1. The applicant applied to the Tribunal for review of the delegate's decision on 7 January 2026. The proceeding is subject to the 84-day statutory timeframe under s 500(6L) of the Act. The 84th day falls on 31 March 2026.
2. The respondent filed a Statement of Facts, Issues, and Contentions (SFIC) on 13 February 2026. The applicant was invited to file a SFIC or submissions in response but did not do so, however the applicant did file evidence in support of the review application on 3 March 2026. The respondent filed a Supplementary SFIC on 9 March 2026, addressing matters arising out of summons material received and the applicant's bundle of evidence lodged on 3 March 2026.

1. At the hearing, the following documents were marked as exhibits:

(a) the joint hearing bundle provided by the respondent, which comprised: > > (i) the respondent's Statement of Facts, Issues, and Contentions (SFIC) dated 13 February 2026; > > (ii) the respondent's Supplementary SFIC dated 9 March 2026; > > (iii) the applicant's bundle of evidence filed on 3 March 2026; > > (iv) the material produced to the Tribunal pursuant to summonses issued at the request of the respondent; and > > (v) the documents commonly referred to as the 'G Documents'. > > (Exhibit J1)

2. The review application was heard on 11 and 12 March 2026. The applicant represented himself. Ms Wollett appeared for the Minister. At the hearing, the following witnesses also gave evidence orally:

(a) Mark Purua, the applicant's older brother, who gave evidence in person; > > (b) April Taylor; the applicant's paternal aunt, who gave evidence by telephone; > > (c) Mary Purua, the applicant's mother, who gave evidence by telephone; > > (d) Kriston Butcher, the applicant's counsellor, who gave evidence by video; and > > (e) Lindi Moana, the applicant's sister, who gave evidence by telephone.

3. In determining the review application, I have considered the material referred to above, the oral evidence given at the hearing and the submissions made by the parties. Where relevant and material, I refer to the relevant aspects of the documentary evidence, oral evidence, and submissions below.

The documentary evidence submitted by the applicant

1. I have carefully considered the evidence provided by the applicant both prior to the hearing and the evidence given at the hearing before the Tribunal. The bundle of evidence filed by the applicant on 3 March 2026, which I have carefully considered and taken into account, included:

(a) a relapse prevention plan dated 28 February 2026;[4] > > (b) a reintegration plan dated 28 February 2026;[5] > > (c) a list of minor children affected by any revocation decision;[6] > > (d) a 'detainee case plan' dated 17 January 2026;[7] > > (e) a letter from the applicant in relation to his insight and remorse;[8] > > (f) statements or letters of support from the following people: > > (i) April Taylor;[9] > > (ii) Mark Purua;[10] > > (iii) Melissa Tonga;[11] > > (iv) Ray Purua;[12] > > (v) Shelley Thompson;[13] > > (vi) Tui Cope;[14] > > (vii) Brent Warren;[15] > > (viii) Kodie Krizsan;[16] > > (ix) AP (a child);[17] > > (x) Mary Purua;[18] > > (xi) TP (a child);[19] > > (xii) Lindi Moana;[20] and > > (xiii) Tyrese Purua;[21] > > (g) evidence in relation to counselling and rehabilitation, including: > > (i) a report from Ms Kriston Butcher;[22] > > (ii) a full copy of the book 'Power in Change' authored by Ms Butcher; > > (iii) genogram worksheets, timelines, and other worksheets in relation to Mr Purua's counselling;[23] > > (iv) a letter dated 16 February 2026 from Ms Chivers, a counsellor at Holyoake Australian Institute for Alcohol and Drug Addiction Resolution Inc;[24] and > > (v) information sheets on mindfulness, goal setting, understanding behaviours, grief and loss, family dynamics, and coping behaviours;[25] > > (h) certifications of courses completed by the applicant in relation to drug and alcohol addiction and treatment, anger management, defensive driving and including a Diploma in Addictions, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Treatment;[26] > > (i) documents in relation to the applicant's medical records, including referrals, mental state assessments and other health assessment documents;[27] and > > (j) an article from Te Pau, about '[t]he silent sentence facing newly-released inmates' and which discusses the experiences of people from New Zealand following removal from Australia.[28]

1. The applicant gave evidence in chief on 11 March 2026 and was cross-examined by Ms Woollett. He confirmed that he does not pass the character test by reason of the sentence imposed by Justice Callaghan.

1. The applicant gave evidence that his family moved to Australia from New Zealand in 2003 when he was approximately nine years old, primarily for better opportunities. He attended school in Queensland. He moved from Queensland to Western Australia at around the age of eighteen, following criminal convictions in 2012 and his association with what he described as a 'bad crowd' in Queensland that included both friends and some family members. He has had no ongoing contact with those individuals.
2. The applicant confirmed that he has returned to New Zealand on approximately seven occasions, all as a child or teenager and, on the movement records, the last return was in 2011 when he was approximately seventeen. He has never returned to New Zealand as an adult. He has no friends there. Cross-examination did not dislodge these answers.

1. The applicant was unable to give a coherent account of why he attacked the stranger in 2012. He agreed that he had no prior knowledge of the victim and had not been using drugs at the time (he was eighteen). The applicant was taken through the police narrative of the November 2012 offence, which describes a sustained and violent assault followed by violent resistance to arrest, including the applicant yelling threats at police officers, and agreed that was how he recalled the offending. When asked what caused him to commit those assaults, he was unable to offer any explanation beyond having fallen in with a bad crowd. He agreed that alcohol was a contributing factor to the 2013 assault in Western Australia.

1. The applicant gave evidence that he began using methamphetamine in 2021, which he attributed to his father's cancer diagnosis. He initially used for personal consumption and was spending approximately $400 per week on methamphetamine for his own use. He described becoming involved in trafficking in order to fund his drug habit.
2. The applicant confirmed the structure of the drug operation largely as described in the sentencing remarks. Ray Purua acted as the principal organiser and travelled to meet their supplier two to three times daily to collect one to two ounces of methamphetamine. Both the applicant and Ray each had their own separate groups of customers. The applicant accepted that he played a real, if subsidiary, role. He acknowledged that the offending only ceased because he was apprehended by police and accepted, in cross-examination, that he would have continued had he not been caught.
3. When asked about his understanding at the time of the harm methamphetamine causes, the applicant acknowledged it was very serious.

1. The applicant confirmed that he submitted a false medical certificate purporting to show he had COVID in order to avoid appearing in court on other charges. He confirmed he was not a patient at the clinic. He was unable to provide any more detailed explanation for this conduct when asked.

1. The applicant gave evidence about his engagement with Ms Butcher's Power in Change programme and individual counselling since October 2025. When asked to identify strategies he had developed, he mentioned values-based work. He confirmed he had been sober for approximately two years, but acknowledged this entire period was spent in prison and immigration detention. He said he had experienced urges to take drugs at some point during that period.
2. When asked about risk factors if released into the community, the applicant described his relapse prevention plan and identified family support, counselling, and structure as the most important daily measures.
3. Cross-examination drew attention to the fact that, prior to engaging with Ms Butcher in October 2025, the applicant had not completed any programmes specifically targeted at rehabilitation or drug and alcohol treatment.

1. The applicant confirmed that, if his visa cancellation were revoked, he would move to Queensland to live with his sister Lindi Moana and her family. He confirmed that Ms Butcher is based in Queensland and that he would continue sessions with her.
2. The applicant otherwise explained that he had some contact with his brother Ray. He was uncertain about Ray's current sobriety. He said Ray 'just says he's doing ok' when asked.

1. Mark Purua (the applicant's older brother) gave evidence in person. He has four children: Keisha, Rico, Levi, who are all adults, and one minor child. He confirmed the contents of his letter at pages 187-188 of the joint hearing bundle as true and correct. He stated his intention to strongly support the applicant and indicated he would seek to assist the applicant in obtaining employment through his own employer. His evidence was limited by the fact that he had been working away from Queensland during the relevant period and had limited visibility of the applicant's day-to-day conduct.
2. When asked whether the applicant had demonstrated insight into his past mistakes, Mark said that the applicant had. He did not, or perhaps could not, explain or elaborate in detail.

1. April Taylor gave evidence by telephone. She is the secretary of a Māori community organisation that has been operating for approximately 27 years, with its parent body in New Zealand. She is the applicant's paternal aunt (the applicant's father was her brother). She confirmed the contents of her letter dated 27 November 2025 as true and correct. She had kept informed of the applicant's rehabilitation progress through email updates from his counsellor.
2. Ms Taylor initially understood the applicant's involvement in the drug offences to have been essentially associative - that is, that he had been present with Ray rather than independently engaged in selling. When challenged that the applicant had in fact had his own group of customers and been independently involved in supply, her evidence was that her opinion was not changed and that she believed anyone could change.

1. Mary Purua (the applicant's mother) gave evidence by telephone. Her evidence was affected by significant call quality issues throughout. She confirmed her witness statement dated 25 February 2026 as true and correct.
2. The evidence established somewhat of a gap between the mother's understanding of her son's offending history and the reality. When asked what she understood her son to have been imprisoned for most recently, she said she thought it was for assault. She agreed that this was her understanding even at the time of giving evidence. She acknowledged being aware of assaults and drug charges in a general sense, but when asked about the trafficking offences that led to the mandatory cancellation, she said 'that's all I really knew about that part'. She confirmed the Applicant had not spoken to her about the circumstances of the drug offences.
3. When Ms Woollett put the drug trafficking offences directly to her and stated that her son had been convicted of them, the mother's response was: 'Well, that's what you'll say, but to my point of view, I know he wasn't'. When asked what her views would be if he had been trafficking in drugs, she said: 'Well, that would be a shock to my system. But, honestly, I know he was not a trafficker'.
4. The mother also denied knowledge of the applicant's drug use. She similarly denied knowledge of Ray's drug use.
5. The mother agreed, when pressed, that the applicant had offences predating his father's death in 2023 (i.e., that the grief narrative does not account for all offending). She said that during the period of the 2012 and 2013 assaults, she was not living near the applicant and attributed his behaviour to him going through a rough time.
6. When the applicant was given the opportunity to ask his mother questions, she confirmed that she had noticed him being calmer in their phone calls compared to how he used to be.

1. Ms Butcher gave evidence by video link. Her qualifications were confirmed in oral evidence: she holds a Bachelor of Counselling, has extensive experience delivering programmes and individual counselling in the prison system, worked at Lives Lived Well in the drug and alcohol space, is a Level 4 registered clinician with PACFA, and is a registered supervisor. She confirmed the contents of her report dated 25 February 2026 as true and correct.
2. Ms Butcher gave the following evidence of particular relevance. First, in relation to the applicant's programme and treatment engagement, Ms Butcher explained that the applicant's first contact occurred on 26 October 2025, with intake and enrolment in individual and group treatment. The Power in Change group programme commenced in the second week of January 2026. It is a 15-module program; at the time of hearing, seven modules had been completed, meaning the applicant was halfway through completing the programme. The programme is expected to conclude in April 2026, or early May if affected by Easter. Sessions involve individual counselling (approximately one hour per week) and group treatment (one and a half hours per week), totalling approximately two and a half hours of treatment per week. She described the programme content in some detail: it commences with genogram and timeline analysis of historical behaviours, moves through values exploration, emotional intelligence, brain function in the context of emotional regulation and violence, communication skills, accountability and consequences, and concludes with goal setting, relapse prevention, and purpose and meaning work.
3. In relation to the offending which occurred in 2012 and 2013, Ms Butcher confirmed, referring to her clinical notes, that the 2012 violence was alcohol-fuelled. Her report's attribution of the offending to unresolved grief and reward-seeking behaviour applies specifically to the drug trafficking escalation rather than to the early violent offending. She clarified that some part of the violence was also connected to substance use. She talked about how it can be easier to plan for substance abuse, but is more difficult to plan in relation to grief, largely because of the unexpected nature of grief. She separately confirmed that the crime-free period from approximately 2015 to 2020 is reflected in her clinical notes, and that the escalation in methamphetamine use occurred from approximately 2020.
4. In relation to risk, Ms Butcher conceded that any substance use increases the risk of re-offending. She also conceded, when put to her directly, that if the applicant were removed from Australia, he would pose no risk to the Australian community. She maintained that treatment significantly reduces risk and that engagement with treatment is the critical factor, citing a track record across 70 or more clients of only three returns to prison, all attributable to disengagement from treatment.
5. Ms Butcher commented on the family's limited awareness of the applicant's substance use, noting that families without personal experience of substance misuse often have a limited understanding of it. She said that through their sessions, the applicant had referred to his family's strong support whilst also indicating they avoided discussing the substance use out of embarrassment and worry, particularly around the father's illness and death.

1. Lindi Moana (the applicant's sister) gave evidence by telephone. She has four daughters: PM (aged 31), LM (aged approximately 21), NM (aged 15), and DM (aged 10). She currently lives in Wynnum, Queensland with her husband and two younger daughters (NM and DM). She confirmed her character reference dated 26 February 2026 as true and correct.
2. Ms Moana's most significant evidence concerned the period during which the applicant lived with her and her family in Western Australia following his release from prison following the 2013 sentence. She gave evidence that throughout the approximately two years he lived with her household in Rockingham, he obtained full-time employment, obtained his driver's licence, purchased a vehicle, and 'kept out of trouble for the whole time'. He also participated in their family netball team. She visited him every Saturday during his imprisonment, missing only two Saturdays (one when she returned to New Zealand for her wedding, and one due to a booking limitation). The applicant's period of offending resumed following Ms Moana's relocation back to Queensland.
3. Ms Moana confirmed that she was aware the applicant had been smoking marijuana around the time of their father's death in 2023. She was not aware of his methamphetamine use. She acknowledged that she had not offered him support at that time, explaining that she was herself in the midst of grief and 'trying to get myself put together again'. She stated that she is now in a stronger position and would, if the applicant relapsed, seek to get him support rather than simply cut him off.
4. Ms Moana confirmed that her daughters regard the applicant as a close family member and that she holds the view that her household provides meaningful stability. She said of the Rockingham period: 'I've got rules and... we have, we can talk to each other.' She confirmed she would step in if the applicant were at risk of engaging in unacceptable behaviour. She and her husband own their home in Wynnum.
5. When Ms Woollett asked Ms Moana about the applicant's offending, her understanding appeared limited. She knew of assault charges in WA and some drug-related offences but characterised the drug involvement as being 'just that he was in the wrong place at the wrong time.' She conceded in response to further questioning that it was not simply one prior offence and that things had accumulated.

1. Section 501 of the Act deals with decisions to refuse to grant a visa on character grounds. Relevantly, s 501(3A) of the Act provides that the respondent must cancel a visa that has been granted to a person if:

(a) the Minister is satisfied that the person does not pass the character test because of the operation of:

(i) paragraph (6)(a) (substantial criminal record), on the basis of paragraph (7)(a), (b) or (c); or

(ii) paragraph (6)(e) (sexually based offences involving a child); and

(b) the person is serving a sentence of imprisonment, on a full-time basis in a custodial institution, for an offence against a law of the Commonwealth, a State or Territory.

1. The 'character test' is provided for in s 501(6) of the Act and provides, to the extent relevant:

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

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

subsection (7));

...

1. The definition of substantial criminal record in s 501(7), to the extent relevant, is as follows:

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

...

(c) the person has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more; or

...

1. If a visa is cancelled under s 501(3A) of the Act, the respondent must give the person a written notice of the decision,[29] particulars of the relevant information,[30] and invite the person to make representations about revocation of the decision.[31]
2. Section 501CA(4) of the Act provides that the Minister may revoke the cancellation of the visa if representations have been made by the applicant for review in accordance with an invitation to make such representations[32] and the Minister is satisfied that either the person passes the 'character test'[33] or there is 'another reason' why the cancellation of the visa should be revoked.[34] On review by the Tribunal, the Tribunal exercises the powers of the decision-maker and determines the matter de novo, considering all evidence available at the date of its decision.
3. Accordingly, a decision to revoke the cancellation of a visa under s 501CA of the Act involves two steps:

(a) the first step requires the decision-maker to determine whether the person passes the 'character test' under s 501CA(4)(b)(i) of the Act. If the person passes the 'character test' the cancellation may be revoked. It is only if the person does not pass the 'character test', that it is necessary to consider the second step; > > (b) the second step requires the decision-maker to decide whether there is 'another reason' why the cancellation should be revoked.[35]

4. A decision under s 501CA(4) of the Act is an evaluative exercise.[36] I am required to determine whether there is 'another reason' to revoke the cancellation of the applicant's visa. It requires that I weigh the factors for and against revoking the visa cancellation.[37]

1. Section 499(2A) of the Act requires that, in conducting this review, I comply with any written directions given by the Minister pursuant to s 499(1) of the Act.[38]
2. In this respect, on 7 June 2024, the Minister issued Direction no. 110, Visa refusal and cancellation under s 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under section 501CA (Direction 110). Direction 110 applies to this review. Direction 110 replaced the previous Direction No 99 which previously applied.[39]
3. For the purposes of deciding whether to refuse an application for a visa or whether to revoke the mandatory cancellation of a visa, the Direction sets out several principles that must be considered in making a decision under s 501 of the Act.[40] These principles are expressed as follows:

(1) Australia has a sovereign right to determine whether non-citizens who are of character concern are allowed to enter and/or remain in Australia. Being able to come to or remain in Australia is a privilege Australia confers on non­citizens 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 measureable [sic: 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 non-citizens who have been participating in, and contributing to, the Australian community only for a short period of time.

(6) With respect to decisions to refuse, cancel, and revoke cancellation of a visa, Australia may afford a higher level of tolerance of criminal or other serious conduct by non-citizens who have lived in the Australian community for most of their life, or from a very young age.

(7) Decision-makers must take into account the primary and other considerations relevant to the individual case. In some circumstances, the nature of the 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. Where relevant to the decision, I must take into account the considerations identified in Direction 110, namely the 'primary considerations' set out in para 8 of Direction 110, and the 'other considerations' set out in para 9 of the Direction 110.[41]
2. In taking into account those considerations, Direction 110 provides at para 7 that:

(a) primary considerations should generally be given greater weight than the other considerations set out in the Direction; > > (b) the primary consideration of the protection of the Australian community is generally to be given greater weight than other primary considerations; and > > (c) appropriate weight is to be given to information and evidence from independent and authoritative sources.

1. Direction 110 provides that a decision under s 501CA(4) of the Act involves five 'primary considerations' that I must take into account.[42] Those 'primary considerations' are:

(1) 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) expectations of the Australian community.

1. Direction 110 also provides for 'other considerations' that I must take into account, so far as they are relevant. Those 'other considerations' include, but are not limited to (para 9):

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

2. Direction 110 also provides the following additional guidance:[43]

(1) In applying the considerations (both primary and other), information and evidence from independent and authoritative sources should be given appropriate weight.

(2) The primary consideration at 8.1 below (protection of the Australian community) is generally to be given greater weight than other primary considerations. Otherwise, primary considerations should generally be given greater weight than the other considerations.

(3) One or more primary considerations may outweigh other primary considerations.

1. Whether a person passes the character test is a question of law.[44] That is to say - a person either passes the character test or they do not.
2. During the Tribunal hearing, the applicant readily conceded that he does not pass the character test. That concession was properly made. The applicant's visa was mandatorily cancelled on the basis that the applicant has a substantial criminal record within the meaning of s 501(7)(c) of the Act. I am independently satisfied, having regard to the sentence imposed by Callaghan J on 31 March 2025 in relation to counts 2, 3, 4, and 7 on one indictment and counts 1, 2, and 5 on the other indictment, that the applicant does not pass the character test.
3. I find the applicant does not pass the character test by reason of s 501(6)(a) of the Act. The applicant does not satisfy s 501CA(4)(a). The question is whether there is another reason to revoke the mandatory cancellation under s 501CA(4)(b).

IS THERE 'ANOTHER REASON' WHY THE CANCELLATION SHOULD BE REVOKED?

1. I have found that the applicant does not pass the 'character test' in s 506(1) of the Act. Therefore, I must now determine whether there is 'another reason' to revoke the visa cancellation[45] by undertaking an evaluative assessment guided by the 'primary considerations' and 'other considerations' contained in Direction 110.
2. I have considered the primary and other considerations in Direction 110, in the manner and order required by that Direction. My findings are set out below.

First 'primary consideration' - protection of the Australian community

1. The first 'primary consideration' focuses on the protection of the Australian community and instructs decision-makers:

(a) to keep in mind that the safety of the Australian community is the highest priority of the Australian Government; > > (b) to that end, the Government is committed to protecting the Australian community from harm because of criminal activity or other serious conduct by non-citizens; and > > (c) that entering or remaining in Australia is a privilege that Australia confers on non-citizens in the expectation that they are, and have been, law abiding, will respect important institutions, and will not cause or threaten harm to individuals or the Australian community.

2. Paragraph 8.1(2) of Direction 110 also provides that decision-makers should also give consideration to:

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

Nature and seriousness of the applicant's conduct

(1) In considering the nature and seriousness of the Applicant's criminal offending and other conduct to date, decision-makers must have regard to the following:

(a) without limiting the range of conduct that may be considered very serious, the types of crimes and conduct described below are viewed very seriously by the Australian Government and the Australian community:

i. violent and/or sexual crimes;

1. crimes of a violent and/or sexual nature against women or children, regardless of the sentence imposed;
2. acts of family violence, regardless of whether there is a conviction for an offence or a sentence imposed;

(b) without limiting the range of conduct that may be considered serious, the types of crimes or conduct described below are considered by the Australian Government and the Australian community to be serious:

1. causing a person to enter into or being party to a forced marriage (other than being a victim), regardless of whether there is a conviction for an offence or a sentence imposed
2. crimes committed against vulnerable members of the community (such as the elderly and the disabled), or government representatives or officials due to the position they hold, or in the performance of their duties
3. any conduct that forms the basis for a finding that a non citizen does not pass an aspect of the character test that is dependent upon the decision-maker's opinion (for example, section 501(6)(c));
4. where the non-citizen is in Australia, a crime committed while the non-citizen was in immigration detention, during an escape from immigration detention, or after the non-citizen escaped from immigration detention, but before the non-citizen was taken into immigration detention again, or an offence against section 197 A of the Act, which prohibits escape from immigration detention

(c) with the exception of the crimes or conduct mentioned in subparagraph (a)(ii), (a)(iii) or (b)(i) above, the sentence imposed by the courts for a crime or crimes;

(d) the impact of the offending on any victims of offending or other conduct and their family, where information in this regard is available and the non-citizen whose visa is being considered for refusal or cancellation, or who has sought revocation of the mandatory cancellation of their visa, has been afforded procedural fairness;

(e) the frequency of the non-citizen's offending and/or whether there is any trend of increasing seriousness;

(f) the cumulative effect of repeated offending;

(g) whether the non-citizen has provided false or misleading information to the Department, including by not disclosing prior criminal offending;

(h) whether the non-citizen has re-offended since being formally warned, or since otherwise being made aware, in writing, about the consequences of further offending in terms of the non-citizen's migration status (noting that the absence of a warning should not be considered to be in the non-citizen's favour)

(i) where the offence or conduct was committed in another country, whether that offence or conduct is classified as an offence in Australia.

1. Direction 110 requires me to consider the nature and seriousness of the applicant's criminal offending and other conduct. That phrase should be understood as a composite, because the nature of criminal offending may affect its seriousness, and the seriousness of such offending may affect its nature.[46]
2. My task is to assess the nature and seriousness of the applicant's actual offending conduct and determine the appropriate weight to be attributed to it, not merely to categorise it by type.[47] Whilst I am obliged to 'take into account the view of the Australian Government and the Australian community about the seriousness of such crimes and conduct', I am not bound to consider the convictions as either 'very serious or 'serious'.[48]

1. The most serious offending is the drug trafficking for which the applicant was sentenced in March 2025. Between 30 September 2021 and 28 April 2022, and again between 30 April 2023 and 17 August 2023, the applicant trafficked in methamphetamine as part of a sustained commercial operation. As made clear by Callaghan J, these were not isolated transactions. The operation involved approximately 68 customers and approximately 2,000 separate transfers, with a gross turnover of some $740,000. While the applicant's role was subsidiary to that of his brother, who had the principal role, the applicant was nonetheless a knowing and active participant over an extended period. He continued trafficking in the second phase despite the police attention that had already been drawn to the enterprise. He did so, as he explained at the hearing, for the purpose of supporting his own addiction which would see him consume around an ounce of methamphetamine per day.
2. The applicant gave oral evidence that confirmed the description of the drug trafficking operation in the sentencing remarks. He acknowledged that the offending only ceased because he was apprehended by police and agreed in cross-examination that he would have continued had he not been caught. He also acknowledged that he understood methamphetamine causes very serious harm to those who use it. This confirms that the conduct was not impulsive or opportunistic but sustained and deliberate, and that the applicant had no independent motivation to cease it.
3. The sentence imposed, five years imprisonment, is a powerful indicator of objective seriousness. The sentence of imprisonment is the last resort in the sentencing hierarchy.[49]
4. In my view, the sentencing remarks of Callaghan J reinforce what is well understood: methamphetamine causes profound physical, psychological, and social harm to users, their families, the other people who care for them, and the broader community. By participating in its distribution to approximately 68 customers over thousands of transactions, the applicant materially contributed to that harm.
5. I accept the submission made by the Minister that while the applicant's drug-related offending may not fall within the specific categories enumerated at paras 8.1.1(1)(a)-(b) of Direction 110, the Tribunal has repeatedly recognised that crimes which are not specifically mentioned but which can properly be characterised as very serious fall within the scope of those provisions; such crimes include the supply of significant quantities of dangerous drugs.[50]

1. The applicant's offending history includes two significant violent assaults, both involving unprovoked attacks on strangers. On 25 November 2012, the applicant 'king hit punched' his victim on the left side of the head without any provocation, causing the victim to stumble backwards.[51] He then continued to pursue the victim, pushing him backwards with his fist raised, until police intervened. He then caused abrasions to both officers during his violent struggle. He was sentenced on 3 December 2012 to eight months imprisonment, suspended for two years, for assault occasioning bodily harm and assault or obstruct police officer.
2. During the hearing, the applicant was taken through the police narrative of the November 2012 assault in cross-examination, which recorded a violent attack on a stranger followed by violent resistance to arrest and the issuing of threats to police officers. He agreed in substance with that account. He was unable, when asked, to give any coherent explanation for why he committed those assaults. He accepted that he was not using drugs at the time.
3. On 17 August 2013, the applicant approached a person who was not previously known to him. Words were exchanged, after which the applicant raised his right fist and punched the victim in the mouth. The punch split the victim's mouth open and snapped a front tooth in two. He was sentenced on 11 December 2013 to seven months imprisonment for assault occasioning bodily harm. That sentence of imprisonment confirms the court's view of the seriousness of the conduct.
4. These assaults are offences involving violence, and the Australian Government views violent crimes very seriously.[52] The unprovoked, gratuitous nature of both attacks on strangers aggravates their seriousness.

The prior offending - forgery and perverting justice

1. On 26 September 2022, the applicant forged a document with intent to defraud and uttered that forged document. On 8 November 2022, he attempted to pervert the course of justice. On 11 September 2023, he was sentenced in the Brisbane District Court to fifteen months imprisonment, suspended for two years, after serving 154 days. These offences, committed whilst the applicant was the subject of other pending proceedings, reflect a willingness to subvert the legal system itself, and demonstrate a particular disregard for the administration of justice.

1. The applicant's offending began when he was 18-years-old and has continued without sustained interruption across his adult life. He committed offences on bail, in breach of suspended sentences, and throughout periods when family members were present to provide support. The offending has not followed a path of diminishing seriousness, the index offences represent the most serious conduct to date, and attracted the longest sentence he has received.
2. The repeated breach of bail conditions is also notable. The criminal record discloses approximately 16 separate bail condition breaches in the second half of 2022 alone, involving instances where the applicant failed to report, reflecting a sustained and deliberate disregard for court orders.

1. On 24 June 2025, after his visa was cancelled on 11 June 2025, the applicant was convicted of obstructing a police officer (committed on 16 August 2023), possessing anything used in the commission of a crime, and breach of bail (committed on 8 December 2023). While no further punishment was imposed, these convictions reiterate the breadth and continuity of the applicant's disregard for the law during the very period in which the index trafficking was being pursued.

Conclusion - Nature and seriousness of the applicant's conduct

1. The five-year sentence for trafficking is the most severe sentence the applicant has received; it followed prior sentences of seven months, eight months, 15 months, and six months. The escalating severity of sentences is itself a relevant indicator of escalating seriousness.
2. In terms of the frequency and cumulative nature of the applicant's offending, I note that the applicant has amassed over 40 convictions over 13 years, with no sustained period of law-abiding conduct in the community. The applicant has repeatedly committed further offences while on bail or subject to suspended sentences. I find these matters demonstrate a cumulative pattern of entrenched disregard for the law and for the safety of the community.
3. I find the applicant's conduct, considered in its totality, is properly characterised as very serious. I find the combination of significant-scale commercial drug trafficking, two prior violent assaults on strangers, forgery and attempting to pervert the course of justice, persistent breach of court orders, and a pattern of escalating seriousness across 13 years of adult offending warrants significant weight against revocation.

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

1. When considering the risk to the Australian community should the applicant commit further offences or engage in other serious misconduct, I am to be guided by para 8.1.2 of Direction 110 which provides, among other things:

(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 non­citizen 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. As such, Direction 110 requires me to consider the nature of the harm that would flow if the applicant were to engage in further criminal or serious conduct, and the likelihood of that conduct occurring. These elements must be assessed cumulatively. The community's tolerance for any risk of future harm decreases as the potential seriousness of that harm increases. The assessment of risk that I undertake must have a rational and probative basis.[53]

Nature of the harm to individuals or the Australian community

1. I am satisfied that the applicant has demonstrated a propensity for two distinct types of harmful conduct: drug trafficking and unprovoked physical violence. If the applicant were to resume either form of offending, the harm to the community could be very serious.
2. In relation to drug trafficking, the harm caused by the supply of methamphetamine to community members is severe and well-documented. It is well established and understood that methamphetamine addiction is highly destructive, it causes serious mental and physical health consequences for users, drives secondary criminal offending as addicts seek funds, and imposes significant costs on the health system and law enforcement. A return to drug supply activity of the kind in which the applicant participated, even at a lesser scale, would carry significant potential for harm.[54]
3. In relation to the offending involving violence, I am satisfied that the applicant's prior violent offending involved unprovoked attacks on strangers that caused physical injury and led to custodial sentences. Any repetition of such conduct carries obvious potential for serious physical harm. The Minister rightly observes that violence of this nature can cause death.[55]

Likelihood of the non-citizen engaging in further criminal or serious conduct

1. Paragraph 8.1.2(1) of Direction 110 provides that 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. The applicant has made genuine and meaningful efforts toward rehabilitation. He enrolled in the Power in Change Program on 26 October 2025 and has engaged consistently and meaningfully on a weekly basis since commencement. Ms Kirston Butcher, Clinical Counsellor, reports that the applicant disclosed his full criminal history without minimisation or omission, reflecting a sustained willingness to examine the behavioural, emotional, and situational drivers of his conduct. She observes that he demonstrates increased capacity to recognise early indicators of emotional escalation and has moved from reactive functioning toward more deliberate behavioural control. She expresses the professional opinion that remaining in Australia represents the lower-risk pathway for sustained, offence-free reintegration. The applicant has also completed two drug and alcohol programs and attended Alcoholics Anonymous in prison, and completed 17 online rehabilitation courses in immigration detention. He has authored a Relapse Prevention Plan and a Re-integration Plan that show genuine self-awareness of his triggers and vulnerabilities.
3. I am prepared to accept that the applicant's engagement with rehabilitation has been genuine and meaningful. I accept, in particular, that the clinical formulation offered by Ms Butcher, that unresolved grief following his father's diagnosis and death, interacting with reward-seeking behaviour and impaired judgement, contributed to the drug trafficking, and is a credible and clinically grounded explanation for at least part of the applicant's offending.
4. Moreover, Lindi Moana gave evidence that during the approximately two-year period following the applicant's release from prison in 2013 to 2014, he lived with her household in Rockingham. During that period, he obtained full-time employment, obtained his driver's licence, bought a vehicle, and abstained from offending throughout. Ms Moana characterised the arrangement as providing genuine stability and structure, she maintained firm expectations, communicated with the applicant, and intervened when he appeared at risk of going off course. The applicant's own evidence was consistent with this. This was also supported by Ms Butcher's clinical notes, which noted a crime-free period from approximately 2015 to 2020. I am satisfied that the applicant's offending is responsive to structured, close family support and that Ms Moana's household, in particular, has previously functioned as an effective protective environment. It provides some evidential basis for the proposition that removal from that environment in 2020 (when Ms Moana moved to Queensland) was a precursor to the resumption of offending.
5. However, several features of the applicant's history temper the weight I am prepared to give to this past and present rehabilitation in the overall assessment of likelihood of the applicant engaging in further criminal or serious conduct.
6. First, the applicant's violent offending in 2012 and 2013 preceded his father's diagnosis by approximately seven years. The grief and loss narrative, while pertinent to the drug trafficking that commenced in 2021 and was most acute in the period around his father's death in May 2023, does not account for the earlier pattern of violent conduct.
7. Second, the applicant offended persistently and repeatedly throughout his adult life notwithstanding the presence of his family, including his mother, brother Mark, and other siblings, who remained part of his life. The family support network that the applicant and Ms Butcher identify as the primary protective factor against reoffending is not a new feature of the applicant's environment. Rather, it has been present throughout the period of his offending without having been sufficient to prevent it. This is not to dismiss the value of that support; it is to observe that its historical presence has not been determinative.
8. Third, while the applicant has now spent a period of approximately two years without committing offences (since August 2023, the last offending date), that period has been spent entirely in custodial settings, first in prison and then in immigration detention. Whilst the applicant's willingness to pursue counselling to assist with his rehabilitation is to his credit, however it has occurred in circumstances where the applicant has consistently been in a controlled environment. As the Minister rightly observes, the applicant's capacity to maintain both his sobriety and law-abiding behaviour in the community remains untested. Again, this is not to discount the rehabilitation work done, which has genuine value, but it does limit its weight in assessing the risk that would exist once the applicant returns to a community environment with access to old associations, substances, and stressors.
9. Fourth, I note Ms Butcher's observation, in the context of the future risk domain, that the applicant's co-offender and brother Ray Purua, now in New Zealand, is 'currently struggling and unstable', and that the applicant recognises that reunification with his sibling in New Zealand would represent a relapse risk. This observation cuts both ways: it underscores the applicant's insight into his own risk, which is to his credit; but it also illustrates that one of the significant risk factors for this applicant (association with a criminally active family member) would be present in New Zealand, and that the applicant's primary protective environment remains in Australia. It does not, however, lead me to conclude that the risk of reoffending in Australia is low, because that risk has not, to date, been tested in the community, and because the family environment in Australia has not historically deterred offending.
10. Fifth, the applicant's mother's evidence was notable for her lack of understanding of (or perhaps willingness to acknowledge) the gravity of her son's offending. She confirmed that she understood her son to have been most recently imprisoned for assault rather than drug trafficking. She appeared equally unaware of her son's drug use. In cross-examination, the Minister's representative submitted, correctly with respect, that the applicant's mother and other family members lack meaningful insight into his offending behaviour. Ms Butcher acknowledged in her evidence that families without personal experience of substance misuse typically have limited understanding of it, and that the applicant's family avoided discussing his substance use out of embarrassment. Accordingly, while the applicant has genuine family support in terms of emotional care and material provision, the family's limited understanding of the seriousness and nature of his offending and substance misuse diminishes the weight to be given to family support as a meaningful mitigating factor in risk assessment. This is particularly so in circumstances where the most significant environmental protective factor identified (Ms Moana's structured household) did not prevent, after that structure was removed, the applicant embarking on the most serious criminal conduct of his life leading to his coming before Callaghan J to be sentenced in the Supreme Court of Queensland.
11. On balance, I find that the applicant continues to pose a real, if reduced, risk of reoffending if he were to live with his sister in Queensland If the applicant were to no longer continue living with his sister, the likelihood of reoffending would, I find, increase significantly.The risk of reoffending with drugs is the more credible concern, given the nexus with the grief-and-substance-use dynamic identified by Ms Butcher. That concern is present whether the applicant lives with his sister or not, particularly given the apparent lack of insight in the seriousness of the Applicant's addiction to drugs that was clear during the hearing.
12. The risk of further violence is less acute given that the prior assaults are now more than a decade old and the applicant has not been charged with violent offences in recent years, though I note those assaults were of a character, unprovoked attacks on strangers, that may not require any prolonged triggering circumstance and could involve a split-second decision made.
13. Given the seriousness of the potential harm, particularly drug trafficking of the scale and nature previously engaged in, I am satisfied that even a real but reduced risk of resumption is not an acceptable risk.

Conclusion - Protection of the Australian community

1. I find that this consideration weighs heavily against revocation. The rehabilitation is genuine and meaningful, and I acknowledge it. But the applicant's risk of reoffending remains real and untested in the community, the nature of the potential harm is severe, and the community's tolerance for such risk is low where the harm would be so serious, if it were to occur.

Second primary consideration - family violence committed by the non-citizen

1. Paragraph 8.2 of Direction 110 requires consideration of any family violence perpetrated by the non-citizen when deciding whether to revoke a visa cancellation decision. It provides:

(1) The Government has serious concerns about conferring on non-citizens who engage in family violence the privilege of entering or remaining in Australia. The Government's concerns in this regard are proportionate to the seriousness of the family violence engaged in by the non-citizen (see paragraph (3) below).

(2) This consideration is relevant in circumstances where:

(a) a non-citizen has been convicted of an offence, found guilty of an offence, or had charges proven howsoever described, that involve family violence; and/or

(b) there is information or evidence from independent and authoritative sources indicating that the non-citizen is, or has been, involved in the perpetration of family violence, and the non-citizen being considered under section 501 or section 501CA has been afforded procedural fairness.

(3) In considering the seriousness of the family violence engaged in by the non citizen, the following factors must be considered where relevant:

(a) the frequency of the non-citizen's conduct and/or whether there is any trend of increasing seriousness;

(b) the cumulative effect of repeated acts of family violence;

(c) rehabilitation achieved at time of decision since the person's last known act of family violence, including:

1. the extent to which the person accepts responsibility for their family violence related conduct;

2. the extent to which the non-citizen understands the impact of their behaviour on the abused and witness of that abuse (particularly children);

iii. efforts to address factors which contributed to their conduct; and

(d) Whether the non-citizen has re-offended since being formally warned, or since otherwise being made aware by a Court, law enforcement or other authority, about the consequences of further acts of family violence, noting that the absence of a warning should not be considered to be in the non citizen's favour. This includes warnings about the non-citizen's migration status, should the non-citizen engage in further acts of family violence

1. I accept that there is no evidence that the applicant has been convicted of any offence involving family violence, and no information or evidence from independent and authoritative sources indicating that the applicant has perpetrated family violence within the meaning of para 4 of Direction 110.
2. Accordingly, this consideration is neutral.

Third primary consideration - the strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia

(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:

1. less weight should be given where the non-citizen began offending soon after arriving in Australia; and
2. 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. As such, Direction 110 requires me to consider the impact of non-revocation on the applicant's immediate family members who have a right to remain in Australia indefinitely, the length of his residence in Australia, the extent of any positive contribution he has made to the Australian community, and the strength, nature, and duration of his ties to Australia.
2. I accept that the applicant has resided in Australia for approximately 23 years, having arrived at the age of nine. I further accept that he arrived as a young child and Australia is, in all meaningful respects, his home. He completed his schooling in Australia, has worked here throughout his adult life, and maintains close relationships with family members who are permanently based here. This is a significant and weighty fact.
3. The applicant has close family ties to Australia. His mother and siblings Mark Purua and Lindi Moana reside in Australia on a permanent basis. His extended family is substantial, with numerous cousins, nieces, and nephews in Queensland. The loss of physical proximity to these family members upon removal to New Zealand would be a real and significant deprivation. The applicant's brother Mark has provided a compelling and honest letter of support that speaks to the strength and sincerity of the family's commitment to supporting the applicant's rehabilitation.
4. At hearing, the applicant confirmed, consistent with the movement records,[56] that he has returned to New Zealand on approximately seven occasions, the most recent being in 2011 when he was approximately 17-years-old. He has never returned to New Zealand as an adult. He described himself as having no meaningful knowledge of, or connection, to New Zealand as an adult. He confirmed his connections are exclusively in Australia, to his mother, siblings, nieces, and extended family.
5. The witnesses who gave evidence unanimously confirmed the depth of the applicant's Australian family connections. Mark Purua, April Taylor, Mary Purua, and Lindi Moana all gave evidence of longstanding and ongoing contact. Lindi Moana's evidence, including the two-year period in which the applicant lived with her in WA, further confirms the depth and day-to-day reality of his Australian ties.
6. I accept these are genuine and meaningful ties and I give them real weight. However, I observe that the family ties that form the basis of this consideration have been present throughout the period of the applicant's offending. His mother, brothers, and other family members were present in his life during the years in which he trafficked in drugs, committed violent assaults, forged documents, and breached court orders. While the value of those relationships as prospective support structures is not diminished by that history, it does temper the weight that can be given to family ties as a predictor of future law-abiding behaviour.
7. The applicant has provided evidence of volunteer work with the Australian Red Cross and St Vincent de Paul during his imprisonment and received a Certificate of Recognition for participation in the Residential Prisoner Anzac Day Ceremony at Woodford Correctional Centre. I note the Minister's observation that this volunteering occurred during the applicant's period of imprisonment rather than as a member of the broader community. The weight I attribute to this evidence is modest. The applicant's employment history in construction and electrical work is a positive indicator of capability and work ethic, and I take it into account.
8. Direction 110 contemplates that Australia will generally have a higher degree of tolerance of criminal or other serious conduct committed by people who have lived here for most of their lives or from a very young age. However, that higher tolerance is not unlimited.
9. The applicant's long-term residence from childhood and his close family ties to Australia are significant matters. Whilst the applicant spent the majority of his life in Australia, much of that time has been spent offending against the community that has hosted him. The applicant has not accumulated substantial periods of stable, law-abiding community integration.
10. However, given that these ties have been present throughout the applicant's history of persistent offending, and given the nature and extent of that offending, this consideration does not carry the more substantial weight it might in a case where the offending was isolated or occurred in a more limited period.
11. In all the circumstances, I am satisfied that I should attach some moderate weight to the strength, nature, and durations of the applicant's ties to Australia in favour of revocation.

Fourth primary consideration - best interests of minor children in Australia affected by the decision

1. Paragraph 8.4 of Direction 110 requires the Tribunal to consider the best interests of minor children in Australia affected by the decision. Under para 8.4, the Tribunal must make a determination whether, relevantly, non-revocation under s 501CA is, or is not, in the best interests of a child affected by the decision.[57] Where there are two or more relevant children, the best interests of each child should be given individual consideration to the extent that their interests might differ.
2. Paragraph 8.4(4) of Direction 110 outlines the factors that a decision-maker must consider when determining the best interests of a child affected by the decision, where relevant, as follows:

(a) the nature and duration of the relationship between the child and the non-citizen. 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);

(b) the extent to which the non-citizen 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;

(c) the impact of the non-citizen's prior conduct, and any likely future conduct, and whether that conduct has, or will have a negative impact on the child;

(d) the likely effect that any separation from the non-citizen would have on the child, taking into account the child's or non-citizen's ability to maintain contact in other ways;

(e) whether there are other persons who already fulfil a parental role in relation to the child;

(f) any known views of the child (with those views being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child);

(g) evidence that the child has been, or is at risk of being, subject to, or exposed to, family violence perpetrated by the non-citizen, or has otherwise been abused or neglected by the non-citizen in any way, whether physically, sexually or mentally; h) evidence that the child has suffered or experienced any physical or emotional trauma arising from the non-citizen's conduct.

1. Direction 110 requires me to determine whether non-revocation is, or is not, in the best interests of each minor child in Australia affected by the decision.[58] I must individually consider and make that determination in respect of each child.[59]
2. The applicant has no minor children of his own. He identifies five minor nieces whose interests he submits will be affected by this decision, and who all live in Queensland:

(c) TP, who is a daughter of Ray Purua and Shelley Thompson, and was aged 17 at the time of the hearing; > > (d) AP, who is a daughter of Ray Purua and Shelley Thompson, and was aged 16 at the time of the hearing; > > (e) IP, who is a daughter of Mark Purua, and was aged 13 at the time of the hearing; > > (f) NM, who is a daughter of Lindi Moana, and was aged 15 at the time of the hearing; and > > (g) DM, who is a daughter of Lindi Moana, and was aged 10 at the time of the hearing.

3. The applicant also identified Tyrese Purua and Levi Purua, but both have turned eighteen and are no longer minor children for the purposes of this criterion. That said, I have considered them (and other extended family) as part of the broader familial ties the applicant has to Australia nonetheless.
4. Lindi Moana gave evidence of the quality of the applicant's relationship with her daughters, NM and DM. She described her daughters as having a close and ongoing relationship with their uncle, stating that they 'love their uncle' and that he had been 'like one of my own kids' in the household. She confirmed that he interacted extensively with them during the two years he lived with the family in Rockingham. She also indicated that NM and DM continue to have contact with the applicant, often speaking to him when Ms Moana takes phone calls from detention.
5. DM, at age 10, is the youngest of the identified minor children. She would be most affected over the longest period and at the most formative stages of development by the applicant's permanent removal to New Zealand. The quality of that relationship, as attested to by Ms Moana, warrants treating NM and DM's interests, individually and cumulatively, as the most significant within the consideration of para 8.4.
6. I note that TP and AP are daughters of Ray Purua, the applicant's co-offender and older brother, who has returned to New Zealand. These two nieces are now without their own father in Australia. I accept that the applicant may have a somewhat closer bond with TP and AP in light of their father's absence, and that his removal would compound the disruption already caused to their family unit by Ray Purua's departure. However, TP and AP both reside with their mother, Shelley Thompson, who provides for their day-to-day care.
7. TP and AP both provided letters in support of the revocation of the cancellation of the applicant's visa.[60] That material speaks highly of the applicant and his positive impact in their lives, and I have given what they say very careful consideration. I have also considered that they are now aged 17 and 16 respectively, and will reach adulthood in the near term, namely less than one and two years respectively. Their situation is notable in that the removal of the applicant would compound an existing absence of their father from Australia. However, as they approach adulthood and have resided with their mother throughout, the nature of the impact of the applicant's removal on each of them is likely to be less severe than for younger children.
8. The applicant describes himself as an uncle who views his nieces as his own, and as someone to whom his nieces can come to him about anything without being judged. He contends his removal would cause significant emotional distress, a sense of loss, and diminished connection to family values and culture. I am prepared to accept that these sentiments are genuine.
9. However, the applicant's relationship with each niece is that of an uncle, not a parent.[61] Direction 110 attaches particular weight to relationships of a parental nature; the non-parental relationship between an uncle and his nieces is relevant, but necessarily of lesser weight than a parental relationship would be. Each of the five nieces lives with at least one parent in Australia who is in a position to provide the primary parental role.[62]
10. Given the applicant's history of offending and the fact that any future positive role remains prospective and conditional on successful rehabilitation, I cannot conclude with confidence that the applicant will necessarily play a positive parental-type role in his nieces' lives if he remains. The applicant was present and involved with his family throughout much of the period during which he was committing offences, which means his presence in Australia was not, historically, a uniformly positive influence. TP is approaching 18 within the next six months and AP turns 18 in October 2027; the period during which the applicant could play any role for them as minor children is limited.
11. The removal of the applicant from Australia would cause genuine emotional loss to his nieces, who clearly value their relationship with him. However, contact may be maintained through video calls and other electronic means. New Zealand is geographically proximate to Australia and, as the nieces approach adulthood, visits become more feasible. I acknowledge that these alternatives are not equivalent to physical presence, but they are meaningful and available.
12. I am satisfied that it is in the best interests of each of TP, AP, IP, NM, and DM for the applicant to remain in Australia. Their uncle's physical presence, emotional support, and role in connecting them to their cultural identity are things that matter and that serve their interests. It is clear that non-revocation is not in the best interests of these minor children or, indeed, any other minor children who are part of the applicant's extended family.
13. The best interests of the applicant's nieces weigh in favour of revocation. However, for the reasons set out above, the non-parental nature of the relationship, the existence of parents in Australia to fill the primary parental role, the limited period before TP and AP reach adulthood, and the availability of alternative means of contact, I assess this consideration as carrying slight to moderate weight in favour of revocation. I give somewhat more weight to the interests of TP and AP, given that their father (the applicant's co-offender) has departed to New Zealand and the applicant's presence may partially offset that absence. The interests of IP, NM, and DM, for whom I have limited information but each of whom has parents in Australia, I assess as carrying slight weight in favour of revocation.
14. Overall, I find this criterion weighs moderately in favour of revocation.

Fifth primary consideration - Expectations of the Australian Community

1. Paragraph 8.5 of Direction 110 provides that the Australian community expects non-citizens to obey Australian laws while in Australia. Paragraph 8.5(1) also provides that that where a non-citizen has engaged in 'serious conduct in breach of this expectation', or where there is 'an unacceptable risk that they may do so', the Australian community, 'as a norm', expects the government would not allow them to enter or remain in Australia.
2. Paragraph 8.5(2) of Direction 110 directs that non-revocation of the mandatory cancellation of a visa may be appropriate simply because the nature of the character concerns or offences is such that the Australian community would expect that the person should not be granted or continue to hold a visa.
3. Paragraph 8.5(2) notes that 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 particular kinds. The paragraph directs that the Australian community expects that the Australian Government should cancel a non-citizen's visa if they raise serious character concerns through specific conduct listed in paras 8.5(2)(a)-(f) of Direction 110. Those particularised types of harm generally reflect the types of conduct identified in para 8.1.1 as conduct which is considered, by the terms of the Direction, to be 'very seriously' or 'serious'.
4. Paragraph 8.5(3) of Direction 110 directs that the stated expectations apply regardless of whether the non-citizen poses a measurable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community. Thus, a measurable risk of physical harm to the community is not required for the community expectation that the non-citizen not hold a visa to be engaged, where serious character concerns are raised through the persons conduct or offending.
5. In weighing this consideration, I am also guided by the principles in para 5.2 of Direction 110, which records that the safety of the Australian Community is the highest priority of the Australian Government. Notably, para 5.2(3) directs that an applicant, having engaged in criminal conduct, should expect to forfeit the privilege of staying in Australia. Paragraph 5.2(4) further records a principle not dissimilar to that referred to in para 8.5(3) with respect to serious character concerns and makes it clear that those concerns are not restricted to circumstances where there is a measurable risk of physical harm to the Australian community.
6. Direction 110 specifies that the Australian community's expectations are those articulated in the Direction itself. It is not for me to determine those expectations by reference to the applicant's particular circumstances or by recourse to evidence about community opinion.[63] The task is to apply the expectations as stated, and to determine the weight to be given to this consideration on the facts of this case.[64]
7. Direction 110 specifies two relevant expectations. First, the Australian community expects non-citizens to obey Australian laws while in Australia and expects the Government not to allow non-citizens who have engaged in serious conduct, or who present an unacceptable risk of doing so, to remain.[65] The applicant has failed that expectation emphatically: his criminal history spans 13 years, involves more than 40 convictions, and culminated in participation in a significant commercial drug trafficking operation. He continued to breach court orders and commit offences against police officers throughout this period.
8. Second, non-revocation may be appropriate simply because the nature of the character concerns or offences is such that the community would not expect the person to continue to hold a visa.[66] Persons who commit serious crimes should not, the Direction specifies, hold a visa. The applicant has committed serious crimes, including violent crimes[67] and, more broadly, a pattern of serious criminal conduct across his adult life. In addition, Direction 110 expressly contemplates that the Australian community does not expect persons to hold a visa where they have committed acts against government officials performing their duties.[68] The applicant has multiple convictions for assaulting or obstructing police officers: in 2012, and again in 2025.
9. I am required to give active, intellectual consideration to the weight to be attributed to the expectation in the circumstances of this case. In doing so, I note that given the breadth, seriousness, and persistence of the applicant's offending, including violent assaults, commercial drug trafficking at significant scale, offences against police officers, and repeated defiance of court orders, I am satisfied that the Australian community's expectations weigh heavily against revocation in this case.
10. I am satisfied that this criterion weighs very heavily against revocation.

'Other considerations' - legal consequences of the decision

1. Direction 110 requires me to consider the legal consequences of a non-revocation decision on a non-citizen, including having regard to Australia's non-refoulement obligations in respect of unlawful non-citizens.[69]
2. The applicant has not advanced any non-refoulement claims, and I am not aware of any circumstances suggesting such claims arise. No protection finding has been made in respect of the applicant. Accordingly, international non-refoulement obligations are not engaged and para 9.1(3) applies.
3. However, while this consideration in Direction 110 refers to non-refoulment obligations, it also makes reference to detention and removal, highlighting that there are a range of legal consequences of a decision not to revoke the cancellation of the applicant's visa. The consequences of a visa refusal or cancellation under s 501 or related provisions include:

(a) becoming, or remaining, an unlawful non-citizen; > > (b) the prospect, or likelihood, of becoming subject to detention and/or removal;[70] > > (c) refusal of other visa applications and cancellation of other visas;[71] > > (d) a prohibition on applying for other visas;[72] and > > (e) the imposition of periods of exclusion and special return criteria may apply.[73]

4. If a visa is cancelled, its former holder becomes an unlawful non-citizen immediately after cancellation.[74] Under s 189 of the Act, an unlawful non-citizen must be detained and removed as soon as reasonably practicable.[75]
5. If the mandatory cancellation is not revoked, the applicant will be an unlawful non-citizen and liable to removal to New Zealand as soon as reasonably practicable under s 198 of the Act. I find that in the meantime, he will be liable to detention under s 189. Pending his removal from Australia, the applicant will be unable to apply for any visa other than a Bridging R (class WR) visa pursuant to s 501E of the Act. Whilst the special return criteria will not likely apply to him, he will also continue to be defined as a behaviour-concerned non-citizen for the purpose of applying for another subclass 444 visa. The practical effect of these matters will be that it is unlikely that the applicant would be successful in obtaining a visa to re-enter Australia for the foreseeable future.
6. I accept, as the Minister submits, that there is no suggestion that removal to New Zealand would be impracticable or lengthy. I am satisfied that the period of his detention pending removal will not be lengthy and on the material presently before me I am satisfied that the applicant's removal to New Zealand is reasonably practicable in the near future.
7. The consequences of non-revocation, in terms of detention and removal, are the ordinary consequences that follow from the legislative scheme and may be said to reflect Parliament's intention for so long as the person has the status of an unlawful non-citizen.[76] However, that is also in circumstances where Parliament must also have been understood to have intended that a cancellation decision mandated under s 501(3A) may be revoked under s 501CA(4) of the Act, resulting in the person's visa being be restored, and the legal consequences of the decision would be avoided.[77]
8. The legal consequences are properly noted, but I do not find, of themselves, bear significantly on the weighing exercise in this case. In all the circumstances, I am satisfied that this criterion weighs neutrally.

'Other considerations' - extent of impediments if removed

1. Paragraph 9.2 of Direction 110 provides that, taking into account the matters identified in paras 9.2(1)(a)-(c) of Direction 110, I must consider the extent to which the applicant would face an impediment or impediments in establishing himself and maintaining basic living standards in the context of what is generally available to other citizens of that country. The matters identified under paras 9.2(1)(a)-(c) of Direction 110 are:

(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 the applicant in their country.

2. I must consider the extent of any impediments the applicant would face if removed to New Zealand in establishing himself and maintaining basic living standards, having regard to what is generally available to other New Zealand citizens, taking into account his age, health, language, cultural connections, and any available social, medical, or economic support.
3. The applicant is 32-years-old. He is in reasonable health. He is an English speaker and a New Zealand citizen; he would face no language barrier and no formal legal or cultural barrier to establishing himself in New Zealand. He has trade qualifications in construction work and holds various relevant tickets, skills that are readily transferable to the New Zealand labour market, and which would assist him in finding employment.
4. The applicant contends that he has no meaningful connections to New Zealand and that removal would be deeply destabilising given his entire adult life has been lived in Australia. I accept that his connections to New Zealand are limited. His father has died. His mother, siblings, and extended family are in Australia.
5. The applicant's oral evidence confirmed that he has never returned to New Zealand as an adult, with his last visit occurring in approximately 2011 when he was a teenager. He described having no family or friends in New Zealand. He has lived continuously in Australia for over 22 years and his entire adult social, economic, and family network is located in Australia. His brother Ray, who has returned to New Zealand, was characterised by the applicant as struggling and Ms Butcher's report noted Ray as 'currently struggling and unstable' a factor the applicant self-identified as a risk (contending that reunification with Ray would present a relapse risk rather than a support).
6. However, Ray, as the applicant himself acknowledges as a person with whom he has a close sibling relationship, has returned to New Zealand. I accept his oral evidence that he still speaks to Ray every week. The Minister rightly observes, in the Supplementary SFIC, that it is no longer accurate to say the applicant would have no immediate family in New Zealand at all.[78] I accept that the reunion with Ray, given Ray's instability and the shared offending history, would carry risks as well as potential support. However, the fact of Ray's presence in New Zealand is relevant to the impediments assessment.
7. The primary impediment the applicant faces is emotional and involves separation from his family. This is a real and meaningful hardship. However, he would not face the language barriers, cultural dislocation, or inability to access health or economic support that tend to attract more significant weight under this consideration. He is young, healthy, employable, and a citizen of the country to which he would be returned.
8. The impediments to the applicant's integration in New Zealand are more significant than for a person with adult connections there. He would face the transition with no family support, no established housing or employment network, and the full range of reintegration challenges faced by deportees from Australia to New Zealand as set out in the material he tendered regarding housing, employment, and integration barriers. The applicant's closing submissions referenced news reporting about the barriers faced by New Zealand citizens deported there from Australia.
9. I find this consideration weighs in favour of revocation, albeit only minimally. The applicant's separation from his family is a genuine hardship, but the practical impediments to his establishing basic living standards in New Zealand are not substantial.

'Other considerations' - impact on Australian business interests

(1) Decision-makers must consider any impact on Australian business interests if the non-citizen is not allowed to enter or remain in Australia, noting that an employment link would generally only be given weight where the decision under section 501 or 501CA would significantly compromise the delivery of a major project, or delivery of an important service in Australia.

1. The applicant worked as a labourer in construction and electrical work, and a letter of support from Queensland Handyman Services has been provided.[79] While handyman services could be considered a useful service, the evidence does not establish that the applicant's departure would significantly compromise the delivery of a major project or an important service in Australia. This consideration is not meaningfully engaged.
2. I find this consideration is neutral.

1. I now turn to evaluating the various considerations referred to above. In doing so, I am mindful of the observations of the Full Federal Court in CRNL v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FCAFC 138 at [27]- [28] (Colvin, Stewart, Jackson JJ):

...the Direction requires greater weight to be given to primary considerations unless there is some reason why that general approach should not be adopted. Further, the Direction does not confine the decision-maker to the primary and other considerations. It follows that part of the task for a decision-maker in complying with the Direction is to evaluate whether it is appropriate for a consideration that is not a primary consideration to be given greater weight than one or more primary considerations. In addition, when evaluating whether there is "another reason" to revoke a visa cancellation in the exercise of the power conferred by s 501CA(4), the decision-maker must evaluate whether one or more primary considerations outweighs other primary considerations. > > In consequence, compliance with the Direction is not achieved by focussing upon individual considerations and attributing some form of "weight" to that consideration viewed in isolation. The real burden of the task to be undertaken by a decision-maker who must comply with the Direction is to bring together the considerations as part of a single evaluation of their relative significance thereby weighing them all together. A task of that kind cannot be performed by fragmenting the consideration into an evaluation of individual considerations, attributing to each of them some form of individual abstract term purporting to be a measure of their significance, and then aggregating by some form of calculus each of those individual assessments. To undertake the task in that manner is not to comply with the Direction.

2. Having made findings about the various considerations identified above, I must now bring together the considerations I have assessed above. In doing so, I am conscious that what is required is a genuine, holistic evaluation of the relative significance of all relevant considerations, not a mechanical tally. Compliance with Direction 110 is not achieved by fragmenting the evaluation into individual factors and aggregating them by way of calculus.[80]
3. Paragraph 8.1 (protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct) weighs significantly against revocation. The applicant's offending is extensive, escalating, and very serious. It spans 13 years of adult life, includes violent assaults on strangers, commercial drug trafficking at significant scale, and repeated defiance of court orders and police authority. The applicant's conduct is one of persistent criminality, not an isolated error or misjudgement. I acknowledge the various genuine and meaningful rehabilitation efforts the applicant has undertaken, in particular through the Power in Change Program and his engagement with Ms Butcher. The applicant has demonstrated insight and willingness to address the drivers of his conduct. However, that rehabilitation remains at an early stage and is untested in the community. The protective factors he relies on, particularly his family, have been present throughout his history of offending without having sufficiently deterred it. The potential harm from resuming drug trafficking at scale is severe.
4. Paragraph 8.5 (community expectations) weighs significantly against revocation. The applicant has engaged in serious criminal offending throughout his adult life, including against police officers on multiple occasions. The Australian community's expectation, articulated in Direction 110, is that non-citizens who engage in serious criminal conduct of this nature should not continue to hold a visa.
5. Paragraph 8.3 (ties to Australia) weighs moderately in favour of revocation. The applicant has lived in Australia since the age of nine and his family is here. These are real and significant ties. The weight is moderated by the fact that the applicant's family environment has been present throughout his history of persistent offending.
6. Paragraph 8.4 (best interests of minor children) weighs moderately in favour of revocation. Non-revocation is not in the best interests of the applicant's five minor nieces. However, the non-parental nature of the uncle-niece relationship, the presence of parents in Australia, the approaching adulthood of the two oldest nieces, and the availability of electronic contact limit the weight I am prepared to attribute to this factor.
7. Consideration 8.2 (family violence) is neutral. Consideration 9.1 (legal consequences) is neutral. Consideration 9.2 (impediments if removed) weighs minimally in favour of revocation. Consideration 9.3 (business interests) is neutral.
8. Direction 110 requires that para 8.1, protection of the Australian community, be given greater weight than other primary considerations.[81] The combined weight of the matters contained in paras 8.1.1 and 8.1.2 of Direction 110 is substantial. The applicant's offending conduct is, in its totality, very serious; the risk of reoffending is real; and the potential harm from further offending of a similar nature would be severe.
9. Against that, the applicant's ties to Australia are genuine and long-established, and the best interests of his nieces favour his remaining. These are meaningful considerations that I have given genuine weight. However, the preamble to Direction 110 expressly contemplates that in some circumstances, the criminal offending and the harm that may result if it were to be repeated may be so serious that any risk of similar conduct in the future is unacceptable, and that even other strong countervailing considerations may be insufficient to justify revoking a mandatory cancellation.[82] I am satisfied that the weight of the community protection considerations, reflecting the breadth, persistence, and very serious nature of the applicant's offending, is not overcome by the factors favouring revocation. The primary considerations weighing against revocation are, in combination, significantly weightier than those weighing in favour.
10. I am not satisfied that there is another reason to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the applicant's visa within the meaning of s 501CA(4)(b) of the Act.

(a) I am satisfied that the applicant does not pass the 'character test' under s 501(6) of the Act; and > > (b) I am not satisfied that there is 'another reason' to revoke the cancellation of the applicant's visa.

2. Having reached those conclusions, the decision of the delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs dated 5 January 2026 not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the applicant's Special Category (Class TY) Subclass 444 visa is affirmed.

1. The decision of the delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs dated 5 January 2026 not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the applicant's Special Category (Class TY) Subclass 444 visa is affirmed.

I certify that the preceding 184 (one hundred and eighty-four) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of General Member F Robertson

........[SGD]................................................................

[29] Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s 501CA(3)(a)(i).

[30] Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s 501CA(3)(a)(ii).

[31] Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s 501CA (3)(b).

[32] Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s 501CA(4)(a).

[33] Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s 501CA(3)(b)(i).

[34] Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s 501CA(3)(b)(ii).

[35] HZCP v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2019] FCAFC 202; (2019) 273 FCR 121, 136 [66].

[36] CRNL v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FCAFC 138, [27]-[28].

[37] Gaspar v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2016) 153 ALD 337; [2016] FCA 1166.

[38] Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s 499(2A).

[41] See Direction 110, para 6. The definition of 'decision-maker' at para 4(1) of Direction 110 includes the Tribunal.

[44] Re Harrison and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2009] AATA 47; (2009) 106 ALD 666, 685 [63].

[45] Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s 501CA(4)(b)(ii).

[46] BNY23 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2025] FCAFC 14; (2025) 307 FCR 150, [96] (BNY23).

[47] BNY23, [102], [107]; Price v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Multicultural Affairs [2023] FCAFC 171; (2023) 301 FCR 484, [72] (Price).

[49] PNLB and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (Migration) [2018] AATA 162, [22].

[50] Short and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2021] AATA 3037.

[52] Direction 110, para 8.1.1(1)(a)(i).

[53] BSJ16 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCA 1181, [68]; Hambledon v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 7, [41].

[54] Tahuriogi and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] AATA 2158 [51]-[54].

[59] Minister for Home Affairs v Stowers [2020] FCA 407, [63]; Rangiuia v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2025] FCA 920, [123].

[63] FYBR v Minister for Home Affairs (2019) 272 FCR 454, [66] (Charlesworth J), [91] (Stewart J) (FYBR).

[64] FYBR, [74]-[76] (Charlesworth J), [102]-[104] (Stewart J).

[70] Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ss 189, 196, 197C, 198.

[71] Migration Act 1958 (Cth) s 501F.

[72] Migration Act 1958 (Cth) s 501E.

[73] Migration Act 1958 (Cth) s 503.

[74] Migration Act 1958 (Cth) s 15.

[75] The Court in BHL19 v Commonwealth of Australia (No 2) [2022] FCA 313 followed AJL20 v Commonwealth of Australia [2020] FCA 1305 to find the applicant's detention had, at all times, been lawful: [112]-[122].

[76] Stoneley v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2025] FCA 143, [35] (Stoneley).

[78] I further observe that, whilst not a particularly weighty matter, the applicant also has one adult niece and one adult nephew, the eldest children of Mark Purua, who Mark explained have moved to New Zealand.

[80] CRNL v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Multicultural Affairs [2023] FCAFC 138, [27]-[28]; Lasalo v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Multicultural Affairs [2025] FCAFC 82, [22].