1. The hearing took place in Perth on 4 and 5 August 2025. Both parties were represented.
2. The following documents were marked as exhibits:

(a) Applicant's statement dated 7 July 2025 (Exhibit A1); > > (b) Statement of Child 3, dated 4 July 2025 (Exhibit A2); > > (c) Statement of Child 1, dated 4 July 2025 (Exhibit A3); > > (d) Statement of Spouse of Child 1, dated 7 July 2025 (Exhibit A4); > > (e) Statement of Wife, dated 4 July 2025 (Exhibit A5); > > (f) Bundle of evidence filed 7 July 2025 (Exhibit A6); > > (g) Supplementary bundle of evidence filed 28 July 2025 (Exhibit A7); > > (h) Section 501G documents, labelled G1 - G13, filed 10 June 2025 (Exhibit R1); and > > (i) Tender Bundle filed 21 July 2025 (Exhibit R2).

3. The Applicant, his wife, two of his three children, and the spouse of Child 1 gave oral evidence and were cross-examined.
4. I was also assisted by:

(a) The Applicant's Statement of Facts Issues and Contentions, dated 7 July 2025 (Applicant's SFIC); and > > (b) the Minister's Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions, dated 21 July 2025 (Respondent's SFIC).

Migration Act

1. Under sections 501(3) and (3A) of the Act, the Minister must cancel a person's visa if he or she is satisfied that the person does not pass the 'character test', and the visa holder is serving a full-time sentence of imprisonment in a custodial institution of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory.
2. Section 501(6)(a) of the Act provides that a person does not pass the character test if they have a substantial criminal record, which in turn is set out on section 501(7)(c) to mean they have been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more.
3. Once a person's visa is cancelled under s 501(3A) of the Act, the Minister must give them written notice inviting them to make representations about revocation of the original decision. If representations are made, the Minister may revoke the decision to cancel the visa if satisfied that: [13]

(a) the person passes the character test; or > > (b) there is another reason why the original decision should be revoked.

4. That is, to make a decision under section 501CA(4) a decision-maker must first decide whether the person passes the character test under section 501CA(4)(b)(i) and, only if satisfied that the person does not pass that test, decide whether, under section 501CA(4)(b)(ii), there is another reason why the original decision should be revoked.[14]
5. Section 499(2A) of the Act mandates that the Tribunal must comply with written directions given by the Minister regarding its functions or the exercise of those powers given to it under section 499(1) of the Act.

1. On 7 June 2024, the Minister issued Direction no. 110 under s 499 of the Act (Direction 110). The direction applies specifically to decisions by the Tribunal on an application for revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under section 501CA.
2. Paragraph 5.2 of Direction 110 sets out mandatory principles which 'provide the framework within which decision-makers should approach their task of deciding whether to ... revoke a mandatory cancellation under section 501CA'.
3. These principles include the following:
   1. Australia has a sovereign right to determine whether non-citizens who are of character concern are allowed to enter and/or remain in Australia. Being able to come to or remain in Australia is a privilege Australia confers on non­ citizens in the expectation that they are, and have been, law-abiding, will respect important institutions, such as Australia's law enforcement framework, and will not cause or threaten harm to individuals or the Australian community.
   2. The safety of the Australian Community is the highest priority of the Australian Government.
   3. Non-citizens who engage or have engaged in criminal or other serious conduct should expect to be denied the privilege of coming to, or to forfeit the privilege of staying in, Australia.
   4. The Australian community expects that the Australian Government can and should refuse entry to non-citizens, or cancel their visas, if they engaged in conduct, in Australia or elsewhere, that raises serious character concerns. This expectation of the Australian community applies regardless of whether the non-citizen poses a measureable [sic] 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.
4. Paragraph 8 of Direction 110 sets out the primary considerations which must be taken into account in making a decision under s 501CA(4). These are:

(a) protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct;

(b) family violence engaged by the Applicant (if any);

(c) the strength, nature and duration of the Applicant's ties to Australia;

(d) the best interests of minor children in Australia affected by the decision; and

(e) the expectations of the Australian community.

1. Paragraph 9 of Direction 110 sets out the other considerations which the Tribunal must take into account, insofar as they are relevant to an application. These are:

(b) extent of impediments if removed; and

(c) impact on Australian business interests.

(a) information and evidence from independent and authoritative sources should be given appropriate weight when applying the considerations;

(b) the protection of the Australian community is generally to be given greater weight than other primary considerations, and primary considerations should generally be given greater weight than the other considerations; and

(c) one or more primary considerations may outweigh other primary considerations.

1. The Applicant, by his counsel, concedes that he does not pass the character test in sections 501(6)(a) and 501(7)(c) of the Act.[15] Therefore, the only live issue for my consideration is whether there is another reason why the Cancellation Decision should be revoked.[16]

1. The Applicant's criminal history is set out in the following table: [17]

Indecently dealt with a lineal relative or defacto child under the age of 16 years old; Criminal Code (WA) s 329(4) & (10)(a); 2 counts

Indecently dealt with a lineal relative or defacto child under the age of 16 years old; Criminal Code (WA); s 329(4) & (10)(a)

Indecently dealt with a lineal relative or defacto child under the age of 16 years old; Criminal Code (WA); s 329(4) & (10)(a)

Indecently dealt with a lineal relative or defacto child under the age of 16 years old; Criminal Code (WA); s 329(4) & (10)(a)

Indecently dealt with a lineal relative or defacto child under the age of 16 years old; Criminal Code (WA); s 329(4) & (10)(a)

1. The Applicant was sentenced to a total term of 3 years and 8 months' imprisonment.[18]

1. The Applicant concedes that he fails the character test in section 501(6) of the Act because his convictions and the sentence imposed for them means he falls within the meaning of section 501(7), having been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more. That concession is properly made as his failure to pass the character test arises as a matter of law. [19] I find that he has failed the character test.

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

1. Given the power to revoke the Cancellation Decision is only enlivened if there is 'another reason', within the meaning of section 501CA(4)(b)(ii) of the Act, and the concession as to the character test, all the evidence and submissions at the hearing were directed at this question.

1. The Applicant's written submissions identified the following primary considerations as being relevant to my decision:

(a) the protection of the Australian community; > > (b) family violence engaged in by the Applicant; > > (c) the strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia; > > (d) the best interest of minor children; and > > (e) the expectations of the Australian community. > > 1. The Applicant also identified the legal consequences of the decision, the extent of impediments if removed, and the impact on Australian business interests, as being relevant.

1. Direction 110 at 8.1(1) requires me to keep in mind that the safety of the Australian community is the highest priority of the Australian Government, and to that end the Government is committed to protecting the Australian community from harm as a result of criminal activity or other serious conduct by non-citizens. In this respect, the Tribunal is 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.[20]

1. The Applicant's criminal history which gave rise to the Cancellation Decision and his entire criminal history is set out at paragraph 23 above. The offending is plainly serious.

1. I must consider the nature and seriousness of the Applicant's criminal offending and other conduct.[21] I am directed that certain types of criminal or other conduct is viewed very seriously by the Government and the Australian community[22] and that certain criminal or other conduct is considered serious[23]. The scope of what I may consider as either very serious or serious, is not limited to those matters specifically included in Direction 110.[24]
2. The Applicant's offending history is set out at paragraph 23 of this decision. The Applicant concedes that this consideration will weigh against revocation, and that his conduct will be viewed by the Tribunal as very serious.[25]
3. The offending is plainly very serious. The Applicant was in a position of trust in respect to his family, including the victim of his offending, and his conduct breached that trust in the most abhorrent manner. As the Respondent correctly submits, the nature of the offending can only be viewed as very serious under Direction 110 at [8.1.1(a)].[26]
4. I have reviewed the Sentencing Judge's remarks and accept that the fact that the victim of the offences was a young child who was the biological child of the Applicant, and the fact that the Applicant's offending breached the trust of the victim, are aggravating factors.[27] Those matters were rightly taken into account in the sentencing, and the Applicant's sentence reflected these aggravating factors.
5. In my view, having considered all the evidence, the submissions and the assessment of the offending by the Court, I have concluded the offending was very serious and weighs against revocation.

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

1. I must also consider the risk to the Australian community should the Applicant commit further offences.[28] This requires an assessment of the nature of the harm should the Applicant engage in further criminal or other serious conduct[29], and an assessment of the likelihood of the Applicant engaging in that type of conduct.[30] There is no statutory constraint on the way I am to assess that risk, other than the requirement for me to adopt a rational and probative approach to the assessment.[31]

1. To determine the risk to the Australian community if the Applicant committed further offences or engaged in other serious conduct, I must consider the nature of the harm to individuals or the Australian community should he reoffend.[32]
2. The past conduct does not apparently include any physical harm, but that does not suggest there is no harm, far from it. The psychological harm to the victim of the criminal conduct is undoubtedly profound and continues to impact their life. The victim's mother was candid in her evidence as to the devastating and long running impact the offending has had on her child's life. This has included impacts on their mental health, their ability to settle into a career, and their ability to interact with other members of the family.
3. Separately, the other members of the Applicant's family are all secondary victims of his criminal conduct. Most particularly this includes his other two children and his wife. The mother feels like she has let her middle child down and should have done more to support their wellbeing, especially in respect to their mental wellbeing. The Applicant's children, including the victim, and their mother, have displayed extraordinary bravery and resilience in how they have dealt with the Applicant's conduct, but the fact remains they should not have been put through this by him and have been scarred by his conduct.
4. I consider the nature of the harm which may be caused if the Applicant reoffended in a similar manner to his past history, to be serious psychological harm to any victim, as well as to his own wider family.

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

1. To determine the risk to the Australian community if the Applicant committed further offences or engaged in other serious conduct, I must also consider the likelihood of reoffending if he is permitted to remain in the Australian community.[33]
2. The task of assessing this is essentially an evaluative one to be undertaken at the time of the decision, but looking forward. I am assisted by the detailed and useful analysis of this process undertaken in WKCG and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship[34] undertaken by Justice Tamberlin, sitting as Deputy President of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, albeit in respect to a different legislative context.
3. There are a number of factors which suggest that it is unlikely that the Applicant will reoffend.

(a) The Applicant's remorse, including his shame and contrition at what he has done. It was absolutely obvious that he accepts full responsibility for his conduct and understands how deeply this has affected his family. He also, separately, understands how his conduct affected the child, now adult, who was the victim of his offending. He is plainly ashamed of what he did. > > (b) During the 10 years between his offending and him being charged by the police, there was no reoffending, nor any suggestion of reoffending. > > (c) The Applicant has commenced psychological treatment.[35] His efforts to see a psychologist have met some bureaucratic hurdles since he has been in prison, through no fault of his own.[36] My very clear impression was that he is committed to undertaking this treatment and will do so once the hurdles are resolved. > > (d) According to his individual management plan completed at Karnet Prison, he is rated as minimum risk.[37] I note this assessment was done without a full Treatment Assessment being undertaken as a result of prison restraints, again, something that was not within his control.[38] The Applicant accepts that he will benefit from any treatment he is assessed as being eligible to undertake. > > (e) The Applicant did not seek to minimise his conduct or blame anyone else for it. My impression of his evidence is that he is not remorseful about being caught, he is remorseful for committing the offences and thereby causing harm to those he loves the most. This demonstrates insight into his behaviour. > > (f) The majority of the offences were committed in 2010, with one earlier offence. In late 2010 or early 2011 the eldest child, then aged 12 or 13, noticed something unusual about the Applicant's interactions with the middle child, the victim of the criminal conduct. The eldest child immediately reported their concerns to their mother, their mother confronted the Applicant, and the family put in place measures designed to protect the children and maintain the family relationship. In my view, the extraordinary bravery of the eldest child in reporting their suspicions to their mother, and the bravery of the mother in confronting her husband and managing the crisis in the family plainly demonstrates that there is a highly supportive family, but not one which is ignoring the realities of what happened. None of the family members who gave evidence in any way downplayed or excused the offences, the impact on the family, or the impact on the victim.[39] > > (g) The eldest child has subsequently married and become a parent. I heard from both this now adult child and their spouse about the impact on their lives and the life of their child, the Applicant's grandchild, including the risk minimisation measures they have actively put in place. They are not a family which has taken the view that doing nothing to protect their own child is sufficient and have been proactive in their approach. Furthermore, they accepted that it will be necessary, as their children[40] grow, to start a conversation with their children about personal safety and boundaries. > > (h) Upon his release from prison, the Applicant will be subject to a range of restrictions in respect to being around children, which will likely last many years, if not for the rest of his life, and which his family is well aware of. He accepted those restrictions will be present. > > (i) The matters set out in (a), (b), (f), (g) and (h) above, suggest the Applicant will have little opportunity to reoffend in the future.

4. In my view, the likelihood of the Applicant engaging in further criminal or serious conduct is very low.

Conclusion on the protection of the Australian community

1. Having regard to the nature and seriousness of the Applicant's conduct, and the risk to the Australian community should he commit further offences or engage in other similar conduct, I have concluded that this consideration weighs only slightly against revocation.

1. Paragraph 8.2 of Direction 110 requires a decision-maker to consider family violence in certain circumstances. Paragraph 4 of the direction includes an extensive definition of family violence which relevantly says:

family violence means 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...

2. Direction 110 at [8.2(2)(a) and (b)] set out the alternatives open when a person has been convicted of family violence offences, and when the person hasn't been convicted, both of which are relevant in this case.
3. The Applicant's convictions are set out at paragraph 23 of this decision. I note that the sentencing Judge was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the offending conduct commenced prior to coming to Australia,[41] and therefore I consider there is both conviction and other conduct. This conduct as a whole plainly fits within the definition of family violence.
4. The Minister submits:[42]

a) The offending was frequent having occurred on at least six occasions over a three-year period and likely more given the comments by the sentencing judge. . . . > > b) The offending was persistent and occurred when the victim was a minor. > > c) There is no contemporaneous evidence of rehabilitation to address the factors behind the offending and any engagement in rehabilitation occurred 14 years after the conduct occurred and only after the visa was cancelled. > > d) The applicant has limited insight into the offending, a lack of remorse and a continued denial of contact offending.

5. The Applicant accepts this consideration will weigh against revocation.
6. I accept the first two propositions of the Minister's submissions set out at [49] above. These correctly characterise the nature of the offending. Furthermore, I accept that the conduct has caused long term detriment to the victim and the other members of the family: it ruptured the family and has had life-long impacts on all of them.
7. I do not accept the third and fourth propositions in the Minister's submissions set out at [49] above.

(a) The evidence made it clear there has been no repeat of the behaviour. Once disclosure was made, in about early 2011, the Applicant admitted his conduct to his family and put substantial effort into becoming a better husband and father, and not repeating the offending behaviour. Each of the members of the family who gave evidence told me that he worked hard and rebuilt their trust in him, which is most aptly demonstrated by the fact that he has been allowed to develop a relationship with his grandchild, albeit under the strict supervision of that child's parents. > > (b) Whilst he has only fairly recently commenced formal psychological treatment, that is not to say he has not been rehabilitated though his own and his family's efforts. His wife's clearheaded resolve appears to have been the single most significant driver for this. > > (c) During the course of his evidence, I was struck by how the Applicant accepted it was his conduct which caused the rupture in the family. He did not blame being caught, or the victim reporting to police later in life, or any other factor: he blamed his own conduct and accepted responsibility for it.

8. I find this consideration weighs moderately against revocation.

The strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia

1. I accordance with paragraph 8.3 of Direction 110, I must also consider the strength, nature and duration of the Applicant's ties to Australia.
2. The Applicant arrived in Australia in 2008 with his family and has spent approximately 17 years living in regional Australia, where he has been in constant employment since the family's arrival.[43] He has a wife, three adult children aged in their twenties, one of whom has a spouse, and a grandchild who is under 4 years of age. Most of these family members are Australian citizens, the Applicant's wife is a permanent resident and in the process of obtaining citizenship, and the only family member whose citizenship is unknown is the victim of the criminal conduct.
3. A second grandchild was due to be born at around the time of the hearing, but was not yet born at the time I made my decision on 14 August 2025, so that child's interests are not taken into account in my decision under the criteria of the best interests of minor children. However, the fact that one of the Applicant's children has a growing young family, is relevant to this criteria. That new baby will acquire Australian citizenship by birth.
4. Despite the deeply traumatic events of the offending, disclosure to the family, and later the disclosure to the police and the Applicant's trial and incarceration, the family largely remains very close.

(a) Despite his offending, it is intended that the Applicant and his wife will reside with their eldest child and family, following his release from prison. The eldest child will have two children at the time the Applicant is released from prison. The eldest child and their spouse have been proactive in putting in place protective measures to ensure their children are safe. Both the eldest child and their spouse gave evidence before me and I formed the impression that they were deeply committed to ensuring the safety of their growing family, whilst at the same time giving their children the benefit of a relationship with their grandparents. > > (b) Two of the Applicant's children gave evidence in support of him. Both impressed me as determined, caring, and resourceful young adults who have no illusions about the negative impact of their father's offending. Both gave examples of how their father has assisted with their development, encouraged them in choosing fulfilling careers, guided them in buying their own homes and renovating these properties to suit their needs. One has worked FIFO with their father and found that a formative experience. > > (c) The Applicant's wife speaks to him daily, or more, by telephone whilst he is in prison. Members of the family share amongst themselves the available in person visitors spots so that each of them can see him each month. > > (d) The victim of the offending has the benefit of a restraining order, and is not in contact with the Applicant. However, other members of the family remain in contact with the victim and are hopeful of an improving relationship.

5. The Applicant and his wife have been together for nearly 30 years, she is not yet 50 years of age and it is fair to say he has been the single most constant part of her life. They married in Zimbabwe in 1997, had three children and later moved to South Africa with their young family, as a result of safety and economic concerns in Zimbabwe.[44] His wife has recently returned to the paid workforce and is rebuilding her life following the past couple of years of dislocation. Her only family are her husband and the three adult children, the spouse of one of her children, and her grandchildren. She has no desire to relocate to South Africa or Zimbabwe,[45] and, having made the difficult decision in 2008 to uproot the family and move to Australia for the chance of a better life, wishes to remain here. That is an entirely understandable position.
6. If her husband is removed, she would effectively lose her life partner. The impact on her if he is removed, given the extraordinary bravery she showed in 2011 in confronting him about his conduct, and her continued strength in keeping the family together whilst in no way condoning his conduct, would undoubtedly be devastating.
7. Two of the children, the spouse, and the grandchild will all lose the closeness of the bond they currently have if the Applicant is removed.
8. The unborn grandchild will loose the opportunity to know their grandfather.
9. The victim of the crime has remained at a distance since the matters were reported to the police in 2022. This is entirely understandable. That child has however expressed a hope that the Applicant is not removed from Australia as a result of the offending. This suggests to me that the child may, with the passage of time, wish to reconcile with the Applicant, something that would be denied if he is removed.
10. In the period the family has been in Australia, the Applicant has been the main breadwinner and has worked in regional and remote locations undertaking fly in fly out roles, as well as, in the earlier years in Australia living in remote communities. His fly in fly out work continued whilst he was on bail, after being charged in 2022.
11. The family arrived in Australia with virtually nothing to their names: their personal belongings and less than $2,000.[46] By 2016 the family was in a position to purchase a block of land and build a home. The Applicant's continuous work history, including his preparedness to work in remote regional areas in some of the most demanding conditions in Western Australia for the benefit of his family and to build this new life, is impressive. In doing this, it is undoubtedly the case that he was well partnered by his wife who bore the brunt of their domestic stability and the nurturing of their family life. The family home was sold at about the time of the criminal proceedings to fund legal bills and so the Applicant, and his wife, must start once again.
12. In his oral closing submissions, the Minister acknowledged that the Applicant has substantial ties to Australia, and that the impact of removal on his family would be horrific for both him and his family. The Minister acknowledges this criterion weighs in favour of revocation, but submitted it should not outweigh the criteria which are, in the Minister's submission, against revocation.
13. The Minister's written submissions made the point that the Applicant's offending began soon after the Applicant's arrival in Australia and therefore less weight should be given to his ties.[47] Whilst the Minister is correct that the offending took place soon after the Applicant's arrival in Australia in May 2008, the submission ignores the fact that it ceased 2 years after its commencement, following the intervention of his wife, and there has been no reoffending in the subsequent 14 years between November 2010 and November 2024 when he was imprisoned.[48]
14. I conclude that the strength, nature and duration of the Applicant's ties to Australia weighs strongly in favour of revocation of the Cancellation Decision.

Best interests of minor children in Australia affected by the decision

1. I must also consider the best interests of the minor children in Australia affected by the decision.
2. The Applicant has three children with his wife, all of whom are adults. He has one grandchild as at the date of the decision.[49] That child is between 2 and 3 years of age. During its early life, prior to the Applicant being imprisoned but whilst awaiting sentencing, the Applicant saw his grandchild frequently and developed a strong bond.
3. The grandchild is, quite appropriately, not able to visit the Applicant in prison. Both parents explained that this lack of seeing their grandfather has caused confusion for the child, who continues to express a desire to see him.
4. The grandchild's parents are both extremely keen for the child to continue to have a strong bond with the Applicant as he is the only grandfather in the child's life and both parents feel the lack of this bond in their own lives. They gave evidence as to how they planned to manage the relationship once the Applicant resumes living in their house, following his release from prison. They had given careful thought to this and are clearly prepared to take no risks with their child's safety. They are, however, determined that the child will have a relationship with its grandfather.
5. The Minister does not make the submission that the best interests of the grandchild are against revocation of the Applicant's visa. Rather, the Minister submits that the nature of the relationship will be irrevocably changed because of the restrictions which will be placed on the Applicant on his release. There will undoubtedly be contact restrictions as a result of him being a sex offender. Ultimately, the Minister submits that this consideration weighs only slightly in favour of revocation, or alternatively is a neutral consideration.
6. I am conscious there is a risk with the Applicant being able to develop a relationship with his grandchild. However, I have dealt with the risks earlier in my reasons. In considering this aspect of Direction 110, I must focus on the grandchild's best interests. In considering what they are, I accept that a multi-generational family bond is, generally, a positive influence and in the best interests of a child. I am also conscious that the parents in this case are not by any means ignorant of the possibility of risk; indeed, they are actively managing it and are committed to doing so in the future. They intend to explain the Applicant's personal history when the grandchild is old enough to understand it; this is not a case of set and forget parenting, or pretending that the issue does not exist.
7. There is no doubt in my mind that the parents are strong and capable people. The Applicant's own child, one of the parents, is the one who reported their suspicions to their mother at the age of 12 or 13. Neither of the grandchild's parents strike me as the sort of people who would shy away from dealing with any behaviour they were unhappy with or concerned about. Yet both are very keen that their child resumes the relationship with its grandfather, albeit within constraints. In the end I regard their openness to dealing with the issue head on, something which must be incredibly confronting, as persuasive in determining what is in the best interests of their child.
   1. I find that the best interests of the grandchild weighs moderately in favour of revocation.

1. I am required to consider the expectations of the Australian community as set out in paragraph 8.5 of Direction 110. The consideration of this question, as with the others, is done against the background of the principles set out in paragraph 5.2 of Direction 110 and specifically in this case, those matters set out in paragraphs 5.2(2), 5.2(3) and 5.2(4).
2. The first sentence of paragraph 8.5(1) is a reflection of the rule of law as it applies to both citizens and non-citizens.[50] The remainder of paragraph 8.5(1) sets out the expectations of the Australian community as a norm. I accept that the effect of this is to deem what the expectations of the community are and thereby preclude me from undertaking any assessment of what, in any particular factual circumstances, the actual expectations of the Australian community might be.[51] That proposition itself is contained in paragraph 8.5(4) of Direction 110. The utility of this approach by Government in order to assist decision-makers is obvious.
3. Paragraph 8.5(2) also provides guidance by saying:

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... continue to hold a visa.

4. In closing submissions, the Applicant conceded this consideration weighs against revocation.
5. I have dealt with the risk to the community if the Applicant were to reoffend earlier in my reasons. I came to the view that the Applicant does not pose a significant risk of harm to the Australian community given the particular circumstances of his offending, and the strong support of his family, coupled with the attitude towards his offending displayed by them. The risk of harm is not unacceptable.
6. In all the circumstances, I find that the expectations of the Australian community weigh only slightly against revocation in this matter.

Legal consequences of decision under section 501 or 501CA

1. I am required 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.[52] Non-refoulment considerations do not arise in this case.
2. This consideration also makes reference to the range of legal consequences of a decision not to revoke the Cancellation Decision. These legal consequences include:

(a) the Applicant's unlawful status;

(b) becoming subject to detention and/or removal, pursuant to sections 189, 196, 197C and 198 of the Act;

(c) the refusal of other visa applications and cancellation of other visas, pursuant to section 501F of the Act;

(d) a prohibition on applying for other visas, pursuant to section 501E of the Act; and

(e) periods of exclusion and special return criteria may apply, pursuant to section 503 of the Act and special return criteria 5001 of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth).

1. Generally, if a visa is cancelled its former holder becomes an unlawful non-citizen immediately after cancellation.[53] Under section 189 of the Act, the Applicant must be detained and removed as soon as reasonably practicable under section 198.[54] The Applicant is currently in prison and is liable to be detained in immigration detention and removal on being released from prison.
2. I accept the removal and visa limitations which result from a decision not to revoke the cancellation of the visa are an intended consequence of the operation of section 501. However, in my view, the consequences of liability for removal on an individual applicant should not be ignored, irrespective of them being intended by the Parliament.[55] It is worth noting that the Parliament has not evinced any preference as to the outcome of a review like this one, and a positive outcome of the review will of course avoid the adverse consequences of the legislative scheme.[56]
3. In this Applicant's situation, it would effectively mean that he is exiled from his growing family and they will, in effect, be exiled from him. Given the strength of his family ties, this will plainly be a huge loss for both him and for them.
4. I find that this consideration carries strong weight in favour of revocation of the Cancellation Decision.

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

(a) the Applicant's age and health; > > (b) whether there are substantial language or cultural barriers; and > > (c) any social, medical and/or economic support available to the Applicant in their country.

2. The Applicant is 51 years old and was born in Zimbabwe where he spent the first thirty years of his life. In 2006, he moved to South Africa, with his wife and young children as a result of safety concerns arising from the domestic situation in Zimbabwe. He holds both South African and Zimbabwean citizenship. The whole family moved to Australia in 2008 and has not returned to South Africa or Zimbabwe since arriving in Australia. He has some family members living in Zambia.
3. Given the Applicant speaks English,[57] he should have little difficulty acculturating to South Africa on return. He will however be needing to reestablish himself in employment, which may prove difficult, and will have no family members to support him.
4. Whilst he has no known medical conditions which would be an impediment to returning to South Africa, it is clear that he would suffer significant mental health consequences by removal. Concerns as to his mental well-being were expressed by his family members at the hearing and I accept their concerns are genuine.
5. The Applicant presented to me as a broken man. He was emotionally distressed at several points during the hearing, and was genuinely dependent on the emotional support of his family members. Whilst there is no formal assessment available to me, it appears very clear that his mental health, if removed, would prove a significant impediment to him reintegrating in South Africa.
6. The difficulties which the Applicant would face were recognised in the Respondent's submissions. Ultimately, both counsel agreed that this is a factor which weighs in favour of revocation of the Cancellation Decision.
7. I find that the extent of impediments if removed weighs strongly in favour of revocation and I place substantial weight on this consideration in the Applicant's circumstances.

1. The Applicant has made submissions regarding the impact of the decision on business interests given his substantial work history in regional Western Australia and in particular his experience in the mining construction industry and the future outlook for that sector in Australia's future economic growth. I accept that these matters are relevant to my decision in this Applicant's case.[58]
2. I find that the impact on Australian business interests weighs slightly in favour of revocation and I place slight weight on this consideration in the Applicant's circumstances.

1. I have found the Applicant does not pass the character test under section 501 of the Act.
2. I have therefore considered if there is another reason why the Cancellation Decision should be revoked, giving regard to the considerations set out in Direction 110, and weighing the various considerations in accordance with paragraph 7 of the Direction, and in accordance with the authorities which bind my decision making.
3. In determining the weight to be applied to each individual consideration, I have considered all the primary and other relevant considerations and weighed them in light of the evidence and according to the guidance provided by Direction 110.
4. Of the primary considerations, I find:

(a) the protection of the Australian community and the expectations of the Australian community both weigh only slightly against revocation; > > (b) the Applicant's ties to Australia weighs strongly in favour of revocation; > > (c) family violence committed by the non-citizen weights moderately against revocation; and > > (d) the best interests of minor children weigh moderately in favour of revocation;

5. In relation to those other considerations I find:

(a) the legal consequences of the decision weighs strongly in favour of revocation of the Cancellation Decision; > > (b) the extent of impediments if removed weighs strongly in favour of revoking the Cancellation Decision; and > > (c) the impact on Australian business interests weighs slightly in favour of revocation.

6. Paragraph 7(2) of Direction 110 states that primary considerations should generally be given greater weight than the other considerations. It also provides that the protection of the Australian community is generally to be given greater weight than the other primary considerations, which is a principle that I find should apply in this case.
7. Having weighed the considerations in favour of the revocation of the cancellation of the Applicant's visa and the considerations against revocation, I conclude that the primary considerations of protection of the Australian community and the expectations of the Australian community do not outweigh those primary considerations which weigh in favour of revocation, being the strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia, the best interests of minor children, and the other considerations of the legal consequences of non-revocation and the extent of impediments if the Applicant is removed.
8. In summary, having regard to all of the primary considerations, and the relevant other considerations in Direction 110, I am satisfied that there is 'another reason' why the Cancellation Decision should be revoked.

1. The decision of the delegate of the Minister dated 28 May 2025 not to revoke the cancellation of the Applicant's Class BW Subclass 857 Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme visa under section 501CA(4) is set aside.

I certify that the preceding one hundred and five paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Deputy President Clare Thompson SC

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

[1] Khalil and Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCAFC 151 at [41].

[4] Applicant's SFIC at [7]; Exhibit R1, G9.

[13] Section 501CA(4)(b) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (Act).

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

[16] Section 501CA(4) of the Act.

[19] Harrison and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2009] AATA 47; (2009) 106 ALD 666 at [63].

[20] See also Direction 110 at [8(1)].

[21] Paragraph 8.1(1) of Direction 110.

[22] Paragraph 8.1.1(1)(a) of Direction 110.

[23] Paragraph 8.1.1(1)(b) of Direction 110.

[24] Paragraph 8.1.1(1)(a)-(b) Direction 110.

[25] Applicant's SFIC at [40] - [43].

[29] Paragraph 8.1.2(2)(a) of Direction 110.

[30] Paragraph 8.1.2(2)(b) of Direction 110.

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

[32] Paragraph 8.1.2(2)(a) of Direction 110.

[33] Paragraph 8.1.2(2)(b) of Direction 110.

[34] [2009] AATA 512.

[35] Applicant's SFIC at [77] - [79]; Exhibit A6, 105; Exhibit A7, 1.

[39] Under the consideration of strength, nature and ties to Australia I explore the history of the family moving to Australia. It is against that background that the wife's management of the crisis which confronted her in 2011 should be considered.

[40] Noting that a second child was due imminently at the time of the hearing.

[43] Applicant's SFIC at [98] - [100].

[44] Exhibit A5, 2 at [10] - [11]; Exhibit A6, 110 at [10] - [11].

[45] Even if that were possible, given difficulties with returning to Zimbabwe as a result of legislative change resulting in the removal of their Zimbabwean passports since the family moved to South Africa.

[46] Exhibit A5, 2 at [11]; Exhibit A6, 110 at [11].

[47] Respondent's SFIC at [47] addressing paragraph [8.3(2)(a)] of Direction 110.

[50] FYBR v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCAFC 185 at [69] - [70].

[53] Section 15 of the Act.

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

[55] Singh v Minister for Immigration, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2024] FCA 1273.

[56] Stoneley v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2025] FCA 143 at [36].

[58] Arachchi v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2022] FCA 1311 at [68]- [69].