The applicant was born in China in 1978.[1] He arrived in Australia in early June 2007 as the holder of a Student (Class TU) (subclass 573) visa.[2]
In October 2007, the applicant was charged with murder of his partner, Ms 'C'.[3] On 12 February 2010, the applicant was convicted of Murder-SI and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 23 years and 4 months with a non-parole period of 17 years and 6 months.[4]
In the sentencing decision,[5] the judge explains that the applicant strangled and/or choked Ms C. The applicant and Ms C had been married in China but due to objections from Ms C's parents they had divorced. However, they maintained their relationship as lovers and were still a couple in Australia although they maintained separate addresses for appearances. For simplicity, I have referred to Ms C as the applicant's wife.
The sentencing judge describes the events resulting in Ms C's murder as follows:[6]

6. The events on the night of [date] are relatively uncontroversial. As earlier stated, Ms [C] and [the applicant] had separate addresses. The deceased's address was in [suburb]. [The applicant's] address was in [suburb]. They were at Ms [C's] place. [The applicant] had drunk red wine. He usually drank even less than a social drinker and did not partake of alcohol without the permission of Ms [C]. On this night, Ms [C] gave permission and [the applicant] drank. They went upstairs to her bedroom where [the applicant] strangled Ms [C]. He did so with his bare hands. He then picked her up, put her in a car, drove just over 8km to his own premises, put her into bed, and surrounded her (and covered her) with a blanket and ice. [The applicant] also surrounded Ms [C's] body with flowers and her favourite food. This, apparently, is a Chinese custom in treating a deceased.... > >

In terms of culpability the judge found that the applicant had 'the intent, at least, to inflict grievous bodily harm. [The applicant] was not so drunk that he did not know what he was doing.... I find proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, that [the applicant] knew what he was doing and intended, at least, to inflict grievous bodily harm.'[7] The judge goes on to state[8] that,

'whatever the motive and whatever the intent, this offence arises out of a domestic relationship and, further, it seems, not from some predetermined callous plan. Further, the domestic relationship to which I refer, was not otherwise abusive, and [the applicant] has otherwise displayed no violent or abusive behaviour....'

13. '[The applicant] has no previous criminal record either here or in China. He is otherwise of good character and the offence is, in large measure, inexplicable and, certainly, out of character. [The applicant] is both contrite and remorseful. There is little doubt that, if he could be given the time again, to the extent that he knew what he was doing, he would not have done it.'

'the lack of a plea of guilty to murder is not a sign that [the applicant] was not fully contrite and remorseful. Further, [the applicant] voluntarily attended the police station, informed the police of the offence and otherwise cooperated, not only with the police investigation, but in the manner in which the issues in the trial were agitated. This is significant evidence of remorse....'

In terms of mitigating factors and the applicant's mental health, the judge states:[10]

14. The evidence is clear that [the applicant] suffers psychosis. In late 2008, [the applicant] had a major psychotic episode. There was some controversy as to whether the psychosis is schizophrenia, and, as a consequence, whether he was experiencing a prodromal episode (a precursor to schizophrenia) at the time of the commission of the offence. He is currently medicated for the psychosis. I take into account the existence of his psychosis and the mental condition of [the applicant], as a mitigating factor.

In terms of prospects for rehabilitation, the judge states,[11] '[the applicant] has no criminal record, [he] is a person otherwise of good character, who is unlikely to reoffend and who has good prospects of rehabilitation.'
In terms of seriousness of the murder, the judge states that 'murder is the most serious crime. It involves the felonious taking of human life. It must be punished by a custodial sentence of sufficient length to display society's view of the sanctity of human life, with which it is concerned.'[12] He goes on to state,[13]

21. Overall, and particularly given the subjective circumstances and psychiatric condition of [the applicant], and all of the other factors already mentioned, I consider that the offence is very slightly below mid-range in seriousness. This, of course, is not a reflection of the crime of murder, but rather a comparison of this murder, with the range of conduct that may amount to that offence.

On 10 November 2023, the applicant applied for a permanent Protection visa.[14]
On 4 August 2025, the applicant was released from criminal custody[15] and placed in immigration detention where he remains. On 28 October 2025, the applicant applied for the Bridging E visa which is the subject of this application for review. On 10 November 2025, the Department sent the applicant a notice of intention to consider refusal of the visa on character grounds under s 501(1) of the Act and invited him to comment. On 12 November 2025, the applicant responded.[16] On 23 January 2026, a delegate of the Minister found that they were not satisfied that the applicant passes the character test and decided to exercise their discretion under s 501(1) to refuse to grant the applicant the visa.

The applicant was born in China. He married Ms C in China in 2005.[17] Ms C was granted a Student visa for Australia in 2006 and the applicant was subsequently granted a Student visa as her dependent. He arrived in Australia in early June 2007[18] and worked in a retail business.[19] Ms C's parents opposed their relationship and in Australia, the applicant and Ms C lived separately but maintained their relationship.[20] The applicant murdered Ms C in late September 2007. He has been in custody (prison and then immigration detention) since his arrest at the start of October 2007.[21]

The applicant does not have any physical health issues. A series of psychiatric reports in relation to the applicant in 2008 and 2009 by Dr O Nielssen ultimately concluded that the applicant has a serious mental illness which is most likely schizophrenia.[22] A report by Dr S Allnutt from 2009 on the applicant's fitness to stand trial refers to the applicant's medical history being most consistent with him having a psychotic disorder.[23] The evidence is that the applicant continues to have the diagnosis of a schizoaffective disorder and his condition is controlled by a low dose of a drug called olanzapine (Zyprexa), which is used for treatment of mental health conditions like schizophrenia and other psychosis.[24]

The applicant attended the hearing in-person. An interpreter in the Mandarin and English languages was present in the hearing by video. While the applicant speaks and understands English, much of the hearing was conducted using the interpreter for the benefit of the applicant.
In the hearing, I found the applicant to be coherent, articulate and engaged. I have no concerns about his capacity to participate in the hearing. 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. The respondent submitted that the applicant avoided answering certain questions posed to him or deflected the question with his responses. I agree that at times, the applicant's answers to questions were very discursive and not responsive to the question he had been asked and it took some effort to bring him back to the point of the question. However, I do not consider that in doing so, the applicant was deliberately attempting to avoid the question or to be untruthful in his responses. The applicant gave the impression of a person who still feels great remorse for his actions and is at pains to try to demonstrate the extent of the efforts he has undertaken in prison to rehabilitate himself, to show that he is a good person and essentially 'atone' for killing his wife, and his way of doing this in the hearing was to try to explain at length about the things he has done in pursuit of this.
The applicant became upset at several points in the hearing, relating this to his ongoing feelings of remorse for killing his wife and his frustration at the predicament he now finds himself in, including the challenges he is experiencing in immigration detention and his worries for his future if he is returned to China.
Given the applicant was unrepresented, I was careful to ensure the process of the hearing and matters of significance were clearly explained to the applicant orally in the hearing.

Section 501 of the Act deals with decisions to cancel a visa on character grounds.
Relevantly to this case, s 501(1) of the Act provides that the Minister may refuse to grant a visa to a person if the person does not satisfy the Minister that the person passes the character test.
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)).
An application to review a decision made under s 501(1) visa may be made to the Tribunal under s 500(1)(b).

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)).
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.
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.
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 measurable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community.

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

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

(7) Decision-makers must take into account the primary and other considerations relevant to the individual case. In some circumstances, the nature of the 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.[2]

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.
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.
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;

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

As set out above, the applicant has been convicted of murder and was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 23 years and 4 months, with a non-parole period of 17 years and 6 months.
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 in his written submissions that he does not pass the character test and he confirmed this in the hearing.[25]
As the applicant does not meet the character test, the remaining issue is whether the discretion under s 501(1) to refuse to grant the visa to the applicant should be exercised, taking into account considerations in Direction 110 and any other relevant considerations.

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

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.
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.

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. 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.
The applicant has been convicted of one offence, which is the murder of Ms C, and I have set out relevant sections of the judge's sentencing remarks above.

In its SOFIC, the respondent states that the applicant's offending must be regarded as very serious because it was violent in nature, it was a violent crime against a woman and it was an act of family violence. The applicant was sentenced to 23 years and 4 months in prison and the sentencing judge referred to murder being the most serious of crimes.
In his written submissions, the applicant submits that the seriousness of his offending is counterbalanced by the length of detention and his 'complete rehabilitation.'[26] These matters are considered further below.
In the hearing, the applicant agreed that his offending should be viewed very seriously and he said he would never forgive himself.
As set out above, the Direction states that violent crimes, crimes of a violent nature against women, regardless of the sentence imposed, are viewed very seriously by the Australian Government and the Australian community. Based on paragraph 8.1.1(1)(a)(i) and (ii), I conclude that the applicant's offending is very serious.
I have considered whether the applicant's conviction for murder involved family violence. The respondent submits that the judge referred to the couple being in a 'domestic relationship' which was 'not otherwise abusive, and [the applicant] has otherwise displayed no violent or abusive behaviour', but nevertheless, his offending falls within the definition of family violence in the Direction[27] and that the Direction states that acts of family violence, regardless of whether there has been a conviction or sentence imposed, are viewed very seriously by the Australian Government and Australian community.[28] The applicant in his written submissions concedes that his offence falls within the ambit of family violence but also emphasises that his offending was a single, isolated incident.[29] He reiterated this in his oral evidence.
In making my finding about whether the applicant's conduct was an act of family violence, I have taken into account the decision in MVPF v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship.[30] '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.
In determining whether the incident between the applicant and Ms C constituted 'family violence', I am required to consider whether the incident involved violent, threatening or other behaviour by the applicant that coerced or controlled the family member or caused the family member to be fearful. There is no doubt that the applicant's murder of Ms C involved violent behaviour by him towards her. I also find that the applicant's behaviour caused Ms C to be fearful. While there is no direct evidence about this, I make this finding by inference from the surrounding facts and circumstances.[31] I infer that Ms C would have felt fear as she was being strangled by the applicant before she died.
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). It is not in dispute that at the time of her murder, Ms C was the applicant's intimate partner and so I find she was a member of the applicant's family and, therefore, the applicant's offending involved family violence towards Ms C.
In the hearing, I explained to the applicant the definition of family violence in the Direction and that the Direction states that acts of family violence are viewed very seriously by the Australian Government and the Australian community. The applicant agreed that his offending involved family violence and his conduct should be viewed very seriously. I find that the applicant has engaged in an act of family violence and based on paragraph 8.1.1(1)(a)(iii), I conclude that the applicant's offending is very serious.
The applicant was sentenced to a prison term for murder of 23 years and 4 months, with a non-parole period of 17 years and 6 months. Custodial sentences are regarded as a measure of last resort within the sentencing hierarchy. The sentence imposed on the applicant is indicative of the objective seriousness of his offending.
There is no direct evidence before me about the impact of the applicant's offending on Ms C's family and no submissions were made by the applicant or respondent on this matter. Therefore, I have not made any findings about this paragraph (8.1.1(1)(d)).
The applicant has only offended once and so there is no trend of increasing seriousness or cumulative effect of repeated offending. 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. No submissions were made about these matters and I find paragraphs 8.1.1(1)(e), (f), (g), (h) and (i) are not relevant.
In light of the matters set out above, overall, given the nature and seriousness of the applicant's offending, 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.

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.[32]
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).

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.
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.[33]
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).
The applicant has committed murder. The respondent submits that should the applicant reoffend, the harm to individuals in the Australian community has the potential to be very significant. The respondent submits that the applicant's offending is very serious and any likelihood that it may be repeated is unacceptable. The potential harm caused by further criminal or other serious conduct by the applicant could involve significant physical and psychological harm to members of the Australian community.[34]
I accept 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 very 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.
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 evidence of his rehabilitation achieved to date, which is set out below. In essence, the applicant submits that he is rehabilitated and he poses an extremely low risk of reoffending.[35] The respondent submits that the applicant's risk of reoffending is real and any presence of risk should be considered unacceptable given the serious harm that could be inflicted on the community.[36]
In its SOFIC, the respondent acknowledges the sentencing judge's remarks about the lack of evidence of violence in the relationship between the applicant and Ms C, the offence being out of character, the applicant's lack of criminal record, the applicant's contrition and remorse, and the applicant's psychosis playing a role in his offending.[37]
The respondent also acknowledges[38] that the applicant has completed various courses while incarcerated, being the EQUIPS Foundation Program (16 April 2018),[39] EQUIPS Aggression Program (13 January 2023),[40] EQUIPS Domestic and Family Violence Program (17 August 2023)[41] and he has been deemed eligible to be released on parole having regard to his rehabilitation, mental health and risk assessments made in respect of him.[42]
However, the respondent submits[43] there is insufficient evidence to be satisfied that the applicant is at low risk of reoffending, has appropriate reintegration strategies to assist with his reintegration into the community, to retain the assessment that he is at a 'low' risk of offending and ensure his mental health is supported. The respondent points to a range of evidence to support these submissions about risk, which is considered below, along with the applicant's responses and other matters.
The sentencing judge stated that the applicant is unlikely to reoffend and has good prospects of rehabilitation.[44] The sentencing judge had before him a number of reports from Dr Nielssen from 2008 and 2009 and the report from Dr Allnut from 2009, which are referred to above.[45] Based on those reports which are about the applicant's mental condition, the judge accepted that the applicant had an underlying incipient psychosis that became manifest in 2008 and more probably than not affected his behaviour and attitudes at the time of the offence.[46] The judge noted that at the time of sentencing in 2010, the applicant was medicated for the psychosis. The reports of Dr Nielssen and Dr Allnut do not provide a definitive diagnosis of the applicant's mental condition, but the most recent reports, which are the reports of Dr Nielssen dated 18 October 2009[47] and 20 September 2009[48] include his professional medical opinion as a psychiatrist that the applicant had developed schizophrenia. Although there are no more recent medical reports before me, it appears from medical records produced during the applicant's incarceration that he has continued to be treated on the basis that his mental illness is a form of schizophrenia which is treated and managed through a low dose of daily medication.[49]
In its SOFIC,[50] the respondent submits that the applicant has not acknowledged his previous or ongoing mental health concerns and refers to instances in the past where this was the case. In his written submissions, the applicant acknowledges that his understanding of his illness has developed over time and he has accepted it and cooperated with treatment.[51] In the hearing, the respondent asked the applicant about the formal diagnosis of his mental health and the applicant responded that based on what he was told by the doctors in 2011, he has schizophrenia. When asked what he understands that to mean, he said he is not very sure about the illness itself, but the doctor told him he needs to be on medication long term for his mental health. The respondent submits it is a concern that the applicant has not inquired further into his diagnosis.
The respondent submits that the applicant has had periods of non-compliance with his medication[52] and asked the applicant about this in the hearing. The applicant gave evidence that there were times in 2010 and 2011 when a nurse told him he could lower the dose of his medication and eventually stop it, but when he gradually stopped the medication he would get easily affected emotionally and got into a physical fight with someone in prison.[53] The doctor told him this was due to his schizophrenia and he had to stay on the medication for his lifetime so he could keep himself stable. The applicant confirmed that he currently takes his medication every day and if he doesn't get it, he follows up with the people in the detention centre. The applicant gave evidence that he has had some issues with access to his medication at the detention centre and that there was a time early this year when the nurse told him he didn't have to take the medication if he didn't want to. He said picking up the medication daily was inconvenient and the system in the detention centre doesn't work well, and he used to be given it monthly in prison. The applicant said there was a short period of 2 or 3 days in detention when he didn't take his medication and then he thought about it and realised that if he was going to stop his medication then he should speak to the doctor first, so he started taking it again. This account is consistent with a note in the applicant's detention health records.[54] The applicant was also asked about some times of medication non-compliance in prison, which took place in 2014.[55] He said this was during a time when he was transitioning to a different type of medication because the one he was on was giving him shortness of breath.
The respondent submitted that the applicant's non-compliance with his medication is a concern. The respondent submitted that the applicant acknowledged in the hearing that a doctor had told him he needed to continue to take the medication for life, but he had said that even recently, he had made a choice on his own to refrain from taking his medication after being told by a nurse, rather than a medical professional, that he was no longer required to take it. The respondent accepted that the applicant subsequently changed his mind but submitted that his actions call into question his ability to adhere to his medication regime if he were released into the community where he would be wholly accountable for that decision, as opposed to being in a controlled environment like a prison or immigration detention. The applicant submitted that at first, he thought he had to listen to what the nurse in the detention centre said but then he realised she did not understand his medical history and he told the staff he had to have his medicine. He said he is not happy that some of the reports make it look as though he did the wrong thing in terms of not taking his medication when he was the one saying he needed his medication.
In the hearing, the applicant was asked about his intention to comply with taking his medication if he were released into the community. The applicant gave evidence that when he was granted parole, his understanding is that when he is released from immigration detention into the community there is a corrections centre officer who he would report to and they would tell him where to get his medication from, so he does not need to worry about where to get it because they will direct him to the right place. He said he wants to be able to take his medication and he knows he needs to take it for the rest of his life. He explained his understanding that this support in terms of getting his medicine would be the case for the next 5 years. I note this accords with the terms of the applicant's parole which terminates on 31 January 2031 unless revoked, and includes an Additional Condition that he must comply with all directions of the mental health team, including treatment and medication.[56] The respondent put to the applicant that eventually, it would be up to him to find medical professionals to support him. The applicant identified a psychiatrist and psychologist as the type of mental health professionals who he would probably need to have access to in the future and said he had not yet looked into finding his own support in the local area where he might be living if he is released because he trusts the system will look after him initially.
A series of Pre-release Reports were prepared by Community Corrections[57] and were taken into account by the NSW Parole Authority which decided on 15 July 2025 that the applicant should be granted parole.[58] In its SOFIC, the respondent highlights some comments of concern in the Pre-release Report dated 12 December 2024.[59] These include the applicant in the past having displayed bizarre and obsessive behaviour, grandiose delusions, and a small number of negative reports during his incarceration, including an incident where he presented as angry and with an aggressive demeanour towards Correctional staff.[60] The report also refers to the applicant having declined to engage in the EQUIPS Domestic and Family Violence program as he did not recognise his offending as domestic violence.[61] The report notes that the applicant has minimal supports in Australia, he has presented with unstable mental health at times during his incarceration and has denied that mental health and other risk factors are an issue, but he has verbalised a willingness to engage in intervention.[62]
Despite these concerns, the report concludes that the applicant has engaged in intervention to address his offending behaviour, he has maintained appropriate behaviour in custody and he has appropriate post release plans. It states there do not appear to be any reasons against recommending release to parole. It sets out a detailed supervision plan for the applicant should he be released on parole and recommends he be granted parole which includes referrals to various programs and professionals to support him. The report states that the applicant has been assessed as at Medium-Low risk of reoffending according to the Level of Service Inventory - Revised (LSIR).
The 7 May 2025 Supplementary Pre-Release Report[63] refers to the applicant being compliant with his medication and self-referring for psychological support in respect of managing stressors related to his parole and immigration status. This report notes that the applicant would be taken into immigration detention post-release and that if he is released from detention, the supervision plan will be implemented and he will be entitled to all community-based services provided he is granted a suitable visa. The 19 March 2025 Supplementary Pre-Release Report[64] refers to a short-term decline in the applicant's mental health due to him being forced to change his accommodation in prison as a result of his immigration status and stressors around this and his parole. The 20 May 2025 Supplementary Pre-Release Report[65] refers to the applicant proposing to live with his friend, RG, in the event he is released from immigration detention. The report assesses that the applicant's risk can be adequately mitigated at RG's house and that RG is pro social in respect of the applicant and offers him stable accommodation, which is preferable to the original plan where the applicant would have been housed in temporary accommodation. The report also amends the supervision plan to include a condition that the applicant abstain from alcohol.
The NSW State Parole Authority (PA) determined on 15 July 2025 that the applicant should be granted parole.[66] In its reasons for determination, the PA refers to the Initial Report of the Serious Offenders Review Council (SORC) dated 19 November 2024 in which it advised that the applicant's release to parole is appropriate and assessing him as a low risk under the LSIR. It also noted the applicant's mental health was stable and while he can display grandiose delusional thoughts, they were not of a problematic nature. The PA noted that the SORC had stated the applicant would benefit from a period of external leave, but it also said this was not reasonably necessary, and in any event the applicant's immigration status makes him ineligible for this.
The PA refers to the Pre-Release reports of Community Corrections, in particular the report of 6 January 2024,[67] and acknowledges the three offence related EQUIPS programs completed by the applicant and his mostly positive behaviour during his incarceration. The PA notes the LSIR assessment of reoffending as medium-low risk and goes on to refer to a report of the Chief Psychologist, Behaviour Change Programs, dated 21 January 2025 (which is not before me) who assessed the applicant's LSIR risk as a low risk of general or violent recidivism and his TRAS[68] placing him at low risk of reoffending. The PA notes the statements in the other Pre-Release reports about the applicant's compliance with his medication, his engagement with psychology services and that he would be taken into immigration detention on release from prison. The PA report notes the State's concerns in its submissions opposing parole about the applicant's past extreme violent act with no apparent history or motive, and his recent mental instability. The PA states it is clear that the applicant has made considerable advances in his rehabilitation during his incarceration.
In terms of considering risk to the community, the PA notes the following matters in favour of the applicant:
- the finding by the sentencing judge that the applicant is unlikely to reoffend and has good prospects of rehabilitation;
- the applicant has completed his assessed therapeutic programs in custody, namely the EQUIPS courses, as well as vocational courses and has engaged in longstanding periods of employment while in custody;
- the SORC is of the view that nothing more is required of the applicant while he remains in custody and that his release to parole is appropriate;
- the applicant's risk of reoffending has been assessed as low;
- the applicant's positive behaviour in custody and his lack of prior criminal record.
The PA expressed the view that these factors point towards a finding that the applicant is well on the way to achieving rehabilitation. The PA acknowledges the applicant's recent episodes of heightened mental health instability largely due to his change in accommodation and unresolved immigration issues, but noted the most recent Pre-release report confirming the applicant remained compliant with his medication and there were no current mental health concerns. The PA also noted that the applicant had not become violent, but rather displayed grandiose delusional thoughts which SORC considered not to be of a problematic nature. The PA noted that the applicant is now highly institutionalised and further institutionalisation would make his reintegration into the community even more difficult. The PA concluded that the applicant should be granted parole and imposed a number of Additional Conditions involving abstention from alcohol, complying with all directions of the mental health team including treatment and medication, must not contact or communicate with Ms C's family, and must submit to the supervision of Community Corrections in NSW until such time as he has been removed from Australia.
The respondent asked the applicant about his understanding of his parole conditions. The applicant said he knows he has to report, and he must not touch alcohol. He said that during one of the parole interviews he was asked about alcohol and he said that even if someone gave him $1 million he would never touch it because he used it once and lost everything. He also knows about the condition relating to him continuing to take his medicine. He said he was most concerned about this aspect and so he asked them where he would get his medicine if he were released and he now knows the answer to this, which he referred to earlier. He also said he was subject to the other common conditions everyone has to follow.
In the hearing, the respondent took the applicant to various case notes written over time about the applicant's behaviour while in prison and immigration detention. The respondent conceded that these reports were written by staff members and reflected the author's own point of view and some of them related to incidents that took place some time ago. The notes include the applicant becoming aggressive and not listening to the author of the report when he thought someone had made a complaint about him (2022);[69] displaying delusional and grandiose thoughts and having the tendency to become obsessive and argumentative when his actions flowing from his 'peace project' were obstructed (2016);[70] becoming agitated quite quickly (2019);[71] destroying a box by punching and stomping on it (2020);[72] showing paranoia (2011);[73] potential for violence (2013);[74] inappropriate behaviour and content in conversation (2012, 2014);[75] confused, agitated and unpredictable due to concerns about parole and immigration issues (2025).[76] The respondent asked the applicant whether, in light of those reports, he would accept he was an aggressive person. The applicant responded that in 2011, there was a period when he stopped his medication and was involved in a fight, but this was the only fight incident that happened when he was in jail. Later, he started thinking about how he could contribute to world peace but people didn't take him seriously and he found ways to work hard on his project, like writing letters to world leaders and Buckingham Palace. Corrections Officers tried to stop him and the applicant tried to get the Governor's support to continue with his goal and sometimes he got into altercations with them and they would write case notes as if he were nasty. He said that even when you try to do the right thing in jail, you can get hurt, and some of the case notes did not reflect the true situation from his point of view.
The respondent also asked the applicant about an incident in late January 2025[77] when he is reported to have engaged in self-harm by aggressively banging his head on the door and walls of his cell and later a metal bench and the floor. He was crying. The applicant explained that he was very upset and frustrated because he had been told that due to his immigration status he was going to have to move accommodation to back inside the prison as another inmate had tried to escape from their shared accommodation, and it also meant he was not going to be able to continue his volunteer work for the RSPCA. He said he was angry and frustrated about what this meant for his future. In early February 2025, he was still reported to be unstable as a result of stress about this change to his accommodation location and concerns about parole and his immigration status.[78] I note these events are referred to in the 19 March 2025 Supplementary Pre-Release Report.
The respondent submits that when taken to these records of his unusual behaviour, the applicant was unable to articulate whether he presented with the described behaviours or personality traits and seemed to deflect the responsibility for his behaviour on to others and his circumstances.
The respondent also asked the applicant about a misconduct report relating to his behaviour towards an RSPCA staff member in June 2025. The applicant wrote a letter to a staff member at the RSPCA,[79] which, according to a letter in response from a manager at the RSPCA, caused the staff member to be stressed and afraid for her safety.[80] The letter included the applicant divulging that he had murdered his wife. The respondent asked the applicant why he sent the letter and why he considered it to be appropriate. The applicant had difficulty responding directly to this question and began a lengthy, discursive history about his efforts with an RSPCA staff member, to save a dog from being euthanised, and how that staff member felt she did something wrong and he wrote the letter to try to make her happy and feel better. The applicant was disciplined for sending the letter, which was deemed to be inappropriate, and the sanction imposed was the restriction of some of his privileges.[81] The respondent submits this behaviour on the applicant's part is of concern.
The applicant was asked about a report that in November 2025 he asked for his own room in immigration detention and in doing so he had referred to his concern that he had previously killed someone when he was asleep and he was worried about an incident happening again.[82] The applicant gave evidence that he was very unhappy about the situation in immigration detention where there are a lot of people who have been released from prison, but in detention they don't have to abide by parole conditions and there is a lot of drug use which he really doesn't like and so he thought the best way to handle this was to ask for his own room.
The respondent attempted to clarify with the applicant whether, based on the wording of the report, he had expressed concern that he might kill someone again in his sleep if he were sharing a room with them. The respondent pointed out to the applicant that his parole conditions allow him to live with his friend RG and asked him whether he felt concerned about sharing a house with RG and his family. The applicant said he did not feel concerned about this because if the people he is with are normal then he is fine and happy, but in the detention centre there are people taking drugs and they don't sleep and they wreck things. The respondent submits that it was not clear whether the applicant was suggesting that he might be unable to control himself, or he would have to use self-defence, but either way, it is a concern that the applicant thinks he would be capable of engaging in that conduct again or alternatively, that he expressed these concerns in order to obtain his own room. I agree that the applicant's responses were not entirely clear, but ultimately, I understood him to be saying that he was worried that if he was sharing a room with a drug addict then that person would be unpredictable and might get into a fight with him and he would feel insecure sharing a room at night with such a person. While the applicant reiterated his concern that he still doesn't remember what happened on the night when he killed his wife, I did not understand him to be seriously suggesting that he was worried he might kill a roommate, but that he would feel more secure in a room of his own. This is consistent with his evidence about why he does not hold any concerns about how he might behave if he were living with RG.
In the hearing, the applicant spoke about the three EQUIPS courses he has undertaken in prison.[83] He explained that the Foundation Program is all about the basics like how you change yourself and what you need to know about mental health. The Aggression course is about managing emotions and how to think about things that happen and address them in a positive way. The Domestic Violence course is about understanding what domestic violence involves, which includes control, so that you can avoid it from happening. He said that when he was in prison, whatever courses were available to him and were beneficial he would take. He thought the Aggression Program would help him to manage his emotions in the future and the domestic violence course would help him to understand more about domestic violence and avoiding those behaviours. The applicant said he also wanted to undertake a course on drugs and alcohol and he tried for a few years but they told him he couldn't undertake the course because he was not eligible.
The respondent asked the applicant about managing his emotions and he said in prison he always played the role of helper to other inmates but he didn't have the skills to know how to help them, so he learned about that. He said he wanted the skills to help others because he feels that in himself, the chance of him having conflict with someone is almost zero. In terms of what he learned from the courses that he could implement in his own life, the applicant gave the example of something that had happened the previous day, where he got summoned to the medical clinic at the detention centre but then he had to wait for a long time while other people were seen ahead of him and eventually he was told he couldn't be seen and would have to come back. The applicant explained that instead of getting angry or arguing about having his time wasted he accepted their apology and left. He said that if you let yourself get angry you have nothing and you become the person in the wrong. He said this is aggression management and it is a skill he has learned. The respondent acknowledges the applicant's engagement with the EQUIPS programs and what the applicant says he has learned from them but submits that he emphasised taking the courses to assist with his circumstances in prison rather than for his own rehabilitation. The respondent also submits that the applicant had limited insight into what triggers his behaviour.
The applicant's friend, RG, gave oral evidence in the hearing. He explained that he was the applicant's landlord after the applicant arrived in Australia and this is when their friendship began. RG confirmed he is aware of the applicant's offending and he is the person who accompanied the applicant to the police station. He said that since the applicant has been in prison, they have maintained contact. RG gave evidence that he has agreed to the applicant staying with him and his family if the applicant is granted a visa to live in the community and that he definitely supports the applicant doing that. He confirmed that he has no concerns about the applicant living with him and he intends to employ the applicant in one of his businesses as a manager, and he considers the applicant has the skills to do this. The respondent asked RG whether he had ever witnessed the applicant drinking alcohol and RG said he doesn't really recall but his impression is that if the applicant drank, it was rare and he drank very little. RG said that he believes the applicant killing his wife was an accident and he does not believe the applicant has issues in that regard. He believes the applicant is very capable and he has engaged himself in charity work while in prison and can put himself in others' shoes. He said the applicant is quite a positive person and if the applicant is released, RG hopes he can help out in his business and take some of the burden off his wife.
The respondent acknowledges the draft protection visa assessment which contains an indicative finding pursuant to s 36(1C)(b) that the applicant is not a danger to the Australian community. The respondent submits that while the character provisions of s 36 and s 501 of the Act overlap, the provisions operate in different ways.[84] The power under s 501 is a broad discretionary power to refuse the visa on character grounds and s 36(1C) is a mandatory criterion. Even when a finding is made under s 36(1C), the power in s 501(1) may still be exercised. The statutory questions posed by each provision are different and the level of risk relevant to each differs.[85] This means that just because an applicant has been found to satisfy s 36(1C) that a visa can still be refused under s 501. The applicant submits that the fact that he has been found to satisfy s 36(1C) establishes that under the protection framework the authorities have determined he is not a danger to the Australian community. He submits this finding is highly consistent with his evidence of low risk of offending and this should be a significant factor in his favour.
The respondent submits that the applicant has been described as institutionalised[86] and has spent the majority of his time in Australia in prison or immigration detention and in the respondent's view, there is insufficient evidence for the Tribunal to be satisfied the applicant has appropriate reintegration strategies to assist with his reintegration into the community. The respondent submits the Tribunal should be guarded as to the applicant's evidence of rehabilitation. The respondent submits there is a real risk the applicant will reoffend if released into the community and any risk of harm should be considered unacceptable. The respondent submits this consideration weighs heavily in favour of exercising the discretion to refuse to grant the visa.
The applicant submitted that he accepts responsibility for his actions and does not think he has the right to ask anyone to forgive him. He submitted that he would not pose a risk if he were released into the community. The applicant submits that he has the support of his friend, RG, including work and employment, and that his positive behavioural record in prison shows that he possesses self-discipline, responsibility and respect for rules and he can abide by the law in the community. He said that the Chief Psychologist's assessment of him in January 2025, is that he poses a low risk of reoffending and that he has undertaken extensive rehabilitation. He said he knows it will be difficult for him coming out and so he would need a psychologist to help him. He said he knows the right thing to do and if he needs help, where to find it.
In terms of an independent risk assessment, as set out above, for the purposes of a decision on parole by the PA, the applicant has been assessed by the SORC in November 2024 as a medium-low risk under the LSIR, by the Chief Psychologist, Behaviour Change Programs in January 2025 as a low risk under the LSIR and his TRAS was also assessed as low risk of reoffending. I find these independent assessments about the applicant's risk of reoffending persuasive and give them considerable weight. I have also considered the finding in the indicative protection visa decision that the applicant is not a danger to the community. While I give that finding some weight, I take into account that it is only an indicative finding and it is a finding in relation to a different statutory question. I have also taken into account the sentencing judge's finding about the applicant being unlikely to offend and having good prospects of rehabilitation, while noting those remarks were made quite a long time ago.
Based on the evidence, I am satisfied that the applicant understands his parole conditions, which he had clearly informed himself of prior to the hearing, and that he intends to comply with them. In terms of compliance with his medication regime, which is central to the question of risk, I find that the applicant was comfortable with the predictability of the way the system worked in prison where he received his medication on a monthly basis and his compliance was stable. I find that the applicant does not like the unpredictability of the system in immigration detention where he receives his medication daily but nevertheless, after his brief period of non-compliance on the basis of information from a nurse, he reconsidered his choice soon after and made the independent decision to comply and has taken responsibility for his compliance since that time, all of which I consider bodes well for his compliance if he were released into the community. I find that the applicant is reassured by the fact that if he is on parole there will be a support system in place for some years to come that means his access to his medication will be planned and predictable and I find this will support his compliance with the medication regime as he adjusts to life outside prison and detention. I am also satisfied that the applicant's assurances about complying with the parole condition that he does not consume alcohol are genuine, as well his intention to comply with the other conditions, such as reporting as required. The supervision plan the applicant will be required to undertake if he is released into the community[87] as part of his parole conditions is comprehensive. Based on all the evidence before me, I am satisfied the applicant will comply with the supervision plan and it will assist him with his transition to life in the community, providing him with support and stability, along with the support he will receive from his friend RG, all of which will be beneficial and protective in terms of his risk of reoffending.
Based on the evidence, I am satisfied that the applicant understands the importance of complying with his medication regime, both generally for his mental health, and as a condition of his parole if he is released into the community. Despite the evidence about some periods of non-compliance in the past, I find that the applicant accepts and understands the need to take his medication regularly and for the rest of his life, he is committed to doing this, and he understands that if there is to be a change to his medication regime then this needs to be done in consultation with a doctor. I am also reassured by the applicant's identification of the fact that he may need to see a psychologist and psychiatrist if he is released into the community and while he has not identified specific practitioners at this stage, this is understandable because he will have access to that type of support initially as part of his parole under the supervision plan. I note there is recent evidence of the applicant self-referring to a psychologist in prison when he identified his need for help with coping strategies related to his parole and immigration matters, which shows he is prepared to access support.[88]
I acknowledge the respondent's concern about the applicant's apparent lack of detailed understanding of his mental illness, but I am satisfied that the applicant has a clear understanding of the potential adverse consequences if he does not continue to take his medication given he referred in the hearing to some problems he had experienced in 2011 and 2014 when he either stopped or changed his medication, and that he understands the connection between his actions in killing his wife and his mental illness which is something he continues to feel great shame and remorse about. I am satisfied that he is committed to continuing with his medication regime for the rest of his life.
I have considered the evidence about the applicant's behaviour in prison. I find that overall, the applicant's behaviour has been positive and not problematic. As noted above, there are some case notes that refer to incidents where the applicant became aggressive, agitated or frustrated. I take into account that these reports reflect the view of their author and I consider the reported incidents are relatively infrequent given the length of the applicant's incarceration. There is only one reported instance of physical aggression towards another person in 2011 when the applicant got into a physical fight with someone which he said coincided with him having stopped his medication. There is also the instance of self-harm in early 2025. Certainly, it appears that some of the applicant's ideas such as his 'peace project' where he was writing to world leaders might be perceived as odd and the reports suggest some obsessive behaviour, but the reports do not suggest he posed a meaningful threat to others. I have taken into account the applicant being disciplined for his conduct in relation to his letter to the RSPCA worker, but there is no evidence to indicate this incident resulted in a further Pre-release Report being produced or any change to the applicant's risk assessment.
Evidence before me indicates that the applicant has engaged in longstanding periods of employment while in prison. He has worked hard, evidently derives satisfaction from his work, has been given positions of responsibility and has received positive reports from his overseers.[89] He has expressed frustration at his inability to work in immigration detention. The applicant's friend, RG, has given evidence, which I accept, about his intention to employ the applicant if he is released into the community and I consider that employment will be a positive and protective factor for the applicant because it will provide him with purpose, structure, a sense of satisfaction and assist his reintegration into the community. I have also taken into account the evidence of RG in terms of his long-term friendship with the applicant and his willingness to provide the applicant with stable accommodation, which will be of great benefit to the applicant and provide significant pro-social support and be an important protective factor.
In terms of rehabilitation achieved by the applicant, I have taken into account the evidence about the EQUIP programs the applicant has undertaken in prison and his own evidence about what he has learned from those. I also take into account that the PA was satisfied with the applicant's level of rehabilitation in terms of assessing his suitability for parole. While the applicant spoke about taking the courses so he could assist others in prison, and gave examples of how he had assisted others, he also gave a very clear example of how the course on managing aggression had assisted him and how he put what he had learned into practice, which demonstrated insight into his own behaviour. I acknowledge the respondent's concern about the lack of specific steps by the applicant to address issues around alcohol, although I note the applicant's evidence that he wanted to take a course on drugs and alcohol but was deemed ineligible. The parole supervision plan includes a referral to a centre for addiction medicine and an assessment, and I also give weight to the applicant's assurances that he understands the parole condition of no alcohol and that he has no intention of consuming alcohol. His oral evidence in the hearing made it clear that he still feels very remorseful for, and ashamed about, killing his wife and my sense is that he is strongly motivated to show that he is a good person who values life and wants to help others. I consider that the applicant has achieved a meaningful level of rehabilitation, not only through the EQUIP courses, but also through the other education and employment he has undertaken in prison.
I acknowledge that the applicant has not spent any time in the community since his offence, which means he has not been tested in the community and this is a concern. However, the PA and Community Corrections did not consider this to be a reason for refusing him parole, and, nevertheless, he was assessed as being at low risk of reoffending. In fact, the PA considered that further institutionalisation was not to the applicant's benefit in terms of his reintegration into the community. I consider that the protective support that would be provided to the applicant by his friend RG, the structure and satisfaction that regular work will give him and the commitments the applicant will have to meet in accordance with the conditions of his parole and the supervision plan, which I am satisfied he understands and will adhere to, are all protective factors and mean the fact that the applicant has not spent any time in the community since his offence does not meaningfully increase the risk of him reoffending.
While I have found that the applicant's offending is very serious, I have also found that the rehabilitation he has achieved is meaningful and his parole conditions and the support from RG are significant protective factors. Taking into account all of the evidence before me, for the reasons set out above, I find that there is a low risk that the applicant will engage in further criminal or other serious conduct. The fact that the applicant is seeking a visa which is not a permanent visa and which would allow him to live in the community while his protection visa application is assessed does not change my view about risk.
I have considered the respondent's submission that any presence of risk that the applicant may reoffend in the same way is unacceptable given the serious harm that could be inflicted on the community. I have had regard to paragraph 8.1.2.(1) which states that the Government's view is that the Australian community's tolerance for any risk of future harm becomes lower as the seriousness of the potential harm increases. I have also had regard to the statement that '[s]ome 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.'
The applicant has committed a single offence, which I have found was very serious, and I accept that if he were to commit the same offence again the harm would be very serious. However, I have found that the applicant is at low risk of reoffending and he has a range of protective factors in his favour. This being the case, I do not consider that the applicant's offending falls into this category of the presence of any risk being unacceptable.
I find that this primary consideration weighs moderately in favour of exercising the discretion to refuse to grant the visa.

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.
I have set out the definition of family violence above and I have found that the applicant has engaged in an act of family violence.
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.

I have found the applicant engaged in a single act of family violence when he murdered Ms C. As it was a single incident, there is not a trend of increasing seriousness or a relevant cumulative effect but it was very serious.
I have set out above the rehabilitation achieved by the applicant since his offending. Based on the discussion above, I find that the applicant accepts full responsibility for his family violence-related conduct and he clearly understands the impact of his actions on Ms C, which resulted in her death, and he is very remorseful. In terms of the efforts he has taken to address factors which contributed to his conduct, as set out above, the applicant has undertaken an EQUIPS program in relation to Domestic and Family Violence and was able to explain what he had learned from that, as well as undertaking other rehabilitative courses. I have also discussed above the applicant's clear evidence about his intention to refrain from consuming alcohol, which was clearly a factor that contributed to his conduct, his efforts to access rehabilitation courses in prison relating to alcohol, and how this will be addressed as appropriate through his parole supervision plan. I have also discussed above the applicant's efforts to manage his mental illness, which the sentencing judge recognised as a mitigating factor in his offending, and these efforts include his understanding of the need for him to continue with his medication for the rest of his life and his commitment to this, and his willingness to seek psychological and other medical assistance and advice as required.
Overall, I consider that the applicant's single act of family violence is very serious. However, I also find that he has taken meaningful steps to engage in rehabilitation in respect of his family violence offending and the factors that contributed to it, he has insight into his actions and feels great remorse for his conduct. I find this consideration weighs moderately in favour of exercising the discretion to refuse the grant the visa.

The strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia

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.

The applicant gave evidence that he has no immediate, or other, family members in Australia. I accept this and therefore give this consideration in paragraph 8.3.(1) no weight as it is not applicable to the applicant's circumstances.
Paragraph 8.3.(2) is not a mandatory consideration in relation to the refusal of a visa (as opposed to the cancellation of a visa). The respondent submits that in these circumstances, it should be given the weight of an 'other' relevant consideration rather than a 'primary' consideration. I accept this submission and have weighed this consideration accordingly.
In terms of the strength, nature and duration of any other ties the applicant has to the Australian community, the applicant first arrived in Australia, as an adult, in early June 2007 and committed the offence in late September 2007, only a few months later. Since 1 October 2007, the applicant has been in prison and then immigration detention. This means that while the applicant has resided in Australia for almost 20 years, he has spent all but about 4 months of that time in prison or lawful detention.
The applicant has provided a statement of support from his friend, RG,[90] who was the applicant's landlord after the applicant arrived in Australia and at the time of his offence in 2007 and, as referred to above, RG gave oral evidence in the hearing. I accept RG is a person who has an indefinite right to remain in Australia. In his written statement, RG states that he is the applicant's only friend in Australia and he accompanied the applicant to the police station when he went to tell the police he had killed his wife. This is confirmed by the NSW Police Facts Sheet about the incident.[91] RG states that the applicant is a good person who has worked hard in prison to try to help people, such as through donating money to charity and learning skills, that he is proud the applicant is his friend, he has offered for the applicant to stay with him in his home if the applicant is granted parole and he has work to offer the applicant. In the hearing, RG gave oral evidence which was consistent with his written statement. RG confirmed that he has remained in contact with the applicant while the applicant has been in prison. RG gave evidence that people came to his home to assess its suitability as a place for the applicant to live if he were released on parole, and that the applicant is welcome to live with him and his family if he is released into the community, and RG has no concerns about this. RG confirmed that he runs two businesses and he is very keen to employ the applicant in one of those businesses, which will help take the burden off RG's wife.
The applicant has also provided a written statement of support dated 27 May 2025 from the Chaplain at the Correctional Centre where he was held.[92] The Chaplain states that he first met the applicant in June 2023 and is aware of the applicant's offending. He states that he always found the applicant to be engaging and sociable and presents as a genuine and caring man. The applicant was liked and respected by staff and inmates. The Chaplain refers to the positive way in which the applicant used his time in prison and that if the applicant is granted a visa and released into the community, the Chaplain will gladly offer him any support or assistance he requires.
I accept that the applicant was employed in a retail business from June to September 2007,[93] but there is no further evidence before me related to this, such as evidence from former colleagues.
In his written submissions, the applicant concedes that his community links are extremely limited, but he submits that even in prison, he has tried to build meaningful connections through his volunteer work with the RSPCA, his support by making donations to Lifeline,[94] his work in prison which prevented an escape and the influx of drugs,[95] and his prayers for world peace which he supported by sending letters to the United Nations and the Queen.[96] He submits that these connections were not established in the community, but they demonstrate his willingness to contribute positively to Australian society. In the hearing, the applicant confirmed that his only social tie in Australia is RG and reiterated his submission that his actions in prison are, in a sense, a tie to Australia and a contribution to the community.
In its RSOFIC, the respondent submits that the applicant arrived in Australia and committed murder less than 4 months later and he has been incarcerated or in detention since. He has no family in Australia and a single social contact. The respondent acknowledges that the applicant has made some donations and has been employed[97] while incarcerated. The respondent submits that the applicant's ties to the community are very limited and this consideration weighs in favour of exercising the discretion to refuse to grant the visa.
I find that the applicant has a strong and enduring friendship with RG and a general offer of support from the prison Chaplain, but otherwise his links to Australian citizens, Australian permanent residents and/or people who have an indefinite right to remain in Australia are very limited. I accept that the applicant has engaged in positive behaviour through his activities while in prison, but given those activities have been undertaken while he has been incarcerated for what I have found to be very serious offending, I give those activities limited weight in terms of considering them to be a positive contribution to the Australian community.
Based on the evidence before me, I find that a decision to exercise the discretion to refuse to grant the visa would have a moderate adverse emotional impact on RG, and I do not consider that such a decision would have a negative impact on any other people.
Overall, I find the strength, nature and duration of the applicant's ties to Australia are very limited and this consideration weighs in favour of exercising the discretion to refuse to grant the visa.

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

Paragraph 8.4 of the Direction requires me to consider the best interests of minor children in Australia affected by the decision.
The applicant does not have any children, and no minor children have been identified by the applicant or respondent as being affected by the decision. In these circumstances, this consideration is neutral and carries no weight.

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.
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, of they raise serious character concerns through conduct, in Australia or elsewhere, including, relevantly, acts of family violence and serious crimes against women.
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.
The question for the decision-maker in relation to this consideration is a matter of the weight it should be given depending on the level of seriousness of the offending.[98]
The respondent submits that the applicant has engaged in very serious conduct and remains an unacceptable risk to the community having regard to his risk profile, present state of rehabilitation and the violent nature of the conduct and potential harm if repeated.[99] The respondent submits that the Australian community would have a low tolerance of the applicant's serious conduct given he has only participated in, and contributed to, the Australian community for a short period and has not lived in Australia from a very young age.[100] The respondent also submits that the nature of the applicant's conduct is so serious, and harmful if it were repeated, that even strong countervailing considerations should be insufficient to justify a visa outcome that is not adverse to the applicant.[101] The respondent submits that the weight to be afforded to the expectations of the Australian community should be significantly in favour of exercising the discretion to refuse to grant the visa.
The respondent referred in its SOFIC at [53] to the High Court's decision in Ismail v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs[102], which states that paragraph 8.4,[103]

does not stipulate that, in assessing what weight is to be given to the expectations of the Australian community, the decision-maker must attribute to that hypothesised community knowledge of the personal circumstances of the applicant for the visa as known to the delegate. To the contrary, para. 8.4(4) stipulates that the decision-maker is to proceed on the basis of the Australian Government's view as set out in para 8.4 "without independently assessing the community's expectations in the particular case". > > 52. Paragraph 8.4(4) is to be understood as directing the decision-maker not to attempt to infer what the expectations of the Australian community would be "in the particular case" (that is, with the knowledge of the delegate about the applicant's personal circumstances), but to proceed on the basis that the views of the Australian Government set out in para 8.4(1)-(3) are the relevant norm described as the expectations of the Australian community. That norm, as applicable by reference to the terms of para 8(1)-(3), is then to be weighed with other relevant matters as required by paras 6 and 7 of Direction 90....

The applicant submits that the expectations of the Australian community include giving people who have genuinely rehabilitated a second chance, and this applies to him. He submits he has spent most of his adult life in Australia, he has spent nearly 20 years demonstrating his honesty and integrity through his actions in prison, and if this does not meet the expectations of the Australian community then no level of rehabilitation would be considered sufficient. He submits that the person he is now is precisely the kind of person the Australian community welcomes.[104] In his oral submissions, the applicant reiterated his positive contribution.
As explained in Ismail, it is not appropriate for me to take the personal circumstances of the applicant into account in assessing what weight is to be given to the expectations of the Australian community. I find that in all the circumstances, the Australian community expects that the Australian Government should refuse to grant the applicant the visa.
I find that this consideration weighs in favour of exercising the discretion to refuse to grant the visa.

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

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

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.
Paragraph 9.1.(1) states that decision-makers should be mindful that unlawful non-citizens are, in accordance with s 198, liable to removal from Australia as soon as reasonably practicable in the circumstances specified in that section, and in the meantime, detention under s 189. It also states that section 197C(1) of the Act provides that for the purposes of s 198, it is irrelevant whether Australia has non-refoulement obligations in respect of an unlawful non-citizen. A non-refoulement obligation is an obligation not to forcibly return, deport or expel a person to a place where they will be at risk of a specific type of harm.[105]
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.
The applicant claims that non-refoulement obligations apply to him on the basis that he will be harmed if he returns to China due to his conviction and imprisonment for murder in Australia. He has lodged an application for a protection visa in which he claims that he will be prosecuted again in China for the murder of his wife who was a Chinese national, as double jeopardy is legal in China, and he could face the death penalty as a result.[106] He also claims that he will be seriously harmed or killed by his father-in-law (Ms C's father), or people connected to him, out of revenge for murdering Ms C.[107] The applicant reiterated these fears in his oral evidence in the hearing and added that his father-in-law is a rich and powerful person and the applicant fears being arrested as soon as he arrives at the airport in China. He said that if he doesn't die at the hands of the government or his father-in-law, he will die in an accident because he was threatened in the past. He claims that returning to China will lead to certain death for him.
The respondent accepts that there is a draft protection visa decision record in the G documents[108] which indicatively finds that the applicant satisfies the criterion in s 36(1C) and is not a danger to the Australian community, that s 36(2C) does not apply, and that the applicant satisfies s 36(2)(aa) and is therefore a person in respect of whom Australia owes protection obligations. The respondent submits, and I find, that this is an indicative finding only and it does not mean that the applicant has been found to be owed protection or that he necessarily will be in the future. The respondent also submits, and I find, that this means the applicant is a non-citizen who is not covered by a protection finding as defined in s 197C because he has made a valid application for a protection visa which has not been finally determined.
Paragraph 9.1.2 of the Direction relates to non-citizens not covered by a protection finding. It provides that non-citizens who are not the subject of a protection finding may nonetheless raise claims which may engage Australia's international non-refoulement obligations in the context of a visa cancellation or refusal process under s 501 or 501CA of the Act, and where such claims are raised, they must be considered by the Tribunal. However, where it is open to the non-citizen to apply for a protection visa, it is not necessary at the s 501/s 501CA stage to consider the issues in the same level of detail as they are considered in a protection visa application. The process for determining protection visa applications is specifically designed for assessing non-refoulement obligations and where it is open to the person to make such an application, a decision-maker is not required to determine whether non-refoulement obligations are engaged. Having considered the person's representations, the decision-maker may proceed on the basis that, if and when the person applies for a protection visa, any protection claims they have will be assessed as required by s 36A of the Act before any character or security concerns are considered (paragraph 9.1.2.(2)).
In Plaintiff M1/2021 v Minister for Home Affairs[109] the High Court stated, in the context of a cancellation decision where the applicant remained free to apply for a protection visa, that[110]

(1) the Delegate was required to read, identify, understand and evaluate the plaintiff's representations made in response to the invitation issued to him under s 501CA(3)(b) that raised a potential breach of Australia's international non‑refoulement obligations; > > (2) Australia's international non‑refoulement obligations unenacted in Australia were not a mandatory relevant consideration; and > > (3) to the extent Australia's international non‑refoulement obligations are given effect in the Migration Act, one available outcome for the Delegate was to defer assessment of whether the plaintiff was owed those non-refoulement obligations on the basis that it was open to the plaintiff to apply for a protection visa under the Migration Act.

The respondent submits that consistent with the decision in Plaintiff M1/2021, while the Tribunal is required to identify and consider the applicant's non-refoulement claims, the Tribunal may defer assessment of those claims while the applicant's protection visa application remains processing, and the Tribunal can elect to proceed on the basis that the applicant's protection claims are being assessed through the appropriate statutory process.[111] The applicant did not make submissions about deferral of consideration of non-refoulement obligations and, rather, referred to his unhappiness about the situation he faces in immigration detention, saying he can't work like he did in prison and there are a lot drug users there which he finds very difficult to manage and comprehend, and he wants to have the opportunity to return to the community and prove he is worthy. The applicant did not refer to any other reasons in the hearing as to why he fears harm if he returns to China other than those I have referred to above which relate to harm as a result of his murder of Ms C.
I have considered the respondent's submission and accept it. I have referred above to the applicant's claims for protection, which I have identified and considered, and I note the applicant's claims have been comprehensively considered by a delegate of the Minister as part of the applicant's protection visa application to the extent that a draft decision record has been produced (albeit the outcome of that process is still speculative). In these circumstances, I consider that the applicant's non-refoulement issues are most appropriately assessed and determined through the protection visa application process which, in respect of the applicant, is already well-advanced.
The respondent also submits that apart from whether the applicant's claims engage non-refoulement obligations, the Tribunal must consider the claimed harm or hardship in so far as it may be relevant to the discretion to affirm or remit the matter.[112] The respondent submits that if the decision under review is affirmed, the immediate legal consequence is that the applicant will remain in immigration detention while his protection visa application remains processing, and because the applicant has a pending protection visa application which has not been refused or finally determined he is not liable to be removed from Australia pursuant s 198(5A). The respondent submits that the Tribunal affirming the decision in this case would not inhibit the applicant's current protection visa application process. The respondent submits that this consideration should be given limited weight against exercising the discretion to refuse to grant the visa.
I have considered the respondent's submissions and accept them. The immediate legal consequence of a decision to exercise the discretion to refuse to grant the visa is that the applicant will remain in lawful immigration detention, rather than potentially being released into the community, pending the outcome of his protection visa application process, the timing of which is unknown. A legal consequence of my decision is not that the applicant would face imminent removal from Australia to China[113] and I do not consider that my decision, which relates to the refusal of a Bridging visa, would inhibit the processing of the applicant's protection visa application or affect the outcome of that process. I acknowledge the applicant's frustrations about being in immigration detention and the view of the PA that further institutionalisation would make the applicant's reintegration into the community more difficult, but his detention is currently lawful. I have considered the applicant's claims of harm in China in the context of the extent of impediments he may face if removed to China, below.
In all the circumstances, I find that this consideration weighs moderately in the applicant's favour and against exercising the discretion to refuse to grant the visa.

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.
In its SOFIC,[114] the respondent accepts that the applicant would likely suffer some impediments if removed to China, specifically relating to his length of absence and his ability to reestablish himself. The respondent submits that the applicant would not face any language or cultural barriers that would impede his return to China. In respect of the applicant's mental health, the respondent submits that the applicant would have access to health services that are otherwise available to any other citizen of China.
The respondent also acknowledges that the indicative protection decision in respect of the applicant refers to China having double jeopardy laws and finds that the applicant may be subject to the death penalty if he returns to China and he would be at risk of significant harm as a result of his murder conviction in Australia.[115] In the hearing, the respondent submitted that the protection finding is only indicative but it is something I cannot ignore. The respondent submitted that this consideration weighs in favour of not exercising the discretion to refuse the visa, but that it should not be overwhelming and should not outweigh the primary considerations.
In his written submissions, the applicant refers to his fear about facing double jeopardy in China due to his conviction in Australia which may expose him to the death penalty, and he refers to the indicative protection finding in his favour. He also refers to his lack of contact with Chinese society since he was imprisoned in Australia and his concern about whether he would have access to the same level of mental health support which he has benefited from in the Australian prison system. In the hearing, the applicant gave evidence that he speaks to his mother by phone every couple of weeks but he doesn't speak to his siblings. He said he has not remained in contact with other people in China because he feels humiliated by what he has done. The applicant said he could not live with his mother or other family members if he returned to China because his father-in-law would find out he was there and then he would be dead, at the hands of his father-in-law or someone connected to him. He gave evidence that he fears being arrested as soon as he gets off the plane in China and either facing the death penalty or being killed by his father-in-law.
Having regard to all the evidence, I find that the applicant would not face language or cultural barriers if he were removed to China, and he would have the support of his mother, at least, and would not be homeless because he could live with his mother. Based on the evidence before me, I consider that whether or not the applicant's father-in-law would be aware of his return to China is speculative. The applicant has developed useful skills and experience while working in prison which may be of assistance to him in re-establishing himself and finding employment.[116] However, I accept he has no social contacts or support outside his family in China and find it is reasonably likely that people in his community would be aware of his conviction in Australia via his family or people in the Chinese community in Australia. There is evidence that his offending was reported in the Australian press[117] and received attention in Chinese-language news media in Australia.[118] On this basis, I consider that the applicant may face social stigma in attempting to re-establish himself in China, including difficulty securing employment, due to his past being known.
In terms of the applicant's mental health, I have considered the respondent's submission that the applicant would have access to health services that are otherwise available to any other citizen of China. While this may be the case, country information[119] indicates that people with mental health conditions in China can face societal stigma and I find that the applicant's mental health situation, for which he would require ongoing treatment and medication, could further exacerbate the extent or impact of the impediments I have referred to above in terms of his social and economic wellbeing.
In terms of the risk of the applicant facing harm in China as a result of his conviction and sentence in Australia, which is the basis of his protection visa application, I consider that the Chinese authorities would be aware of his conviction and sentence in Australia given it was reported in the media.[120] While I consider that based on the evidence before me, the risk of harm the applicant faces from his father-in-law or people connected to him is speculative, I give weight to the analysis of the delegate in the indicative protection finding about the real risk of the applicant being subject to the death penalty if he returned to China as a result of double jeopardy being legal in China, and accept that he would face this real risk.
The respondent submitted that this consideration weighs in favour of not exercising the discretion to refuse the visa, but that it should not be overwhelming and should not outweigh the primary considerations.
For the reasons set out above, I find the extent of impediments the applicant may face if removed from Australia to China, in establishing himself and maintaining basic living standards, are considerable and potentially very serious.
I find this consideration weighs heavily in the applicant's favour and against exercising the discretion to refuse to grant the 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.

No submissions were made by the applicant or the respondent in relation to this consideration and the evidence before me does not indicate that exercising the discretion to refuse to grant the visa would impact Australian business interests in the manner contemplated by the Direction. Therefore, this consideration is neutral and I give it no weight.

I have found that the applicant does not pass the character test under s 501 of the Act, and I must consider whether to exercise the discretion under s 501(1) to refuse the grant of a Bridging E visa, having regard to the primary and other considerations in the Direction.
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 in favour of exercising the discretion to refuse to grant the visa.
- The family violence committed by the applicant weighs moderately in favour of exercising the discretion to refuse to grant the visa.
- The strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia weighs in favour of exercising the discretion to refuse to grant the visa.
- The best interests of minor children in Australia affected by the decision is not relevant and carries no weight.
- The expectations of the Australian community weighs in favour of exercising the discretion to refuse to grant the visa.
I have made the following findings in relation to the other considerations:
- The legal consequences of the decision weigh moderately in the applicant's favour and against exercising the discretion to refuse to grant the visa.
- The extent of impediments if the applicant were removed to China weighs heavily in the applicant's favour and against exercising the discretion to refuse to grant the visa.
- Impact on Australian business interests is not relevant and carries no weight.
In terms of the Tribunal's' task, the Full Court of the Federal Court in CRNL v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs[121] 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.'[122]

The balancing process described by the Court was in the context of determining whether there is 'another reason' why the cancellation of a visa should be revoked, but applies equally to considering whether a visa should be granted when it has been refused on character grounds. The Court stated,

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.'[123]

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. However, this does not mean that protection of the Australian community must always be given greater weight than the other primary considerations, or that primary considerations must always be given greater weight than 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.
In this case, I have found that the applicant committed a single, very serious offence, for which he has served a lengthy prison sentence. He has undertaken meaningful rehabilitation and has been approved for parole, but without an appropriate visa he is not eligible to be out in the community and so he is in immigration detention. I have found that he is at a low risk of reoffending and there is a range of protective factors that would apply to him if he were granted the visa and released. I have also noted that there is an indicative protection finding in the applicant's favour which includes an assessment that he does not pose a danger to the Australian community. In all the circumstances, I have given only moderate weight to the primary consideration of protection of the Australian community. I have found the applicant's offence also constituted family violence but for the reasons set out above, including the extent of the rehabilitation he has achieved, I have also given only moderate weight to this primary consideration. I have found that the strength, nature and duration of the applicant's ties to Australia are very limited, given he offended soon after arriving as an adult and has spent all but a few months in Australia in prison and detention, so I have found this consideration weighs in favour of exercising the discretion to refuse to grant the visa. Given the very serious nature of the applicant's offence, I have found that the expectations of the Australian community weigh in favour of exercising the discretion to refuse to grant the visa regardless of the fact that I have found the applicant poses a low risk of reoffending in the same or similar way.
Balanced against the relevant primary considerations, which I have found weigh against the applicant to varying degrees, but none heavily, there are the relevant other considerations. The immediate legal consequence of my decision, if I affirm, is that the applicant would remain in immigration detention pending the outcome of his protection visa application. I have found this consideration weighs moderately in the applicant's favour and against exercising the discretion to refuse to grant the visa. I have found that the extent of the impediments the applicant would face if removed to China are considerable and potentially very serious, including a real risk he would be subject to double jeopardy and face the death penalty and I have found this consideration weighs heavily in the applicant's favour and against exercising the discretion to refuse to grant the visa.
I find that this is a case where the considerations are finely balanced, but weighing them all together and taking a wholistic view, I conclude that the discretion to grant the visa should be exercised in the applicant's favour. In reaching this conclusion, I place weight on the low risk that the applicant will reoffend, the meaningful level of rehabilitation he has achieved, the fact that he will have strong support if he is released into the community via his supervision plan and parole conditions, with which I am satisfied he will comply, the support he will have through his friend RG, the fact that the visa is for a limited purpose pending the outcome of his protection visa application, the undesirability of the applicant becoming further institutionalised while remaining in immigration detention and the very serious impediments he may face if he were removed to China, which is a possibility given the protection finding made in respect of him is only indicative and has not been finalised.

I find that the applicant does not meet the character test for the purposes of s 501(6) and in all the circumstances, the discretion under s 501(1) to refuse to grant the visa should not be exercised.

The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and in substitution decides that the discretion to refuse to grant the visa under s 501(1) should not be exercised.

Solicitor for the respondent: Ms S Frankel, The Australian Government Solicitor

[33] 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.

[59] I note this report has sign-off dated 10 December 2024 by the Community Corrections Officer, 12 December 2024 by the Team Leader and 6 January 2024 (which should presumably be 2025) by the Acting Manager, all of Windsor Community Corrections.

[84] Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs v BFW20 [2020] FCA 562 at [129].

[85] Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs v EDB20 [2021] FCAFC 179; (2021) 287 FCR 581; RVJB v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2022] FCA 962.

[98] FYBR v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCAFC 185; Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v RXJT [2026] FCA 33 at [62].

[100] Direction 110 paragraph 5.2.(5) and (6).

[101] Direction 110 paragraph 5.2.(7).

[102] [2024] HCA 2 at [51] - [52] (Ismail).

[103] The equivalent paragraph of the Direction that was in force at the time.

[105] Direction 110 paragraph 9.1.(2).

[106] DFAT Country Information Report China 27 December 2024, [5.29] - [5.31].

[109] [2022] HCA 17 (Plaintiff M1/2021).

[112] PLCP v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2025] FCA 398 at [47], [51].

[113] Cf Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v RXJT [2026] FCA 33.

MVTP and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (Migration) [2026] ARTA 605 (20 April 2026)

BSJ16 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCA 1181

CRNL v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FCAFC 138

FYBR v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCAFC 185

Hambledon v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 7

Ismail v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2024] HCA 2

Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs v BFW20 [2020] FCA 562

Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs v EDB20 [2021] FCAFC 179; (2021) 287 FCR 581

MVPF v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2025] FCA 1263

Plaintiff M1/2021 v Minister for Home Affairs [2022] HCA 17

PLCP v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2025] FCA 398

Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v RXJT [2026] FCA 33

RVJB v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2022] FCA 962

BSJ16 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Source

Judgment (89 paragraphs)

Parties

Cases Cited (14)

MVTP and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (Migration) [2026] ARTA 605 (20 April 2026)