1. The Applicant was invited to make representations which he did in accordance with s 501CA(3)(b) about revocation of the cancellation decision.

1. On 12 June 2025 a delegate of the Minister decided that they were not satisfied the Applicant passed the character test (as defined by s 501). The delegate was also not satisfied there was another reason why the cancellation decision should be revoked.

Therefore, the power in s501CA(4) was not enlivened, and the Applicant's Class WC 030 Bridging C temporary visa remained cancelled (the original decision).

1. On 20 June 2025 the Applicant applied to the Tribunal for review of that decision.

1. The Applicant attended a hearing on 21 & 22 August 2025 and gave oral evidence. The Applicant was not represented in relation to the application. The Tribunal also received oral evidence from the Applicant's wife.

1. The Tribunal has taken into consideration the oral evidence provided during the hearing, and the evidence contained in the Hearing Book, and the Mental Health Notes provided by the Applicant.

1. Section 501CA(4) of the Act states the Minister may revoke the original decision if:

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

(b) the Minister is satisfied:

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

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

1. Section 501(6)(a) states that a person does not pass the character test if the person has a substantial criminal record.

1. Section 501(7)(c) states that, for the purposes of the character test, a person has a substantial criminal record if the person has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more.

1. Under section 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 (section 499(2A)).

1. The Minister has issued Direction 110, Visa Refusal and Cancellation under section 501 and Revocation of a Mandatory Cancellation of a Visa under section 501CA (the Direction) dated 7 June 2024.
2. The Direction sets out the considerations to be taken into account when considering a request to revoke a cancellation and states: a non-citizen who has had their visa cancelled under section 501(3A) may request revocation of that decision under section 501CA of the Act. Where the decision-maker considering the request is not satisfied that the non-citizen passes the character test, the decision-maker must consider whether there is another reason to revoke the cancellation given the specific circumstances of the case. The purpose of this Direction is to guide decision-makers in performing functions or exercising powers under sections 501 and 501CA of the Act.

1. Clause 5.2 of the Direction sets out the principles to provide a framework for decision making. 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.

1. Paragraph 8 of the Direction sets out the primary considerations to be taken into account:
   • 8.1 protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct;
   • 8.2 whether the conduct engaged in constituted family violence;
   • 8.3 the strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia;
   • 8.4 the best interests of minor children in Australia;
   • 8.5 expectations of the Australian community.

1. Paragraph 9 of the Direction sets out other considerations to be taken into account including:
   • 9.1 Legal consequences of the decision;
   • 9.2 Extent of impediments if removed;
   • 9.3 Impact on Australian business interests.

1. The issues to be determined in this application are:
   1. Does the Applicant pass the character test as set out in section 501(6), and if not,
   2. Whether there is another reason why the original decision should be revoked under section 501CA(4), having regard to the Minister's Direction No. 110.

1. It is not in dispute that the Applicant does not pass the character test.

1. On the evidence before it, including the Check Results Report and the sentencing remarks of Her Honour Judge Traill of the District Court of the New South Wales Criminal Jurisdiction, the Tribunal finds that on 23 November 2023 the Applicant was convicted of one charge of recklessly inflict grievous bodily harm. The Applicant pleaded guilty at the first available opportunity and was entitled to a 25% sentence discount. The Applicant was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of three years with a non-parole period of 18 months.1

1. The Tribunal finds the Applicant has a substantial criminal record and does not pass the character test set out in section 501(6)(a) of the Act.

Whether there is another reason why the original decision should be revoked under section 501CA(4), having regard to the Minister's Direction No. 110.

1. The Tribunal has considered each consideration set out in the Direction in turn, keeping in mind the principles in clause 5.2 of the Direction.

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

1. This consideration requires the Tribunal 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.

1. The Tribunal is required 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.

1. The Tribunal should also give consideration to the nature and seriousness of the non-citizen's conduct to date and the risk to the Australian community, should the non-citizen commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct.

1. Paragraph 8.1.1(1) states that when considering the nature and seriousness of the Applicant's criminal offending and other conduct to date, the Tribunal must have regard to a number of factors.

1. As noted above on 23 November 2023 the Applicant was convicted of recklessly inflict grievous bodily harm and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of three years with a non-parole period of 18 months.2

1. In her sentencing remarks Her Honour Judge Traill stated that the Applicant was the father of the victim who was five months old at the time. On 22 September 2022 the victim's mother was changing the sheets on the bed and the Applicant picked up the victim and was looking after him. The victim commenced crying. The Applicant could not stop the victim from crying, so he forcefully shook and twisted the victim several times. The victim stopped crying momentarily but then resumed crying, so the Applicant shook the victim again.

1. The victim's mother returned to the room and noticed the victim's body looked different. The victim refused a bottle and breast milk and appeared lethargic and stiff. The victim fell asleep and woke up vomiting. Later the victim's eyes rolled back in his head. His body stiffened and he had jerking movements of his left arm, which were like a seizure. The victim's mother took the victim to the hospital. On arrival she told triage that the Applicant had accidentally dropped the victim. She then told the staff to conduct a check as if the victim had been shaken. The Applicant told the staff at the hospital he had dropped the victim from his arms to the mattress but admitted to the victim's mother he did not drop him.

1. A CT scan was performed on the victim's brain. The scan showed multiple haematomas in the brain and possible blood in the tonsils. The victim was transferred into the care of a neurosurgical team and underwent an ophthalmology assessment which found bilateral

multiple retinal haemorrhage, too numerous to count in the posterior pole. The ophthalmologist opined abusive head trauma would explain the constellation of bilateral retinal findings and subdural haemorrhages.

1. The Applicant participated in an Electronically Recorded Interview with Suspected Person (ERISP) and denied shaking the victim. On 5 October 2022 the Applicant voluntarily admitted to a Department of Communities and Justice (DCJ) worker that he shook the victim a few times. He said, "His head was moving up and down. I do not know why I have done it. I lost control. I've shaken him a couple of times. I've shaken him twice".

1. Her Honour found there were aggravating factors to the Applicant's conduct: the offence was committed in the home of the victim; the offence involved a grave risk of death to the victim; the Applicant was in a position of trust and authority in relation to the victim; and the victim was vulnerable due to his age of five months.

1. Her Honour also noted mitigating factors: that the Applicant is of prior good character; the offence was not part of a planned or organised criminal activity; the Applicant had no prior convictions; and the injury was not substantial.

1. In assessing the objective gravity, Her Honour took into account the fact the victim was a very vulnerable child in the care of his father. Her Honour stated it was an egregious breach of trust and but for the actions of the victim's mother, the outcome could have been much worse. Her Honour accepted it was an example of significant criminality in a domestic setting, being reckless as to actual bodily harm. The offending was objectively very serious, however the injuries seem to have resolved to a significant degree. The victim was not currently demonstrating any lasting effects. However, this could have been much more serious. The child seemed to have made a near full recovery with the caveat that his long-term vision may need to be checked. The child was meeting all his milestones. Her Honour assessed the objective seriousness as below the mid-range for offences of this type.

1. When considering the nature and seriousness of the Applicant's conduct, clause 8.1.1(1)(a) of the Direction provides a list of matters the Tribunal must have regard to. Without limiting the range of conduct that may be considered very serious, the types of crimes or conduct listed as viewed as very serious by the Australian Government, include violent crimes,

crimes of a violent nature against women and children regardless of sentence imposed, and acts of family violence regardless of whether these is a conviction or sentence imposed.

1. During the hearing the Applicant was clearly upset and ashamed of his offending conduct. He told the Tribunal he considered his conduct very serious, and he was very sorry it happened. He told the Tribunal he took full responsibility and had no excuse for his actions. He was very remorseful. He told the Tribunal throughout the hearing that he was very sorry it happened, he noted he did not have a criminal or violent history, and stated it would never happen again.

1. There is also evidence before the Tribunal that there is an Apprehended Violence Order (AVO) in place restricting the Applicant's contact with his son.3 The Applicant told the Tribunal this order was varied to allow him to have supervised visits. The AVO will be in place until his son is 5 years old. On the evidence before it the Tribunal accepts the AVO arose out of the same conduct as was outlined in the sentencing remarks of Her Honour Judge Traill.

1. On the evidence before it, the Tribunal finds the Applicant has committed a violent crime, a crime of a violent nature against a child, and an act of family violence. These types of crimes and conduct are viewed very seriously by the Australian Government and the Australian community in accordance with cl 8.1.1(1)(a) of the Direction.

1. Clause 8.1.1(1)(c) requires the Tribunal to have regard to the sentence imposed by the courts, with the relevant exceptions of crimes of violence against women and children (cl 8.1.1(1)(a)(ii), and acts of family violence (cl 8.1.1(1)(a)(iii).

1. The Tribunal has considered whether to have regard to the sentence imposed in this matter. As noted above, the Tribunal finds the Applicant has committed a violent crime (cl 8.1.1(1)(a)(i)), which is not included in the relevant exceptions set out in cl 8.1.1(1)(c). The Tribunal also accepts the Respondent's submissions that while cl 8.1.1(1)(c) means the

Applicant's sentence may not be a mandatory relevant consideration, the Tribunal can still have regard to the sentence.

1. The Applicant was sentenced to three years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 18 months.

1. The Tribunal considers sentences of imprisonment as the most serious in the sentencing hierarchy. While the Tribunal accepts the Applicant was not sentenced to the maximum penalty, and the Tribunal notes Her Honour assessed the objective seriousness as below the mid-range for offences of this type, the Tribunal considers a sentence of three years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 18 months to be a significant sentence and reflects the seriousness of the Applicant's conduct.

1. During the hearing the Applicant agreed his offending had very serious impact on his son and wife and their family. He did not dispute the Respondent's submissions that his offending had clear and serious adverse impacts on the victim and their family.

1. According to Her Honour's sentencing remarks the victim's injuries were: bilateral mixed density subdural haematoma widespread over both sides of the brain; acute encephalopathy, which is swelling of the brain; and extensive intra-retinal haemorrhages, mainly around the posterior pole. Such injuries constitute grievous bodily harm. On 13 February 2023, CT scans revealed a significant improvement in the victim's injuries. Dr Perkins noted that although the recent ophthalmology assessments indicate the victim's retinal haemorrhages seem to have cleared, his long-term vision needs to be monitored.4

1. The sentencing remarks also indicate the Applicant's offending put a strain on his marriage with the victim's mother, the Applicant's wife. A letter from the New South Wales Department of Communities and Justice (DCJ) dated 28 February 2023 confirms that the victim was considered by the DCJ to be a child at risk and in need of care and protection, and was

placed in a kinship placement with his maternal grandmother and maternal aunty at the time.5

1. A Section 76 report to the Children's Court by Challenge Community Services dated 10 November 2023 indicated that on 18 May 2023, subsequent to final orders made by the Children's Court, the victim was physically restored to his mother and continue to settle in her care. Following a variation to the AVO on 9 August 2023 Challenge Community Services assembled a family time schedule providing for two face-to-face visits per week by the Applicant (supervised by a worker); this variation stated that the Applicant must not approach or contact the victim in any way unless the conduct is a supervised visit under the direct supervision of an employee or contracted employee of the Department of Communities and Justice.6

1. In her sentencing remarks, Her Honour Judge Traill stated the Applicant is now back in his son's life through supervised visits. Both the Applicant and his wife are trying to repair their relationship. His wife is supportive of the Applicant. No doubt this offence has been extremely traumatic for the family on many levels.

1. In her letter titled Victim Statement Impact, written by the Applicant's wife dated 31 October 2023 on behalf of the victim, the Applicant's wife stated that when the incident occurred, she felt a strong blend of emotions - disbelief, disappointment, confusion, sadness, and anger. She was in shock because it was so out of character for the Applicant, someone her son and she hold in high regard. Her son's playfulness was momentarily shaken right after the incident. However, he has shown resilience and jumped back into his natural playful personality not long after. Dr Adrienne Epps, rehabilitation staff specialist at Sydney Children Hospital, has no concerns with the victim's development. He is going well, measuring in the 75th percentile for his age. In her letter, the Applicant's wife said this highlighted that the incident was not intentional.7

1. The Applicant's wife stated that as time passed her son has had the opportunity to spend time with his father, and he expressed his wish for affectionate moments with his dad,

evident through his body language and laughter. She sees her son adores his father during their supervised playtime and he becomes upset when his dad has to leave. The victim attends child-care from Monday to Wednesday and on Fridays. He also participates in swimming lessons with his dad during the supervised visits on Thursdays. This schedule leaves the weekend for him to spend time socialising with his cousins and friends. The incident has placed a strain on their family relations as they all work towards healing and reconciliation. It has prompted open conversations within their family to address underlying issues and promote a safe and nurturing environment for them all.

1. The Applicant's wife stated that she believes that through therapy and support, their family can recover and move forward and promote a stable and loving environment for the victim. Her husband has shown remorse since the day of the incident and has completed a number of parenting courses.

1. The Applicant's wife's oral evidence was consistent with her previous written statements about the impact of the Applicant's offending on her and her son and their family. She told the Tribunal her son had recovered from his injuries and needs a male presence in his life. She still suffers from parental guilt, noting how hard it was for her to do everything herself while maintaining her full-time job. She misses having a partner available to help share the load.

1. It is clear the Applicant's offending had a serious adverse effect on his son's immediate health. Although his son appears to have recovered completely, the offending also had profound impacts on his son's short-term living arrangements, being removed from his parents, from his mother for a short period, and then being without his father, apart from supervised visits prior to the Applicant's incarceration. The Applicant's son has not had contact with his father since that time, and the Tribunal accepts he now seeks male interaction and is keen to have time with his father. The Tribunal agrees with Her Honour's sentencing remarks that the Applicant's offending has been extremely traumatic for the family on many levels.

Frequency of offending / effect of repeated offending

1. On the evidence before it, the Tribunal finds the Applicant's offending arose out of a single episode.
2. While the Tribunal accepts that within the single episode the Applicant shook and twisted the victim several times, and then shook the victim again, the Tribunal also accepts the submissions that there is no trend of increasing seriousness as set out in cl 8.1.1(1)(e) or a cumulative effect of repeated offending set out in cl 8.1.1(1)(f).

1. There is no material before the Tribunal to suggest the Applicant has provided false or misleading information.

1. On the evidence before it, the Tribunal accepts the Applicant did not have a criminal history prior to the incident on 22 September 2022 and has not offended since.

1. There is no material before the Tribunal to suggest the Applicant has reoffended.

1. The offence and conduct that is the subject of this application occurred in Australia. There is no material before the Tribunal to suggest the Applicant has offended or committed criminal conduct in another country.

1. Overall, having regards to all the factors set out in cl. 8.1.1, including the violent crime against a vulnerable child of five months of age, which was an act of family violence, and the impact of the offending on the victim and the Applicant's wife and their family, the Tribunal concurs with the Applicant and Respondent and finds that the nature and seriousness of the Applicant's conduct is very serious.

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

1. The Tribunal has had 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. In assessing the risk that may be posed by the non-citizen to the Australian community, the Tribunal must have regard to, cumulatively, the nature of the harm to individuals or the Australian community should the Applicant engage in further criminal or other serious conduct; and the likelihood of the Applicant engaging in further criminal or other serious conduct.

Nature of the harm to individuals or the Australian community should the non-citizen engage in further criminal or other serious conduct

1. During the hearing the Applicant provide compelling oral evidence that he deeply regrets and is ashamed of his conduct that harmed his son and led to the charges and the Applicant's imprisonment. He accepted the seriousness of the harm he inflicted and the submissions that his conduct had very serious consequences.

1. On the evidence before it, the Tribunal accepts the Respondent's submissions that if the Applicant was to engage in further criminal or other serious conduct, he could cause devasting physical and psychological harm to members of the Australian community, in particular vulnerable children or infants in his care.

The likelihood of the Applicant engaging in further criminal or other serious conduct

1. In considering this aspect of the consideration the Tribunal must take into account information and evidence on the risk of the Applicant reoffending; and evidence of rehabilitation achieved by the time of the decision, giving weight to time spent in the community since the most recent offence.

Risk of the Applicant reoffending and evidence of rehabilitation

1. During the hearing the Applicant consistently told the Tribunal he is ashamed and deeply regrets his conduct, and that he will not reoffend. He told the Tribunal he was a different person from who he was three years ago. He has had time to reflect on his conduct and the reasons for it. He has undertaken a number of courses to understand the stressors that contributed to his actions and has learned skills about how to manage his emotions and reactions differently. The Applicant told the Tribunal he is not a violent person, and he had

not had any interaction with the police before this incident. Since the incident he was on bail for a period without reoffending, and he has not reoffended or caused any harm since that time. He told the Tribunal it breaks his heart to be considered a violent offender, and he is of no risk to anyone.

1. The Applicant's wife also told the Tribunal she did not think the Applicant would reoffend. She noted his remorse and that he was more expressive of his emotions now. He has been able to reflect on his actions during his time of incarceration and she can see a difference in him, he is more open, expressive and positive.

1. In his Personal Circumstances Form the Applicant stated he does not believe he is a danger to the Australian community, and that he has been rehabilitated and poses no danger to his wife or son.8

1. In his written statement dated 6 May 2024 the Applicant stated he and his wife became pregnant in the second lockdown. He believes that at the relevant time he had been under a lot of stress from the Covid pandemic and was unable to work, and it was very difficult to pay rent and the bills during the lockdown. This information was consistent with the written statements of the Applicant's wife.9

1. In her sentencing remarks Her Honour Judge Traill indicated the Applicant initially denied shaking the victim, and then on 5 October 2022 he voluntarily admitted to the DCJ worker that he shook the victim a few times. Her Honour noted the Applicant had taken active steps to change his life and to rehabilitate himself. Although the Applicant had minimised his offending in comments made to the author to the Sentence Assessment Report, the Applicant had been seeing a psychologist since October 2022 and was enrolled in programs and attending a men's group and sessions with a counsellor on a weekly basis. Her Honour accepted the Applicant was remorseful and assessed the Applicant's risk of reoffending as low, provided he continued with his treatment plan.10

1. The Sentencing Assessment Report referred to by Her Honour, dated 25 October 2023, stated the Applicant had been assessed at a low risk of reoffending according to the level of Service Inventory - Revised (LSI-R).11

1. During the hearing the Applicant told the Tribunal he had initially not admitted to shaking his son because he was ashamed and panicked. He then realised he would never be able to move past this without taking full responsibility. The Applicant also told the Tribunal about the courses had had undertaken and referred to the completion certificates provided to the Tribunal.

1. On the evidence before it, the Tribunal accepts the Applicant completed the Black Box Parenting course in December 2022. In January 2023 he completed the Positive Parenting Program. In March 2023 the Applicant completed the Bringing Up Great Kids course. In May 2023 the Applicant completed the Seeing Red course, as well as the Keeping Kids in Mind course. In April 2023 the Applicant completed the Circle of Security Parenting TM Abbreviated course.

1. In a report by Dr Pusey, clinical and forensic psychologist, dated 17 January 2023, Dr Pusey opined that at the time of his offending it is likely the Applicant met the diagnosis for Adjustment Disorder, Mixed Anxiety and Depressed Mood, and that the mental health pathology associated with this diagnosis would have significantly influenced the Applicant's cognition, emotional processing and behavioural decision making.

1. In Dr Pusey's opinion, the Applicant's risk of recidivism was low, however this was entirely dependent on the Applicant's ability to address the risk factors identified in the report, and in particular the development of alternative emotion management, coping and regulation strategies.

1. In a report dated 22 April 2025 Emma Hubner, forensic psychologist, opined that the Applicant meets the diagnostic criteria for Major Depressive Disorder, Persistent Depressive Disorder and Generalised Anxiety Disorder. Additionally, the Applicant exhibits maladaptive personal features, particularly avoidant, depressive, and passive aggressive traits. These traits may manifest as social inhibition, sensitivity to rejection, persistent low

self-worth, and indirect expressions of resentment or frustration. Such personality dynamics likely contribute to his interpersonal difficulties, especially in emotionally charged or ambiguous situations. His relational style, possibly influenced by early childhood experiences, currently appears avoidant and emotionally distance, with a limited capacity for effective attunement and assertive communication. His offence, reckless grievous bodily harm towards his infant son, appears to have occurred amidst significant emotional, relational and financial stress. There is no evidence of premeditation or antisocial intent; rather the incident seems to have arisen from cumulative emotional dysregulation, poor stress tolerance, and limited coping resources. His long-standing internalised distress, rigid self-perceptions, and unresolved shame likely impaired his ability to self soothe, seek support, or respond empathetically under pressure.

1. Emma Hubner noted that, encouragingly, the Applicant has engaged with parenting and emotional skills programs, demonstrated insight into his psychological difficulties, and shown a sustained commitment to rehabilitation. His desire for clarity regarding his mental health, combined with participation in structured interventions and cooperation with supervised visitation arrangements, indicates a meaningful capacity for change. In summary, his clinical presentation can be understood as a convergence of chronic mood disturbances, insecure attachment, maladaptive personality traits, and acute psychosocial stressors. It is likely that these factors diminished emotional flexibility and interpersonal functioning, and ultimately his capacity to parent effectively without structured support. However, his prognosis is cautiously optimistic, contingent upon the continuation of comprehensive, trauma informed, and culturally sensitive interventions. With tailored therapeutic support and systemic coordination across correctional, clinical, and child protection services, the Applicant has the potential for sustained psychological recovery and safe family reintegration.

1. Emma Hubner's treatment recommendations included individual therapy focused on emotional regulation, negative self-beliefs, Cognitive Behavioural Therapy, schema focused therapy, and emotion regulation strategies such as distress tolerance and mindfulness from Dialectical Behavioural Therapy. She also recommended comprehensive psychiatric review and medication management, noting the Applicant had previously ceased antidepressant medications due to side-effects. She noted newer and adjusted formulations may provide relief without undesirable sedation. She also recommended re-enrolment in trauma informed parenting programs, family therapy to improve communication and shared

parenting strategies, and release planning with community corrections and child protection services for effective reintegration into the community to reduce recidivism. Emma Hubner opined that by integrating these interventions in a cohesive, person-centred plan, the Applicant has the potential to rebuild his emotional capacity, strengthen family relationships, and reduce the likelihood of reoffending. His insight into his difficulties, demonstrated motivation to change and history of program engagement are all promising indicators of his capacity for meaningful rehabilitation.12

1. The Tribunal has also considered the letter from David Foster, counsellor, dated 7 October 2023, which stated that Mr Foster had been working with the Applicant since 15 November 2022. He has seen the Applicant regularly for weekly telehealth counselling sessions. They have worked on a number of issues including coming to an acceptance of the incident in question and accepting personal responsibility; coming to an understanding of the Applicant's emotions connected with the incident; exploring the psychological and cognitive components of the fight or flight response; understanding the calming effects of deep diaphragmatic breathing; and using an anger diary to raise personal awareness of the anger process. They also discussed his progress in the men's support group and in parenting classes. Mr Foster stated that he has found the Applicant to be highly committed to personal change, both in terms of building parenting skills and maintaining a calm demeanour when under stress, and he believes the Applicant is working diligently to become a better parent.

1. The Tribunal also accepts the Applicant's oral evidence that he continues to see a counsellor for weekly sessions while in immigration detention. This evidence was supported by the Mental Health Notes filed by the Applicant.13

1. The Applicant told the Tribunal he has not made any plans for his counselling or to attend further courses or treatment in the community at this time, as he is currently in immigration detention, his wife has an enormous workload and responsibilities already at this time, and his release is contingent on the outcome of the current application. The Applicant told the Tribunal he is very willing to continue with counselling and will undertake any recommended treatment if he is allowed to stay in Australia and is released into the community.

1. During the hearing the Tribunal spoke to the Applicant and his wife about the current orders in place relating to their child. They both gave oral evidence that was consistent with the information provided to the Tribunal in a number of reports, including the Court Order Final Order of the Children's Court of New South Wales dated 18 May 2023 and the Section 76 Report to Children's Court by Challenge Community Services dated 16 April 2024.14

1. On the evidence before it the Tribunal finds the Applicant's wife has all parental responsibility for their son. As noted above there is also an AVO in place that allows the Applicant to have supervised visits with his son. The AVO will expire when the Applicant's son is 5 years old. The supervised visits occurred while the Applicant was on bail but has not been possible while he was imprisoned or in immigration detention.

1. The Tribunal finds, that if the Applicant is granted a visa and released into the community he plans to live with his wife's parents and slowly work on reintegrating himself into the lives of his son and wife. Given the Applicant's history of engagement and compliance with counselling and recommended treatment the Tribunal accepts the Applicant will continue to engage in counselling and undertake recommended treatment in the community. The Applicant and his wife both indicated they would seek a variation to the AVO to allow for supervision by family members as opposed to the current requirements of supervision by employees or contract employees of the Department of Communities and Justice. The Section 76 Report to the Children's Court from Challenge Community Services dated 10 November 2023 indicates DCJ would support such a variation.15

1. On the evidence before it, the Tribunal finds the Applicant's offending arose during a time of significant emotional, relational and financial stress. The Tribunal accepts there was no premeditation or antisocial intent. The Applicant met the diagnosis for Adjustment Disorder, Mixed Anxiety and Depressed Mood at the time, and the pathology associated with these conditions significantly influenced the Applicant's cognition, emotional processing and behavioural decision making. The Tribunal has given weight to the time the Applicant spent in the community since the offending prior to being imprisoned and notes he did not commit any further offences and had supervised visits with his son. The Applicant currently meets the diagnostic criteria for Major Depressive Disorder, Persistent Depressive Disorder and

Generalised Anxiety Disorder, and sees a counsellor on a weekly basis and is open to ongoing treatment and therapy. He has completed a number of courses focussed on parenting skills and emotion regulation and is open to further courses and learning in this area. There is currently an AVO in place for the protection of the Applicant's son which the Tribunal accepts the Applicant will comply with.

1. The Tribunal accepts the risk assessment made by Dr Pusey, and somewhat inferred by Emma Hubner (the Applicant has the potential for sustained psychological recovery and safe family reintegration), are both reliant on the Applicant continuing to engage with ongoing counselling, treatment plans and treatment recommendations. As noted above the Tribunal accepts the Applicant will continue to engage with counselling and recommended treatment in the community. On the evidence before it, the Tribunal finds the likelihood of the Applicant engaging in further criminal or other serious conduct is low.

1. Having regard to the Government's view that the Australian community's tolerance for any risk of future harm becomes lower as the serious of the potential harm increases, and having considered, cumulatively, the nature of the harm to individuals or the Australian community should the non-citizen engage in further criminal or other serious conduct as devastating physical and psychological harm particularly to vulnerable children or infants, and the low likelihood of the Applicant engaging in further criminal or other serious conduct, the Tribunal considers the risk to the Australian community should the Applicant commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct is moderate.

1. Having considered the nature and seriousness of the conduct as very serious, and the risk to the Australian community should the Applicant commit further offences or engage in other serios conduct as moderate, the Tribunal has concluded that the protection of the Australian community consideration weighs heavily in favour of affirming the decision under review.

1. Paragraph 8.2(1) states the Government has serious concerns about conferring on non-citizens who engage in family violence the privilege of entering or remaining in Australia. The Government's concerns in this regard are proportionate to the seriousness of the family violence engaged in by the non-citizen.
2. As noted above, on 23 November 2023 the Applicant was convicted of one charge of recklessly inflict grievous bodily harm on his five-month-old son, and was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of three years with a non-parole period of 18 months.16

1. Family violence is defined by the Direction as violent, threatening or other behaviour by a person that coerces or controls a member of the person's family. Assault is given as an example of behaviour that may constitute family violence.

1. The Tribunal finds the conduct engaged in by the Applicant constituted family violence.

1. In considering the seriousness of the family violence engaged in by the Applicant the Tribunal must take into account a number of factors where relevant including the frequency of the conduct and whether there is any trend of increasing seriousness, the cumulative fact of repeated acts of family violence, rehabilitation achieved at the time of decision including the extent to which the person accepts responsibility for their family violence related conduct, the extent to which the person understands the impact of their behaviour, and the efforts to address factors which contributed to their conduct.

1. While the Tribunal finds the Applicant's offending arose out of a single episode, there was an element of repetition in shaking of the Applicant's infant son, and but for the actions of the victim's mother, the outcome could have been much worse. Nevertheless, the Tribunal does accept there was a single episode of family violence and no trend of increasing seriousness. There were no repeated acts of family violence, and the Applicant has undertaken a number of courses and treatment including ongoing counselling. The Tribunal accepts the Applicant has achieved a significant level of rehabilitation and change since the last and only act of family violence on 22 September 2022.

1. While the Tribunal notes the Applicant initially denied the allegation of shaking his son, the Tribunal finds he has since accepted full responsibility for his actions. The Tribunal finds the Applicant understands the impact of his behaviour on his son and wife and their family and regrets what happened deeply. The Tribunal also gives weight to the Applicant's efforts to address the factors which contributed to his conduct, including his appreciation and acceptance of the historical, social and relationship factors, his completion of a number of

courses relating to parenting skills and emotional regulation noted above, as well as his engagement in ongoing counselling and openness for future treatment. The Tribunal considers these are protective factors in this matter.

1. While the Tribunal has given weight to Her Honours sentencing remark that the Applicant's conduct was an example of significant criminality in a domestic setting, the Tribunal has also given weight that the family violence committed by the Applicant was a single episode, with no trend toward increasing seriousness, no cumulative effect of repeated acts. There has been no repeat of this conduct. The Tribunal accepts the Applicant has taken full responsibility and deeply regrets his conduct, and the Tribunal accepts the Applicant has achieved a significant level of rehabilitation. While not taking away from the seriousness of the Applicant's conduct, given the considerations noted above, the Tribunal considers the Applicant's conduct is at the lower end of the spectrum of family violence.

1. The Tribunal notes the Government's concerns in relation to family violence, as noted above, and the Tribunal accepts this incident is at the lower end of the spectrum of family violence. On balance, the Tribunal considers the family violence committed by the Applicant weighs moderately in favour of affirming the decision under review.

8.3 The strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia

1. During the hearing, the Tribunal heard oral evidence from the Applicant and his wife about the strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia. The Tribunal has also considered the information provided in the Applicant and his wife's written statements as well as the letters in support provided in support of the Applicant.

1. On the evidence before it the Tribunal finds the Applicant has been living in Australia since he first arrived in 2008. He married his wife in 2016 and their son was born in 2022. The Applicant has worked and paid tax in Australia. He has worked in the hospitality industry and as a sales manager, bartender, shop assistant, client relationships officer and baker. He was an active member of his Church community prior to being imprisoned.

1. The Tribunal accepts the Applicant is in an ongoing relationship with his wife, despite their separation while he has been imprisoned and in detention, and the Tribunal accepts they

plan to work on their relationship in the future and are committed to each other. The Tribunal also accepts the Applicant loves his son and hopes to play a positive role in his life.

1. The Tribunal accepts the Applicant's and his wife's oral evidence that the Applicant has an ongoing and positive relationship with his wife's mother and stepfather, as well as her siblings and their children.

1. While Dr Pusey's report noted the Applicant had few friends in Australia and his life was centred on his wife and son, the Tribunal has taken into consideration the letters in support from Joseph Rinaldi, Associate Minister Amanda Fischer, and Pastor Rearne Gray, from the Applicant's Church community, all commenting on his character, commitment to his family and involvement in their community. Thi Thanh Binh Le also wrote a letter in support of the Applicant stating he genuinely believed the Applicant did not act with malice and is a fundamentally good person.17 The Tribunal accepts the Applicant was active in his Church community and has friends in this community as well as through his wife and his work.

1. The Tribunal accepts affirming the decision under review would disrupt the Applicant's relationship with his wife and son, and adversely affect their plans for the future. The Tribunal accepts it would cause distress and emotional hardship for the Applicant's wife who has been coping with sole parental responsibilities since 2022, and through her, her family, and friends who are Australian citizens, Australian permanent residents and/or people who have an indefinite right to remain in Australia. It would also adversely affect the plans for the Applicant to have more contact with his son and play a more active and positive role in his life.

1. The Tribunal has given weight to the time the Applicant has been resident in Australia and positively contributing to the Australia community between when he arrived 2008 until 2022 when he offended. The Tribunal has also given weight to the time the Applicant spent in the community after he offended prior to his imprisonment, noting the Applicant did not reoffend. His ties to Australia through his history in Australia, his work, friends and church community, as well as his ongoing relationship with his wife and son and her family, has been limited since he has been in prison and immigration detention. Overall, the Tribunal considers the

strength, nature and duration of the Applicant's ties to Australia provides moderate weight in favour of revoking the original decision.

8.4 Best interest of minor children in Australia affected by the decision

1. Based on the Applicant's oral evidence during the hearing and the oral evidence of his wife, which was generally consistent with the information they had previously provided in relation to their family, the Tribunal accepts the Applicant's son was born in 2022 and is an Australian citizen.

1. The Applicant confirmed with the Tribunal that his son is the only minor child in Australia affected by the decision. While the Applicant's wife's siblings do have minor children, they had limited contact with the Applicant prior to his imprisonment and no contact since and would not be affected by the decision.

1. The Tribunal accepts the Applicant lived with his son from his birth in April 2022 up to the time of offending in September 2022. He then had supervised visits once the AVO was in place until he was imprisoned in November 2023. The Applicant has not had contact with his son since that time. Less weight is given to this factor given the long period of absence and limited meaningful contact.

1. As noted above, the Children's Court of New South Wales ordered all aspects of parental responsibilities for the Applicant's son allocated to the Applicant's wife by order dated 18 May 2023.

1. The Applicant's son was born in 2022 and will turn 18 years old in 2040, and the Tribunal has taken this length of time into account. The Tribunal accepts the Applicant wishes to play a positive parental role in his son's life in the future and plans to slowly reintegrate himself into his life if permitted to stay in Australia, noting the current Children's Court Order and limitations set by the AVO discussed above. The Tribunal accepts the Applicant's oral evidence that he is sorry he has not been able to spend more time with his son, and he will take every opportunity to do so in the future, while complying with the court order and the

AVO. The Tribunal accepts that within the limitations of the Children's Court Order and the AVO, it is likely the Applicant will play a positive parental role in his son's life over this time.

1. The Tribunal has considered the impact of the Applicant's prior conduct on his son, details of which have been discussed above, and the Applicant's likely future conduct, noting his evidence that he will not reoffend in the future.

1. The impact of the Applicant's prior conduct constituted grievous bodily harm, and while the child appears to have recovered completely there is still a need to monitor his long-term vision18. This conduct also had an impact on the child's living arrangements and relationship with his parents and his family unit, and clearly had a very negative impact on the child.

1. The Tribunal has also given weight to the Applicant's oral evidence that he will not reoffend in the future and his wish to play a positive role in his child's life, and the Tribunal accepts his likely future conduct will not have a negative impact on the child.

1. The Tribunal notes the Applicant has not had any contact with his son since he was first imprisoned, and the Tribunal accepts the Respondent's submissions that he could remain in contact with his son through electronic means if he was removed from Australia. Nevertheless, the Tribunal does accept ongoing physical separation is likely to cause some emotional and practical hardships.

1. As noted above the Applicant's wife currently has all aspects of parental responsibilities and fulfills the parental role for their son.

1. The Tribunal has given weight to the Applicant's wife oral evidence that her son seeks a male presence in his life, and approaches men while playing in the park looking for his father. The Tribunal accepts the Applicant's wife's written and oral evidence that their son enjoyed affectionate moments with his father in the past and continues to seek a male father role in his life.

Child subjected to family violence and physical or emotional trauma

1. As noted above the Applicant's son was subjected to family violence by the Applicant's prior conduct and was injured at the time as discussed above.

1. The Tribunal has considered the Respondent's submissions and accepts the Applicant has a relatively short standing relationship with his son, given his age and the history noted above. The Tribunal accepts the Applicant is likely to play a generally positive role in the future over the period until his son turns 18, within the confines of the court order and AVO. The Tribunal also accepts that while the Applicant's conduct has had a very negative impact on his son, his likely future conduct will not, and the Tribunal accepts further physical separation is likely to cause some emotional and practical hardships. The Tribunal considers the risk of further family violence in the future is low, and while the Applicant's prior conduct and act of family violence had a very negative impact on the child, the Tribunal accepts the Applicant's son is seeking a male presence and father figure in his life and would be deprived of that in-person relationship if the Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

1. While the Tribunal accepts the weight of this consideration in favour of the Applicant is tempered by the Applicant's prior conduct and the family violence factors, having weighed all the factors noted above, the Tribunal finds the best interest of the minor child in Australia affected by this decision weighs in favour of revoking the original decision.

1. The Australian community expects non-citizens to obey Australian laws while in Australia. Where a non-citizen has engaged in serious conduct in breach of this expectation, or where there is an unacceptable risk that they may do so, the Australian community, as a norm, expects the Government to not allow such a non-citizen to enter or remain in Australia.
2. Clause 8.5(2) of the Direction sets out examples of conduct that would raise serious character concerns that the Australian community would expect that a person who undertook such conduct would not continue to hold a visa, and includes acts of family violence and the commission of serious crimes against children including crimes of a violent nature.

1. While the Tribunal accepts the conduct arose from one episode, and was on the lower end of the spectrum of family violence, and the Applicant had no priors and has not committed any other offence, the Tribunal also accepts the Australian community expects non-citizens to obey laws while in Australia.

1. On the evidence before it, the Tribunal finds the Applicant has failed to obey laws while in Australia, and recklessly inflict grievous bodily harm on his son, in an act of family violence and the commission of a serious crime against a child. The Tribunal finds the Applicant has engaged in serious conduct in breach of the Australian community's expectations.

1. The Tribunal considers the expectations of the Australian community weighs significantly in favour of affirming the decision under review.

1. In making a decision under section 501CA(4), the Tribunal must also take into account the following considerations.

1. The Tribunal accepts that if it affirms the decision under review the Applicant will remain an unlawful non-citizen and will remain in immigration detention and be liable for removal from Australia as soon as reasonably practicable. This will mean his plans to remain in Australia and reestablish his relationship with his wife and son in Australia and work and study will not occur.
2. The Tribunal has considered the Applicant's concerned raised in his personal circumstances document and written statement provided to the Department,19 about the war in Ukraine, and that Slovakia borders Ukraine and the Russian army could decide to invade Slovakia after it conquers Ukraine. During the hearing the Applicant confirmed these concerns were based on current information about the war, and not on specific concerns or based on personal characteristic. The Tribunal finds the Applicant has not raise any specific claims that would attract or relate to Australia's non-refoulement obligations.

1. While the Tribunal has considered whether in the absence of engagement of Australia's non-refoulment obligations, in the circumstances where the Applicant's removal and indefinite exclusion from Australia is the intended purpose of the statutory scheme, and these purposes underlie the considerations of Direction 110, the Tribunal should afford negligible weight in favour of revocation, the Tribunal also accepts that the legal consequences of affirming the decision means the Applicant may be subjected to indefinite exclusion from Australia by operation of the Special Return Criteria in clause 5001(c) of Schedule 5 of the Migration Regulation 1994 (Cth) if the Minister has not, acting personally, granted the Applicant a permanent visa, and that affirming the decision will adversely affect the Applicant's ability to meet the requirements of the Public Interest Criterion 4001 of Schedule 4 of the Migration Regulations 1994 in any future visa applications. The Tribunal considers this does provide some weight in favour of revoking the original decision.

1. On the evidence before it, the Tribunal considers the legal consequences of the decision provides some weight in favour of revoking the original decision.

1. The Tribunal must also consider the extent of any impediments the Applicant may face if removed from Australia to his home country, in establishing himself and maintaining basic living standards (in the context of what is generally available to other citizens of that country), taking into account his age, health and whether there are substantial language or cultural barriers; and any social, medical and/or economic support available to him in that country.

1. In his written statement dated 6 May 2024, the Applicant stated he did not think it would be a good idea to bring his family to live in Slovakia as his wife does not speak the language and it would be hard for her to transition to European lifestyle and because his son had never been abroad. During the hearing the Applicant's wife also expressed concern about the prospect of moving to Slovakia and thought somewhere else in Europe would be more appropriate. While the Tribunal accepts it is upsetting and difficult for the Applicant and his wife to contemplate what they would do if the Applicant is removed from Australia, given the Applicant and his wife currently plan to take some time to reestablish their relationship and reintegrate into each other lives, and do not plan to live together in the immediate future, the Tribunal considers the Applicant's wife and son will not accompany the Applicant to Slovakia if he is removed from Australia.

1. The Tribunal accepts the Applicant is 40 years old and has lived in Australia since 2008. The Tribunal finds the Applicant's age is not an impediment if removed from Australia to his home country, in establishing himself and maintaining basic living standards.

1. The Tribunal accepts the Applicant meets the diagnostic criteria for Major Depressive Disorder, Persistent Depressive Disorder and Generalised Anxiety Disorder, and has a history of kidney stones since June 2024. The Applicant told the Tribunal the kidney stones have caused pain, and he has seen a number of doctors and had a number of scans and tests, and he still suffers from this condition. This condition causes pain and also effects his mental health wellbeing. The Applicant's oral evidence was consistent with the information provided in the Mental Health Notes provide by the Applicant to the Tribunal.20

1. The Tribunal finds the Applicant has Major Depressive Disorder, Persistent Depressive Disorder and Generalised Anxiety Disorder, although he is not currently on any medication for these conditions. He has seen doctors in relation to his kidney stones and while he continues to have kidney stones, his kidneys continue to function. If his circumstances change in relation to these health conditions, that could pose a moderate impediment if removed from Australia to Slovakia in establishing himself and maintaining basic living standards.

1. Given the Applicant grew up in Slovakia the Tribunal finds language is not an impediment if removed. The Tribunal does accept the Applicant's submission that given the length of time he has been away from Slovakia, there could be some cultural barriers that may be an impediment in establishing himself and maintaining basic living standards.

1. The Tribunal accepts the Applicant's oral evidence that it would be difficult for the Applicant to be removed from Australia and his wife and child and everything he has worked for in Australia. The Tribunal accepts the Applicant will face degrees of financial, social and emotional hardship if removed from Australia to Slovakia. While the Tribunal accepts these factors are hardships and impediments, the Tribunal also considers them somewhat temporary in nature and not insurmountable. The Applicant does have family in Slovakia, particularly his mother and sister, and his mother would be able to provide some support to him. The Tribunal also accepts the Applicant has significant work experience in Australia which would support his efforts to gain future employment.

1. In relation to the Applicant's concern about the Russian army invading Slovakia, the Tribunal accepts the Respondent's submissions that given the current situation and information on the war in Ukraine, the Applicant's concerns are mere speculation, and there is no evidence before the Tribunal to suggest such a significant geopolitical event will occur in the foreseeable future. Therefore, the Tribunal gives no weight to this concern in relation to impediments if removed.

1. Having considered all the factors noted above, the Tribunal considers the extent of impediments if removed provides some weight in favour of revoking the original decision.

1. The Tribunal must consider any impact on Australian business interests if the Applicant 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 501CA would significantly compromise the delivery of a major project, or delivery of an important service in Australia.

1. While the Tribunal notes the Applicant's previous work in Australia, and that the Applicant expects he will find full time work if he remains in Australia and is released into the community, the evidence before the Tribunal does not indicate the Applicant's future

employment would fall into the category contemplated by this clause, and the Tribunal has concluded this consideration neither weighs for or against revoking the decision under review.

1. As noted above, the Applicant does not pass the character test under section 501 of the Act, and the Tribunal has to decide whether there is another reason why the original decision should be revoked under section 501CA(4), having regard to the Minister's Direction No. 110.

1. The Tribunal has given appropriate weight to information from independent and authoritative sources, and the primary consideration at clause 8.1 has been given greater weight than the other primary considerations, while the other primary considerations have been given greater weight than the other considerations, in line with the Direction.

1. Having considered the specific circumstances relating to the Applicant, the Tribunal considers the protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct weighs heavily in favour of affirming the decision under review. The family violence committed by the Applicant weighs moderately in favour of affirming the decision under review. The strength, nature and duration of the Applicant's ties to Australia provides moderate weight in favour of revoking the original decision, and the best interests of minor children in Australia affected by the decision provides weight in favour of revoking the original decision. The expectations of the Australian community provide significant weight in favour of affirming the decision under review. Of the other considerations, the legal consequences of the decision and the extent of the impediments to the Applicant if removed provides weight in favour of revoking the original decision. The impact on Australian business interests neither weighs for or against revoking the decision under review.

1. While the Tribunal considers the Applicant's circumstances provide a complex and compelling picture of human frailty and the resilience of human relationships, and the Tribunal notes there are considerations that weigh in the Applicant's favour, given the primary consideration at clause 8.1 must be given greater weight than the other primary considerations, and the other primary considerations given greater weight than the other considerations, the Tribunal has concluded the primary considerations of the protection of the Australia community, conduct engaged in constituting family violence, and the

expectations of the Australian community weigh heavily in favour of affirming the decision under review, and on balance, outweigh the considerations in favour of revoking the original decision.

1. Having weighed up all the factors as part of a single evaluation, the Tribunal is not satisfied there is another reason why the original decision should be revoked under section 501CA(4), having regard to the Minister's Direction No. 110.

1. The decision not to revoke the cancellation of the Class WC Subclass 030 Bridging C temporary visa, is affirmed.

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

Senior Member C. Thwaites Date: 3 September 2025

Solicitor for the Respondent: Mr B Nam, Clayton UTZ