especially within the cultural context of being raised in her ancestral homeland. Removing her father from her life disregards the principles of family unity and cultural preservation, which are essential under Australian and international law - including the Convention on the Rights of the Child to which Australia is a signatory.

I am asking you to consider the profound an irreversible harm that this deportation would cause to our daughter, our family, and our community. My partner is not a threat to Australia. He is a devoted father, a loved member of our family, and someone deserving of another chance to remain in this country and raise his child with the love, support and guidance she needs.

1. I did not understand from the Applicant's evidence or DFP's that the Applicant was claiming to be falling within the category of person in Love v Commonwealth (2020) 270 CLR 152. I am satisfied that on the available evidence that the Applicant is not biologically of Aboriginal descent and thereby not a person who is within the contemplation of the reasoning in Love.[37]
2. The Applicant in his evidence said it was his intention to live with his father to care for him and maintain a de facto relationship with DFP and re-establish his relationship with his children. He says that whilst in detention he contacts his daughters every two days and would see them at a minimum of every weekend.[38]
3. The Applicant said that his late mother and son are buried in Australia and that he has no substantial ties to any other country.
4. There was no evidence of significant financial dependency by any of the immediate family upon the Applicant, rather the inference was that the Applicant makes no significant financial contribution to his immediate family.

1. The Applicant has no extended family in Australia.

Conclusion: The strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia

1. Taking into account the impact of any non-revocation decision on the Applicant's immediate family members in Australia, the strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia, I consider this Primary Consideration 3 weighs heavily in favour of the revocation of the cancellation of the Applicant's visa.

PRIMARY CONSIDERATION 4: BEST INTERESTS OF MINOR CHILDREN IN AUSTRALIA AFFECTED BY THE DECISION

1. Clause 8.4 of the Direction requires the Tribunal to consider the best interests of minor children in Australia affected by the decision.
2. Paragraph 8.4 of the Direction requires me to determine whether a non-revocation decision is or is not in the best interests of a child (under the age of 18 at the time) affected by the decision.
3. Paragraph 8.4(4) of the Direction sets out a number of factors to take into consideration, which relevantly include:
   • the nature and duration of the relationship between the child and the Applicant. Less weight should generally be given where the relationship is non-parental, and/or there is no existing relationship and/or there have been long periods of absence, or limited meaningful contact (including whether an existing Court order restricts contact);
   • the extent to which the Applicant is likely to play a positive parental role in the future, taking into account the length of time until the child turns 18, and including any Court orders relating to parental access and care arrangements;
   • the impact of the Applicant's prior conduct, and any likely future conduct, and whether that conduct has, or will have a negative impact on the child;
   • the likely effect that any separation from the Applicant 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.

1. The Applicant has one biological daughter, C2 and a stepson, SC1 who are minors and Australian citizens (the Children).
2. C2 lives with her mother in the Northern suburbs of Brisbane and on the evidence she is the primary carer. There are no court orders in place for the Applicant in respect of access to C2.
3. The Applicant's evidence was that the mother of C2 allowed him to care for his daughter on weekends, extending to perhaps an early pick up and/or later drop off to school. He said that C2 spent time with C1 and SC1 and had a good relationship.
4. There was no evidence before the Tribunal from the mother of C2 and no evidence of any financial support provided by the Applicant to C2.
5. SC1 lives with her mother, DFP, along with the adult daughter C1. The Applicant says that he saw SC1 'every weekend or every second weekend when he's with his mum [DFP] I see him'.[39] In his oral evidence the Applicant said that the father of SC1 has little contact with him, once or twice a year, and the Applicant was the primary father figure for him.
6. There was no evidence before the Tribunal from DFP in respect to the Applicant's relationship with SC1.
7. There was no evidence before the Tribunal from C2 or SC1 as to their views.
8. The Children are 8 and 13, and if the Applicant was returned to the community, I accept that the Applicant would have a parental role in their lives, albeit not as the primary carer, for an extended period until they reached adulthood.
9. There is no evidence either way of the impact of the Applicant's prior conduct has had on the Children.
10. I accept that the impact of a non-revocation decision on C2 would be to make very difficult to maintain a close relationship with her father and would have a significant negative emotional impact on her.
11. I accept that the impact of a non-revocation decision on SC1 would be to make very difficult to maintain a relationship with the Applicant and would have a negative emotional impact on him.

Conclusion: Best interests of minor children in Australia affected by the decision

1. I am of the view that a non-revocation decision is not in the best interests of the Children, in that it will prevent the possibility of person to contact between the Applicant and them in Australia as well as have a negative emotional impact on them.
2. Taking into account the best interests of the children mentioned above cumulatively, this Primary Consideration 4 weighs moderately in favour of the revocation of the cancellation of the Applicant's visa.

PRIMARY CONSIDERATION 5: EXPECTATIONS OF THE AUSTRALIAN COMMUNITY

1. Paragraph 8.5(1) of the Direction says 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 he may do so, the Australian community, as a norm, expects the government not to allow the non-citizen to enter or remain in Australia.[40]
2. Paragraph 8.5(2) of the Direction says 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 are 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, relevantly:

(a) acts of family violence; or

(b) causing a person to enter into, or being party to (other than being a victim of), a forced marriage;

(c) commission of serious crimes against women, children or other vulnerable members of the community such as the elderly or disabled; in this context, 'serious crimes' include crimes of a violent or sexual nature, as well as other serious crimes against the elderly or other vulnerable persons in the form of fraud, extortion, financial abuse/material exploitation or neglect;

(d) commission of crimes against government representatives or officials due to the position they hold, or in the performance of their duties; or

(e) involvement or reasonably suspected involvement in human trafficking or people smuggling, or in crimes that are of serious international concern including, but not limited to, war crimes, crimes against humanity and slavery; or

(f) worker exploitation.[41]

1. The above expectations of the Australian community apply regardless of whether the non-citizen poses a measurable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community.[42]
2. Australian community expectations are to be determined[43]:

This 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, without independently assessing the community's expectations in the particular case_._

3. The Applicant has engaged in the commission of very serious crimes against women by his Index Offending of 'robbery armed in company - attempted robbery - use/threaten violence, deprivation of liberty - unlawfully detain/confine,' contrary to paragraph 8.5(2)(c) of the Direction.
4. I am satisfied that the Applicant's offending is sufficiently serious such that the Australian community would expect the Australian Government to refuse to set aside the mandatory cancellation of his visa.
5. The remaining question is whether there are any factors which modify the Australian community's expectations. This question is relevantly to the present circumstances informed by the principles in paragraphs 5.2(5), (6) and (7) of the Direction. In summary these are:

(a) The Australian community has a low tolerance of any criminal or other serious conduct by non-citizens who have been participating in, and contributing to, the Australian community for only a short period of time (paragraph 5.2(5)). > > (b) Australia may afford a higher level of tolerance towards 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 (paragraph 5.2(6)). > > (c) The nature of a 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 a visa outcome that is not adverse to the non-citizen (paragraph 5.2(7)).

6. In relation to sub-paragraph (a) of the above paragraph [120], the Applicant has spent over two decades in Australia since arriving here in February 2001 aged 15 years. He has spent about 60% of his life in this country and is currently aged 40 years. He has a reasonable work history in Australia. He has fathered 3 biological children in this country, with one passing away, and has made community contributions to it. The Applicant's participation in, and contribution to, the Australian community is therefore not 'short'. Thus, the Australian community's tolerance is raised by this part of the principles in 5.2(5) of the Direction.
7. In relation to sub-paragraph (b) of the above paragraph of [120], the Applicant arrived in Australia as a 15-year-old in February 2001. Although he has spent most more than half is life in Australia (60%), he did not come here at a very young age. This means the Australian community's level of tolerance of criminal or other serious conduct by this Applicant is not raised.
8. In relation to sub-paragraph (c) of the above paragraph [120], I am of the view that the totality of the Applicant's unlawful conduct in this country has been sufficiently serious such as to displace any strong countervailing considerations militating in favour of a positive visa outcome. I have found that the Applicant poses a low-moderate recidivist risk but that the harm resulting from any reoffending would be so serious such as to render that risk unacceptable to the Australian community.

Conclusion: Expectations of the Australian community

1. As the Australian community expects the visa to be cancelled as specified in the Direction, primary consideration 5 weighs heavily in favour of not revoking cancellation of the visa.

(1) In making a decision under section 501(1), 501(2) or 501CA(4), the considerations below must also be taken into account, where relevant, in accordance with the following provisions. These considerations include (but are not limited to):

Legal consequences of decision under s 501 or s 501CA

1. The consequence of affirming the non-revocation decision would be that the Applicant:

(a) will be liable to be removed from Australia as soon as reasonably practicable[44]; > > (b) must remain in detention until removal[45]; > > (c) will be prohibited from applying for another visa while in Australia, except for a Protection visa or Bridging visa[46]; and > > (d) will be indefinitely excluded from Australia[47].

2. There is no evidence before the Tribunal that suggests that Australia's non-refoulment obligations are enlivened in respect of the Applicant.
3. The Minister cited Stoneley v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2025] FCA 143 for the proposition that the Tribunal would not be in error to give neutral weight to the legal consequences of affirming the non-revocation decision because the Applicant was not a person whom Australia owed non-refoulment obligations or faced prolonged or indefinite detention.
4. I accept that the reasoning in Stoneley applies to the Applicant's factual circumstances. As I state above, the consequence of affirming the non-revocation decision would be that the Applicant would remain in detention until removed to New Zealand. He does not fit into a category where non-refoulement obligations apply or he faces the prospect of prolonged or indefinite detention.
5. I give this Other Consideration 1 neutral weight in favour of revocation of the cancellation of the Applicant's visa.

1. The Tribunal must consider the extent to which the Applicant would face an impediment or impediments if removed from Australia. This is to take into account:

(a) the Applicant's Age and health;

(b) whether there are substantial language or cultural barriers; and

(c) any social, medical and/or economic support available to them in that country.

1. The Applicant is a 40-year-old man who is able bodied and does not claim to have any significant physical medical conditions. He has been diagnosed as having grief disorder and substance abuse disorders.
2. The Minister contends that the Applicant's age and health are not impediments to him re-settling in New Zealand. I agree.
3. The Minister relies on the fact that the Applicant lived in New Zealand between the ages of 8 and 15 and movement records show he has been to New Zealand a number of times which suggest he is familiar with and possibly retains ties with New Zealand.
4. The Applicant's evidence was that he has no social support available to him in New Zealand and those trips were to visit C2 when her mother lived in New Zealand for a period before re-settling in Australia.
5. The Minister says New Zealand is culturally, linguistically and politically like Australia and there would be no substantial cultural or language barriers for him to overcome and he would be entitled to government benefits similar to those available to him in Australia. Further, the Applicant's employment experience, particularly in pest control would assist him in securing similar employment in New Zealand.
6. The Applicant's evidence was that he had no cultural or social connection to New Zealand, and he would face significant difficulty establishing himself. As to employment, the Applicant stated that his pest control qualifications were specialised in termites and fire ants, neither of which occurred in New Zealand.
7. I accept that the Applicant would have difficulty establishing himself in New Zealand where he has no social supports, but the similarities in culture, language and government supports would ameliorate any difficulties and make them temporal rather than permanent.
8. His evidence that he had carpentry skills and was looking to employment with a cleaning company to do general maintenance are skills that would be transferable to New Zealand, accepting that they are not his preferred specialist skills in pest control.
9. I give this Other Consideration 2 limited weight in favour of revocation of the cancellation of the Applicant's visa.

1. The Tribunal must consider any impact on Australian business interests of a decision to affirm the reviewable decision.
2. The Applicant did not make any contentions in respect of this ground and there was no evidence to suggest that the Applicant's removal will impact any current business interests.
3. I give this Other Consideration 3 neutral weight in favour of revocation of the cancellation of the Applicant's visa_._

1. Neither the Applicant nor the Respondent raised any other considerations.

1. The Applicant does not pass the character test under s 501 of the Act, and the Tribunal must consider whether there is another reason the decision to cancel his visa should be revoked, having regard to the primary and other considerations in the Direction.
2. The Direction sets out the way in which the relevant considerations are to be considered and weighed. There has been judicial consideration on the exercise of balancing and weighing considerations contained in the relevant Direction, including that the 'other' considerations are not 'secondary' and the other considerations need not be considered secondary in all cases[48], and may outweigh primary considerations depending on the circumstances of the case.[49]
3. The Full Court of the Federal Court in CRNL v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FCA 252 said,

'[t]he real burden of the task to be undertaken by a decision-maker who must comply with the Direction [the precursor Direction 90] is to bring together the considerations as part of a single evaluation of their relative significance thereby weighing them all together.'

1. Greater weight must generally be given to the protection of the Australian community than other primary considerations. Greater weight will also generally be given to primary considerations. In examining what this requires, the Full Court in CRNL at [27] states that this means greater weight will be given unless there is some reason why that general approach should not be adopted.
2. The Australian community expects that the Australian Government should cancel the visas of non-citizens who commit crimes in Australia which raise serious character concerns. This expectation of the Australian community applies regardless of whether the Applicant poses a measurable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community.
3. The Applicant, as a non-citizen who committed the very serious crimes of 'robbery armed in company - attempted robbery - use/threaten violence, deprivation of liberty - unlawfully detain/confine' should generally expect to forfeit the privilege of staying in Australia.
4. The weighing of the considerations in the Applicant's circumstances was finely balanced.
5. On one hand the seriousness of the Applicant's offences weighed against him heavily in respect of primary considerations 1 and 5.
6. On the other, the Applicant has strong connections to his family and community in Australia, and the best interest of his father, daughters and stepson would be for him not to be removed. The impact on the Applicant's immediate family, particularly his father and his daughters, if he is removed would be devastating.
7. I do not doubt that the Applicant holds a genuine view that he will not reoffend, and he has undertaken rehabilitative course directed towards his substance abuse disorders and his grief disorder, but his stated intentions have not been tested in the community.
8. I have concluded that the countervailing considerations in favour of the Applicant are insufficient to outweigh the primary considerations of protection of and expectations of the Australian community.
9. Having carefully considered the competing weight I have given to the primary and other considerations; I am not satisfied that there is 'another reason' why the cancellation decision should be revoked.

1. Pursuant to s 105(a) of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth), the Tribunal affirms the decision made by a delegate of the Respondent on 22 August 2025 to not revoke the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant's Class TY Subclass 444 visa**.**

[1] It is the term of imprisonment to which the applicant was sentenced, not the term actually served, that is relevant when determining the term of imprisonment - See Drake v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1979) 46 FLR 409, 415-416.

[6] Minister for Home Affairs v Buadromo [2018] FCAFC 151.

[9] The Direction, paragraph 8.1(1)(a)(i) and (ii).

[15] Citing Senior Member Tavoularis in Bartlett and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (Migration) [2017] AATA 1561 at [43]- [45].

[17] See Brown v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2010] FCAFC 33; PNLB and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (Migration) [2018] AATA 162 at [22].

[19] The Direction, paragraph 8.1.2(2)(a).

[20] The Direction, paragraph 8.1.2(2)(b).

[21] The Direction, paragraph 8.1.2(2)(a).

[23] The Direction, paragraph 8.1.2(2).

[27] Exhibit R3 at [40.2] & [40.4]..

[29] Exhibit A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, A7, A8, A9, A10

[32] Exhibit R2, G16, G17, G18, G19; Exhibit A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, A7, A8, A9, A10.

[37]See Kapeli v Secretary, Department of Home [2024] FCA 1246

[40] Paragraph 8.4(1) of the Direction.

[41] Paragraph 8.5(2) of the Direction.

[42] Paragraph 8.5(3) of the Direction.

[43] This approach is consistent with the decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court in FYBR v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCAFC 185.

[44] See 198 of the Migration Act

[45] See s 189 of the Migration Act

[46] See s 500(1)(c) of the Migration Act

[47] See Special Return Criteria 500(1)(c) in Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth),

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

[49] Minister for Home Affairs v HSKJ [2018] FCAFC 217 at [34] - [37].