4. On 22 April 2024, a delegate of the Respondent cancelled the Applicant's visa as required by s 501(3A) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).[9] The Applicant acknowledged this on 23 April 2024.[10]
5. On 1 May 2024, the Applicant sought revocation of the cancellation decision.[11] On 26 August 2024 he was invited to comment on a New Zealand Police Criminal History Report.[12]
6. On 16 January 2025, the Applicant was advised that his revocation request was unsuccessful (non-revocation decision).[13] He acknowledged this on 20 January 2025.[14]
7. On 24 January 2025, the Applicant asked the Tribunal to review the non-revocation decision.[15] On the same day he was released on parole and immediately taken into immigration detention where he has since remained.[16]
8. Section 500(6L) of the Act requires that the Tribunal decide this application within 84 days of the Applicant being properly notified of the non-revocation decision. This falls on 10 April 2025, which is four working days after the hearing concludes.

1. Section 13 of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth) (the ART Act) and s 500(1)(ba) of the Act are the sources of the Tribunal's jurisdiction in this matter.
2. Section 501(3A) of the Act, read in conjunction with ss 501(6) and 501(7), obliges the Minister to cancel a person's visa if satisfied the person does not pass the character test and is serving a full-time sentence of imprisonment.
3. The 'character test' is defined in s 501(6) of the Act. A person does not pass it if they have a 'substantial criminal record' as defined by s 501(7), which includes if they are sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more.
4. Under s 501CA(3) of the Act, the Minister is obliged to give notice of a cancellation decision as soon as practicable after making it and invite the affected person to respond with revocation submissions. Provisions relating to the form and process of those representations are found in reg 2.52 of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth).
5. Section 501CA(4) of the Act confers a discretionary power on the Minister to revoke the original decision if the person whose visa has been cancelled makes representations in accordance with the invitation, and the Minister is satisfied the person either passes the character test, or there is another reason why the original decision should be revoked.
6. The Tribunal's procedure is at its discretion, and it can act with as little formality and technicality as a proper consideration of matters before it permits.[17] Section 52 of the ART Act provides that 'the Tribunal is not bound by the rules of evidence but may inform itself on any matter in such manner as it considers appropriate'.

1. Having received a sentence of imprisonment exceeding 12 months, the Applicant has a substantial criminal record and does not pass the character test. Accordingly, s 501CA(4)(b)(i) of the Act does not provide a basis to revoke the cancellation decision. The remaining issue under s 501CA(4)(b)(ii) of the Act is whether there is 'another reason' for revocation. The Tribunal must read, identify, understand, and evaluate the Applicant's clearly articulated representations or those obviously arising from the evidence.[18]

1. In making its decision, the Tribunal must comply with a ministerial direction under s 499(1) of the Act, known as 'Ministerial Direction 110' (the Direction).[19] The Direction contains mandatory and aspirational considerations guiding the exercise of statutory power.[20]
2. Clause 5.1 of the Direction sets out several objectives, the first of which is to '...regulate, in the national interest, the coming into, and presence in, Australia of non-citizens'.
3. The following principles at cl 5.2 of the Direction provide a framework within which decision‑makers should approach their task:

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

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

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

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

(5) Australia has a low tolerance of any criminal or other serious conduct by visa applicants or those holding a limited stay visa, or by other non-citizens who have been participating in, and contributing to, the Australian community only for a short period of time.

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

(7) Decision-makers must take into account the primary and other considerations relevant to the individual case. In some circumstances, the nature of the non-citizen's conduct, or the harm that would be caused if the conduct were to be repeated, may be so serious that even strong countervailing considerations may be insufficient to justify not cancelling or refusing the visa, or revoking a mandatory cancellation.

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

1. Clause 6 of the Direction provides that, informed by the principles in cl 5.2, a decision‑maker must have regard to clauses 8 and 9, where relevant to the decision.
2. Clause 8 of the Direction identifies the following primary considerations:

(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;

(5) expectations of the Australian community.

1. Clause 9(1) of the Direction sets out a non-exhaustive list of other considerations:

1. Clause 7(1) provides that when applying primary and other considerations, appropriate weight is given to 'information and evidence from independent and authoritative sources'.
2. Clause 7(2) states that the primary consideration '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. Clause 7(3) states that 'One or more primary considerations may outweigh other primary considerations'.
4. The weight given to an Applicant's claims and the individual and cumulative weighing process is a matter for individual decision-makers.[21]

1. On 4 February 2025, the Tribunal issued scheduling orders requiring the parties to submit documents intended to be relied upon at the hearing. Given the Applicant was legally unrepresented at that time, the Tribunal provided him with contact details for possible sources of pro bono assistance and an outline of what a Statement of Facts, Issues, and Contentions (SFIC) [22] might contain. The Applicant had until 7 March 2025 to lodge his documents, and, at the request of his advocate, this was extended until 10 March 2025. Ms Ririnui filed a summary of submissions and several witness statements.
2. The following documents were tendered into evidence:

(a) Hearing Book from the Respondent numbering 211 pages;[23]

(b) Bundle of material obtained under summons by the Respondent;[24]

(c) Letter dated 21 March 2025 from the Applicant's former partner;[25]

(d) Bundle of documents comprising the Applicant's Clinical Encounter Notes in immigration detention and various assessment forms;[26]

(e) One-page reference of Mr Nathan Brook dated 6 March 2025;[27]

(f) Two-page undated reference of Ms Lauren Baker;[28]

(g) Two-page reference of Mr Toni Aroha Ranapia dated 4 March 2025;[29]

(h) Letter dated 24 March 25 from the Applicant's two children;[30]

(i) Two-page character reference of Mr Filipo Havili Tuita, who resides with Ms Ririnui;[31]

(j) Correspondence from the Queensland Parole Board dated 7 November 2024, ordering that the Applicant be released into the custody of Australian Border Force on 24 January 2025;[32] and

(k) Undated and unsigned certificate relating to attendance at '7 sessions of Smart Recovery' at the Brisbane Immigration Detention Centre.[33]

1. The Tribunal has considered the Applicant's past documentary evidence.[34]

1. At the commencement of the hearing the Tribunal explained the procedure to be adopted, the operation of the Direction, and the Applicant's privilege against self-incrimination. The Applicant and Ms Ririnui asked several questions, and the Tribunal is satisfied the information conveyed was understood. The Applicant, his former partner, and Ms Ririnui were called as witnesses.

Protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct

(1) When considering protection of the Australian community, decision-makers should keep in mind that safety of the Australian community is the highest priority of the Australian Government. To that end, the Government is committed to protecting the Australian community from harm as a result of criminal activity or other serious conduct by non-citizens. In this respect, decision-makers should have particular regard to the principle 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) 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.

1. Under cl 8.1.1(1) of the Direction, the following factors are to be considered in determining the nature and seriousness of the non-citizen's criminal and other conduct to date:

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

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;

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 reoffended 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).

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

The nature and seriousness of the conduct: Tribunal consideration

1. The Applicant does not dispute his history of offending in New Zealand or Australia. His drink-driving convictions in New Zealand were in July 2010 and December 2012. The latter involved him operating a vehicle carelessly and failing to stop after an accident to ascertain if an injury had occurred.[35] His conviction for common assault in New Zealand was on 25 October 2013, for which he received a nine-month good behaviour bond. This was only two months prior to his arrival in Australia. The Applicant's unchallenged evidence is that he declared this to authorities on arrival. When asked what the assault conviction was for, the Applicant said he was 'drinking at the time' and trying to protect an 'old fella' being attacked. He claimed that he did not hit anyone and police arrested him because he was 'just there'.
2. When asked to describe his driving history in New Zealand and Australia, the Applicant responded: 'Bad'. His first traffic offence in Australia was for speeding on 5 October 2014,[36] which was less than a year after arrival. He continued to speed, drove uninsured or unregistered vehicles, had his licence suspended on five occasions, and incurred multiple fines for failing to pay tolls.[37] When asked about a reference to 'public nuisance-disorderly behaviour-in/near licenced premises' in 2016,[38] the Applicant explained this occurred when he 'tried to stop a fight'.
3. The Applicant agreed that his first drink driving offence in Australia was in April 2016[39] and resulted in a $1000 fine and seven-month driving suspension. He said this occurred after going to the 'pub after work' and then driving home. The Applicant's most serious crime in Australia occurred on 10 September 2021 when he again operated a vehicle dangerously while intoxicated, causing grievous bodily harm to a road user. The maximum sentence for this offence under Queensland law is 14 years' imprisonment.[40] The Applicant was a mature-age man of 36 and the Court found he had 'a concerning history involving offences against the road rules'.[41] He was found to have driven dangerously and at high speed for about 10 kilometres before driving through a red light at a large and busy intersection 'without any indication that [he was] the slightest bit conscious of what [he was] doing'.[42] He struck a motorcyclist causing significant injuries, before spinning 180 degrees, mounting the median strip, and colliding with two stationary cars, causing significant damage.[43] An occupant of one car suffered an ankle injury. After being arrested, the Applicant recorded a blood alcohol reading of 0.121 per cent. The Court characterised his conduct as dangerous criminal behaviour. In oral testimony the Applicant could not recall the injuries sustained by the motorcyclist or the person in the car he struck. He had better recall when extracts from the Victim Impact Statement were read to him. The Applicant accepted the motorcyclist was confronted with lifelong issues because of this accident.
4. The motorcyclist struck by the Applicant was a 65-year-old man who experienced 'significant and life-changing injuries'.[44] A Victim Impact Statement referred to his femur being broken in several places, requiring titanium supports inside his femur and hip to hold broken pieces of bone together.[45] The victim described memory loss, severe disabling impacts, constant pain, and a slow recovery. The Court noted the victim enjoyed good health prior to the accident but the Applicant 'took that away from him...'.[46] The Court referred to the Applicant's involvement in a car accident at the age of five in New Zealand, which required 'intensive rehabilitation and counselling'.[47] The Court found it 'unfathomable' he was 'so cavalier' in his attitude towards driving given his personal experience as a child. Having regard for expert advice, the Court noted the Applicant had a 'severe' and 'longstanding alcohol use disorder' that was then in 'early remission'.[48] It is noteworthy the pre-sentence report prepared by psychologist Ms Sarah Jones contained a reference to the Applicant denying 'any previous criminal history'.[49] The sentencing judge made no reference to the Applicant's offending in New Zealand and erroneously referred to the Applicant's drink driving commencing in 2016 after arrival in Australia. When asked about this during the hearing the Applicant said he probably should have told Ms Jones about his past offending in New Zealand.
5. After being charged on 10 September 2021 the Applicant was released on bail. In oral testimony he said that he started drinking alcohol 'straight away' because of stress. He agreed that on 18 January 2023 he drove a vehicle while his licence was suspended.[50] He also agreed that on 10 June 2023 he breached his bail conditions by failing to report to police[51] and, on 25 July 2023, was again arrested for drink driving in an unregistered vehicle. On this occasion he recorded a blood alcohol reading of 0.165 per cent.[52] The Applicant stated it did occur to him that having hit the motorcyclist it was not a good idea to drive while alcohol-affected and with the likelihood of imprisonment. He said this was a 'stupid' decision but does not know why he decided to drink and drive.
6. The Court noted the Applicant's capacity to control a vehicle on 25 July 2023 with such a 'high' level of intoxication 'would have been severely impaired'.[53] The Court considered his commission of another drink-driving offence while on bail for the 2021 drink driving offence to be an aggravating feature of his conduct. He was given a total effective sentence of five years' imprisonment when concurrency considerations were assessed, with eligibility for parole consideration after 18 months. The Applicant was also disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver's licence until November 2028.

The nature and seriousness of the conduct: Tribunal findings

(a) The Applicant's assault offence in July 2013 while living in New Zealand falls within the meaning of crimes viewed as 'very serious' under cl 8.1.1(1)(a)(i) of the Direction. The Tribunal does not accept the Applicant's evidence that he was convicted of this offence only because he was present when police arrived. That said, this assault is his only recorded violent crime, occurred more than a decade ago, and has not been repeated. This ameliorates the weight otherwise attributed to a violent offence. > > (b) No weight is placed on the Applicant's breach of bail offence in Australia for which a conviction was not recorded.[54] > > (c) Significant weight is placed on the totality of the Applicant's multiple drink driving, careless vehicle operation, and speeding offences since 2010. His reckless conduct on New Zealand and Australian roads is frequent and there is a trend of increasing seriousness, culminating in him causing very significant injuries to an innocent road user. Pursuant to cl 8.1.1(1)(d) of the Direction, considerable weight is placed on the Victim Impact Statement, which amply conveys the harm caused. The repeat nature of some of the Applicant's crimes, such as drink driving, reflects a persistent disregard for the law and rights of other road users. The adverse cumulative effect of his conduct has imposed significant costs and consequences. > > (d) Imprisonment is the most severe punishment available. The five-year sentence imposed on the Applicant amply conveys the seriousness of his crime. This is so regardless of where it sits in the context of a statutory maximum.

2. In terms of 'other conduct', the Tribunal is satisfied the Applicant was not truthful with Ms Jones about his history of offending in New Zealand and the Court proceeded on the erroneous premise that his crimes only commenced in Australia. That said, such conduct does not constitute the provision of 'false or misleading information to the Department, including by not disclosing prior criminal offending' within the meaning of cl 8.1.1(1)(g) of the Direction. Departmental action to cancel the Applicant's visa followed his conviction and no weight is therefore placed on this aspect of the Applicant's conduct.
3. In terms of the judicial authorities relied upon by the Applicant,[55] the Tribunal explored these with Ms Ririnui during closing submissions. They are clearly distinguishable and inapposite to the Applicant's circumstances. In terms of the Tribunal authorities relied upon,[56] there is no doctrine of stare decisis or comparator to judicial comity in the Tribunal. Again, each of these cases turns on different facts and is distinguished by factors such as the Direction applied, nature of the offending, type of visa, and personal circumstances. No weight is placed on the Tribunal decisions relied upon.
4. The totality of the Applicant's offending is very serious.

Risk to the Australian community should the non‑citizen commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct: Tribunal consideration

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.

1. Clause 8.1.2(2) of the Direction states that in assessing the risk the non-citizen poses to the Australian community, decision-makers must take into account, 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:

i. information and evidence on the risk of the non­citizen re-offending; and

1. 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).
2. where consideration is being given to whether to refuse to grant a visa to the non‑citizen - whether the risk of harm may be affected by the duration and purpose of the non-citizen's intended stay, the type of visa being applied for, and whether there are strong or compassionate reasons for granting a short stay visa.

47. This aspect of the Direction requires a 'future‑focused assessment'[57] of the risk an applicant poses should they reoffend, taking into consideration the nature of any harm and its probability. In Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Guo (Guo),[58] the High Court held that past actions can be legitimate predictors of future behaviour. The majority observed, however, that past events 'are not a certain guide' and, depending on circumstances, the probability of an event occurring could be so low as to be 'safely disregarded', or at the other extreme 'may border on certainty'.[59] The majority also observed there are several factors in making such evaluations, and that it is 'ordinarily an integral part of the process of making a determination concerning the chance of something occurring in the future that conclusions are formed concerning past events'.[60]

1. The Applicant said he started drinking in New Zealand at 17 or 18 years of age, which was mainly on weekends but progressed to moderate and then heavy use. He recalled that his 'family always used to drink'. The Applicant contextualises his offending as alcohol-related and said he drank with 'mates' because he thought it was 'cool'. He agreed with Mr Hopkins that he also used alcohol as a coping mechanism when life was difficult.
2. The Applicant said he left New Zealand in 2013 to 'start fresh' because of adverse family and social links involving 'alcohol and drugs'.[61] He wanted to 'get away from all that stuff and make a change'. The Applicant agreed that he continued to offend in Australia, including drink driving. This was despite the protective effects of a relationship, the interests of his two children, and fulltime employment.
3. The Applicant said that soon after the relationship with his former partner ended he commenced a relationship with Ms Ririnui in May 2021. Ms Ririnui stated in documentary evidence that 'when Dan is sober, he knows how to make safe, informed, and selfless decisions'.[62] In oral evidence she referred to periods of time when he demonstrated compliance with the law. The Tribunal notes, however, that the Applicant's most serious crime occurred approximately four months after starting his relationship with Ms Ririnui. He then reoffended, including by committing driving offences. On 25 July 2023 he was arrested for driving with an even higher blood-alcohol reading.
4. The Applicant expressed contrition for his conduct and its impact on victims and their families. He referred to attendance at two drug and alcohol courses in custody and said the second was 'sort of drug and alcohol but also [dealt with] past trauma in life'. He said the courses 'changed [him] a lot'. When asked to elaborate, he said his 'mindset' is different and he can 'see things from a different point of view'. The Applicant said he has been abstinent from alcohol in custody and does not intend to drink if released. He intends staying away from negative friends because he fears relapse from re-association.
5. In addition to group counselling, the Applicant referred to five one-on-one sessions since February 2025 with a psychologist in immigration detention.[63] He said these 'clear [his] head' and allow him to be 'open about how [his] mind is'. The Tribunal notes these sessions were variously conducted by a psychologist and registered nurse. When asked about a note from a psychologist on 7 February 2025 that the 'last time he drank alcohol was 8 months ago', the Applicant insisted he was abstinent from alcohol during his entire time in custody. Mr Hopkins asked the Applicant about the reference in Exhibit A2 to the urgent request he made for clinical notes ahead of this hearing and whether this was to help his case. The Applicant agreed this was one reason, but he also wanted to 'better [him]self'.
6. Ms Ririnui said the Applicant's rehabilitative efforts in custody are 'the most work' he has done in support of personal development. The Tribunal has considered the following documents relating to completion of vocational and self-development training:

(a) Certificate of completion for '6 hr SSI Explore Program' dated 14 November 2023;[64] > > (b) Certificate of completion for 'Breaking Habits Group' (undated);[65] > > (c) Certificate of completion for 'Healthy Habits Group' (undated);[66] > > (d) Certificate II in Rural Operations;[67] > > (e) Certificate II in Resources and Infrastructure Work Preparation;[68] > > (f) Other vocational training modules;[69] and > > (g) Unsigned and undated certificate relating to the Applicant 'completing 7 sessions of Smart Recovery at Brisbane Immigration Detention Centre'.[70]

7. There is no evidence the Applicant has been other than compliant in custodial settings.
8. The Applicant stated he will not reoffend if released in Australia. He intends staying away 'from old habits, going to church, and doing a lot of activities'. He wants to 'start a business and stuff'. If stressed, he will put his headset on, listen to music, and go to the gym.
9. There is no recent expert evidence regarding the Applicant's recidivism risk. At their 2023 consultation, psychologist Ms Jones noted that during periods of distress the Applicant 'appeared to use alcohol as a maladaptive coping strategy'.[71] She also opined that he exhibited a 'difficulty or disinterest in close relationships' and a 'marked level of social detachment indicating that he may have discomfort in close relationships and is likely to have little apparent interest or investment in social interactions'.[72] The Applicant is noted to have increased his alcohol use to a 'binge' level in response to tension in the relationship with his former partner.[73] The Applicant agreed with Ms Jones' assessment that his use of alcohol is heightened by stressful events and distress.
10. Ms Jones assessed the Applicant as meeting the diagnostic criteria for:[74]

(a) Adjustment Disorder, With mixed anxiety and depressed mood; > > (b) Social Anxiety Disorder (Social Phobia); and > > (c) Alcohol Use Disorder, Severe, in early remission.

11. Ms Jones recommended several therapies, including for the chronicity of his alcohol abuse.[75] Apart from the courses and sessions referred to above, the Applicant is yet to undertake any therapy in respect of the above conditions. He intends continuing with rehabilitation if released. When asked what that might involve, the Applicant gave general responses such as calling Alcoholics Anonymous and doing 'rehab'. During re-examination, he said he would do 'whatever programs need to be done...straight after work'.
12. In terms of recidivism risk, Ms Jones applied the Level of Service Inventory - Revised (LSI-R) methodology[76] before concluding that the Applicant's 'overall risk...fell in the Low Risk/Needs Range'.[77] The Tribunal notes this assessment was based on the Applicant's false claim that he had no other criminal history prior to arrival in Australia.
13. In oral evidence Ms Ririnui referred to 'periods of [the Applicant's] life where he's done really well' and did not drink. She has 'noticed significant changes' since his imprisonment akin to a 'personal transformation' and contends he is 'reformed' and constitutes 'a low risk' of recidivism. Ms Ririnui referred to a low risk custodial assessment by Queensland prison authorities but accepted this was erroneously premised on an incomplete picture of the Applicant's offending and related to placement within the Corrections system. Ms Ririnui pointed to supervised parole conditions, her assistance, and stable employment as factors that would help the Applicant remain abstinent and law-abiding.

Risk to the Australian community should the non‑citizen commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct: Tribunal findings

(a) A repeat of the Applicant's drink driving, dangerous vehicle operation, or speeding offences, either individually or concurrently, has the potential to cause death or serious physical or psychological harm to other road users, pedestrians, or their family members. It could also result in financial harm through property damage. It is of significant concern that the Applicant committed a drink driving offence, with an even higher blood-alcohol reading, less than two years after causing significant and life-changing injuries to a motorcyclist. > > (b) The Applicant's criminal history is contextualised by persistent alcohol abuse, including after relocating to Australia in 2013 for a fresh start. Expressions of remorse are diminished by the repeat nature of his reckless conduct on the roads. Any abstinence from alcohol in a strictly supervised custodial environment is short-lived when regard is had for the persistence of his alcohol abuse. His intention to remain abstinent if released is aspirational and untested. > > (c) The Applicant has undertaken some rehabilitative, vocational, and self-development courses in custody. There is limited evidence, however, about what the courses covered or how he performed. The one-on-one sessions with a psychologist and nurse in immigration detention are limited, recent, and focus on alcohol abstinence and 'supportive psychotherapy to enable [the Applicant] to feel safe and supported during detention'. A custodial record[78] dated 27 January 2025 states the Applicant 'denied any history of mental illness'. This conflicts with Ms Jones' assessment and there is no evidence that treatment relevant to her diagnosis has been meaningfully advanced. The Applicant accepts he is at the early stages of rehabilitation but aspires to progress this upon release. His plans for doing so are general and aspirational. In the interim he has continuing unmet rehabilitative needs. Consider, for example, the Applicant's evidence that he started drinking heavily immediately after hitting the motorcyclist in 2021 because of the stress he experienced and despite the likelihood of imprisonment. He committed a further drink driving offence within two years of that accident while on bail. This diminishes the persuasiveness of his claim that parole conditions will reliably ameliorate his risk. The Tribunal's concerns centre on the Applicant again relapsing if confronted by a stressful situation or feeling distressed. Decisions should not be delayed, however, for rehabilitation to be undertaken.[79] > > (d) The Tribunal accepts the general proposition that factors such as the care and support of a loving partner, interests of children, and employment can be protective factors relevant to recidivism risk. The Tribunal also does not wish to diminish the genuine intentions of Ms Ririnui and others who have the Applicant's best intentions at heart. That said, less weight is placed on protective factors he invokes because of the persistence of his alcohol abuse and reckless conduct on the roads. This has occurred while in romantic relationships, for most of his children's lives, and despite stable employment. He committed his most serious offence within months of starting his relationship with Ms Ririnui, then another drink driving offence within two years.

2. Ms Jones' pre-sentence assessment of a 'Low Risk/Needs Range' is not accepted because of the Applicant's false claim about not having any offences prior to arrival in Australia. Little weight is placed on Ms Ririnui's opinion, including because she is in a relationship with the Applicant and has no professional qualifications relevant to assessing recidivism risk. The Tribunal considers the Applicant is at least a moderate risk of reoffending and causing significant harm to another road user or pedestrian. The nature of harm from such conduct falls into a category where any risk of repeat is unacceptable. This primary consideration weighs substantially against revocation.

1. There is no evidence that this primary consideration is relevant, and the Tribunal affords it neutral weight.

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. The Applicant was born in New Zealand, as was his former partner and two biological children.[80] He arrived in Australia in December 2013 when 28 years of age and has lived here for about 11 years. He committed his first driving offence within a year of arrival.
2. In terms of immediate family, the Applicant said he and his former partner have a cooperative co-parenting arrangement. He contends that she and the children would experience adverse emotional, practical, and financial consequences if he is removed.[81] A one-page statement dated 30 August 2023 is in evidence from the Applicant's former partner.[82] This was submitted in the context of his criminal proceeding and is now over 18 months old. A brief unsigned letter from her dated 21 March 2025 was also tendered in this proceeding. This states: (errors in original)

To whom it may concern, > > ... > > I am the mother to both his children and have known him for around 18years. > > Dan is a great, kind and generous person who would literally do anything to help anyone If he can that is his true nature. > > Like anyone he is not perfect and has made mistakes. I know that he is deeply sorry for his actions that have led him to the position he finds himself in at this point of his life. I believe he has been sincere in his efforts to rehabilitate himself in being away and having the tools and resources available to better equip him once he is released back into society, I also believe if given the opportunity will continue using these services. > > I know that our children have deeply missed their Dad and it has been hard for them only having limited phone access. They are now 14 & 16years old and they are looking forward to having their dad back in their lives to rebuild their relationships and try to make up lost time and we are all truly hoping that can be done here in Australia. > > Dan is one of the most hardworking people anyone could ever hope to have in their team and I hope he gets the chance to earn back the trust of many people that he worked alongside in the past. > > Dan did not have the best start in life and lived a childhood that I would not wish upon anyone there is nothing and no one good left in New Zealand for him and moving here in 2013 was the best decision he made and to be able to stay I believe he would not waste this second chance in anyway.

3. The Applicant's former partner appeared as a witness and was cross-examined. Her evidence is summarised as follows:

(a) She adopted her statement dated 21 March 2025 as true and correct. > > (b) Her relationship with the Applicant ended in 2021 and they have since co-parented. This consists of the children living with her but the Applicant seeing them whenever he wants. The witness said he previously came over daily after work but since imprisonment keeps in contact with the children 'over the phone and letters'. > > (c) The witness said if the Applicant is released in Australia she anticipates a return to their co-parenting arrangement of the past. > > (d) The witness said the Applicant has done everything to rehabilitate himself in custody, 'shows growth', and now has the 'proper tools' to help himself 'if he stays on the track he is on'. She will 'help him and the children get on a better path'. > > (e) The witness said the children have been emotionally affected by the Applicant's circumstances and a non-revocation decision would affect them 'immensely' because of 'how important fathers are'.

4. The Applicant's fiancée and advocate in this proceeding, Ms Ririnui, was born in New Zealand and recently had her Australian citizenship application approved. Their relationship commenced on 1 May 2021, which is approximately four months prior to the motorcyclist incident on 10 September 2021. The Applicant has spent much of the time since on bail, imprisoned, or in immigration detention. The Applicant said he intends to marry Ms Ririnui and his removal to New Zealand would have a 'large emotional impact'.[83]
5. The Tribunal has considered Ms Ririnui's documentary evidence[84] and oral testimony. The latter is summarised as follows:

(a) Ms Ririnui adopted her previous statements from the Applicant's criminal matter and revocation request as true and correct. > > (b) Ms Ririnui said the Applicant was a regular drinker when their relationship started, but they did not start living together until after the accident involving the motorcyclist. She said he drank mostly on the weekends but not when his children were visiting because they don't like it. He only drank during the week 'on the odd occasion'. Ms Ririnui said the Applicant is 'capable of not drinking again' and has demonstrated an ability to abstain in custody. > > (c) Ms Ririnui stated: 'we all struggled financially when he went to prison', which the Tribunal inferred was a claim encompassing the Applicant's previous partner and children. She said the Applicant has been unable to contribute financially since imprisonment but is well placed to do so once released and back in work. > > (d) Ms Ririnui said she will not accompany the Applicant to New Zealand if he is repatriated because she has recently become an Australian citizen and has a good life and commitments here: 'Going to New Zealand is not an option'. When asked about the Applicant's claim she would accompany him temporarily, Ms Ririnui disagreed. She would support him emotionally from Australia but not financially.

6. In terms of other family members, the Applicant advances the interests of a niece, four nephews, and 'four close cousins' residing in Australia.[85] There is a dearth of evidence from them or their family members to establish the Applicant's current relationship with them.
7. In terms of prosocial friends, the Tribunal has considered supportive references tendered by the Applicant's friends and a former employer.[86] Most are dated 2023 and in the context of his criminal proceeding and revocation submissions. They are variously to the effect that the Applicant is a valued worker, of good character, and loyal to others. The letters are quite general, and most do not exhibit a complete knowledge of the Applicant's crimes. For example, some use the singular form 'mistake'.[87] Another refers to the Applicant's most recent crime as 'his second offence'.[88] Ms Ririnui's brother claims to have experience 'working in the Mental Health system for a number of years'[89] and believes the Applicant 'is in need of some type of program (Alcohol, Counselling, specifically Trauma Counselling)' and with 'the right services and support around him...will benefit as a Man and a Father'.
8. In terms of positive contributions, the Applicant refers to consistent employment as an arborist between 2014 and 2023.[90] He also refers to flood cleanup work as a volunteer and other community engagement.[91]
9. Even if an applicant makes no submissions about Aboriginality, nor advances any connection to the Australian Aboriginal community, this is no longer the end of the matter. Justice Feutrill held in Brownlie v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Brownlie)[92] that neither the absence of an express representation nor materials disavowing the relevance of this consideration are determinative. The applicant in Brownlie was born in Wales and expressly stated he did not identify as an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander person. No claims about Aboriginality were advanced by Mr Brownlie or his barrister during the hearing. His Honour noted at [80] of Brownlie:

There is no reference to indigenous heritage or identification as Aboriginal person. Indeed, under Citizenship Details 'No' is circled in hand writing in response to the question 'Do you identify as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander? Similarly, in the applicant's application in the Tribunal for review of a decision 'No' is written in a box under the question: 'Are you of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander origin?'

1. In quashing the Tribunal's decision, however, his Honour held that the decision‑maker's task extends to searching for a connection to Aboriginality that may be 'unarticulated but manifest from the materials before the Tribunal'.[93] The Tribunal is therefore required to review the evidence and identify any conflict between an applicant's express non-identification as Aboriginal and contrary unarticulated representations or 'integers'.[94] His Honour held that failing to do so is sufficiently material to constitute jurisdictional error.
2. The Applicant stated in documents submitted to the Tribunal and Respondent that he does not identify as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander.[95] Neither he nor Ms Ririnui made any claims about Aboriginality during this proceeding.

1. In considering references from family members and friends, the Tribunal is mindful they can often provide the best possible perspective regarding crimes, which other members of Australian society might consider unacceptable. Care must therefore be taken about the weight placed on references from family members and friends.
2. The Tribunal finds that:

(a) The Applicant's residence in Australia since 2013 is contextualised by persistent alcohol abuse and increasingly serious crimes. Less weight is placed on this primary consideration given that his offending commenced soon after arriving in Australia.[96] > > (b) Weight is placed on the Applicant's contribution to the community, including through employment, helping raise his children, and volunteering.

(c) The Tribunal accepts that a non-revocation decision would have negative emotional, practical, and perhaps financial effects on his current and former partner. In relation to Ms Ririnui, their relationship is not lengthy, is contextualised by a long period of absence since his imprisonment in July 2023, and is somewhat aspirational. Without more from his former partner and Ms Ririnui about the extent to which they previously relied on the Applicant financially, and how they have coped in recent years without financial assistance from him, the financial effect is uncertain. There is also no evidence the Applicant could not continue to support his former partner, children, and Ms Ririnui if returned to New Zealand once he re-establishes himself.

(d) The Applicant has some prosocial links in the community as evidenced by supportive letters, although the Tribunal does not consider the effect on the authors rises any higher than disappointment or sadness.

(e) The Tribunal is unable to identify any conflict between the Applicant's express non-identification as Aboriginal, and other integers or contrary references in the materials that may raise an unarticulated case to the effect that he identifies as an Aboriginal Australian with ties to the Aboriginal community.

1. A non-revocation decision would have an adverse impact on those the Applicant is close to. On current evidence, however, this primary consideration weighs no more than moderately in favour of revocation.

Best interests of minor children in Australia affected by the decision

1. Clause 8.4 of the Direction requires decision-makers to determine whether the best interests of minor children in Australia are served by the grant or refusal of the visa.[97] It is generally for an Applicant to 'identify the personal facts and circumstances relevant to the decision',[98] including the existence of any minor children whose best interests may be affected by the decision. This primary consideration applies only if the child is, or would be, under 18 years old at the time the application is decided. If there are two or more relevant children, the best interests of each affected by the decision should be given individual consideration, to the extent their interests differ. In considering the best interests of the child, the following factors must be considered where relevant:[99]

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. The Applicant invokes the interests of two children who are now 16 and almost 14 years of age.[100] The Applicant last saw them physically in July 2023. During oral testimony, the Applicant was unaware what high school years the children are in. He claimed, however, they are doing well at school. During telephone conversations he asks them how their day has been and said his son broke down a few times because he misses the Applicant. If released in Australia, the Applicant would like to take the children camping.
2. The Applicant said a non-revocation decision would be 'very hard' for the children, including because his son considers him a 'hero'.[101] The Tribunal has considered a brief unsigned letter dated 24 March 2025 from the Applicant's children,[102] which states:

We are writing to say that we have missed our dad and so much life with him and hope that he can stay, and we can catch up on some of what we missed. > > We know that what he did was wrong and hope that he has paid for that and will not repeat the same mistakes so he can stay and be in our lives again. > > We love our dad and hope to see him again soon and do things with him and have him come to our sports and school things like our friends' dads. > > If the people who make the decisions could please consider giving him another chance...

3. The Applicant said his children 'do not often go to New Zealand' and his removal would affect them emotionally and financially. He said the ability of the children's mother to support them would be diminished because he could not provide the same level of financial assistance from New Zealand. The Tribunal inferred this was because of lower pay for the same work in New Zealand, although no evidence was tendered about this.
4. The Applicant referred to five other children in revocation claims who he claims are minors and New Zealand citizens.[103] He describes his relationship with them as 'in law' but did not fill in the following page asking him to describe their relationship.[104] In terms of the minor nieces and nephews, there is a dearth of evidence to establish the nature of the Applicant's current relationship with them or the extent to which they may have relied on him in the past, or the extent to which their parents or other caregivers would welcome a resumed relationship. The highest the evidence gets is the Applicant's aspiration to play a more prominent avuncular role if released in Australia.

1. The interests of the Applicant's two biological children are given greatest weight in this case. That said, his former partner has played the primary parental role since they separated. It remains unclear what the Applicant's previous financial contribution was, and he has not made any financial contribution since being imprisoned in July 2023. His relationship with the children has been contextualised in recent years by a long period of absence and limited meaningful contact. If the Applicant can better understand and overcome his problem with alcohol, undertake the treatment recommended by Ms Jones, and not commit further offences, there is scope for him to be a much more positive influence for his children. The elder child, however, is approaching adulthood in two years and the younger child in four years. A relationship would be much more difficult if the Applicant was repatriated to New Zealand, although he could maintain contact as in recent years and his children could visit. This is of course a much less favourable alternative to resumed co-parenting in Australia.
2. Revocation is in the best interests of the Applicant's biological children and any minor nieces, nephews, or cousins, although evidence about the latter is scant. On balance, this primary consideration carries moderate weight at best in favour of revocation.

1. Clause 8.5(1) of the Direction identifies the expectations of the Australian community:

The Australian community expects non-citizens to obey Australian laws while in Australia. Where a non-citizen has engaged in serious conduct in breach of this expectation, or where there is an unacceptable risk that they may do so, the Australian community, as a norm, expects the Government to not allow such a non-citizen to enter or remain in Australia.

In addition, visa cancellation or refusal, or non-revocation of the mandatory cancellation of a visa, may be appropriate simply because the nature of the character concerns or offences is such that the Australian community would expect that the person should not be granted or continue to hold a visa. In particular, the Australian community expects that the Australian Government can and should refuse entry to non-citizens, or cancel their visas, if they raise serious character concerns through conduct, in Australia or elsewhere, of the following kind:

a) acts of family violence; or

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

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

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

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

f) worker exploitation.

1. Clause 8.5(3) of the Direction provides that the above expectations apply regardless of whether the non-citizen poses a measurable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community.
2. Clause 8.5(4) of the Direction provides that this consideration is 'about the expectations of the Australian community as a whole', and decision-makers are to proceed based on the Government's views as articulated in the Direction, without independently assessing the community's expectations in a particular case. This correlates with the reasoning in FYBR v Minister for Home Affairs (FYBR)[105] where the plurality held that this primary consideration is a deeming provision with normative principles, ascribing to the community an expectation aligning with that of the executive government. The reasoning in FYBR establishes that the 'deemed community expectation' will in most cases call for cancellation, but 'the question of whether it is appropriate to act in accordance with the deemed community expectation is in all cases left for the decision-maker to determine'.[106] The High Court refused an application for special leave to appeal from the orders in FYBR.[107]

1. The High Court in Ismail v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs held at [52] regarding this primary consideration in an earlier ministerial direction (Direction 90):

Paragraph 8.4(4) is to be understood as directing the decision‑maker not to attempt to infer what the expectations of the Australian community would be "in the particular case" (that is, with the knowledge of the delegate about the applicant's personal circumstances), but to proceed on the basis that the views of the Australian Government set out in para 8.4(1)‑(3) are the relevant norm described as the expectations of the Australian community. That norm, as applicable by reference to the terms of para 8(1)‑(3), is then to be weighed with other relevant matters as required by paras 6 and 7 of Direction 90. The delegate's reasoning accords with these requirements.[108]

1. The Tribunal has considered the Respondent's submissions regarding this primary consideration.[109]

1. The Applicant's residence in Australia is contextualised by persistent conduct in breach of Australian laws that has harmed others. Having regard for the norm described as the expectations of the Australian community, little tolerance would be extended to him, and he should expect to forfeit the privilege of remaining in Australia.[110] This applies irrespective of whether he poses a measurable risk of causing physical harm.[111]
2. On balance, this primary consideration weighs substantially in favour of non-revocation.

1. The Applicant did not advance claims regarding cl 9.1 (legal consequences of the decision).[112] In the event of a non-revocation decision, he would be liable for removal to New Zealand as soon as reasonably practicable and continue to be detained in the interim. Having reviewed the available evidence, the Tribunal finds this consideration is not relevant and gives it neutral weight.
2. In terms of cl 9.3, the Applicant did not advance submissions that a non-revocation decision would disrupt any business interest or 'significantly compromise the delivery of an important service or major project'.[113] The Tribunal has considered documentary evidence from a former employer, but no meaningful claim is advanced about business impacts following the Applicant's imprisonment or that might follow a non-revocation decision. It follows that neutral weight is placed on this consideration.

Decision-makers must consider the extent of any impediments that the non-citizen may face if removed from Australia to their home country, in establishing themselves and maintaining basic living standards (in the context of what is generally available to other citizens of that country), taking into account:

a) the non-citizen's age and health;

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

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

1. The Applicant was born and raised in New Zealand and lived there until 28 years of age. He did not advance any language or cultural barriers. He also responded 'No - NA' in revocation submissions to the question: 'Are there any other problems you would face if you have to return to your country of citizenship?'[114] During oral testimony he said there were no language or cultural difficulties confronting him if returned, but stated that New Zealand has changed a lot during the last 11 years. He felt he would 'struggle' in re-establishing himself, which would cause stress and distress. The Applicant said he has no positive influences or networks in New Zealand and did not believe he could 'get rehab support'. He did not tender evidence in support of the latter claim.
2. Although he does not want Ms Ririnui to give up everything in Australia to accompany him, the Applicant thought she would do so initially to assist his resettlement. Ms Ririnui stated she would not do so in her oral evidence. The Applicant believes his former partner and children will travel to visit him in New Zealand but infrequently.
3. The Applicant stated he does not know who his father is, and his mother is deceased.[115] He claims to have a sister living in New Zealand[116] but did not refer to her in oral testimony as a potential source of support.
4. The Applicant stated in revocation submissions he does not have any diagnosed medical or psychological conditions and is not receiving treatment or taking medications.[117] He is also recorded as telling custodial staff there are no medical conditions restricting his work placement.[118] He did not raise any current medical or other conditions during the hearing.

1. There is no evidence the Applicant could not access housing or other support available to New Zealand citizens if required. The Tribunal also notes there is reintegrative support for offenders returning to New Zealand from a period of custody overseas.[119] The Applicant may also be able to access some emotional or practical support from his sister in New Zealand, although there is no evidence about this, and no weight is placed on the possibility.
2. The Tribunal is not satisfied the Applicant is confronted by substantial impediments in re-establishing himself in New Zealand and maintaining basic living standards in the context of what is generally available to other citizens. There is likely to be a difficult period of transition if he is repatriated. This would likely cause him additional emotional distress due to separation from Ms Ririnui and his children in Australia. That said, he has a solid work history, advanced skills as an arborist, and completed a range of development and vocational courses in custody that may be of assistance. On the best reading of the evidence, this consideration carries no more than moderate weight favouring revocation.

1. Because of the combined effects of ss 501(6)(a) and 501(7)(c) of the Act, the Applicant does not pass the character test. In determining whether there is 'another reason' why the visa cancellation should be revoked, the Tribunal has applied the Direction to the specific circumstances of his case. The Tribunal has afforded 'Protection of the Australian community' greater weight than the other primary considerations.
2. The totality of the Applicant's offending is very serious. His residence in Australia since 2013 is contextualised by persistent alcohol abuse and increasingly serious crimes. He constitutes at least a moderate risk of reoffending and causing significant harm to another road user or pedestrian. The nature of harm from such conduct falls into a category where any risk of repeat is unacceptable. Having regard for the norm described as the expectations of the Australian community, little tolerance would be extended to him, and he should expect to forfeit the privilege of remaining in Australia.
3. The Tribunal accepts that a non-revocation decision would have negative emotional, practical, and perhaps financial effects on Ms Ririnui, his former partner, and their children. The Tribunal also accepts Ms Ririnui does not intend accompanying the Applicant to New Zealand, which would be a difficult but ultimately personal choice. The Applicant's prosocial friends would likely feel saddened or disappointed by a non-revocation decision.
4. The interests of the Applicant's two biological children are given greatest weight in this case. That said, his former partner has played the primary parental role since they separated. The Applicant has not made any financial contribution to the children since imprisonment in July 2023 and his relationship with them has been contextualised by a long period of absence and limited meaningful contact. If the Applicant can overcome his problem with alcohol, undertake the treatment recommended by Ms Jones, and not commit further offences, there is scope for him to be a much more positive influence in their lives.
5. The Tribunal is not satisfied the Applicant is confronted by substantial impediments in re-establishing himself in New Zealand and maintaining basic living standards in the context of what is generally available to other citizens. There is likely to be a difficult period of transition if he is repatriated, which may cause emotional distress due to separation from his main sources of support in Australia. That said, he has a solid work history and vocational skills to rely upon.
6. Having weighed all relevant considerations individually and cumulatively, the Tribunal finds there is not another reason why the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant's visa should be revoked. That is because the two primary considerations favouring non‑revocation considerably outweigh the combined weight to be given to the countervailing primary and other considerations.

1. It follows that the Tribunal affirms the reviewable decision.

I certify that the preceding one hundred and nine (109) paragraphs are a true copy of the written reasons for the decision herein of Senior Member A. Nikolic

................[sgd]........................................................

[17] Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth), ss 49-50.

[18] Plaintiff M1/2021 v Minister for Home Affairs [2022] HCA 27; (2022) 275 CLR 582, [22], [25], [27], [36] (Kiefel CJ, Keane, Gordon, and Steward JJ).

[19] Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s 499(2A); CGX20 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2021] FCAFC 69; (2021) 284 FCR 416, 417-8 [4] (Rares, O'Callaghan and Jackson JJ); Nathanson v Minister for Home Affairs [2022] HCA 26; (2022) 276 CLR 80, 540 [4]; Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs (Cth), Direction No. 110: Visa refusal and cancellation under section 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under section 501CA (commenced 21 June 2024) ('The Direction').

[20] BOE21 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2022] FCAFC 99, [22], citing with approval Matthews v Minister for Home Affairs [2020] FCAFC 146, [45].

[21] CRNL v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FCAFC 138, [28], [37]-[38] (Colvin, Stewart and Jackson JJ); Nguyen v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2024] FCAFC 160, [23] (Perram, Colvin and Abraham JJ); Singh v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs (2023) FCR 582, 587 [23] (Mortimer J, as her Honour then was); Suleiman v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 594; (2018) 74 AAR 545, 551 [23], 522 [28] (Colvin J); Jagroop v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCAFC 48; (2016) 241 FCR 461, 473 [57].

[22] A SFIC is routinely lodged by parties during the pre-hearing phase. It is comparable to a pleadings document in a judicial proceeding and serves to identify and narrow the issues in dispute. It also helps ensure both sides are aware of each other's case.

[40] Queensland Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 328A(4).

[54] WKBF v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2024] FCA 465.

[55] NZYQ v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] HCA 37; Leota v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2020] FCA 1120; DBR16 v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2018] FCCA 1181.

[56] Jorge Ivan Peralta Montes v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2024] AATA 3050; CHCY v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2024] AATA 334.

[57] CTK17 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2020] FCA 1211, [90] (Kerr J); see also Murphy v Minister for Home Affairs [2018] FCA 1924, [37] (Mortimer J).

[58] (1997) 191 CLR 559, 574 ('Guo').

[76] The LSI-R methodology is based on an internationally validated actuarial tool to assess an offender's recidivism risk and identify their criminogenic needs: see Don Andrews and James Bonta_, The Level of Service Inventory-Revised_ (Multi-Health Systems, Inc., 1995).

[79] The Direction, cl 8.1.2(2)(b)(ii).

[85] Exhibit R1, 108-9 [33], 161-2 [92].

[86] Ibid 85-92; Exhibit R2, 200-9; Exhibits A3 to A7.

[92] [2023] FCA 436.

[95] Exhibit R1, 7, 54; Exhibit R2, 171.

[97] Tohi v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2021] FCAFC 125; (2021) 285 FCR 187, 240 [180], citing Spruill v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2012] FCA 1401; 2012) 135 ALD 45, [18]-[19]; RGCZ v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (2022) 295 FCR 365, 376 [44].

[98] Ismail v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2024] HCA 2 ('Ismail'), [23]; Uelese v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2015) 256 CLR 203, 221 [61].

[105] (2019) 272 FCR 454, 471-2 [66] (Charlesworth J), 476 [91] (Stewart J).

[106] Ibid 473 [75]-[76] (Charlesworth J).

[107] FYBR v Minister for Home Affairs and Anor [2020] HCA Trans 56.

[109] Respondent's SFIC, 9 [68]-[72].

[119] Returning Offenders (Management and Information) Act 2015 (NZ).