1. The Applicant concedes that the imposition of a sentence of imprisonment of 12 months or more on 19 December 2023 means that he has a 'substantial criminal record' and therefore that he fails the character test. The issue for the Tribunal to determine is whether there is 'another reason' to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the visa.

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, namely 'Direction No 110 - Visa refusal and cancellation under section 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under s 501CA' issued on 21 June 2024 (the Direction).
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' 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.

2. The Direction contains 'Other Considerations', which include, but are not limited to:

(a) the legal consequences of the decision, > > (b) the extent of impediments if removed, and > > (c) the impact on Australian business interests.

3. Paragraph 7 of the Direction says when applying the considerations (primary and other), the 'primary consideration' of the protection of the Australia community is generally to be given greater weight than other 'primary considerations'. Otherwise, 'primary considerations' should generally be given greater weight than the 'other considerations'. Also, one or more 'primary considerations' may outweigh other 'primary considerations'.
4. In CRNL v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FCAFC 138 at [27] the Full Court of the Federal Court said, in relation to the equivalent provision in Direction 90, that greater weight is to be given to the first primary consideration and to the other primary considerations unless there is some reason why that general approach should not be adopted. Further authorities have noted that the 'other considerations' need not be considered secondary in all cases[1] and, depending on the circumstances of the case, the 'other considerations' may outweigh the 'primary considerations'.[2]

PRIMARY CONSIDERATION 1: PROTECTION OF THE AUSTRALIAN COMMUNITY

1. Paragraph 8.1(1) of 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.
2. 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, I must:

(a) have regard to the Government's views as set out in paragraph 8.1.1(1) of the Direction; and > > (b) then form my own independent assessment as to the nature and seriousness of the Applicant's offending and the weight to be attributed to this factor[3].

2. The Applicant's criminal convictions for which a criminal conviction has been imposed are:

(a) 8 June 2020 - Possession of a dangerous drug (MDMA) s 6(2) Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 (WA) committed on 30 April 2020; > > (b) 22 December 2020 - exceeding zero blood alcohol content - $200 fine, committed 21 November 2020; > > (c) 22 December 2020 - having no authority to drive (having never held a licence) - $500 fine committed 21 November 2020; > > (d) 14 January 2021 - stealing s 378 Criminal Code WA - $1200 fine committed on 31 July 2020; > > (e) 14 January 2021 - breach of bail (failure to appear soon after) s 51(2) Bail Act 1982 (WA) - $500 fine - committed 7 December 2020; > > (f) 23 June 2021 - having no authority to drive (being disqualified) - licence disqualification for 9 months, plus a $1000 fine committed on 28 April 2021; > > (g) 23 June 2021 - exceeding 0.08g alcohol per 100 ml of blood - licence disqualification 8 months (cumulative) plus a $650 fine committed on 28 April 2021; > > (h) 23 June 2021 - no authority to drive (licence suspended) - licence disqualification 9 months - $400 fine - committed 26 February 2021; > > (i) 17 May 2022 - stealing s 378 Criminal Code WA - $400 fine; > > (j) 24 October 2023 - no authority to drive (disqualified licence) - licence disqualification 9 months - $1000 fine, committed on 20 December 2022; and > > (k) 19 December 2023 - aggravated robbery - 2 years 8 months.

3. On 10 December 2019, aged 23 the Applicant appeared before the Midland Magistrates Court where he was convicted of 16 offences. The Respondent has informed the Tribunal that these convictions are 'spent convictions' under the Spent Convictions Act 1988 (WA). Section 27 of the Spent Convictions Act 1988 states that:

(a) a question about the Applicant's criminal history is taken not to refer to the spent conviction; and > > (b) the Applicant is not required to disclose information about a spent conviction to anyone.

4. Section 25(1) of the Spent Convictions Act 1988 says that when applying a State or Territory Act to the Applicant, a reference to a conviction (however expressed) is taken not to refer to the spent conviction and a reference to their character (however expressed) does not allow or require anyone to take the spent conviction into account.
5. The Respondent submits that the Spent Convictions Act 1988 does not engage ss 85ZR(2) or 85ZS of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), as a spent conviction is to be contrasted to what is known as a 'non-conviction', where a finding of guilt by a Court is not to be treated as the recording of a conviction of guilt.
6. While the Respondent's submission is probably correct, as there has been no judicial determination on this issue, out of an abundance of caution, I will not consider any of the offences for which convictions were imposed on 10 December 2019 which have now been declared 'spent convictions' when considering:

(a) the nature and seriousness of the Applicant's conduct (in paragraph 8.1.1 of the Direction); and > > (b) generally, when considering whether there is another reason why the cancellation of the Applicant's visa should be set aside.

7. Turning to the aggravated robbery offence, on the night of 19 December 2021, while the Applicant was 25 and on bail for the offence of causing grievous bodily harm in a home burglary which charge was ultimately withdrawn, the Applicant, gave evidence confirming that he and 2 friends had been at the home of the Applicant's brother, consuming alcohol. At some point early in the morning of 20 December 2021 the Applicant's brother asked the Applicant and his 2 friends to leave his home. The Applicant and his friends moved to the Ellenbrook Central Shopping Centre. The applicant conceded he continued drinking after leaving his brother's home.
8. The factual basis on which the Applicant was sentenced by the District Court of Western Australia was that at 4.30am on 20 December 2021 a 67 year old man, (the victim) was driving an SUV wagon to the Ellenbrook Central Shopping Centre, to deliver newspapers. As the victim was taking newspapers out of his car and placing them in a shopping trolley, he noticed the Applicant yelling and walking towards him. The Applicant was standing at the rear driver's side door of the victim's car.
9. The Applicant said to the victim words to the effect, 'My friends told me. I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to take your car'. There were 2 other people about 30 metres away from the Applicant, when as he approached the victim. The victim thought the Applicant was joking, and simply turned his back towards the Applicant as he continued to unload the newspapers from his car.
10. About 5 seconds later, the victim felt the Applicant deliver a blow to the right side of his face, about halfway up his face. As a result of the blow, the victim fell into the driver's side doorway, where he had been unloading the papers from. The Applicant stood next to the victim and yelled words to the effect, 'Give me the keys, or you'll get another one'. The victim complied in response, saying, 'The keys are in the ignition. Take it'. The Applicant got into the driver's seat of the car and started the SUV wagon, driving the vehicle out of the shopping centre. The SUV wagon was found that day (20 December 2021) on communal property where the Applicant was present in a house.
11. The sentencing judge accepted that the Applicant had been drinking at the time he took the car, which may have been the reason why the Applicant did not participate in a record of interview. The sentencing judge noted that driving a stolen car while intoxicated puts other people at risk.
12. The sentencing judge found that the Applicant decided to commit this offence upon entering the shopping centre car park. The judge found the offence involved a plan that was more opportunistic than planned and premeditated.
13. A victim impact statement was tendered at the sentence hearing. The victim said of the pain the incident had caused him; of his loss of faith in his fellow man; that he was anxious every time strangers came towards him, so much that he had to stop working and he is now on a pension.
14. The sentencing judge said that offences of this type (robbery with violence) were serious, and this was conceded by the Applicant's counsel. The sentencing judge noted that the seriousness of the offence was reflected in the maximum penalty for the offence, which was 20 years imprisonment. The sentencing judge considered that the victim was vulnerable as he was over 60 years of age and alone in the early hours of the morning in a shopping centre carpark, to be an aggravating factor of the offending.
15. The sentencing judge noted at stealing with violence is serious, and the Applicant's was particularly so, because his violence involved a punch to the head area from behind to a 67 year old man who was not in a position to defend himself. The judge noted that single blows can result in death or permanent injury to a victim.
16. The sentencing judge noted that the Applicant's offending was also aggravated because he was on bail for the serious offence of causing grievous bodily harm in a home burglary.
17. The Respondent submitted that in considering the nature and seriousness of the Applicant's criminal offending, I should consider the aggravated robbery as a 'very serious offence'. The Applicant conceded the aggravated robbery offence was a very serious offence under the Direction.
18. The aggravated robbery offence represents a trend of increasing seriousness from the remaining offences listed in paragraph 21 above, which include 2 convictions for stealing and 4 convictions for driving without authority, which increase from driving while suspended to driving while disqualified and 2 convictions for driving in excess of the limit for alcohol. Driving offences, particularly drink driving, place other road users in great danger, placing them at risk of serious physical and psychological harm, as well as a risk of death. The sentences imposed for these offences were fines and removal of driver licence privileges. The Applicant secured 10 convictions in just 3 years, which is frequent offending over a relatively short period of time. The Direction does not list these offences directly for the purpose of categorising them as 'very serious' or 'serious'.
19. I note that paragraph 8.1.1.1(a)(i) of the Direction says that the Australian Government and the Australian community regard violent crimes as 'very serious'. I find that the aggravated robbery involving administering a blow to the face of a 67 year old person, who I regard as elderly and therefore vulnerable, to be a violent crime and a 'very serious offence'.
20. Consistently with the submission made by the Respondent, I regard:

(a) the offence for which the Applicant was convicted on 20 January 2025 individually to be 'very serious offences' for the purposes of paragraph 8.1.1(1) of the Direction. > > (b) the convictions for stealing, driving without authority, and driving in excess of the limit for alcohol, to be serious offences for the purposes of paragraph 8.1.1(1) of the Direction.

Conclusion on Nature and Seriousness of Conduct to Date

1. The Respondent has submitted that the Applicant's offending, collectively, was of a 'serious' nature. Taking into account the nature and seriousness of all of the Applicant's criminal offending, for which he was convicted, and the cumulative effect of that offending, I characterise the Applicant's unlawful conduct in Australia as 'serious' for the purposes of the Direction. This assessment is formulated on my assessments of each of offences and the collective assessment of the frequency of offending over a short period of time.

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;[4] then an assessment of the likelihood of the Applicant engaging in such conduct.[5]

1. The Tribunal must consider the nature of the harm to individuals, or to the Australian community, should the Applicant reoffend.[6]
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 assessing the risk to the Australian community in paragraph 8.1.2(2) of the Direction.
3. The visa which the Applicant held is a temporary visa which entitling the Applicant to live, work and study in Australia indefinitely, provided conditions were met. In terms of paragraph 8.1.2(2)(c) of the Direction, the risk of harm from the Applicant committing further offences or engaging in other serious conduct exists for as long as the Applicant is entitled to remain in Australia.
4. The Respondent described the nature of the harm caused by further acts of criminal or other serious conduct committed by the Applicant as physical, psychological and financial harm to individuals. The extent of the harm was described by the Respondent as significant. As the sentencing judge explained, one punch can kill a person. The driving offences for which the Applicant has been convicted may also result in death.
5. I accept that physical harm, including death, psychological harm and financial harm, are the types of harm that can occur if the Applicant was to engage in further criminal or other serious conduct.

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.[7]
2. The only formal evidence of any risk analysis was a treatment assessment report dated 4 November 2024 prepared as part of an application to the Parole Board of Western Australia[8], which assessed the Applicant as having:

(a) a high risk of general reoffending; and > > (b) a medium risk of violent offending.

3. The treatment assessment report concluded that the Applicant had a high alcohol/drug problem score as well as elevated dynamic risk factors of interpersonal aggression and impulsivity. This is reflected in the aggravated robbery the applicant committed in 2021.
4. In his oral evidence to the Tribunal, the Applicant was frank in acknowledging that his offending was attributable to his alcohol addiction. In written material he attributed his offending to 'drug use'. In his oral evidence, the extent of any drug addictions was limited, stating that the night of 19 December 2021 (prior to the armed robbery) was the first occasion that he had used methamphetamine and cannabis. He said that his conviction for possession of MDMA (which he possessed on 30 April 2020) was the result of him being closest to the drug in the room at the time the police found the Applicant.
5. The Applicant has completed courses and undertaken sessions which evidence his desire to rehabilitate. These courses include the Reset Drug and Alcohol Brief Intervention Program, Alcohol and Other Drugs Awareness Treatment Readiness Group, Alcohol and Other Drugs Individual Counselling, Peaceful Pathways Basic Workshop and 7 Voluntary Narcotics Anonymous Sessions.
6. The Respondent notes that the timing of most of the rehabilitation courses and sessions was largely undertaken following the cancellation of the Applicant's visa. I accept that the Applicant understands that in order to prevent himself committing further offences. I accept that he wants to stop consuming alcohol and illicit drugs. The practical implementation of that understanding is always the challenge. While in detention and after completing these courses, the Applicant was found on 2 October 2025 with 5 litres of home brew on his person. The Applicant says he did not take part in drinking it; that he was instructed to pick something up and drop it to someone. On 26 November 2025 60 litres of home brew were found in the Applicant's room. The Applicant admitted that he had been struggling since he received notification that his visa cancellation had not been revoked; that he has been depressed and stressed and he decided to drink.
7. In his opening and closing submissions, the Applicant said the courses he has undertaken enabled him to learn a lot about himself and that he has learned life skills that will help him get out of risky situations. In his oral evidence to the Tribunal he said that he needs to be more responsible, stop drinking, stay away from drugs and the friends that he used to hang with as a consequence of that incident (the armed robbery). He believes that what has happened in the past (ie criminal offences) will not happen again.
8. The Applicant has expressed remorse for his conduct in the aggravated robbery. I accept that he feels remorse.
9. The Applicant has worked while in Australia. He was working during the period that he committed the criminal offences listed in paragraph 21. It is unclear whether he was working as at 20 December 2021, when the armed robbery was committed.
10. The Applicant's elder brother gave evidence in the proceeding confirming his willingness to support the Applicant, including providing him with accommodation and moral and social support.
11. Save his time in prison and in immigration detention, the Applicant has always resided with his brother. While the Applicant sees the presence and support of his brother as a protective factor, this factor was present while the Applicant committed all of his criminal offences.
12. The Applicant obviously enjoys a close relationship with his family, but I am not satisfied that this will operate as a protective factor, particularly when the Applicant has always lived at home, including when his alcoholism developed and when he used cannabis and methamphetamine.
13. Put simply, there has been no substantial period for which the Applicant has abstained from drinking alcohol. While he has online classes and counselling available to him in detention, he is not presently under a formal rehabilitation program and his resolve to abstain from drugs has not been tested in the community.
14. I am not convinced that the Applicant has the support systems he needs to abstain from using alcohol and illegal drugs while in the community. I cannot accept the Applicant's submission that he has learned his lesson and is at no risk of returning to his alcoholism, substance abuse and reoffending.
15. The Respondent has submitted that the Applicant's is at significant risk of reoffending. I find his risk of general offending and violent offending is in the moderate range with significant adverse consequences for himself, victims and the community if it reoccurred.
16. I have formed the view that, notwithstanding the Applicant's desire to change his behaviour and lead a law abiding life, the risk of the Applicant re-engaging with alcohol and illicit substance abuse is a very real risk. The risk of that relapse resulting in reoffending which in turn leads to real harm to individuals is also a very real risk.
17. Informed by the 'Principles' stated in paragraph 5.2 of Direction 110, and considering the nature and seriousness of the Applicant's conduct to date and the risk to the Australian community should he commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct, I consider that primary consideration 1 (Protection of the Australian community), 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 ever committed family violence.
3. Primary consideration 2 (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, who is now 29, arrived in Australia aged 8. He has spent 19 and a half years in Australia - the majority of his life.
2. The Applicant attended school in Australia and has a history of employment as a forklift driver (2020-2020), a pickle packer (2020-2022) and a store person (2013).
3. In terms of community ties, I accept that the Applicant has assisted a South Sudanese community group where he resides and has assisted his elder brother with tasks for his children and wife.

1. The Applicant's immediate family in Australia consists of his elder brother and his wife, his sister, his cousin and their children. I accept that they will be most impacted if the Applicant cannot remain in Australia. In his request for revocation[9], the applicant listed an uncle born in 1982 who resides in Australia and 2 other cousins born in 1994 Ans 1998. I accept that these relatives will also be impacted should the applicant be required to leave Australia.
2. The Applicant has lived with his family, particularly his elder brother and his wife, in the family home until his incarceration. There was no evidence of financial dependency by any of the immediate family upon the Applicant.
3. The Applicant's brother has maintained contact with him throughout his incarceration and detention. His elder brother is akin to his guardian and father figure. He will be the person most affected if the reviewable decision is not revoked.
4. The Applicant gave evidence that his brother had an eye condition which meant that the Applicant provided him with extra assistance, particularly reading and processing invoices. The evidence given by the Applicant's brother did not support this suggestion. The Applicant's brother is a nurse, that he could read and write, and he gave evidence that he had no medical conditions and no need for help to complete day to day activities.

1. I accept that the Applicant has established friendship groups in Australia, some of whom (such as the South Sudanese support group) are a positive influence on him and that these relationships constitute ties to Australia. I note 2 friends provided references in support of him. I accept his friends would be adversely impacted if the Respondent could not remain in Australia.
2. 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 that Primary Consideration 3 is to be given some weight 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.
4. The Applicant has identified:

(c) A 5 year old child, Peter, who the Applicant considers to be his son; > > (d) 2 nephews, being the children of his elder brother born in 2009 and2013 ; > > (e) 1 nephew, being his sister's child, born 2015; > > (f) 1 niece, being his sister's child, born 2017; and > > (g) 2 cousins, born in 2013 and 2020, being the children of his cousin.

5. Until his incarceration, the Applicant resided with his brother's 2 nephews. I accept that he has a close relationship with those 2 nephews and their interests are the most adversely affected by a decision to cancel his visa.
6. I accept that the Applicant has a relationship with his sister's children and with his cousin's children, although it is not as close as the relationship he has with his brother's sons.
7. As to the 5 year old child Peter, the Applicant has met the child on 2 occasions, once when the child was 6 months old. The applicant gave evidence that the mother of the child has another partner. In closing submissions, the Applicant said that the mother of the child informed him by message 2 months after the birth, that he was not the biological father of the child and that the mother of the child has another partner now who is not the biological father of Peter. The applicant said he feels responsible for the child because he was present during the pregnancy for that child and that he feels responsible for the child.
8. I do not have sufficient evidence before me to determine whether the Applicant is the biological father of the child. I accept that the Applicant wants to maintain a relationship with Peter. Whether he is the biological father or not, regular contact will ever happen if the Applicant remained in Australia, is difficult to assess at this point in time. With such a young child, any relationship the applicant could develop would commence as supervised visits of a short duration and only if the mother consented to such contact. The Tribunal is unaware of the mother's views and if she has any need for financial support.
9. I do not consider the relationship that the Applicant has with Peter to constitute a parental relationship as discussed in the Direction.
10. I am of the view that a non-revocation decision is not in the best interests of all of the children have mentioned above, with the greatest effect being upon the applicant's 2 nephews whose father is the Applicant's elder brother, followed by the children of his sister and his cousin, followed by Peter.
11. I accept that the possibility of person to person contact between the Applicant and all of the children in Australia, may have a negative emotional impact on any and all of the children.
12. Taking into account the best interests of the children mentioned above cumulatively, Primary Consideration 4 is to be given some weight 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.[10]
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.
3. 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.[11]
4. Paragraph 8.5(4) of the Direction say that 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.
5. The aggravated robbery against a 67 year old man, who is an elderly man and therefore vulnerable, falls within the conduct described in paragraph 8.5(2)(c) of the Direction. I have found that this particular offending was very serious, and that the applicant's overall criminal offending was serious.
6. Paragraph 8.5(2) of the Direction says that where conduct described in paragraph 8.5(2)(c) of the Direction has occurred, I may find that non-revocation of the mandatory cancellation may be appropriate simply because of the nature of the offending is such that the Australian community would expect that a person should not be granted or continue to hold a visa.
7. I am satisfied that the Applicant's offending overall is sufficiently serious such that the Australian community would expect the Australian Government to refuse to set aside the mandatory cancellation of his visa.
8. 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 Principles in 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)).

9. Sub-paragraph 5.2(5) of the Principles in the Direction is not engaged, as the Applicant has been in Australia for most of his life. Sub-paragraph 5.2(6) of the Principles in the Direction is engaged. Sub-paragraph 5.2(7) is also engaged.
10. I am of the view that the Applicant's unlawful conduct in this country, viewed collectively, is serious; that he poses a real risk of re-engaging with alcohol and illicit substance abuse and reoffending; and, despite the fact that he spent the vast majority of his life in Australia, those countervailing considerations are insufficient to outweigh the risk of harm resulting from any further offending of a similar nature.
11. 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):

Other Consideration 1 - 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[12]; > > (b) must remain in detention until removal[13]; > > (c) will be prohibited from applying for another visa while in Australia, except for a Protection visa or Bridging visa[14]; and > > (d) will be indefinitely excluded from Australia[15].

2. The Applicant has raised concerns about his safety, including a fear of being killed, should be required to return to South Sudan. In line with Plaintiff M1/2021 v Minister for Home Affairs (2022) 96 ALJR 497_,_ as the Applicant has the right to lodge a protection visa application, and that is the time when a determination will be made as to whether the Applicant is owed non-refoulement obligations
3. I accept that upon being informed of a decision not to revoke the reviewable decision, the Applicant will lodge a protection visa application. I accept he will remain in detention for a considerable period, possibly to 8 to 10 years, based on current waiting times, for his application to be processed through the Australian legal system.
4. At present, I accept that s 197C(3) of the Act is not presently engaged, and the immediate legal effect of a decision not to revoke the reviewable decision and the consequences listed in paragraph 103 above apply.
5. The Respondent has submitted that these consequences are the intended purposes of the statutory scheme and that I should afford neural weight to this consideration. I note however that the Applicant, on current waiting times, faces a long delay awaiting any protection visa application being processed. I therefore give the Applicant the benefit of this consideration.
6. I give Other Consideration 1 some weight in favour of revocation of the cancellation of the Applicant's visa.

Other Consideration 2 - Extent of impediments if removed

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 Respondent contends that while the Applicant may face some obstacles, he will be able to establish himself and maintain basic living standards in South Sudan. I am unable to agree with this proposition, owing largely to the absence of information about basic living standards in South Sudan, providing any indication of social, medical and economic support available, which is not the fault of the Applicant; it is simply the nature of that country.
2. There is medical evidence before the Tribunal that the Applicant has suffered from hepatitis in the past. The Applicant has given sworn evidence that he has been diagnosed with diabetes. He was unable to say what type of diabetes he had. While there is no medical evidence of that condition, I do note he has a history of alcohol abuse. The Applicant gave oral evidence that diabetes was a problem in his family. I am prepared to accept that the Applicant may have diabetes, and/or that he is at significant risk of developing it in the future.
3. The Applicant has a small liver cyst, for which he is to receive bi-annual blood tests and scans. There is no evidence before the Tribunal about the health system in South Sudan. I am prepared to accept that the Applicant is going to experience considerable difficulty locating medical services in South Sudan that will monitor the cyst, his diabetes, his liver conditions generally and his alcohol and illicit drug addictions.
4. The Applicant's sister and brother have supplied statements which provide an overview of a very bleak outlook for living in South Sudan. While there is no evidence of the source of that information, I accept that the standard of living in South Sudan is far far less than the standard of living available in Australia.
5. The applicant has been in Australia since he was 9. I accept Australia is his home and probably the only home for which he has fond memories. I accept that he left a war torn country as a young child, lost his parents, spent many years as a refugee in Kenya before arriving in Australia. While no psychiatric or psychological issues were detected in a review dated 20 October 2025[16], I accept it is possible that the applicant's complex childhood and the trauma he suffered may result in significant mental health issues which may require future treatment.
6. I accept that, if the Applicant is required to return to South Sudan, he will feel isolated as he has no family or friends there. There is unlikely to be a significant amount of people in South Sudan who have a similar lived experience to the Applicant. He would be returning to a country where he previously experienced hardship and trauma and he will not have any family or friends around him. That would be emotionally distressing.
7. I accept that the Applicant will have access to the same level of social and economic support as what is available to other citizens of South Sudan. There is no evidence of any social and economic support available in South Sudan. How the Applicant would meet basic needs such as shelter, food and health is unknown.
8. The Applicant has operated as a Dinka interpreter in Australia. While he may not face any substantial language barriers on return to South Sudan as he speaks Dinka and English, his prospects of securing employment are unknown and cultural barriers are unknown.
9. I accept that if the Applicant is required to return to South Sudan, this will not be a matter of adjustment that will ease after an initial period. There is no evidence about how the Applicant can continue contact with his family in Australia from South Sudan.
10. I accept that the Applicant would have great difficulty establishing himself in South Sudan where he has no social supports and government supports, including health care services, are unknown.
11. Other Consideration 2 weighs heavily in favour of revocation of the cancellation of the Applicant's visa.

Other Consideration 3 - Impact on Australian business interests

1. The Tribunal must consider any impact on Australian business interests of a decision to affirm the reviewable decision.
2. In closing submissions, the Applicant referred to the contribution he makes to a South Sudanese community group, which provides support in Western Australia via events. The Applicant said he was good with electronics and computers and that he assists with speakers using a microphone. The Applicant donates his services.
3. This is the extent of the evidence about the impact of the Applicant's community service toa particular South Sudanese community group. There is no evidence to suggest that the Applicant's inability to provide these voluntary services (which stopped when he was incarcerated and has continued while in detention) will have any adverse impact upon the relevant South Sudanese community group or any other current Australian business interest.
4. The Respondent submitted this factor was not engaged.
5. I give 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 taken into account and weighed. There has been judicial consideration on the exercise of balancing and weighing considerations contained in the relevant Direction.
3. 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.
4. The Applicant, as a non-citizen who committed the serious crimes of aggravated robbery, stealing, possession of dangerous drugs, driving without authority to drive, driving while exceeding the permissible blood alcohol content and breaching bail, should generally expect to forfeit the privilege of staying in Australia.
5. The seriousness of the Applicant's offences weighed against him heavily in respect of primary considerations 1 and 5.
6. The Applicant has strong connections to his family and community in Australia, and the best interest of his family and the children he listed, would be for him not to be removed. The factor weighing most heavily in his favour are the impediments he will face in South Sudan in the event he is required to be removed.
7. Ultimately, I must balance a range of considerations. Notwithstanding that the Applicant has spent most of his life in Australia and his only family is in Australia, I see no reason to depart from the principles set out in paragraph 5 of the Direction and the usual principle that primary considerations outweigh other considerations.
8. The Australian community's tolerance for any risk of future harm becomes lower as the seriousness of the potential harm increases. The unlawful conduct that the Applicant has previously engaged in and the seriousness of the harm that would be caused by repeating such unlawful conduct is so serious that the risk that it may be repeated (which is real and is not low, but at least moderate), is, in my view, unacceptable.
9. The considerations in favour of the Applicant are insufficient to outweigh the primary considerations of protection of and the expectations of the Australian community.
10. 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 28 October 2025 to not revoke the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant's Global Humanitarian Class (XB) subclass 202 visa.

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

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

[3] See BNY23 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2025] FCAFC 14, the Full Court of the Federal Court, per Rangiah and Rofe JJ at [107]:

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

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

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

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

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

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