1. Based on the applicant's oral and written evidence,[13] he was born in Tonga in 1975 and has lived in Australia for about 33 years. He arrived in Australia by boat as a 17-year-old stowaway after deciding to seek a new future outside his country. The applicant's father passed away when the applicant was around seven years old and his mother passed away in 2018.
2. He has two brothers and a sister residing in Tonga. He has a brother and a sister who live in Australia, and another sister who lives in New Zealand. He has a large number of nieces and nephews who live in Australia, as well as an aunt and a sister-in-law.
3. After arriving in Australia, the applicant did seasonal work for several years, living between Sydney and regional areas, and then worked in recycling. For the last 15 years, up to his incarceration in June 2024, he worked in the excavation industry.
4. In 1999, he married his wife, R, who is an Australian citizen. They were married for 22 years and separated (but are not legally divorced) in 2021. They have three children, namely, W, aged 20, J, aged 18; and A, aged 16. The two older children have been diagnosed with neurodevelopmental conditions and all three are struggling in different ways. The applicant and his wife continued to coparent their children amicably after separation and the applicant continued to provide them with financial and practical support. After the separation, the applicant experienced a range of negative emotions and found it difficult to cope. He had periods of abusing alcohol and gambling.
5. Soon after the separation, the applicant met his most recent former partner. Their relationship lasted for approximately two years. Their relationship broke down in 2024, and the applicant was convicted of the offences listed above. He has been in custody and then immigration detention since 16 June 2024.
6. R has been diagnosed with some very serious health issues. The applicant and his family are long-term members of a Christian congregation.

1. There is no evidence to suggest the applicant suffers from any physical health issues.
2. The applicant has given evidence about his mental health challenges which is discussed below. There are also two psychologist's reports before me about the applicant's mental health. One report was produced by Ms Kerry Watson, Registered Psychologist, on 21 April 2025 for the purpose of providing a report to the Local Court in relation to the applicant's sentencing in 2025.[14] The second report is a psychological assessment by Mr Sam Albassit, Psychologist, which was obtained by the applicant in support of his application. Mr Albassit's report is dated 18 January 2026[15] and he provided a follow up letter dated 3 February 2026.[16]
3. There is no suggestion that the applicant's mental health issues impacted his capacity to give evidence in the hearing or the quality of his evidence.

1. The Tribunal heard oral evidence from the applicant, his ex-wife, R, and his son, J, in person, and from Mr Albassit by video. An interpreter in the English and Tongan languages was present in the hearing and assisted the applicant as needed. I found the evidence given by the applicant and the other witnesses in the hearing to be unembellished and credible.
2. I am of the view that the applicant understood the nature of the proceedings and he was able to participate in a meaningful way by giving evidence and responding to questions on relevant matters.

1. Section 501 of the Act deals with decisions to cancel a visa on character grounds.
2. Relevantly to this case, s 501(3A) of the Act provides that the Minister must cancel a visa that has been granted to a person if, among other things:

(a) the person does not pass the character test because of a substantial criminal record; 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 set out in s 501(6). For the purposes of the character test, a person has a substantial criminal record in the circumstances set out in s 501(7) of the Act. These circumstances include that the person has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more: s 501(7)(c).
2. Section 501CA relates to the revocation of a decision of the Minister under subsection 501(3A) to cancel a visa of a person serving a sentence of imprisonment. In accordance with s 501CA(3), as soon as practicable after making the decision under s 501(3A), the Minister must give the person whose visa was cancelled written notice setting out the decision and the particulars of the relevant information that was the reason or part of the reason for making the decision. The Minister must also invite the person to make representations to the Minister about the revocation of the decision.
3. A person whose visa has been cancelled under s 501(3A) can seek revocation of that cancellation under 501CA(4) of the Act. This provides that:

(4) The Minister may revoke the original decision if:

(a) the person makes representations in accordance with the invitation; and

(i) that the person passes the character test (as defined by section 501); or

(ii) that there is another reason why the original decision should be revoked.

1. On 18 June 2025,[17] the applicant made the representations required by subs 501CA(4)(a) when he sought revocation of the mandatory cancellation of the visa.
2. An application to review a decision made under s 501CA(4) not to revoke the cancellation of a visa may be made to the Tribunal under s 500(1)(ba).

1. Under s 499(1) of the Act, the Minister may give written directions to a person or body having functions or power under the Act, and a person or body must comply with any direction given by the Minster (s 499(2A)).
2. On 7 June 2024, the Minister issued Direction 110, Visa refusal and cancellation under s 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under section 501CA ('the Direction'). It is expressed to apply to the Administrative Review Tribunal in making a decision under s 501 or s 501CA of the Act, and the Tribunal must comply with the Direction.
3. The purpose of the Direction is to guide decision-makers in performing functions or exercising powers under s 501 and s 501CA of the Act.
4. Clause 5.2 of the Direction sets out principles to provide 'the framework within which decision-makers should approach their task of deciding whether to refuse or cancel a non-citizen's visa under s 501, or whether to revoke a mandatory cancellation under s 501CA.' These are:

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

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

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

(4) The Australian community expects that the Australian Government can and should refuse entry to non-citizens, or cancel their visas, if they engaged in conduct, in Australia or elsewhere, that raises serious character concerns. This expectation of the Australian community applies regardless of whether the non-citizen poses a 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 measurable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community.[1]

1. Informed by these principles, the Tribunal must take into account the relevant primary and other considerations set out in clauses 8 and 9 of the Direction.
2. Paragraph 7.1 states that in applying the considerations, information and evidence from authoritative sources should be given appropriate weight. Paragraph 7.2 states that the primary consideration at 8.1 (protection of the Australian community) is generally to be given greater weight than other primary considerations. It also states that primary considerations should generally be given greater weight than other considerations.
3. The Primary considerations set out in paragraph 8 of the Direction, which the Tribunal must take into account, 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;

1. The Other considerations the Tribunal must take into account are (but are not limited to):

1. As set out above, the applicant has been convicted of Assault occasioning actual bodily harm (DV)-T2; Stalk/intimidate intend fear physical etc harm (domestic)-T2; Intentionally choke etc person without consent (DV)-T1. He was given an aggregate sentence of 20 months' imprisonment with a non-parole period of 12 months.[18]
2. I find that the applicant has a substantial criminal record within the meaning of s 501(7)(c) of the Act and does not pass the character test under s 501(6)(a). The applicant concedes this is the case.[19]
3. As the applicant does not meet the character test, the remaining issue is whether there is another reason why the original decision to cancel the applicant's visa should be revoked (s 501CA(4)(b)(ii)), taking into account considerations in Direction 110 and any other relevant considerations.

IS THERE ANOTHER REASON TO REVOKE THE DECISION TO CANCEL THE APPLICANT'S VISA?

The protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct

1. Paragraph 8.1(1) of the Direction requires me to keep in mind that the safety of the Australian community is the highest priority of the Australian Government and that the Government is committed to protecting the Australian community from harm as a result of criminal activity or other serious conduct by non-citizens. I am also directed to 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. Paragraph 8.1(2) of the Direction states that I should also consider

(a) the nature and seriousness of the non-citizen's conduct to date; and

(b) the risk to the Australian community, should the non-citizen commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct.

1. Paragraph 8.1.1 of the Direction sets out matters I must have regard to when examining the nature and seriousness of the applicant's criminal offending or other conduct to date.
2. I must have regard to the fact that violent crimes, crimes of a violent nature against women, regardless of the sentence imposed, and acts of family violence, regardless of whether there is a conviction for an offence or a sentence imposed, are viewed very seriously by the Australian Government and the Australian community.
3. As discussed below, the applicant has been convicted of crimes which fall into these descriptions.
4. In his written submissions,[20] the applicant accepts that the offences which took place on 15 June 2024 constitute serious criminal conduct involving family violence and that family violence is viewed very seriously under the Direction. In the hearing, counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant's offending in 2024 should be viewed as serious and agreed that it falls within the definition of family violence. The respondent, in its written and oral submissions, says that the applicant's offending in 2024 should be regarded as very serious.[21]

1. On 23 April 2025, the applicant was convicted in the Local Court of NSW at Burwood of Assault occasioning actual bodily harm (DV)-T2; Stalk/intimidate intend fear physical etc harm (domestic)-T2; Intentionally choke etc person without consent (DV)-T1.[22] In summary, the Statement of Agreed Facts[23] sets out that what happened is:
   • The applicant and his former partner (referred to in these reasons as 'B') commenced an intimate relationship in 2022 and moved in together, along with B's daughter.
   • In May 2024, B started working as a masseuse and the applicant became concerned that she was performing sex work as well as massage. B denied this and it led to arguments between them.
   • On 15 June 2024, the applicant picked B up from work and asked her whether she was only giving people massages or something else. B did not respond because she did not want an argument. When they arrived home, the applicant checked her phone.
   • The applicant found the details of a client with whom B had exchanged messages and threatened to call that person. The applicant accused B of lying to him.
   • Over the next 30 to 40 minutes, the applicant verbally and physically abused, and intimidated B. He demanded she tell him whether she was having sex with other men. He hit her multiple times in the head, using his hand, fist or phone. He punched her face and body and grabbed her hair and dragged her. He pushed her onto the bed and pinned her down with his hands, demanding she tell him the truth. He used his hand to grab around her neck and tightened his grip, causing her fear and pain.
   • While B was on the bed, the applicant ripped off B's pants and underpants while still yelling at her to tell the truth. He caused B injuries to her legs. The applicant called a contact in B's phone and asked them 'did you fuck my wife?'. The applicant squirted massage oil onto B while berating her and asking her whether this is how she does her massage to the men. She denied cheating on him.
2. The Statement of Agreed Facts says B was examined by a doctor later that night who observed the following injuries:[24]
   • redness to the front of her neck with some swelling and tenderness;
   • a wound to the front of her left thigh;
   • a wound to the front of her right thigh;
   • a wound to the back of her left thigh;
   • swelling to her left cheek.
3. Prior to sentencing, a Sentencing Assessment Report dated 16 April 2025[25] and a psychological assessment report dated 21 April 2025[26] were prepared for the Court. The Magistrate took these documents into account in the sentencing.
4. In the course of sentencing, in relation to the objective seriousness of the offending, the Magistrate said:

In regard to sequence 1 which was the actual bodily harm the violence involved a number of discrete assaults upon a female victim who was unable to otherwise defend herself in her own home. In regard to sequence 1 I have the photographs of her face and the scratches on her legs. I have taken into account and made reference to during this judgment to the law in relation to domestic violence offences. I note that the offender in this matter, I find as a fact in this matter beyond a reasonable doubt that the intention of the offender was to control communications and the behaviour of the victim. I find that the objective seriousness for sequence 1 is at least the middle range. I find that the objective seriousness for the count relating to the choking is below the middle range. I find the objective seriousness for the intimidation to be approaching the middle range taking into account the abuse and threatening nature of the offender's behaviour towards her was over a period of 30 to 40 minutes.

5. In terms of the applicant's culpability, the Magistrate stated:

...The psychiatrist says that the offender falls within DSM 5 of major depressive disorder and anxious distress. She says that that condition is currently severe, and I am satisfied the severity is in some ways if not substantially connected to his current custodial circumstances. > > At para 30 of her report the psychologist opines or says that the offender was suffering from an acute distortion of his thoughts at the time of the offences and it served to compromise his judgment and strength. > > I have carefully considered the contents of the psychological report. I find based on the concepts set out in the decision of De LA Rosa that I am not satisfied the condition contributed to the offending in a material way but I make a finding that his condition and his current severe condition has the ability to make his custodial experience more onerous.

6. In terms of the sentence to be imposed, the Magistrate stated:

Synthesising all those matters some aggravate, some mitigate, there are no golden rules. Today I must evaluate both the objective seriousness of what was done and all of the material put forward on behalf of the offender. I must formulate a sentence which appropriately and justly punishes him for his offence but recognises that there are many competing purposes of sentencing. > > ... > > I am satisfied having considered all possible alternatives that there is no other penalty other than imprisonment on all charges the s 5 threshold has been crossed. I propose dealing with the offender on these charges by way of an aggregate sentence pursuant to s 53A. Having applied the discount for the value of the plea, considered the objective seriousness as well as the aggravating and mitigating factors and the principle of totality I have determined the indicative sentences as follows, assault occasioning actual bodily harm 16 months imprisonment, choke eight months imprisonment, intimidation three months imprisonment. > > THERE WILL BE AN AGGREGATE SENTENCE OF 20 MONTHS. THERE WILL BE A NON-PAROLE PERIOD OF TWELVE MONTHS. > > I place on the record for the purpose of these reasons I find the offender's conduct was controlling, manipulating, demeaning, shameful, cowardly and violent. The sentence will appropriately denounce his behaviour.

7. In the hearing, the applicant confirmed that he accepted the Statement of Agreed Facts about what occurred on 15 June 2024.[27] The applicant also confirmed that the content of his written statement[28] was correct. In his written statement, he says

34. Prior to the breakdown of my relationship with my last partner, I became increasingly paranoid about her behaviour, and the work she was carrying out. > > 35. I suspected that she was being unfaithful during our relationship. I now acknowledge that I became increasingly depressed and anxious which lead me to believe that she was unfaithful and that she was lying to me. > > 36. I discovered messages on her phone that may have indicated that she was unfaithful, these messages caused significant overwhelm and anxiety for me. This coupled with the ongoing stressors that I was already experiencing I found it hard to trust, was overwhelmed with anger and resentment which lead to my offending behaviour. > > 37. I was subsequently charged and convicted for domestic violences offence and was sentenced to a 20-month imprisonment.

1. As noted above, the applicant also has the following additional convictions which he acknowledges:[29]
   • In 1998 the applicant was convicted of assault occasioning actual bodily harm (AOABH) and fined $600.[30]
   • In 1997 the applicant was convicted of malic damage and fined $300, ordered to pay compensation of $150 and court costs of $51.[31]
2. In the hearing, the applicant gave evidence that he could not remember the circumstances of the malicious damage conviction. There is no information before me about the details of this conviction. He said he remembered the AOABH and that he hit someone, but he could not remember the details. He said that at the time he was 'young and silly.' The applicant was reminded by the respondent of the contents of a statement by a police sergeant who followed up on the incident at the time and spoke to the applicant who alleged the person he hit had called him a 'black cunt'.[32] The applicant agreed in the hearing that he hit the other person and said he was not looking to make an excuse for that.
3. The applicant's counsel submitted that these two offences took place a long time ago, should be considered separate and distinct from the 2024 offending, that there was no offending in between, there is no indication of a trend of increasing seriousness and the applicant did not try to explain away his offending. The applicant's counsel also drew attention to the fact that the prosecutor in the Local Court proceedings in 2024 referred to those past offences from over 20 years ago as 'quite minor.' The respondent submitted that the applicant accepted he hit someone in 1998 with whom he was having issues, and while the offending in 2024 should be regarded as much more serious, it shows the applicant has a history of violent offending.

1. As set out above, the applicant has been convicted of crimes of a violent nature against a woman in 2024, and a violent crime in 1998. The Direction states that these types of crimes are viewed very seriously by the Australian Government and Australian community. The applicant has submitted that his conduct should be regarded as serious, and the respondent has submitted that the applicant's conduct should be viewed very seriously. The applicant has accepted the content of the Statement of Agreed Facts which is summarised above and describes what happened on 15 June 2024. The Magistrate referred in their sentencing remarks to the applicant the 'female victim who was unable to otherwise defend herself in her own home', the 'intention of the offender was to control communications and the behaviour of the victim', 'intimidation', 'the abuse and threatening nature of the offender's behaviour', and that the applicant's conduct was 'controlling, manipulating, demeaning, shameful, cowardly and violent.' While I give little weight to the applicant's offending in 1998, and no weight to the 1997 conviction given the lack of information, for the purposes of this assessment, based on paragraph 8.1.1(1)(a)(i) and (ii), I conclude that the applicant's offending described above is very serious.
2. The applicant concedes that his conduct in 2024 amounts to family violence[33] and the respondent also submits that the conduct amounts to family violence.[34] I have considered whether the applicant's convictions for Assault occasioning actual bodily harm (DV)-T2; Stalk/intimidate intend fear physical etc harm (domestic)-T2; Intentionally choke etc person without consent (DV)-T1 involved acts of family violence. In considering this, I have taken into account the decision in MVPF v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship.[35] 'Family violence' is defined in paragraph 4 of the Direction as 'violent, threatening or other behaviour by a person that coerces or controls a member of the person's family (the family member), or causes the family member to be fearful.' The definition goes on to give examples of behaviour that may constitute family violence. The definition of 'member of the person's family' includes a person who has, or has had, an intimate personal relationship with the relevant person.
3. In determining whether the incidents between the applicant and the family member constituted 'family violence', I am required to consider whether those incidents involved violent, threatening or other behaviour by the applicant that coerced or controlled the family member or caused the family member to be fearful.
4. In respect of the convictions for the offences committed by the applicant in 2024, and based on the Statement of Agreed Facts and the applicant's own evidence in his written statement,[36] I find that what took place on 15 June 2024 involved violent and threatening behaviour by the applicant towards his partner at the time, B. I also find that the applicant's behaviour caused B to be fearful. While there is no direct evidence from B about her fear, I make this finding by inference from the surrounding facts and circumstances.[37] In his written statement, the applicant agrees that he was angry, he assaulted B and the police were called.[38] The applicant's counsel submitted in the hearing that I could infer that the applicant's conduct would have caused B fear and physical pain. The Statement of Agreed Facts refers to B feeling afraid and describes actions of the applicant which I infer made B feel fearful, such as her being assaulted, intimidated, pinned to the bed and grabbed around the neck.
5. The definition in paragraph 4 of 'member of the person's family' (or 'family member') for the purposes of the definition of family violence includes a person who has, or has had, an intimate personal relationship with the relevant person (in this case, the applicant). The evidence is that the applicant was in an intimate personal relationship with B at the time of his offending in 2024. In the circumstances, I find that at the time of the 2024 offending, B was a member of the applicant's family and therefore, the applicant's offending involved family violence towards B.
6. I find that the applicant engaged in family violence on 15 June 2024 and based on paragraph 8.1.1(1)(a)(iii), I conclude that the applicant's offending is very serious.
7. The applicant was sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment of 20 months, with a non-parole period of 12 months. The Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) states that a court must not sentence an offender to imprisonment unless it is satisfied, having considered all possible alternatives, that no penalty other than imprisonment is appropriate.[39] Custodial sentences are regarded as a measure of last resort within the sentencing hierarchy. The sentence imposed on the applicant on 23 April 2025 is indicative of the objective seriousness of his offending (paragraph 8.1.1(1)(c)).
8. There is no direct evidence from the victims of the applicant's offending about the impact of his offending on them. Neither the applicant nor the respondent made direct submissions about this. In these circumstances, I have not made findings about paragraph 8.1.1(1)(d).
9. In terms of the frequency of the applicant's offending, he was convicted of two offences in 1997 and 1998, and then nothing further until his conviction in 2025 for the 2024 offending. The applicant submits that the 2024 offending occurred during a confined period and does not represent a pattern of conduct by the applicant, notes the substantial gap of around 24 years between the offending in 1998 and in 2024, and that the prosecutor in 2025 described the early offending as 'minor'.[40] In the hearing, counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant should not be regarded as a frequent offender, the prior offending in or around 1998 should be regarded as separate and distinct from the 2024 offending, and there is no indication of a trend of increasing seriousness. In the hearing, the respondent submitted that while there is a long gap between the 1998 and 2024 offending, and the 2024 offending was much more serious, the facts show a history of violent offending. For completeness, I did not understand the respondent to be submitting that the 2024 offending should be regarded on its own as frequent offending or a pattern of offending because the applicant was convicted of three offences in respect of his conduct that took place over a short period of time of 30 or 40 minutes on 15 June 2024. I find that the applicant's offending is not frequent, given he offended in or around 1998 and not again until 2024. While both the 1998 and 2024 offending involved violence, I consider the offending to be sufficiently different and sufficiently separate in time that it does not indicate a pattern or trend in the applicant's behaviour, or pattern or trend of increasing seriousness in the applicant's offending over time (paragraph 8.1.1(1)(e)). Even though the applicant has offended more than once, I also do not consider that he has engaged in what could be considered 'repeated offending' given my findings above (paragraph 8.1.1(1)(f)). There is no suggestion that the applicant has offended again since 15 June 2024.
10. There is no suggestion that the applicant has provided false or misleading information to the Department, including by not disclosing prior criminal offending. Further, there is no evidence before me to indicate that the applicant has re-offended after a formal warning about the consequences of his further offending in terms of his migration status or that there are offences committed in another country. Therefore, paragraphs 8.1.1(1)(g), (h) and (i) are not relevant.
11. In light of the matters set out above, overall, and given the nature of the applicant's offending on 15 June 2024 and the sentence imposed, having considered the factors in paragraph 8.1.1, I consider his offending should be regarded as very serious.

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

1. In considering the need to protect the Australian community from harm, I must 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.[41]
2. Pursuant to paragraph 8.1.2(2), in assessing the risk to the Australian community, I 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. 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.
2. There is no statutory constraint on the way that risk is assessed by the decision-maker other than that there must be a rational and probative basis for the assessment.[42]
3. In order to determine the risk to the Australian community should the applicant engage in further criminal or other serious conduct, the Tribunal must consider the nature of the harm to individuals, or the Australian community should the Applicant reoffend: paragraph 8.1.2(2)(a).
4. The applicant has engaged in violent crime, crimes of a violent nature against a woman and family violence. In the hearing, counsel for the applicant conceded that if the applicant were to engage in the same conduct again, then the harm to individuals and the Australian community would be serious. The respondent also submitted that if the applicant were to reoffend in a similar way, it could cause significant physical and psychological harm to individuals and the Australian community.
5. I consider that if the applicant were to engage in further criminal or other serious conduct, such as he has done in the past, the harm to individuals in the Australian community would be very serious and it could cause serious physical and psychological harm to individuals or the Australian community, as well as resulting in further public expenditure to deal with the applicant's conduct.
6. In considering the likelihood of the applicant engaging in further criminal or other serious conduct, I have considered the information and evidence on the risk of the applicant reoffending, and the evidence of rehabilitation achieved by the time of the decision. I note that the applicant has not spent time in the community since his most recent offence as he was taken into custody shortly after the offending on 15 June 2024.
7. In essence, the applicant submits that his risk of reoffending is low. The respondent submits that the applicant's risk of reoffending is moderate to low.
8. In the applicant's written submissions about assessing future risk of reoffending, he submits that I should find that his offending in June 2024 does not represent a pattern of conduct, he has no previous convictions for family violence, there was no family violence during his 22-year marriage to R, and he has demonstrated remorse and insight into his offending. The submissions go on to refer to the report of Mr Albassit and his evidence about future risk. Mr Albassit's report is discussed in detail below. In terms of rehabilitation, it is submitted that the applicant has already taken steps to rehabilitate, including:
   • Sustained abstinence from alcohol;
   • Cessation of gambling;
   • Engagement with counselling and support services while in prison and detention;
   • Engaging with Mr Albassit and recommended courses;
   • Committing to remaining under the supervision of Mr Albassit;
   • Developed a structured post-release plan including stable accommodation with his sister, family supervision and support via his sister and her family, committing to the care and assistance of his children and former spouse, R, accepting that the relationship with B is over, committing to adhering to probation and parole directions, continuing with treatment by, and as directed by, Mr Albassit, and arranging employment.
9. It is submitted that the applicant's likelihood of reoffending is low and any residual risk is capable of being managed in the community.
10. The respondent submits in its SOFIC that the risk of the applicant offending in the future remains real and tangible because:
    • the Sentencing assessment report dated 16 April 2025 assesses the applicant's risk of reoffending as Medium-Low;[43]
    • the applicant's statement that he is remorseful is insufficient when he has not identified the reasons he turned to serious violence towards B, and it is unclear how the applicant's mental health situation and alcohol abuse is causative of the serious violence;
    • even if the Tribunal accepts the applicant's mental health situation and alcohol use had a material effect on his conduct, the Tribunal ought to have little confidence that the applicant will not engage in further similar violent conduct if he experiences depression, anxiety, mistrust or other life stressors in the future;
    • the applicant has not spent any time in the community since his offending so he has not been able to demonstrate that he will not reoffend or test the effectiveness of his rehabilitation;
    • the applicant's sister has said in her statement[44] that she will ensure the applicant returns to work and complies with parole and other obligations, but she has not said how she will do this and the applicant was working at the time of his offending, and that did not prevent his violent conduct.
11. The Sentencing assessment report dated 16 April 2025[45] was prepared for the applicant's sentencing on 23 April 2025. The report discusses the applicant's background, in which the applicant confirmed his sister would offer him ongoing support and stable accommodation, and he claimed his children provide motivation for him to do better. The report examines factors related to the applicant's offending and refers to the applicant's limited criminal history. It refers to his anger at the time of offending and acting out of jealousy, that he had withheld information from his partner about his alcohol use and gambling, and that he referred to the police as having no business interfering with his relationship.
12. The Sentencing assessment report refers to the applicant's past problematic use of alcohol, his gambling, his reported abstinence from alcohol in custody and his motivation to continue this abstinence within the community. The report refers to this being the applicant's first domestic violence offence, his attribution of his behaviour to his own insecurities, his remorse towards the victim and his willingness to engage in intervention focussed on addressing his behaviour. The report notes that the applicant expressed disappointment in himself for the damage he caused to the victim and his family, his wish to maintain respectful relationships, his willingness to engage with interventions to assist in addressing his behaviour and his willingness to undertake community service work. The risk assessment in the report assessed the applicant as Medium-Low risk of reoffending and identified abstaining from alcohol as being important in managing risk.
13. The expert psychologist report prepared by Ms Watson[46] for the purpose of the applicant's sentencing by the Court refers to the applicant's past problems with alcohol, that he had started attending Alcoholics Anonymous following the breakdown of his marriage in 2021 and was sober until sometime in 2023 when he began drinking again regularly and also engaged in gambling around that time. Ms Watson refers to the applicant reflecting that he developed depression and anxiety around the time of the birth of his first child, which progressed and persisted over time. Ms Watson refers to the applicant saying his depressive and anxiety symptomatology was severe from 2023, particularly due to concerns relating to his two eldest children and was exacerbated by B's commencement of employment in a massage parlour. He said his increasing anxiety and paranoia led to a declined ability to regulate his emotions and control his increasingly paranoid thoughts. The applicant also referred to his imprisonment negatively impacting his mental health, his feelings of self-condemnation and shame for his offending, and the emotional and physical harm, distress, fear and trauma he had caused to B. He expressed guilt and worry about his ability to provide care and assistance, both financial and practical, to R and his children and a sense of personal failure in this regard. Ms Watson refers to the applicant's persistent worry about the wellbeing of his children, his feelings of failure as a parent and to his former partners (R and B), his expressions of remorse and regret for his conduct and his understanding of its impact on B. Ms Watson states that:[47]

Review of [the applicant's] account of his mental health state throughout the 12 months preceding his offending conduct is indicative of a progressive exacerbation of his chronic depressive illness that has contributed to a relapse of sobriety and the commencement of an increasing gambling habit....[further exacerbated by] his partner's commencement of employment, along with the development of suspicious and paranoid thought content....I am of the opinion that [the applicant's] mental health condition, and particularly the acute distortion in his thought content, was relevant and severe at the commission of his offending conduct and has likely served to compromise his judgement and restraint; reduce his inhibitions; and obscure his logical thinking. > > [The applicant] has accurately identified that his offending conduct is unacceptable and serious, and he has accurately identified the personal and legal ramifications of such conduct. He is seemingly genuinely remorseful and contrite. I am of the opinion that [the applicant's] prospects for rehabilitation are good, and will be improved further with the implementation of therapeutic intervention and support.

15. The applicant has also provided an expert psychological assessment dated 18 January 2026 by Mr Sam Albassit, Psychologist, which was undertaken following a consultation with the applicant on 22 December 2025.[48] Mr Albassit provided a follow up letter on progress dated 3 February 2026.[49]
16. In his report, Mr Albassit notes the applicant has no documented history of severe psychiatric illness and his primary psychological difficulties have been associated with maladaptive patterns of alcohol use, depression and anxiety which contributed significantly to his offending in June 2024.
17. Mr Albassit observes that the applicant presents with a longstanding pattern of depressive and anxiety-based symptomology that has developed over many years. He states that following the breakdown of the applicant's marriage and a subsequent intimate relationship, the applicant's psychological functioning deteriorated further and he experienced an escalation in anxiety and depressive symptoms, impaired emotional regulation, and increasing reliance on maladaptive coping strategies, including excessive alcohol consumption and gambling. Mr Albassit concludes that the applicant meets the diagnostic criteria for Persistent Depressive Disorder with features of Generalised Anxiety Disorder.
18. Mr Albassit refers to the applicant demonstrating meaningful insight into the psychological and situational factors contributing to his offending, being able to articulate the interaction between his mood and behaviour, and accepting responsibility for his actions and not minimising their seriousness or attributing blame to the victim (B). Mr Albassit states that the applicant expressed genuine remorse and acknowledged the harm caused, and appreciated the broader consequences of his behaviour for the victim, his children and his family. The applicant's expressions of remorse were consistent, reflective and were not suggestive of defensiveness or instrumental motivation. Mr Albassit refers to the rehabilitative and educational programs the applicant had undertaken at the time of the assessment and that the applicant demonstrated an ability to meaningfully reflect on the content of those programs and articulate how the skills and knowledge he gained were directly relevant to his previous behaviour, the context of his offending and his ongoing rehabilitation. Mr Albassit opines that:[50]

[The applicant's] risk of reoffending is assessed as low to moderate, contingent upon continued engagement with psychological treatment and sustained abstinence from alcohol and gambling, which he is currently receiving psychological therapy for on a fortnightly basis. Protective factors include demonstrated insight and remorse, cessation of substance use prior to incarceration, prior engagement in counselling, a stable employment history, strong emotional attachment to his children, and motivation to engage in ongoing treatment if required. > > [The applicant's] risk of reoffending is low to moderate and reflects the presence of identifiable and modifiable risk factors. From a clinical risk management perspective, this level of risk is not considered unacceptable. The factors contributing to risk have been directly addressed through cessation of alcohol and gambling, engagement in counselling and ongoing pharmacotherapy, development of insight, and demonstrated remorse. > > In the absence of evidence of entrenched antisocial traits, persistent violent behaviour, or cognitive impairment, and with ongoing engagement in appropriate psychological treatment, there is no clinical basis to conclude that [the applicant] poses an ongoing or unacceptable risk to the Australian community.

19. Mr Albassit states that the June 2024 offending represents a significant deviation from the applicant's longstanding pattern of lawful and prosocial behaviour, occurring in the context of psychological deterioration rather than reflecting his baseline character structure. Mr Albassit sets out a treatment plan for the applicant comprising psychological therapy, substance use relapse prevention, pharmacological management and risk management which Mr Albassit proposes to manage, coordinate and oversee.
20. In Mr Albassit's letter dated 3 February 2026,[51] he refers to the applicant having commenced psychological treatment with him and having engaged in the following interventions and rehabilitative programs:
    • ongoing psychological therapy with a focus on mood regulation, anxiety management, insight development and behavioural responsibility;
    • alcohol relapse prevention counselling, building on his prior cessation of alcohol use;
    • psychoeducation, addressing the interaction between mood symptoms, stress, interpersonal functioning and offending behaviour;
    • cognitive and emotional regulation strategies aimed at reducing maladaptive coping responses during periods of heightened distress.
21. Mr Albassit refers to the additional educational programs the applicant has undertaken through Universal Class (which are listed at paragraph 6 above) and that the applicant has engaged in treatment and rehabilitation in a willing, cooperative and motivated manner. He says the applicant has demonstrated insight into his psychological difficulties, accepted responsibility for his behaviour and shown a clear commitment to rehabilitation and ongoing treatment. Mr Albassit states that the applicant's participation is consistent with a genuine desire to maintain emotional stability and abstain from maladaptive coping strategies.
22. In the hearing, Mr Albassit confirmed that he has had three sessions with the applicant since providing the assessment report and he considers the applicant's treatment should last for no more than 12 months if they do it consistently. He confirmed that there are supplementary courses that he would like the applicant to take to continue his learning. Mr Albassit gave evidence that the applicant has shown good commitment to his rehabilitation and appears to want to better himself. He said that for the applicant, being clear of alcohol abuse has enabled him to see his situation more clearly and his initial progress is positive. Mr Albassit referred to the relapse prevention strategies he is working on with the applicant regarding alcohol consumption and helping him to develop new and appropriate coping strategies. In the context of attempting to clarify his statement in paragraph 35 of his report about the applicant's 'cessation of substance use prior to incarceration', Mr Albassit confirmed his understanding that the applicant was consuming alcohol at the time of his offending, and his previous period of abstinence had ceased by that time. He also explained why he was of the opinion that the targeted treatment the applicant is having now for his alcohol issues, including cognitive behavioural therapy and trigger warnings, is a much better treatment option than the type of support Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) can offer, which is what the applicant referred to having participated in for a time before he relapsed.
23. In terms of the applicant's offending in 2024, Mr Albassit confirmed the tendency of some people who find it difficult to regulate their emotions to lash out in physical violence, but he said that was not always the case. He confirmed that the applicant has a lot of regret about his behaviour and for letting R and his children down and his lack of ability to be there and provide for his family really upsets him. Mr Albassit also referred to the applicant expressing remorse and contrition for B and not being focussed on himself.
24. In terms of future risk, Mr Albassit confirmed and clarified his written opinion, which is that the risk of the applicant committing further offences in the future is low to moderate, but provided the applicant continues his rehabilitative treatment, his risk of reoffending is low. Mr Albassit confirmed that given the applicant had offended in the past, his risk of reoffending may be slightly higher than for an average member of the community, but he did not consider that this changed his overall assessment of the risk posed by the applicant or his reasons for that assessment.
25. In terms of prospects for rehabilitation, Mr Albassit confirmed that abstaining from alcohol was the most important, along with getting the applicant to speak about his emotions and feelings because he is a 'closed off man', and the techniques the applicant is learning are helping him to do that. Mr Albassit assessed the applicant's prospects for rehabilitation as good and confirmed he thinks the applicant will continue with his treatment. Mr Albassit said that he will make sure the applicant continues to engage with treatment and he considers the applicant's personality and level of engagement indicates he wants to do that.
26. In his written statement,[52] the applicant says that after his marriage with R broke down, he felt lost and started consuming alcohol, initially recreationally, but more frequently as his relationship with B progressed. As the stressors in his life increased, so did his alcohol consumption. He states that prior to his incarceration, he had received approximately 12 months of counselling through AA leading to the cessation of his alcohol use. He has pledged to himself that he will not drink alcohol or gamble again. In the hearing, the applicant gave evidence about his alcohol consumption. He confirmed that there had been a period from around 2022 when he had stopped drinking but a few months before the June 2024 offending, his depression and stress increased and he started drinking again. He said he was not drinking every day at that time, and said the reference in the Sentencing assessment report[53] to him drinking 12 to 24 beers was incorrect, but he agreed he had resumed drinking and was hiding that fact from B. He also agreed that at the time of the offending, he was angry and acted out of jealousy. The applicant confirmed that his relationship with B is over and he does not wish to pursue this relationship if his visa is reinstated.
27. In the hearing, the applicant gave evidence about the rehabilitation courses he has undertaken in prison and in immigration detention which was consistent with the contents of his written statement and the evidence of Mr Albassit. He referred to having completed The Prisoner's Journey program in prison[54], which is a Christian program, to help with his symptoms of depression and anxiety, and since being in immigration detention he has been voluntarily participating in Smart Recovery meetings[55] every Friday. He has attended three therapy sessions with Mr Albassit since his initial assessment, and he has undertaken three courses with Universal Class under the guidance of Mr Albassit, relating to Understanding Drug and Alcohol Abuse, Domestic Violence Awareness and Anger Management Techniques.[56]
28. The applicant gave evidence about how each of the courses he has undertaken, or is undertaking, are helping him and what he is learning, as well as his commitment to doing more. The applicant gave evidence about learning about coping with anger and how to face challenges and regulate his emotions in positive ways, which is giving him tools to address and maintain relationships when it comes to being angry. He referred to learning techniques such as taking a big breath and pausing first if you are angry before responding and how to plan moving forward to change your thinking. He spoke about his understanding that drugs and alcohol can cause a lot of damage, change your way of thinking and disrupt family relationships. He spoke about having learned a lot about this and the way it affects your mind and how you plan and organise things. In relation to domestic violence, the applicant spoke about understanding how abuse can affect the victim and the whole family, and he expressed his support for people who are courageous and try to stop this type of behaviour. When asked about having said in the Sentencing assessment report that the police had no business interfering in his relationship,[57] he said that he no longer agreed with that and the police do have a right to be involved. The applicant gave evidence that if his application is successful, he intends to continue his treatment with Mr Albassit and he said there are a lot of other programs he would like to engage in to achieve his goal and Mr Albassit has plans for this. The applicant gave evidence that he wants to continue to take these courses to better himself and for the sake of his children.
29. When asked about how he is better equipped today to deal with a situation like the one in which he found himself in June 2024, and why he would not react in the same way in the future, the applicant said he had definitely learned a lot. He said he is embarrassed and ashamed and he let his family and his community down. He said he has learned a huge lesson from what happened. In future, if he were in a challenging situation he would communicate much better and remove himself from situations by doing something like taking a walk and getting relief before returning to have a conversation. He said he understands the position he is in and what he did was terrible and he does not support it either. He said he never imagined he would find himself in this situation. He said the changes he has made are for himself and for everyone around him and if he is given the opportunity to remain in Australia, he would never do anything like this again and would never come before the Tribunal again. The applicant stated that what he did was not good and the impact of the separation from his family has been huge on him. He said he has missed out on so many things with his kids and he does not want that to happen again. His plan for the future is to be integrated back into the community, to go back to church with his children, to be with them and teach them not to follow in his footsteps.
30. In her written statements, R states very clearly that she and the applicant were together for more than two decades and he was never physically violent or verbally abusive towards her or their children and she was shocked at his offending, which was, from her perspective, totally out of character. She states that even in stressful times, the applicant didn't turn to drinking or other vices. She refers to him having a stable job waiting for him with his former employer, a strong community and a family who love and need him and who will support him.[58] She confirmed in the hearing that the contents of her written statement were correct. R also confirmed that the applicant's family, in particular his sister, are very supportive of the applicant and will continue to support him and look after him. I accept R's evidence about these matters.
31. In his written statement dated 19 January 2026,[59] R's father also confirms his awareness of the applicant's convictions and says R never complained to him of being abused by the applicant and he never witnessed the applicant being aggressive or violent at any time during or after their marriage. R's father says the applicant has shown remorse and expresses his support for the applicant and his wish for the applicant to be able to continue his life in Australia as an important part of their family. I accept this evidence.
32. In her written statement dated 19 January 2026, the applicant's sister, L, confirms that she is the applicant's older sister. She is a widow and lives with three of her grandchildren, next door to her son and his family. She is aware of the reasons the applicant was sentenced to prison and she supported him through the criminal proceedings. She considers his offending to be inconsistent with his character and she knows he is genuinely sorry for what he did and for what his former partner experienced. She states that if the applicant's visa is reinstated, he will live with her or her son in their home and they will support the applicant and ensure he receives all the support he needs, including returning to work, focussing on his children, R and her family, and that he complies with any parole conditions and the like. L did not give evidence in person and was not required for cross-examination by the respondent. I accept the evidence of the applicant's sister about the support she and her family are offering to provide the applicant in the future.
33. The applicant has provided a reference from his former employer stating that the applicant was a trusted, reliable, exemplary employee for the last 7 years who showed exceptional leadership, teamwork and problem solving abilities. In the hearing, the applicant and R independently confirmed that his former employer had told the applicant he would re-employ him if he were released.[60] The applicant said this was last confirmed this to him in December 2025. I accept this.
34. The applicant has also provided a letter of support dated 9 July 2025 from his church pastor, Reverend L. The Reverend says he understands the seriousness of the applicant's past circumstances but would like to highlight the positive contributions the applicant has made to the church community over many years and the support he has within that community. Reverend L says that he is very willing to mentor and support the applicant as he reintegrates into the community and he is confident that with the right guidance and encouragement, the applicant will continue to make positive contributions to society.[61] I accept the Reverend's evidence about the applicant's past positive involvement in the church community and the Reverend's offer of future support.
35. In the sentencing remarks in 2025, the Magistrate said the following about the applicant's contrition and prospects for rehabilitation:[62]

The offender has indicated in exhibit 3 the sentencing report contrition and remorse to his offending and insight into his offending and taken ownership of his behaviour rather than victim blaming attributing his behaviour to his own insecurities. > > ... > > I note exhibit 3 outlines a medium to low risk of reoffending. I note the report which is exhibit 3 makes it clear the offender has indicated a willingness and is amenable to engage with the rehabilitation process. Those matters are to his benefit and to his credit.

36. In the hearing, counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has acknowledged his wrongdoing and shown remorse and contrition from the earliest opportunity, as reflected in the Statement of Agreed Facts where he admitted to the police what he had done and that he was angry and frustrated at the time.[63] He also entered guilty pleas at the first opportunity for which he received the maximum 25% discount.[64] It was submitted that the applicant has continued to show genuine remorse and contrition since that time, as evidenced by the psychologists' reports of Ms Watson and Mr Albassit,[65] as well as the applicant's own evidence, and that of R, and that this honesty and insight augurs well for his rehabilitation and the risk assessment. Counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant was honest with the psychologists about his worsening mental health since his eldest child was born, and referred to Mr Albassit stating that applicant showed insight into factors that contributed to his offending behaviour, accepted responsibility for his actions, did not seek to blame the victim and has completed a number of courses.[66]
37. Counsel for the applicant referred to applicant's ability to speak in the hearing about what he had learned from the courses and the benefit he is deriving from them. He submitted that the treatment plan the applicant is undertaking with Mr Albassit, as referred to in Mr Albassit's update letter,[67] is treating the applicant's issues wholistically and the applicant has given evidence about his future intentions for treatment, as did Mr Albassit. It was submitted that in the circumstances, the applicant could not have done more in the available time to improve his prospects of rehabilitation and address his future risk of reoffending. It was submitted that a significant protective factor for the applicant is his family. Counsel for the applicant drew attention to the highly emotional nature of the evidence given by the applicant and R about the impact of his actions on their family and the devastating consequences for the applicant's children, in particular. Counsel for the applicant also referred to the other protective factors identified by Mr Albassit in his report at paragraph 35.[68]
38. Counsel for the applicant submitted that it was open to Mr Albassit to have slightly amended his opinion on future risk in the hearing compared to his written report, from 'low to moderate risk' to 'low risk on the basis that the applicant continues with his treatment', in light of the fact that since writing his report, Mr Albassit has undertaken further sessions with the applicant and has obtained a greater insight into the applicant's thinking and progress with rehabilitation. Counsel submitted that the best and most recent evidence on risk is the evidence of Mr Albassit.
39. Counsel for the applicant submitted that in terms of likelihood of the applicant reoffending, I should find that the likelihood is low, and in the event the applicant does not continue to engage with psychological care, the risk is low to moderate. It was submitted that this factor weighs heavily in favour of revoking the cancellation of the applicant's visa.
40. The respondent submitted that I should find the applicant was at a moderate to low risk of reoffending, and referred to the various assessments of this, including the Sentencing assessment report and Mr Albassit's report. The respondent acknowledged Mr Albassit's oral evidence about the actual assessment being low risk but that being dependent on the applicant continuing to engage with psychological treatment.
41. The respondent referred to the applicant's lengthy period of unlawful residence in Australia and suggested that Mr Albassit had not known about this (which Mr Albassit conceded in his evidence) which potentially cast some doubt on the completeness and accuracy of his risk assessment of the applicant. Counsel for the applicant submitted that the question of whether knowing about the applicant's period of unlawful residence in Australia would have changed Mr Albassit's assessment of risk was not directly put to Mr Albassit, and that Mr Albassit was considering the risk of criminal offending and not whether the applicant was generally a law abiding citizen, and so I should give this no weight. I have considered these submissions and in all the circumstances, including the fact that the applicant took steps to regularise his migration status in around 2003, which was around 20 years before the events of June 2024, I accept the applicant's submission and give the applicant's period of unlawfulness no weight in terms of assessing his future risk of offending or casting doubt on Mr Albassit's assessment of risk.
42. Specifically in terms of the applicant's alcohol consumption, it was common ground that the applicant had resumed consuming alcohol at the time of his offending in June 2024, and Mr Albassit acknowledged in his oral evidence he was aware of this and that the way he had expressed 'cessation of substance use' prior to incarceration being a protective factor in paragraph 35 of his report was slightly confusing. Counsel for the applicant submitted that the appropriate way for me to interpret Mr Albassit's reference at paragraph 35 is that the applicant had been able to stop consuming alcohol for a period of time. He also referred to Mr Albassit's evidence about why the type of therapy he is conducting with the applicant is more successful than what AA offers people, and that even though if released into the community the applicant would have access to alcohol and his anxiety levels could increase, Mr Albassit's evidence was that the applicant has now developed coping strategies around this and so with these strategies in place, the risk of reoffending is not much greater than that of an average member of the community. The respondent submitted that the applicant had acknowledged a problem with alcohol and while he had attended AA for about 12 months and had a period of abstinence, he had resumed abusing alcohol. The respondent acknowledged Mr Albassit's evidence about why he considers the treatment methods he is using with the applicant are superior to what is offered by AA, but the respondent submitted that nevertheless, there is a prior history of the applicant engaging with rehabilitation and then relapsing, and the relapse was due to anxiety and depression brought on by stressors the applicant referred to such as the end of his relationship and not seeing his children as much, and stressors could occur again in the future.
43. The respondent accepted that the applicant has engaged in rehabilitation and rehabilitation courses, and that this is relevant to the assessment of risk. The respondent drew attention to the applicant's evidence about struggling to accept the various neurodevelopmental diagnoses or difficulties of his children and his worries around this[69] and submitted that this is a stressor that will continue to exist for as long as the applicant is involved in his children's lives. The respondent submitted that it is inevitable that at times, people will have more or less stress in their lives, and in circumstances where the applicant has engaged in very serious offending at a time of significant stress, and his use of alcohol, it is submitted that taking this together in the future means the applicant is at a higher risk of reoffending than an average member of the community and this is a low to medium risk. The respondent submitted that when combined with the seriousness of the offending, even if I find there is a low risk of the applicant reoffending, the protection of the community weighs heavily against revocation.
44. I have considered all the relevant evidence and submissions. The Sentencing assessment report and report of Mr Albassit assess the applicant's risk of reoffending as low to moderate (or moderate to low), and Mr Albassit's final opinion is that the applicant poses a low risk of reoffending if he continues with his psychological treatment, which broadly aligns with Ms Watson's opinion that the applicant's prospects for rehabilitation are good and will be further improved by therapeutic intervention and support. The evidence indicates that the applicant has expressed genuine remorse and contrition for his offending, he has insight into his actions, he clearly understands the negative impact of his offending on the victim, B, and also on his family, he accepts responsibility for his conduct and does not seek to blame others, and has expressed a clear intention to change and not to repeat his conduct.
45. The evidence seems to indicate that the applicant had been experiencing untreated psychological issues for a long time, perhaps since childhood, which deteriorated further for a range of reasons after his separation from R in 2021. His engagement with AA for a period after his marriage breakdown indicates recognition and an attempt, albeit limited and unsuccessful, to address one aspect of his problems. I consider that following the applicant's very serious offending on 15 June 2024 and his incarceration and subsequent detention, he has started the process of properly confronting, and seeking professional treatment for, his psychological issues and he has demonstrated positive progress in this regard. Mr Albassit described the applicant as a 'closed off man' for whom the most important aspects of his successful rehabilitation are to learn to speak about and understand his emotions, and to abstain from alcohol. Mr Albassit also referred to his own commitment to ensuring the applicant continues with his therapy. The applicant's oral evidence in the hearing demonstrates that he has already learned from the therapy and the courses he has undertaken to date. He was able to talk with insight about his situation and some of the strategies he has learned so far to help him understand and manage his emotions, as well as his desire and intention to continue to learn and the reasons why this is important to him, which he expressed as being both for his own benefit and for the benefit of others. Based on all the evidence, I am satisfied that the applicant has already achieved a meaningful level of rehabilitation and that his commitment to continuing with his rehabilitation through ongoing therapy is genuine, which is a protective factor for him.
46. The applicant's evidence indicates that he is very focussed on his family, and his children in particular, and that being able to contribute positively to their wellbeing in the future is extremely important to him. Being incarcerated and detained has clearly focussed his mind on how important being present in their lives is to him. R and his children have given evidence about the importance of the applicant's ongoing involvement in their lives. The evidence also indicates that the applicant has the support of his sister and her family, and R's parents. I consider that the applicant's strong emotional attachment to his family, and his family's support for him, along with their need for his ongoing support (as discussed further below), is a strong protective factor for him because it provides him with strong motivation not to reoffend and motivation to continue with his therapy and rehabilitation. The applicant's prospect of re-employment if he is released and the support he would have from his church community are other protective factors, along with his understanding of the real prospect of detention and removal if he offended again, which is clearly an outcome he does not want.
47. I acknowledge that the applicant has not had a chance to test the effectiveness of his rehabilitation in the community, and that being back in the community would involve various stresses and challenges, some of which existed previously and some of which would be new, given his changed circumstances, as well as exposure to alcohol. However, I consider that the applicant will have the benefit of the therapy he has already undertaken, along with ongoing therapy and the other protective factors I have referred to above, and so he will be better equipped to deal with the challenges that he might face than he was at the time of his offending in June 2024, and he will be highly motivated not to end up back in the situation he faces now.
48. Taking into account all of the evidence before me, I find that there is a low risk that the applicant will engage in further criminal or other serious conduct. I have found that the applicant's offending is very serious but the rehabilitation he has achieved to date is meaningful and I am satisfied that he is strongly motivated to continue with that rehabilitation and he will do so.
49. Having regard to the nature and seriousness of the Applicant's offending and conduct, and to the risk to the Australian community should the Applicant commit further offences or other serious conduct, I find that this primary consideration weighs moderately against revoking the cancellation of his visa.

1. Paragraph 8.2(1) of the Direction states that the Government has serious concerns about conferring on non-citizens who engage in family violence the privilege of entering or remaining in Australia. The Government's concerns are proportionate to the seriousness of the family violence engaged in by the non-citizen. Paragraph 8.2(2) describes the circumstances in which this consideration is relevant.
2. I have set out the definition of family violence above and I have found that the applicant engaged in family violence in the course of his offending on 15 June 2024 against B. There is no evidence to indicate that he has engaged in family violence prior to this, or since.
3. Paragraph 8.2(3) sets out the factors I must consider, where relevant, in considering the seriousness of the family violence engaged in by the non-citizen. These are:

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 the 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); > 3. 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.

4. Both parties referred to the overlap of evidence and factors considered above under Paragraph 8.1 and to their written submissions. Counsel for the applicant accepted the applicant's conduct amounted to family violence, which he said is serious, and referred to the fact that the applicant does not have a past history of family violence, that he accepts responsibility for the impact of his actions on the victim and his family, that he has made genuine efforts to rehabilitate himself and has made a commitment to ongoing treatment. The respondent submitted that the family violence in this case should be regarded as very serious, I should give heavy weight to the Government's serious concerns about non-citizens who commit family violence and I should have little confidence in the state of the applicant's rehabilitation in respect of his domestic violence offending.
5. I have found above that the applicant's offending on 15 June 2024 involved family violence. Despite the applicant having engaged in family violence on only one occasion, I found above that his offending was very serious and I reiterate that finding here. There is no trend of increasing seriousness and nor are there repeated acts of family violence to consider in terms of the cumulative effect, but certainly, the offending on 15 June 2024 would have caused B, and people close to her, to be fearful.
6. The applicant's last (and only) known act of family violence took place on 15 June 2024. Since that time, the evidence set out above indicates that the applicant has undertaken therapy and courses as part of his rehabilitation, including courses specifically in relation to family violence. The courses the applicant has undertaken under the guidance of Mr Albassit include Anger Management Techniques and Domestic Violence Awareness, and as set out above, in the hearing the applicant was able to speak meaningfully about his understanding of the impact of domestic violence on victims, which includes his behaviour towards B which he described as 'terrible', as also reflected in the reports of Mr Albassit and Ms Watson, as well as other things he has learned from his therapy. Based on the evidence before me, I also find that the applicant accepts responsibility for his family violence conduct and I have referred above to the applicant's ongoing efforts to address factors which contributed to his conduct through the therapy he is undertaking as part of his rehabilitation.
7. The Magistrate's sentencing remarks refer to a sentence letting the offender know that 'retribution will fall upon them if they commit similar crimes',[70] which I consider is a formal warning to the applicant about the consequences of further acts of family violence.
8. Overall, I consider that the applicant's family violence offence is very serious, but I also take into account that he has engaged in family violence on one occasion only, he has achieved meaningful rehabilitation since his offending and is continuing to engage in therapy as part of his ongoing rehabilitation, and he has taken responsibility for, and shows insight into the impact of, his offending.
9. In my view, this consideration weighs against revoking the cancellation of the applicant's visa.

The strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia

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

(1) Decision-makers must consider any impact of the decision on the non-citizen's immediate family members in Australia, where those family members are Australian citizens, Australian permanent residents, or people who have a right to remain in Australia indefinitely.

(2) Where consideration is being given to whether to cancel a non-citizen's visa or whether to revoke the mandatory cancellation of their visa, the decision-maker must also consider the strength, nature and duration of any other ties that the non-citizen has to the Australian community. In doing so, decision-makers must have regard to:

a) how long the non-citizen has resided in Australia, including whether the non-citizen arrived as a young child, noting that:

i. less weight should be given where the non-citizen began offending soon after arriving in Australia; and

ii. more weight should be given to time the non-citizen has spent contributing positively to the Australian community

b) the strength, duration and nature of any family or social links with Australian citizens, Australian permanent residents and/or people who have an indefinite right to remain in Australia.

1. The evidence indicates that the applicant's immediate family members who are Australian citizens, Australian permanent residents or people who have a right to remain Australia indefinitely are his three sons, W, J and A.
2. As A is a minor, I have considered his interests below under the hearing 'Best interests of minor children in Australia affected by the decision', but as he is a member of the applicant's immediate family, this consideration is also relevant to him.
3. The applicant and his wife R are separated but not legally divorced. Their evidence, which I accept, is that they were together for 22 years and maintained a good relationship coparenting their children after separation in 2021 and plan to coparent again in the future if the applicant is successful in his application. R's circumstances are of direct relevance to my consideration of the impact of my decision on W, J and A.
4. The evidence about the applicant's three children is taken from the applicant's statements[71] and oral evidence; R's statements,[72] health summary sheet,[73] and oral evidence; a letter written by the applicant's children;[74] a further written statement from J[75] and his oral evidence in the hearing; correspondence from the children's schools; child support assessments;[76] written statements of R's father;[77] bank correspondence;[78] and medical evidence about the children,[79] as well as other documents referred to below.
5. W is a 20-year-old man who was born prematurely and has been diagnosed with a range of neuropsychological issues including autism, oppositional defiant disorder, anxiety and depression and aggressive behavioural issues. He pursued an alternative curriculum at school for children who are unable to cope with mainstream content[80] and his autism means he has significant difficulty communicating and socialising with his peers, and his ability to operate independently is limited by his conditions. A transition plan[81] was developed for him to assist him to find a pathway after finishing school but he has struggled with this. He needs help with all aspects of his daily life and work, and he has applied for the Disability Support Pension (DSP). He receives support through the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) which covers some costs including psychologist sessions and a small amount of assistance from a support worker, which W is reluctant to use, and so responsibility has fallen heavily on his parents and now, particularly on R. He also has regular appointments with his General Practitioner and a physiotherapist. W misses his father and finds it very difficult to talk about him and doesn't want to leave the house. When W speaks to his father on the phone he has mood swings and outbursts which are hard to control.
6. J is an 18-year-old man who has been diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder, aggressive behaviour, oppositional defiant disorder, anxiety and depression and problems with social and emotional regulation.[82] He finished Year 11 and is working and saving money. J gave oral evidence in the hearing that if his father was sent back to Tonga it would make him really sad. He said that even after his parents separated, his father was still always there for him and his brothers, would see them almost every weekend and take them out. He said that his father makes him and his brothers feel safe, he is their role model and they look up to him. Because they are all boys, it's really hard without their dad. They want to be like their dad and hopefully have their own families one day too. J became very emotional while giving his oral evidence about this in the hearing, as did the applicant.
7. J said that for the future, he wants his father to be able to stay in Australia so he can help J and his brothers, especially W and A. He wants their father to be able to see A succeed in his athletics, and W has serious problems. J said it's really hard for him because he is trying to work as well as help their mum, R, who is also working two jobs. J really needs his father to stay in Australia to help R and to help him and his brothers, because he can't do all of that himself when his mum is at work.
8. A is a 16-year-old boy. The evidence is that he has also experienced difficulties related to his father's absence. I have considered his best interests separately below.
9. The applicant and R gave evidence[83] that they decided it was best for W, J and A not to visit the applicant in prison and see him in that environment. From immigration detention, the applicant speaks to the boys on the phone, including using Facetime. J's written statement,[84] which is similar to the letter he and his brothers provided to the Department, confirms that it has been very difficult for him and his siblings to not be able to see their father and they really miss the different support he always gave each of them in everything they did. They refer to him always being there for sporting events, birthdays, school events, homework, cheering them on and making them feel safe and loved. J states that his father has been honest with them about what he did and his mistakes and they know he is sorry and wants to make things right, and they really want the chance for him to be with them again.
10. R gave evidence that the boys had, and have, a different relationship with their father (the applicant) than with her. She said that when they would visit their father or he would come over, they would talk about things like getting their Learner's Permit, learning to drive and things like that, and he would encourage them. While she is the primary caregiver, the boys talk about different things with their father and he encourages them in different ways.
11. The other significant impact on W, J and A directly connected to the applicant's circumstances arises due to R's health conditions and personal situation. R's health summary sheet[85] shows that in 2021, she was diagnosed with ovarian tumours and in 2023, she was diagnosed with ovarian cancer and had a hysterectomy. The sheet states that R's sister died of ovarian cancer. In 2025, R was diagnosed with early onset Multiple Sclerosis (MS), which is a progressive autoimmune disease that affects the central nervous system.[86] R's evidence in the hearing was that her cancer is in remission and she has regular scans, and her MS affects her in various ways including that her sight has deteriorated, she cannot drive, she has 'brain fog' and sometimes her body simply does not function in the way it is supposed to. She receives monthly infusions and her condition has been stable for the last three months but there is no cure and she has to monitor symptoms and rest when she can. Because of her MS, she had to resign from her previous role as an operations manager due to the travel and take another lesser local position with another organisation, but this pays much less and so she has had to take on a second job to try to meet expenses.
12. R owns a house, which previously belonged to both her and the applicant and was their long-term family home, where she lives with W, J, A, and her parents, who live in a granny flat at the rear of the house. R is the carer for her parents. Her father has advanced liver and bowel cancer[87] and her mother, who has chronic heart issues,[88] has been referred for permanent residential care due to the inability of R and her father to provide her mother with the level of care she requires. The aged care support plan for R's mother refers to R working two jobs and that she 'presents with high levels of carer stress.'[89]
13. R gave evidence that before the applicant's incarceration he used to pay well in excess of the amount of child support he was required to pay,[90] which paid for all sorts of things including A's co-curricular sport activities, A's private school fees, private health insurance (which R and the children no longer can afford), as well as R's cancer surgery so she didn't have to wait, specialist appointments for J and anything else the boys needed. She said money was never an issue despite separation and referred to the applicant as being 'amazing' in the support he provided. The applicant gave evidence that after separation he helped the family financially as best he could, particularly for the sake of his children. R gave evidence that as a result of her no longer receiving financial support from the applicant due to his incarceration and detention, all the extra expenses have fallen on her. Her mortgage is in arrears by about $42,000 and despite having received hardship assistance from the bank,[91] she will probably need to sell the house in a few months because she cannot afford the repayments. R and the applicant have had conversations about finances if he is released and the applicant has confirmed he will continue to support R and the boys financially, and R confirmed the applicant has a job waiting for him with his old boss. She said that the boys strongly wish to remain living in the family home, which provides them with stability and familiarity, and she also wants to keep living there with her parents. She explained that she and the applicant built the granny flat for her parents because her parents are unwell and they are 'all about family'.
14. In his written statement, J refers to their mother being sick and how hard she works, caring for them and her parents who are also sick, and how they really need the applicant back in their lives for themselves and for the whole family.[92]
15. The applicant gave evidence in the hearing that if he had to return to Tonga, he would not be able to continue to support R and the children financially in any meaningful way because even if he found work, wages are much lower there. This is consistent with independent information available about earning capacity in Australia compared to Tonga and why many Tongans wish to come and work in Australia so they can remit money to their families there.[93]
16. Counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant's children, including his adult children, have various diagnoses and difficulties and they require the ongoing support and assistance of the applicant, as does R, both financially and due to her health issues. Counsel for the applicant submitted that there would be a psychological and practical impact on the children and R, with whom the applicant has good coparenting relationship, if he were to be removed from Australia to Tonga. It was submitted that the applicant has been a constant in his children's lives and his ability to continue to play a positive parental role would be limited by distance and communication if he were removed, and there is nobody else who can fulfil the role that the applicant plays in his sons' lives which is different from the role their mother plays.
17. In its submissions, the respondent accepted that the removal of the applicant to Tonga would have a significant emotional, practical and financial impact on R and on W, J and A. The respondent also submitted that W and J are no longer minors, and as adults are entering a phase where less parental support would be needed but conceded that W requires more care. The respondent submitted that J is working and saving and increasing his independence, and W receives assistance from the NDIS and is applying for the DSP, which would assist him if it is granted. The respondent submitted that while these ties are significant and there will be an impact if the applicant is removed, it does not outweigh the other considerations.
18. Based on the evidence and submissions set out above, including the various vulnerabilities that W and J live with and the pressures facing their mother, R, which impacts them, I find that the applicant's removal from Australia would have a highly adverse emotional impact on his immediate family members, W, J and A, and a significant adverse practical and financial impact on them.
19. In terms of the strength, nature and duration of any other ties the applicant has to the Australian community, I note the applicant first arrived in Australia in around 1994 aged 17 and remained an unlawful non-citizen for about 9 years until around 2003. As set out above, the applicant was convicted of two offences in 1997 and 1998 during this time. In around 2003, he regularised his migration status, which means he has now lived in Australia lawfully for around 23 years. He did not offend again until the incident on 15 June 2024. I give very little weight to the applicant's offending in 1997 and 1998 given what is known about those offences set out above. The respondent submitted that I should not be satisfied that the applicant made a positive contribution to the Australian community during the period he was here unlawfully. I am prepared to accept that submission. In any event, the evidence before me about what he was doing during that time is fairly general and limited. However, in considering the applicant's contribution since 2003, I have placed weight on the fact that he was gainfully employed during that time, including by Pro Civil works for seven years and has provided a letter of strong support from his employer,[94] and he was a valued and active member of his church community for many years, according to Reverend Lutui.[95] I accept that the applicant has significant ties to the community through his past employment and church congregation and he has made a positive contribution to the Australian community through his involvement in these activities.
20. I have referred above to the situation regarding the applicant's family links to R and her parents, who are all Australian citizens, and to whom the applicant has been closely linked since around the time of his marriage to R in 1999. While there is no medical evidence before me about R's health prognosis, clearly her medical conditions are serious and concerning and she is under a great deal of pressure. Based on the evidence and submissions set out above, I find that the applicant's removal from Australia would have a significant adverse practical and financial impact on R in particular, and her parents to a slightly lesser extent, and an adverse emotional impact on all of them.
21. In terms of other family links to Australian citizens, permanent residents and/or people who have an indefinite right to remain in Australia, the applicant has provided a statement[96] from his sister, L, who has committed to supporting the applicant if he remains in Australia. The applicant gave evidence that L is like a mother to him and supports him. I find that the applicant's removal from Australia would have an adverse emotional impact on L.
22. The applicant has referred to other relatives in Australia as set out in his Personal Circumstances Form.[97] In particular, he referred in his oral evidence to his niece, H,[98] and her mother, who is the wife of his deceased brother. As H is 16 years old, I have considered her particular situation below under the hearing 'Best interests of minor children in Australia affected by the decision', but as she is part of a family link in Australia, this consideration is also relevant to her. The applicant gave evidence that his brother passed away in 2013 and since that time, he has been in regular contact with H and her mother. Before his incarceration, he provided them with practical support like money or shopping from time to time and they remain close even now that H's mother has a new partner. I consider that they would be adversely affected emotionally if the applicant were removed from Australia.
23. While the applicant has referred to his other nieces and nephews in Australia, he did not provide specific evidence about his current relationship with those people. While I accept that many of them are either Australian citizens or have the right to remain indefinitely in Australia, based on the evidence before me, I do not consider that they would be adversely affected if the applicant were removed from Australia.
24. Overall, I find the strength, nature and duration of the applicant's ties to Australia weigh heavily in favour of revoking of the decision to cancel his visa.

The best interests of minor children in Australia affected by the decision

1. Paragraph 8.4 of the Direction requires me to consider the best interests of minor children in Australia affected by the decision. I must make a determination whether cancellation or refusal under s 501 of the Act, is or is not, in the best interests of children who are under 18 at the time the decision is expected to be made. 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. Pursuant to paragraph 8.4(4) of the Direction, the following factors must be considered where relevant:
   • the nature and duration of the relationship between the child and the non-citizen, noting 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;
   • 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;
   • 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;
   • 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;
   • whether there are other persons who already fulfil a parental role in relation to the child;
   • any known views of the child (with those views being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child);
   • 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; and
   • evidence that the child has suffered or experienced any physical or emotional trauma arising from the non-citizen's conduct.
3. The relevant minor children for my consideration are:
   • A, who is the applicant's 16-year-old son; and
   • H, who is the applicant's 16-year-old niece.
4. As their interests differ, I have considered them individually.
5. In his written statement,[99] the applicant states that A is an aspiring Olympic athlete and currently holds the Australian title for shot put and discus in his age group. A is heartbroken at the thought that the applicant might not be there to support him at his athletics events. The applicant also states that if he is removed from Australia, this will damage A's ability to pursue his elite sporting career and A has been experiencing problems with school attendance and engagement with his sport in the applicant's absence.[100] In her statement, R gives similar evidence about A's sporting abilities and aspirations, and the leadership role he has held in NSW Little Athletics as a result,[101] and refers to some of the opportunities A has missed out on to travel and compete because R could not afford to support him. R also refers to how the absence of the applicant has affected A's motivation both with his athletics and at school, with A becoming withdrawn and having some problems with school refusal.[102] R gave evidence in the hearing that since the applicant's incarceration, A had taken more time off school and had lost motivation, questioning what the point of school was when he didn't have a father and he didn't feel as though he had a mother either because he never saw her. R gave evidence that when the family found out the applicant was going to be deported, A 'crashed', meaning he felt helpless and hopeless and confused, and she pointed out that he is still a child. R gave evidence that A had improved a bit in recent times and was hopeful about the outcome of the applicant's application, but R has tried to keep his expectations realistic. J gave evidence in the hearing that it's hard to talk to A and he is upset because he hasn't seen the applicant in a long time, but he is always thinking about the applicant and he has been lacking motivation. The applicant's oral evidence about his knowledge of A's school attendance problems was largely based on what he had been told by R, so I give R's evidence about this, which I found credible, more weight.
6. Counsel for the applicant referred to A's elite sporting promise and that the applicant stands to play a positive role in A's life until he is 18 and beyond. It was submitted that it appears A's behaviour both in relation to school and sport has been negatively impacted by the applicant's absence, even though R said A had become a little better recently, and A has missed out on some important sporting opportunities due to the financial impact of the applicant's absence. It was submitted that the applicant has been a constant in A's life and his ability to continue to play a positive parental role would be limited by distance and communication if he were removed, and there is nobody else who can fulfil that role for A.
7. The respondent submitted that it is in A's best interests for the applicant to remain in Australia and that he has played a significant role in A's life in the past and intends to again in the future. However, R is A's primary caregiver, and the applicant intends to live with his sister if he remains in Australia, so he would still be involved in A's life but not as the primary caregiver.
8. I have considered the relevant factors set out in paragraph 8.4(4) in relation to A.
9. In terms of the nature and duration of the relationship, paragraph 8.4(4)(a) states that less weight should generally be given where there have been long periods of absence or limited meaningful contact (including whether an existing Court order restricts contact). There is no evidence of Court orders restricting contact between the applicant and A. In the hearing, the applicant and R gave evidence that they had jointly decided that it was not in A's best interests to see the applicant while he was incarcerated, but A gave evidence that since being in immigration detention he regularly speaks to his children, including A, by phone and using Facetime. Based on the evidence, I find that the applicant and A have a very loving relationship and while their contact has been more limited due to the applicant's incarceration and detention, their bond is meaningful and strong.
10. I have considered the extent to which the applicant is likely to play a positive parental role in the future, taking into account the length of time until A turns 18, and including any Court orders relating to parental access and care arrangements. I consider the applicant's parental role in A's life is has been overwhelmingly positive and that his role in the future, even after A turns 18, is likely to remain very similar to how it has been in the years since the applicant and R separated. This includes his encouragement and support of A's sporting ambitions and his academic achievement at school, as well as his emotional wellbeing.
11. I have considered the impact of the applicant's prior conduct, and any likely future conduct, and whether that conduct has, or will have a negative impact on A. The evidence indicates that the applicant's prior conduct on 15 June 2024 and the aftermath has had an adverse effect on A, primarily due to the applicant's absence rather than the offending itself. In terms of likely future conduct, I have found there is a low risk the applicant will reoffend, but if the applicant did reoffend this could have a negative emotional impact on A.
12. I have considered the likely effect that any separation from the applicant would have on A, taking into account A's and the applicant's ability to maintain contact in other ways. Based on the evidence, I find that while the applicant and A (and his siblings) have been maintaining contact by phone and Facetime since he was in immigration detention, this has been emotionally difficult for A and not satisfactory. I find the evidence indicates that a critical part of the way that A and the applicant interact, and the support A derives from the applicant, is through the applicant being physically present and available to A, and this would not be possible if the applicant were removed to Tonga. Therefore, I find that while the applicant and A could and would maintain contact by phone and other online means with the applicant if he were removed to Tonga, the effect of the separation on A would be negative. There is no suggestion that A, or his brothers, would move to Tonga if the applicant were there and in my view, the evidence indicates this would not be feasible for a range of reasons.
13. I have considered whether there are other persons who already fulfil a parental role in relation to A. The evidence is that R is A's primary caregiver and has been since she and the applicant separated in 2021, even though she and the applicant successfully coparented the children after that time. However, I take into account the evidence of the applicant, R and J set out above that the applicant and R play quite different roles in the lives of their children, including A, and that the applicant's role as a father to his sons, even though he is not the primary caregiver, is very important. A has not given his own, independent evidence to the Tribunal, but in the letter signed by him and his brothers he makes clear how much he loves and needs his father to be present and wants him to be able to stay in Australia.[103] I accept this as a genuine expression of his views.
14. I have considered whether there is evidence A has been, or is at risk of being, subject to, or exposed to, family violence perpetrated by the applicant, or has otherwise been abused or neglected by the applicant in any way, whether physically, sexually or mentally. There is no evidence of this. I have found above there is a low risk that the applicant will engage in further criminal or other serious conduct in the future, but I find this conduct could include family violence. However, while the applicant engaged in family violence towards B, there is no suggestion that he has ever engaged in family violence towards R or his children and so I consider the risk of A being subject to family violence by the applicant to be very low. There is no probative evidence before me to show that A has suffered or experienced any physical or emotional trauma arising from the applicant's conduct.
15. I have also considered the best interests of the applicant's minor niece, H, with whom he had regular contact prior to his incarceration. As set out above, the applicant has given evidence about the emotional and financial support he provided to H and her mother after his brother passed away. The evidence is that H is cared for by her mother and her mother's new partner, so the applicant does not have a parental role in her life. I find he could continue to have contact with H by phone and other electronic means regardless of his location and play a supportive role in her life.
16. Overall, I find this consideration, the best interests of minor children in Australia, weighs heavily in favour of revoking the decision to cancel the applicant's visa.

1. Paragraph 8.5(1) of the Direction provides that the Australian community expects non-citizens to obey Australian laws while in Australia. Where a non-citizen has engaged in serious conduct in breach of this expectation, or where there is an unacceptable risk that they may do so, the Australian community, as a norm, expects the government would not allow them to enter or remain in Australia.
2. Paragraph 8.5(2) of the Direction directs that visa cancellation or refusal, or non-revocation of the mandatory cancellation of a visa, may be appropriate simply because the nature of the character concerns or offences 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, including, relevantly, acts of family violence and the commission of serious crimes against women.
3. Paragraph 8.5(3) of the Direction further confirms that the expectations apply regardless of whether the non-citizen poses a measurable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community. Paragraph 8.5(4) states that this consideration is about the expectations of the Australian community as a whole, and in this respect, I should proceed on the basis of the Government's views as set out, without independently assessing the community's expectations in the particular case.
4. The question for the decision-maker in relation to this consideration is a matter of the weight it should be given[104] rather than independently assessing the community's expectations in the particular case. In this regard, the respondent referred me to the case of Ismail v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs.[105]
5. The respondent submits that the expectations of the Australian community would be that the applicant would not be permitted to remain in Australia and that this consideration should be given heavy weight against revoking the decision to cancel the applicant's visa. The applicant submits that this consideration should not weigh heavily against the applicant.
6. I find that the Australian community expects that in the circumstances, the Australian Government should not revoke the decision to cancel the applicant's visa.
7. I consider that this factor weighs against revoking the decision to cancel the applicant's visa.

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

a) legal consequences of the decision;

b) extent of impediments if removed;

d) impact on Australian business interests.

Legal consequences of the decision under section 501 or 501CA

1. Paragraph 9.1 of the Direction requires me to consider the legal consequences of a decision on a non-citizen, including having regard to Australia's non-refoulement obligations in respect of unlawful non-citizens.
2. There is no suggestion in this case that the applicant engages Australia's non-refoulement obligations. In addition to non-refoulement obligations, the Direction refers to a range of additional potential legal consequences for an applicant of a visa refusal, cancellation or non-revocation decision including unlawful status, detention, removal from Australia, and the restriction of an applicant's rights to apply for further classes of visa.
3. The respondent submits that the direct legal consequence of a decision adverse to the applicant is that he will continue to be detained under s 189 of the Act and will be removed from Australia as soon as practicable under s 198 of the Act. Given these are the intended legal consequences of the legislative regime, this consideration should be given neutral weight.[106] The respondent elaborated on this submission in the hearing, referring to the case of Stoneley v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs,[107] which refers to the relevant facts and circumstances of an applicant's case being considered and evaluated by the Tribunal throughout its reasons, culminating in the ultimate finding. I have considered this submission, but I still consider it appropriate to consider the practical reality of the impact of these legal consequences on the applicant.
4. An adverse decision means there will be significant restrictions on the applicant's ability to apply for another visa while he is in the migration zone. If the applicant applied for a visa in the future, depending on the visa type he may be subject to indefinite or permanent exclusion under Special return criteria 5001 if it applies to the relevant Schedule 2 criteria of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth).
5. Given the potential consequences for the applicant, including the possibility of permanent exclusion from Australia, I find that this consideration weights moderately in favour of revoking the decision to cancel the applicant's visa.

1. Paragraph 9.2 of the Direction provides that I must consider the extent of any impediments 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 their age and health, whether there are any substantial language or cultural barriers; and any social, medical and/or economic support available to them in that country.
2. The applicant is a 51-year-old man in good physical health and who suffers from depression and anxiety and is having psychological treatment in Australia for his mental health. He speaks Tongan, lived in Tonga until he was 17 years old, and returned to live in Tonga in around 2003 for a time while waiting for his Australian visa to be granted. Before his incarceration, he was in regular contact with his relatives in Tonga.
3. In the hearing, the applicant gave evidence about his family in Tonga. He has his brother and brother's wife, and a sister who lives with them. That brother is old and in a wheelchair, and the sister has what is perhaps a mild intellectual disability. He has another brother and brother's wife and their children on another island. The applicant used to send money to his brother in the wheelchair but hasn't done this since being incarcerated. The brother on the different island has two children in Australia who send money home, and the applicant used to send money to this brother too. The applicant gave evidence that none of his family in Tonga would have room to accommodate him, they have their own families, and he doesn't have land there. His earning capacity would be low, he does not have contacts he could rely on in Tonga to find work and he would not have access to the same standard of treatment in Tonga as he does in Australia for his depression.
4. Counsel for the applicant submitted that it would be difficult for the applicant to re-establish himself in Tonga at his age when his family there does not seem to have the capacity to accommodate or support him, and he would have to find treatment for his mental health. The respondent submitted that the applicant still has some familiarity with Tonga and he has skills he has developed in Australia which he could rely on to help him find work if he returned there. The respondent conceded that the level of mental health care available to the applicant in Tonga would be less than in Australia, but the impediments to him would not be insurmountable.
5. I find that the applicant would face challenges re-establishing himself in Tonga, including finding appropriate treatment for his mental health which may deteriorate due to his changed circumstances, and relying, at least initially, on the limited support available from his relatives there.
6. In all the circumstances, I find this consideration weighs moderately in favour of revoking the decision to cancel the applicant's visa.

(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. Both the applicant and the respondent submitted that this consideration is not relevant. I accept this submission and find this consideration should be given neutral weight.

1. I have found that the applicant does not pass the character test under s 501 of the Act, and I must consider whether there is another reason why the decision to cancel his visa should be revoked, having regard to the primary and other considerations in the Direction.
2. I have made the following findings in relation to the primary considerations in the Direction:
   • Protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct weighs moderately against revoking the decision to cancel the applicant's visa.
   • The family violence committed by the applicant weighs against revoking the decision to cancel the applicant's visa.
   • The strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia weigh heavily in favour of revoking the decision to cancel the applicant's visa.
   • The best interests of minor children in Australia affected by the decision weighs heavily in favour of revoking the decision to cancel the applicant's visa.
   • The expectations of the Australian Community weighs against revoking the decision to cancel the applicant's visa.
3. I have made the following findings in relation to the other considerations:
   • The legal consequences of the decision weighs moderately in favour of revoking the decision to cancel the applicant's visa.
   • The extent of impediments if the applicant were removed to New Zealand weighs moderately in favour of revoking the decision to cancel the applicant's visa.
   • Impact on Australian business interests is given neutral weight.
4. In terms of the Tribunal's task, the Full Court of the Federal Court in CRNL v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs[108] said

'[t]he 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.'[109]

'[t]he balancing process is directed to determining whether there is "another reason" why the visa cancellation should be revoked. It requires an identification of the matters that may constitute "another reason" and bringing to bear the considerations that the Direction requires the Tribunal to take into account where relevant in determining whether or not the Tribunal is satisfied that there is another reason (or reasons) to revoke the visa cancellation. Some of the considerations set out in the Direction, where relevant, may weigh in favour of revocation, and so may constitute "another reason" capable of supporting the state of satisfaction required in order for revocation under s 501CA(4)(b)(ii) to occur. But whether they do qualify as a reason of that kind will need to be assessed in the context of different considerations set out in the Direction which may weigh against revocation, where relevant. That is why it is appropriate to describe it as a process of weighing and balancing. But to go beyond that to treat the Direction as mandating some sort of calculation of the net weight to be given to the considerations on each side is to lose sight of the ultimately evaluative nature of the statutory task.'[110]

6. Paragraph 7(2) of the Direction states that generally, greater weight must be given to the protection of the Australian community than other primary considerations. Greater weight must also generally be given to primary considerations than to the other considerations. In determining the weight to be applied to each consideration, I have considered the primary and other considerations and weighed them in light of the evidence and findings using the guidance provided by the Direction.
7. In this case, I have found that the protection of the Australian community weighs moderately against revoking the cancellation of the applicant's visa. I have found the applicant's offending to be very serious but I have also found the risk of him reoffending in the future to be low for the reasons set out above which include the rehabilitation he has achieved, his commitment to ongoing therapy and rehabilitation, the strong support he has from his family in Australia and his strong commitment to being present for his children. I have found that the family violence engaged in by the applicant and the expectations of the Australian community also weigh against revoking the cancellation of his visa. These considerations are weighed against the considerations in favour of revoking the cancellation of the applicant's visa. I have found above that the strength, nature and duration of the applicant's ties to Australia and the best interests of minor children in Australia weigh heavily in favour of revoking the cancellation of the applicant's visa due, in particular, to the various challenges faced by the applicant's children, his ex-wife R and her parents, and the significant negative emotional, financial and practical impacts the applicant's removal from Australia would have on them. I have also found that the legal consequences of the decision and the impediments the applicant will face if removed to Tonga weigh moderately in favour of revoking the cancellation of his visa. I have weighed the impact on Australian business interests as neutral.
8. Overall, having undertaken this process of weighing and balancing, I find that cumulatively, the considerations in favour of revocation of the cancellation of the applicant's visa outweigh the considerations against revocation of the cancellation.

1. I conclude there is another reason to revoke the cancellation of the applicant's visa under s 501CA(4) and I set aside the decision under review.

1. The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and in substitution decides there is another reason to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the applicant's visa.

Solicitor for the applicant: Mr A Rigas, Alan Rigas Solicitors

Solicitor for the respondent: Mr M Sheedy, Sparke Helmore Lawyers

[35] [2025] FCA 1263 (MVPF).

[37] MVPF at [23], [25] - [27].

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

[86] Multiple sclerosis (MS) - symptoms, treatment and types | healthdirect.

[93] Paradise Paradox: Tonga's seasonal worker boom creates labour gloom | Tonga News - Talanoa o Tonga; Three questions on Tongan remittances - Devpolicy Blog from the Development Policy Centre; For Tonga, Australian labour mobility more important than aid and trade combined - Devpolicy Blog from the Development Policy Centre.

[104] FYBR v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCAFC 185.

[105] [2024] HCA 2.

[107] [2025] FCA 143.

[108] [2023] FCAFC 138.

[109] [2023] FCAFC 138, [28].