1. The applicant was born in Uruguay and first arrived in Australia on a working holiday visa on 21 March 2018. Between 2018 and 2022 he lived in Australia as the holder of various working holiday visas. The applicant's parents and sister are currently living in Atlanta in the United States.
2. On 16 August 2020, the applicant was charged with several offences. On 14 April 2021, the applicant was convicted in the Dubbo Local Court of drive vehicle, illicit drug present in blood etc - 1st offence; possess prohibited drug (2 counts) and _supply prohibited drug >indictable & indictable & (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 Tribunal has considered each consideration in Direction 110 in turn, having regard to the principles in 5.2 of the Direction.

1. Paragraph 8.1(1) of the Direction requires decision-makers to keep in mind that the safety of the Australian community is the highest priority of the Australian Government, and the Government is committed to protecting the Australian community from harm as a result of criminal activity or other serious conduct by non-citizens. Decision-makers should have particular regard to the principle that entering or remaining in Australia is a privilege that Australia confers on noncitizens in the expectation that they are, and have been, law abiding, will respect important institutions, and will not cause or threaten harm to the Australian community.
2. Paragraph 8.1(2) of the Direction provides that decision makers should 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. The applicant submits that the applicant acknowledges his offending involved possession and supply of a prohibited drug and driving under the influence of an illicit substance, with convictions taking place in April 2021. The applicant submitted that the applicant cooperated with police at every stage of the investigation and prosecution, pleaded guilty at

an early stage for which he was given a 25% discount by the Local Court and expressed genuine remorse during the court proceedings. He pointed to his disclosure of illicit substances in his possession in his car and at his home.

1. In his statement (HB15) the applicant stated that he made serious mistakes in 2020 which led to his conviction for possession and supply of prohibited drugs and driving with an illicit substance in his system. He stated that he had consented to a police search, made admissions and pleaded guilty at the first opportunity and accepted full responsibility for his actions. He stated that at that time he had been working long, physically demanding hours on remote solar farms and was feeling isolated and exhausted. He claimed he was also dealing with unresolved trauma and had turned to substances as a form of escape.
2. In his oral evidence, the applicant stated he got caught up with the wrong people but looking back on the offending he sincerely regrets what happened.
3. The respondent submits that on 14 April 2021, the applicant was convicted in the Dubbo Local Court of the offences set out above and sentenced to a 15-month ICO, fined $500 and disqualified from driving.
4. The respondent submits that the applicant's offending occurred on 16 August 2020 when the police observed him driving his car slowly at around 3:30 am. They pulled the applicant over and observed him having dilated pupils and appearing to be disorientated. The police informed the applicant they would perform a roadside drug test, and the applicant indicated he had used 'weed'. The test then produced a positive result for cannabis and methamphetamine. The applicant informed the police that he had drugs in his car, and the police located 16 MDMA tablets and 9 g of cannabis. The applicant was arrested and took part in a recorded interview, where he explained he would use the drugs himself and exchange them with other people for other drugs but denied selling them. The applicant also consented to the police searching his home for further drugs, where they located 126 MDMA tablets, 80 LSD tablets, and two jars of cannabis oil.
5. It was submitted (HB 56/57) that the applicant's offending should be viewed seriously because
   • the sentencing magistrate noted, the applicant was in possession of a 'significant' quantity of illicit drugs and his conduct constituted 'very serious offending.
   • whilst it was submitted on behalf of the applicant at sentencing that there appeared to be no commercial gain from the 'sharing' of the drugs with his close friends and colleagues, somewhat inconsistently, the applicant later reported to Corrective Services that he supplied drugs as a way to 'finance' his own habit.
   • the Tribunal should consider the serious harm that illicit drugs can cause the community, and the significant police, court, healthcare and resources expended because of offending involving illicit drugs.
   • the applicant's driving whilst affected with illicit substances is serious, as it demonstrated his disregard of the possible significant physical harm this conduct could have caused to members of the Australian community.
   • the objective seriousness of the applicant's offending is demonstrated by the sentencing court sentencing him to a term of imprisonment of 15 months:

paragraph 8.1.1(1)(c). Sentences involving terms of imprisonment are the last resort in the sentencing hierarchy.

• Whilst the applicant was permitted to serve the sentence in the community, it was nonetheless a significant sentence for a first-time offender.

1. The evidence before the Tribunal indicates that the applicant entered a plea of guilty early in the proceedings on the basis of his own admissions. Those admissions made by his lawyer at the sentencing hearing (HB 124-129) were that that the applicant volunteered that drugs were on his person when his car was stopped and searched, he provided voluntary admissions that there were drugs at his house and consented to a police search at his house to recover more drugs. He also made admissions to police that he was trading drugs with his close friends and work colleagues. While he did not admit any financial gain from trading drugs his conduct fell within the extent of definition of supply. It was submitted that he only provided drugs to his friends and close work colleagues and not to the public at large. It was also submitted that he had a large stockpile of drugs for his own use and to provide some to work colleagues at certain parties.
2. His lawyer noted that the MDMA (ecstasy) tablets were held in a flimsy bag and that the LSD tabs were in the form of a large rectangle and were shared with friends. It was admitted that the quantity of the drugs was significantly high, but it was claimed that the drugs were only used by the applicant and friends and work colleagues. His lawyer submitted that the applicant had a strong work ethic and, at the time of the sentencing, had been working at a solar farm for the past two years and often worked between 12 to 14 hours a day. With respect to his drug use, he submitted the applicant was introduced to MDMA at the age of 20 years and his drug use was quite concerning. Psychological reporting also indicated he had a mild substance abuse disorder.
3. The applicant's lawyer in the criminal proceedings submitted that while the offence was quite serious and the charges carried a maximum of 15 years imprisonment, they would be dealt with summarily. He also noted that the applicant had no criminal record in NSW. The prosecutor noted that while the applicant had claimed that there was no financial gain he did admit that there was a bartering system where he would exchange the drugs with other people to obtain drugs for his own use.
4. Following those submissions on a plea of guilty, the sentencing magistrate stated that the offending was very serious(HB 129, 130). He noted that while the applicant had possession of cannabis, the court was mainly dealing with the amount of MDMA and LSD and the supply of those substances in significant quantities. The magistrate noted that the amount was greater than indictable but less than a commercial quantity. The sentence he imposed took into account the applicant's early plea but noted the offences "cross over the line".
5. In cross examining the applicant at the Tribunal hearing, the respondent put it to the applicant that he had initially lied when pulled up by police. When asked if he had taken any drugs (HB 139) he had initially replied "No". When informed he would be subject to a roadside test, he admitted that he had possession of "weed". The applicant stated that initially he answered impulsively out of fear of what would happen to him but later told the police he did have drugs in his possession.
6. With respect to the nature of the offence, the respondent pointed to two reports by different officers of Dubbo Community Corrections in 2021 following the applicant's conviction. One officer noted that during a telephone discussion about his previous drug use that the applicant stated he had commenced supplying drugs to fund his own use and realised it was the wrong thing to do (HB 72). Another officer later noted in a telephone discussion that the applicant stated that his offences occurred as a result of him selling drugs to finance his own supply of cannabis and MDMA. The applicant identified that his supply charge was a result of him sourcing financial support for his own habit.
7. When asked to explain these reports, the applicant stated that he had not made these admissions to the respective corrections officers and continued to state that he did not sell drugs for money. He pointed out that he always worked so did not need to sell drugs to finance his drug habit. He referred to the findings made by the Local Court in which the court accepted the terms of his plea that he had not sold drugs for money. He continued to assert that he only exchanged these drugs with other persons for other drugs and no money was involved. He stated that he exchanged drugs with other workers and funded his own drug purchases through his salary from the solar farm where he was working10 hour days six days a week.
8. The applicant told the Tribunal that he had only used cannabis and MDMA and did not use other drugs. He gave evidence that he only started using MDMA when he came to Australia. However, the respondent noted that his criminal lawyer had made submissions in 2021 to the sentencing magistrate that he started using MDMA when he was 20 years old and cannabis when he was 18 years old.
9. When the inconsistent evidence was put to him, he told the Tribunal that he had used cannabis in Uruguay when he was 18 years old but pointed out it was legal in Uruguay for medicinal purposes. He denied that he started using MDMA in Uruguay and stated that he only started using it when he first came to Australia. He stated he regarded that he had an addiction to MDMA in 2020 and was using it four to five times a week at the time of the offences. He stated he did not use other drugs.
10. The respondent asked him, if this were the case, what other drugs was he exchanging for his own supply of cannabis and MDMA. He claimed that he exchanged different types of drugs although his evidence on what drugs he exchanged and why this took place was somewhat unclear. He stated that the cannabis and MDMA exchanged were of different types and strengths. This evidence was not clearly explained.
11. He stated that he knew his conduct was wrong but was under the influence of drugs at the time of the offences. He thought he was engaging in this conduct for about six months before his conviction.
12. The Tribunal has considered the evidence regarding the nature and seriousness of the criminal offending and other conduct. The Tribunal accepts the conduct does not fall within

8.1.1 (a) or (b) but it notes that the types of crimes and conduct listed in those sub paragraphs is not exhaustive.

1. The Tribunal considers that the offending is serious for the following reasons.
2. The sentencing magistrate noted the supply of MDMA and LSD was in significant quantities and the offences were described by the magistrate as "very serious" offences.
3. The respondent raised the issue of whether the applicant had engaged in the supply of drugs for financial gain. The applicant denied that he ever sold drugs for money and maintained he had large amounts for the supply of drugs by exchange with others as well as for his own use. The applicant refers to his statements to police, to the Local Court at Dubbo, and to the Tribunal in his oral evidence. The notes made by the Community Corrections officers are not consistent with this evidence but without direct evidence from those individuals and in the face of other evidence the Tribunal accepts, though not without some doubt, that the offence involved exchange of drugs but that there was no financial gain. Notwithstanding, the Tribunal considers that the supply of such large amounts of cannabis, LSD and MDMA is a serious offence. This is not a case of mere possession of the specified drugs.
4. The sentence imposed by the Local Court is a custodial sentence. The applicant was able to serve the sentence in the community, but the Tribunal accepts the respondent's submission that it was a significant sentence for a first-time offender. There is no previous criminal history and no evidence of false or misleading evidence given to the Department. There is no evidence that the offending had any impact on victims or their families. However, the Tribunal accepts that the supply and distribution of drugs in the community causes health, social and economic harms to members of the community as set out in more detail in the document entitled "Australia's illicit drug problem: Challenges and opportunities for law enforcement" Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement (HB 65-71).
5. The Tribunal considers that this aspect of the consideration weighs in favour exercising the discretion to refuse the visa.

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 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, so serious that any risk that it might 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.
2. The applicant submits that the risk and or potential harm to the Australian community is a forward-looking criterion which involves a predictive function rather than a punitive function (HB 4-5).
3. He submits that "Given the forward-looking focus of the Tribunal's assessment of the applicant per Direction 110, we submit that while a person's historical actions are not insignificant, by definition the assessment of historical actions does not and cannot consider how a person has changed since those historical actions occurred. In essence, the consideration of a past offence is a consideration of the person themselves at that past point in their life. The critical and relevant considerations of the person are those that existed at the time of offending, which may be entirely different than the current considerations and circumstances of the person."
4. And "We note the evidence of self-improvement and self-examination undertaken by the applicant through the self-registration into the rehabilitation and educational SMART Recovery and MERIT programs he has completed. We submit this clearly demonstrates the commitment and willingness of the applicant to learn from his mistakes and educate himself to empower him to successfully handle with the kind of stressful situations that had previously caused him to engage in negative behaviour." The applicant provided documentary evidence supporting his good history of attendance in these programs and evidence successful completion of these programs. (HB 173-175, 176)
5. The applicant submits that the offence was a one-time incident of offending which occurred four and a half years ago during a time when he was suffering from severe depression and

mild anxiety which led to substance abuse. The applicant has engaged in rehabilitation programs and study and has gained insight into the mistakes he has made in the past.

1. He claimed that he voluntarily enrolled in the MERIT program and completed every counselling session. He also took part in SMART Recovery and Narcotics Anonymous meetings. He claimed that these programs helped him understand the reasons for his addiction, how to take accountability for his actions and to give him healthy ways to manage stress and emotions. He claims that he now follows a drug free lifestyle, he eats organic real local food, does not consume alcohol or caffeine and practices meditation and yoga daily. His life revolves around health, hard work, family and community.
2. He has enrolled in a Certificate III course in Carpentry and has been working for a carpentry business in a government funded joinery warehouse in Lismore. His employer and coworkers know him as hard working and reliable.
3. Since his conviction he has not re-offended or had contact with the criminal justice system. He stated that his current priorities are stable home life, strong family bonds and meaningful work.
4. At the hearing the applicant stated he has made many changes in his life since he was charged with the offences. He told the Tribunal he now lives in a beautiful, supportive community in the northern rivers area of NSW and has adopted a healthy lifestyle. He eats well, does not take drugs or drink alcohol. He submitted to the Tribunal that after he was arrested, he was totally compliant with the police and pleaded guilty. He did everything to change his behaviour. He joined and completed a number of programs to help him with his personal and substance use issues. He referred to the MERIT and SMART recovery programs. He now sees himself as a different person and is mainly focused on family and health. He is very sorry about what happened and stated it was the biggest mistake of his life.
5. The applicant previously provided the Department with a large number of statements from work colleagues, friends and other social contacts. (HB 180 -191;194 - 210). The statements all indicated that the authors were aware of the applicant's drug convictions, had a high regard for the applicant, and observed that it appeared that he had turned his life around since the convictions.
6. The applicant provided detailed statements to the Tribunal on a range of issues (HB 29-52). Four witnesses who provided statements to the Tribunal (HB 34-41) gave oral evidence on his behalf, that is, his current partner, and three friends.
7. The applicant's current partner, Ms Haman made a statement on 2 November 2025 (HB 29) in which she stated that she is aware of the applicant's past offending for drug related offences. She stated that he explained the circumstances of his offending and the steps he has taken to change his life. She observes that he lives a clean, drug free life and she would not have allowed him into her or her daughter's life if she had any concerns about the applicant.
8. Mr Richardson is a builder and has known the applicant for a number of years. He gave evidence that he believed that his drug related mistakes were in the past and that he had a high regard for the applicant. Mr Lawson is a friend who stated he had a similar background to the applicant and that he was aware of his past convictions and that the applicant brought kindness, care and dedication into the local community, and that he has turned his life around since his drug related conviction. Mr Richards is a friend and former employer who also stated that he has observed the applicant faced difficulties in the past due to substance issues. He believes that the applicant has taken full accountability for his actions and has worked hard to rebuild his life in a positive and meaningful way. He stated that the applicant is now focused, grounded and dedicated to contributing to the community. His remorse and ongoing good conduct are clear to everyone around him.
9. The Tribunal has considered the evidence given by the applicant and his witnesses. It accepts that he has attended several rehabilitation programs to understand the reasons for his drug use and criminal offending. It also accepts the evidence provided by the applicant, his current partner and friends that he has been drug free since the conviction and that he has tried to maintain a healthy lifestyle. He has not been convicted of any further offences since his conviction and the Tribunal notes that all his witnesses are aware of his previous offending and have given evidence that they have observed he has turned his life around since that time.
10. While the Tribunal accepts that if the applicant were to engage in further criminal or other serious conduct that the Australian community would suffer health, social and economic

harms to members of the community, it considers that there is a very low risk of the applicant engaging in further criminal or other serious conduct.

1. In matters where the Tribunal is required to consider whether to refuse to grant a visa to the non-citizen subparagraph 8.1.2 (c) of the Direction provides

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

1. The respondent has provided a copy of Departmental records (Exhibit 2) and the applicant agrees that he has been granted a number of working holiday visas since he first arrived in 2018. His current application for a visa grant is for a further working holiday visa and that application was made on 12 December 2022.
2. The applicant and his witnesses have all given evidence that his intention is to remain in Australia to continue with his current de facto relationship, to continue studying carpentry and to make a permanent home in Australia. The Tribunal notes that one of the requirements for the grant of a working holiday visa at the time of the application is that the decision maker must be satisfied that the applicant seeks to remain in Australia as a genuine visitor whose principal purpose is to spend a holiday in Australia; cl.417.211(4)(a) of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994.
3. Thus, the evidence relating to the duration and purpose of the applicant's intended stay conflicts with the nature of the visa for which he applied for in December 2022. The applicant's lawyer submitted that if the visa was granted there were a number of other visas the applicant could apply for onshore, however, there is no information or evidence which might clearly indicate which visa for which the applicant might be eligible.
4. The Tribunal considers that the applicant's lawyer was speculating on those categories of visa he might apply for if his visa was not refused on character grounds. However, the applicant did not provide any submissions on how he could overcome the significant hurdle he faced in establishing that he had a genuine intention to remain in Australia as a visitor.
5. Taking into account all the aspects of this consideration and despite finding there is a low risk of re-offending, the Tribunal considers that, overall, primary consideration 8.1 weighs in favour of exercising the discretion to refuse the visa.

8.2 Family violence committed by the non-citizen.

1. There is no evidence to suggest that the applicant has engaged in family violence, and this consideration is not relevant.

8.3 The strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia.

1. The Tribunal is required to have regard to the strength, nature and duration of the applicant's

1. Paragraph 8.3 (1) provides that the Tribunal must consider the impact of the decision on the applicant's immediate family members in Australia, where those family members are Australian citizens, permanent residents or have a right to remain in Australia indefinitely.
2. The applicant claims that his immediate family members are his de facto partner, Ms Haman and her daughter, N who are Australian citizens.
3. He submits that he commenced a de facto relationship with Ms Haman and has become an important parental figure in the life of Ms Haman's two-and-a-half-year-old daughter, N. The applicant enjoys a stable home environment including a daily caregiving role with N.
4. In his statement (HB 18,19) the applicant stated he originally met Ms Haman in April 2022, then they reconnected in November 2024, began a de facto partner relationship on 9 August 2025, and moved in together in September 2025. Ms Haman's former partner and the father of N is a Brazilian national who returned to Brazil when N was 6 months old.
5. The applicant stated that they have a stable and loving relationship based on respect, shared values and commitment. He stated that they live in a rented house where they share responsibilities and expenses. He works as a carpenter's apprentice during the day and spends his evenings supporting Ms Haman and caring for N. He stated he and Ms Haman have clear goals for the future. He would like to continue studying carpentry and obtain a trade qualification. He and Ms Haman would like to buy a home. He provided a number of photographs (HB 21-28) which show the applicant, Ms Haman and N together in a number of social activities.
6. In his oral evidence he stated he first met Ms Haman in April 2022 when they both worked on a ginger farm in Eumundi near Noosa, Queensland. A year after he first met her, she gave birth to N who was the biological child of her previous partner.
7. In November 2024, the couple got in contact again and later started seeing each other. He was introduced to N in July 2025 and in August 2025 they started a de facto relationship. He stated that the relationship he has with N is like a father/child relationship. After he and Ms Haman started living together, he has had daily interaction with N.
8. N's biological father is in Brazil and he contacts her from time to time. The applicant claims that N sees him as a "father, guardian and everything else". He agreed that he did not have any legal parental rights or obligations.
9. The applicant and Ms Haman have not registered a de facto relationship because they have just started their relationship. At present they do not have any shared property or bank accounts. The applicant provided photos of the couple and N in a variety of settings and those photographs are all taken in September and October 2025. (HB 21-28).
10. When cross examined about whether the couple would remain in touch if he returned to Uruguay, the applicant stated that they would keep in touch but it would be difficult to maintain a relationship on the opposite sides of the world.
11. He stated that if his visa is refused, Ms Haman will become a single mother again and he will not be able to provide the same level of physical and financial assistance.
12. Ms Haman stated that she and the applicant first met at a ginger farm in Noosa and became friends and kept in contact over the years. They reconnected in November 2024 and started seeing each other and entered into a de facto relationship in August 2025. They moved in together in September 2025 after deciding to build a family life together. She stated they live together as a family unit in Huonbrook, New South Wales.
13. Ms Haman's states (HB 29, 30) that "our home is stable, peaceful, and centred around raising N with love and security" and that the applicant "is a gentle, loving, and patient man who brings stability and calm to our home." She further states that "if I had any concern that Nicolas was not a person of good character, I would never have allowed him into our lives or my daughter's life."
14. Ms Haman confirms that "he feeds her, changes her nappies, takes her on walks and to the beach, and plays with her every day... N is deeply attached to him, she calls him 'Papa' and runs to him whenever he comes home from work." She emphasises that "Nicolas is the centre of our family, and we cannot imagine our future without him."
15. She stated if the applicant were removed from Australia, it would have a devastating impact on her and N and would leave her as a single mother without emotional financial and practical support and their home and lives would be completely disrupted.
16. Ms Haman gave oral evidence which supported the evidence she provided in her statement. She stated that the couple have a beautiful, stable home in Huonbrook. She considers that N will be devastating if the applicant leaves Australia.
17. She stated that she has had contact with the biological father of N and seeks his opinion on parental matters from time to time.
18. Ms Haman gave evidence that she has worked as a massage therapist and has also worked as a wedding photographer in the past. At the moment she is receiving a Centrelink parenting payment and she shares expenses with the applicant.
19. The respondent accepts that Ms Haman and N would be impacted by a decision to refuse the visa application. However, the respondent submits that although there is evidence that the applicant provides financial and practical assistance to Ms Haman, there is no evidence to indicate that she is otherwise unable to financially support herself if the applicant were removed from Australia. It is submitted that the applicant and Ms Haman could maintain contact electronically.
20. The evidence indicates that the applicant was in Noosa in April 2022 when he met his current partner, Ms Haman and they became friends. It appears that in 2023 Ms Haman

was in a relationship with the biological father of her child, N. The evidence before the Tribunal indicates that the applicant was in another relationship shortly before he started seeing Ms Haman.

1. The evidence before the Tribunal is that on 18 October 2024, the received a Notice of Intention to Consider a Refusal (NOIC) of his application for a Nil VAC Working Holiday (subclass 417) visa.
2. In his response to the NOIC on 11 November 2024, the applicant stated that he lived in Huonbrook, NSW and was in an exclusive relationship with his girlfriend Laraa Cooper at the time he provided the response. He stated the relationship commenced in September 2022, but they were taking it slowly because of her ex-partner and her children. In his response he stated he had a close and loving relationship with Ms Cooper, and she had two older children (15 and 18 years). He stated they had travelled to Brazil together in March 2023 and had plans to build a house in the future. He stated that she was the "love of his life" and he had a significant role in the lives of her children. He stated that they would be heartbroken if they were not able to continue the relationship.
3. At the hearing and when cross examined about this relationship, the applicant gave evidence that the relationship ended because she was 20 years older than him and there were clashes between them due to her children. The relationship ended around the end of 2024. The applicant was also questioned about other partners, and he explained that the relationship between himself and his previous partner of 5 years, Macarena broke down before his relationship with Ms Cooper.
4. The applicant also made submissions and provided evidence regarding his ties to the Australian community.
5. He stated he has forged strong connections with his employers and the wider community and provided at least 30 statements from current and past employers, work colleagues, friends and members of the community. The Tribunal considers this material has been provided for consideration in relation to paragraph 8.3(2), that is, ties to the Australian community. The respondent also refers to the applicant's claims of significant community ties.
6. The Tribunal notes that Direction 8.3 (2) refers to a non-citizen's ties to the Australian community. However, it is expressed as being relevant in the consideration of whether to cancel a non-citizen's visa or whether to revoke the mandatory cancellation of their visa and does not refer to the refusal of an application for a visa on character grounds.
7. Paragraph of the Direction provides

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

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

1. less weight should be given where the non-citizen began offending soon after arriving in Australia; and
2. more weight should be given to time the non-citizen has spent contributing positively to the Australian community

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

1. The Tribunal notes, however, that it may take into account "other considerations" which include, but are not limited to, the legal consequences of the decision, the extent of impediments if removed and the impact on Australian business interests. The Tribunal has considered the evidence and submissions made regarding the applicant's ties with the Australian community and weighed it as well as the "other considerations" set out in the Direction.
2. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant has a warm and loving relationship with Ms Haman and her daughter N. If the applicant's visa was refused and the applicant was removed from Australia the Tribunal accepts that this would have an impact on Ms Haman and N. The applicant and Ms Haman have recently commenced a de facto relationship, and it appears they would be physically separated if the applicant returned to Uruguay.
3. The applicant gave evidence that he has been involved in three relationships during his time in Australia, that is, with his former partner Ms Macarena Onares, with Ms Cooper, and now with Ms Haman. Given the duration of his most recent relationship, the Tribunal considers it is relatively untested.
4. While it appears that the applicant has formed a warm and caring relationship with N and the Tribunal accepts that if the applicant returned to Uruguay, she may be confused and upset for a short period of time, the applicant has only been present in her life since August 2025. Further, the Tribunal notes the evidence of the applicant and Ms Haman that N's biological father does have contact with Ms Haman. The Tribunal considers that on the evidence before it, N's biological father has parental rights and obligations under Australian law, and it may be that he will seek to have greater contact with N with the passage of time. The Tribunal considers it is premature for the applicant to assert that he has a parental relationship with N given the shortness of their relationship.
5. The Tribunal accepts that the Ms Haman would be understandably upset and would lose the applicant's companionship and the assistance which the applicant has been providing over the last four months. However, the Tribunal notes that the relationship is of short duration. While it is more difficult to maintain relationships electronically, the Tribunal considers that the applicant and Ms Haman could continue their relationship even if the applicant were to leave Australia.
6. The Tribunal considers that this consideration weighs slightly in favour of not exercising the discretion to refuse the application for the visa on character grounds.

8.4 Best interests of minor children in Australia affected by the decision.

1. The Tribunal is required to consider the best interests of any minor child who may be affected by the decision. Paragraph 8.4 of the Direction states

(1) Decision-makers must make a determination about whether cancellation or " refusal under section 501, or non-revocation under section 501CA is, or is not, in the best interests of a child affected by the decision.

(2) This consideration applies only if the child is, or would be, under 18 years old at the time when the decision to refuse or cancel the visa, or to not revoke the mandatory cancellation of the visa, is expected to be made.

1. The Tribunal must consider the following factors in considering the best interests of the child

(4) In considering the best interests of the child, the following factors must be considered where relevant:

a) the nature and duration of the relationship between the child and the non-citizen. Less weight should generally be given where the relationship is nonparental, and/or there is no existing relationship and/or there have been long periods of absence, or limited meaningful contact (including whether an existing Court order restricts contact);

b) the extent to which the non-citizen is likely to play a positive parental role in the future, taking into account the length of time until the child turns 18, and including any Court orders relating to parental access and care arrangements;

c) the impact of the non-citizen's prior conduct, and any likely future conduct, and whether that conduct has, or will have a negative impact on the child;

d) the likely effect that any separation from the non-citizen would have on the child, taking into account the child's or non-citizen's ability to maintain contact in other ways;

e) whether there are other persons who already fulfil a parental role in relation to the child;

f) any known views of the child (with those views being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child);

g) evidence that the child has been, or is at risk of being, subject to, or exposed to, family violence perpetrated by the non-citizen, or has otherwise been abused or neglected by the non-citizen in any way, whether physically, sexually or mentally;

h) evidence that the child has suffered or experienced any physical or emotional trauma arising from the non-citizen's conduct.

1. The applicant submits that he has played an important parental role in the life of his partner's two-and-a-half-year-old daughter N, including daily caregiving, providing emotional and financial support.
2. While acknowledging the partner relationship is somewhat new, it is submitted that the applicant and his partner have known each other for several years including the key time since the applicant and Ms Haman reconnected in November 2024. The applicant submits that he has been the only father figure that N has ever known as her biological father who is of Brazilian nationality left Ms Haman and N to return to Brazil when she was only six months old.
3. The applicant submits that it is important to consider the decades of positive influence he may have on N and this should be given full credit and proper weighting. The Tribunal does not accept this submission; the relationship is of short duration and is relatively untested. Further N's biological father has limited but continuing contact with N and thus it may be that he will take on a more active role in N's upbringing as she grows older. There is little other evidence on the circumstances of his parental role in N's life.
4. It is submitted that it would create an extreme hardship for N if the applicant were removed from Australia as he would have very little, if any, possibility of return to Australia.
5. In his statement of 3 November 2025, the applicant stated that he has been a daily parental figure in N's life since reuniting with Ms Haman. He stated he has stepped naturally into the role of a father figure providing care, stability and love. He feeds and bathes her, takes her to the beach, shopping and for playtime in the park. He helps his partner with daily childcare so she can rest and manage her own activities. He stated that N calls him "Papa" and they have a deep emotional bond.
6. He claimed their home life was filled with warmth and shared responsibility. He claimed that N is deeply attached to him and when he leaves the house she cries and runs to the door until he returns. He claimed she looks to him for comfort, safety and affection and he feels equally attached to her and considers her his daughter in every sense. He claimed that removing him from Australia would sever their emotional and developmental bond. He claimed that Ms Haman would struggle to provide for N on her own both emotionally and financially.
7. In Ms Haman's statement of 2 November 2025, she stated that the applicant is an incredible support for N and confirmed he feeds her, changes her nappies, takes her for walks, to the beach and plays with her every day. When Ms Haman needs to rest or has other commitments he takes full care of her without hesitation.
8. She stated if the applicant were removed from Australia t would have a devastating impact on her and N would lose the only father figure she has every known. She stated that losing that bond at such a young age would cause her significant distress.
9. Ms Haman's father provided a statement which supported the statements made by Ms Haman. He lives in Gympie, Queensland and stated that he met the applicant when he came to visit in September 2025.
10. The respondent made submissions in which he accepted that the applicant had a positive relationship with N and that it would be in her best interests for the applicant's visa to be granted. However, the respondent contends that
    • the applicant's de facto relationship with Ms Haman commenced relatively recently, in August 2025. His contact with N would necessarily be limited due to the short duration of the relationship. The photographs of the applicant and N are all dated after August 2025.
    • There is no evidence to suggest that the applicant has legal custody of N and Ms Haman appears to fulfil a parental role in relation to N.
    • The applicant would be able to maintain contact with and through electronic means.
11. The Tribunal has considered the evidence provided in relation to the best interests of N who is the only minor child who is identified as being impacted by a visa refusal.
12. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant has a warm and positive relationship with N, but it considers that given the age of N and the short duration of the relationship, it does not consider that her interests will be significantly impacted if the applicant's visa is refused. If Ms Haman continues her relationship with the applicant there will be opportunities for electronic communication and possible visits with the applicant in the future. The Tribunal accepts the evidence that she may initially be confused and upset if the applicant returns to Uruguay, but it does not consider that this will necessarily affect her interests in the long term.
13. The Tribunal considers that this consideration weighs slightly against exercising the discretion to refuse the visa.

1. Paragraphs 8.5 (1) and (2) of Direction 110 outlines the expectations of the Australian community. Paragraph 8.5(1) sets out the government's view of the expectations of the Australian community as follows:

(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 noncitizen to enter or remain in Australia.

1. Paragraph 8.5(4) provides that the decision-maker should proceed on the basis of the Government's views about the community's expectations articulated above and must not independently assess the community's expectations as they may pertain in a particular

1. The applicant submits that the low risk of future reoffending as evidenced by the fact that his offending was isolated to a very short period of time with no offences before or after that time, combined with the applicant's close family and community ties in Australia, suggest that the Australian community would not necessarily expect that he should lose his visa and be removed from Australia.
2. The applicant acknowledges the "no tolerance" aspects of some of the language associated with Direction 110, especially with regard to the expectations attributed to the Australian community. He contends that the job of the Tribunal in the current proceeding is to predict, not punish, and submits that the Tribunal must therefore focus on making active, information-based decisions that are properly and fully informed by the factors present in the case, especially when predicting the future. The applicant also submits that the "no tolerance" position is extreme and almost draconian and that instructing decision makers to ignore the specifics of an applicant's offending is a fundamental unfairness. The applicant submits this consideration should be given little weight in the overall determination of this matter.
3. The respondent contends that the Tribunal should also take into consideration the principle at paragraph 5.2(5) that 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. The respondent notes that the applicant is a visa applicant and has only held limited stay visas, and therefore Australia has a lower tolerance of criminal conduct perpetrated by the applicant. It is submitted that in light of the applicant's serious criminal offending and the unacceptable risk that he would reoffend, that the Australian community would expect that the applicant should not be granted a visa, and that this consideration weighs heavily in favour of refusal.
5. The Tribunal considers the applicant's offending, the temporary nature of his limited stay visa means that the expectation of the Australian community is that the visa should be refused.
6. This consideration weighs in favour of exercising the discretion to refuse the visa.

133. There are three other relevant considerations set out in the Direction, being the legal consequences of the decision, the extent of any impediments the applicant may face if removed from Australia to New Zealand and impact on Australian business interests. The Tribunal has also considered the applicant's ties to the Australian community as an additional consideration.

1. The applicant submits that that if the applicant is removed from Australia for reasons of a visa refusal for character reasons, it is unlikely he will be able to return. However, the Tribunal notes that the applicant is not affected by Public Interest Criterion 5001 and that if he were to apply for another class of visa he could seek to return if he met the criteria for another class of visa. Many visa classes provide for the consideration of compelling or compassionate circumstances.
2. The respondent submits and the Tribunal accepts that the applicant has not made any claims regarding the legal consequences of the decision, nor that he engages Australia's non refoulment obligations. It finds that there are no protection findings made in relation to the applicant.
3. It is submitted that if the Tribunal affirms the decision under review, the applicant would face detention until his removal from Australia as envisaged by the statutory scheme. The respondent contends if this were to occur that the adverse consequences of this are subsumed through the other relevant considerations (see Stoneley v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2025] FCA 143, [36]-[38]), and therefore this consideration should be given neutral weight.
4. However, the evidence indicates that the applicant is not held in detention. If his visa is refused, he can voluntarily leave Australia within a reasonable time of a visa refusal decision

or apply for a bridging visa. He would not be liable for immigration detention under s.189 of the Act unless he did not leave voluntarily within a reasonable time or if he did not hold a valid bridging visa.

1. The Tribunal considers that this consideration is of neutral weight in any visa refusal.

1. The applicant submits he has been living in Australia for more than seven years and has no meaningful support network in Uruguay as his parents and sister have relocated to the United States to care for his deceased sister's children in Atlanta.
2. The applicant submits that he would face substantial re-integration barriers including limited employment prospects and a lack of housing or family assistance. The applicant's trade studies would not be recognised or transferable to Uruguay which would limit his work opportunities. He has established family and social ties in Australia and does not have the same connections in Uruguay. He submits that he would be distressed if he were removed from Australia in these circumstances.
3. In the response to the NOIC the applicant stated the environment in Uruguay is not at the same standard as Australia, that it is not as safe as Australia, he has little contact with friends and there are less employment and housing opportunities in Uruguay.
4. At the hearing the applicant stated that it would be difficult to return to Uruguay. He is working as an apprentice carpenter, and he would like to continue his carpentry studies for a second year. His parents do not live in Uruguay, and he feels he now belongs in Australia. He does not have the close-knit circle of friends in Uruguay that he has in Australia.
5. He stated that his parents and his surviving sister now live in Atlanta, United States. He stated his uncle is living in the family home in Uruguay, but he and his uncle do not have contact, and he does not know if he could seek short term accommodation in the family home while re-establishing himself.
6. When questioned at the hearing he stated he only had one uncle in Uruguay until it was pointed out that in his response to the NOIC (HB 165) he stated he had three uncles and three aunts in Uruguay. He stated that there are three uncles, but he is only in contact with

one uncle who lives in his parents' house. He explained that this uncle was present in his life when he was young and was a father figure when his father went to the US to work. Despite the early closeness he stated he no longer has contact with this uncle. The evidence on this issue was somewhat inconsistent.

1. One of the applicant's sisters passed away in 2022 and his parents moved to the US in 2022 to help his brother-in-law with their grandchildren. His other sister moved to US recently. His father is a welder, and the family is supported in the US by his brother-in-law and his father. He keeps in contact with his parents, and he has a good relationship with them. He stated he has not discussed with his parents the prospect of returning to Uruguay. He has not thought about accommodation and claimed he does not have fulfilling job prospects if he returns. He did not concede he had any relatives, friends or job prospects in the event of having to return. He wants to remain in Australia as a carpenter.
2. The respondent submits that the applicant is 32 years of age and has not identified any medical or psychological conditions in his response to the NOIC. With respect to any unresolved mental health issues, the respondent submits he would have the same social, medical and economic support available to other nationals.
3. The applicant lived in Uruguay for the first 24 years of his life, he speaks Spanish and would not have any significant language or cultural barriers. The respondent submits he would have transferable skills in Uruguay, having worked in Australia in a variety of workplaces. Further there is no apparent reason why his family would not support him until he is able to re-establish himself in Uruguay.
4. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant may face some initial employment and income related difficulties if he returned to Uruguay. However, the Tribunal considers that the applicant is 32 years old and is healthy, speaks Spanish and is familiar with the culture and norms of Uruguay. He has been continually employed in Australia in a number of different occupations and clearly has the skills to adapt to a changed job market. He stated that he has no relatives or social contacts who could help with re-integration, however, the Tribunal considers he has minimised his lack of contacts in Uruguay due to his concerns it may weaken his application for review. He stated that he has a loving family, and the Tribunal considers that even if they do not live in Uruguay they would arrange for their families and contacts to assist the applicant in re-integration.
5. The Tribunal considers that this consideration would weigh slightly in favour of exercising the discretion not to refuse on character grounds.

1. Paragraph 9.3 requires the decision-maker to consider any impact on Australian business interests if the non-citizen is not allowed to remain in Australia, noting that an employment link would generally only be given weight where the decision would significantly compromise the delivery of a major project, or delivery of an important service in Australia.
2. The applicant contends that the applicant's continued presence in Australia would benefit local business and skills development initiative.
3. However, the respondent notes that there is no evidence to suggest that the refusal of the applicant's visa would result in a significant compromise of the delivery of a major project or an important service in Australia. The respondent submits that this consideration should be given no weight: paragraph 9.3(1). However, to the extent that the Tribunal is required to consider any impact on Australian business interests, the respondent submits that the applicant has not yet qualified and that it cannot be said that his skillsets are unique or irreplaceable to the businesses involved.
4. The Tribunal considers that this consideration would weigh slightly in favour of exercising the discretion not to refuse on character grounds.

The applicant's ties to the Australian community.

1. The applicant has made submissions and provided many statements from members of the Australian community which show the high regard in which he is held by members of the community.
2. The Tribunal is not limited to the considerations set out in the Direction and has considered this evidence as part of its overall consideration..
3. The applicant first arrived in Australia in 2018 as the holder of a working holiday visa. He lived in Australia as the holder of a number of working holiday visas from 2018 to 2020. He

was arrested and charged with the subject offences in 2020, underwent some rehabilitation programs (Traffic offender intervention program, MERIT program, SMART recovery and Narcotics Anonymous), was convicted in April 2021 and completed his intensive correction order on 13 July 2022. The evidence indicates that he was working in solar farms near Dubbo around the time he committed the offences and served his ICO in that area.

1. In his response to the NOIC he stated that he was an active member of the Byron Shire community and happy to join in charity events. He dreams of becoming a carpenter but also studying healing arts such as massage therapy, acupuncture and body related practices. (HB 170)
2. He has completed one year of a two-year Certificate III carpentry course (HB 178) and is working with a local business. He has helped with flood relief and has very recently started volunteering at a local Aboriginal community group where he helps with building and general help.
3. The evidence indicates that that the applicant has contributed positively to the community in recent years. He has provided statements to both the Department and Tribunal from a wide range of members of the local community who have generally stated that they hold him in high regard. The statements have been given variously by persons who have known the applicant in the last few years either for a number of years or for short periods of time.
4. the Tribunal considers this should be given limited weight in exercising the discretion not to refuse the visa.

1. The applicant does not pass the character test under s.501 of the Act and the Tribunal must consider whether to exercise its discretion to its discretion under s.501(1) of the Act to refuse to grant the applicant the visa, having regard to the considerations set out in the Direction.
2. There has been significant judicial consideration on the exercise of balancing and weighing considerations contained in the relevant ministerial directions, including a number of ministerial directions preceding Direction 110.
3. In determining the weight to be applied to each consideration the Tribunal has considered the primary and other considerations and weighed them in light of the evidence and findings using the guidance provided by the Direction.
4. The Tribunal notes that its consideration involves an evaluative process, requiring the Tribunal to examine factors for and against exercising its discretion to refuse the visa on character grounds.
5. Greater weight must generally be given to the protection of the Australian community than other primary considerations. Greater weight will also generally be given to the primary considerations.
6. The Tribunal considers that the applicant's visa should be refused on the grounds of s.501 (1) of the Act.
7. The Tribunal considers that the protection of the Australian community and expectations of the Australian community weigh in favour of exercising the discretion to refuse the visa. The nature of the applicant's family ties, the interests of N, his ties to the Australian community, the extent of impediments if removed and the impact on business interests weigh slightly in favour of exercising a discretion not to refuse the visa on character grounds. There is no evidence of family violence, and the Tribunal does not consider the legal consequences of the decision weigh one way or the other.
8. The Tribunal has assessed the applicant's offending as serious. The Tribunal accepts the applicant does not have a prior criminal history, that the offences arose from one incident, that he was allowed to serve his sentence in the community, that there is a low risk of re- offending and that he appears to have made significant efforts at rehabilitation and to turn his life around. However it has also taken account of the principle set out in 5.2 (5) which provides that Australia has a low tolerance of criminal or other serious conduct by visa applicants who hold a limited stay visa. The applicant was the holder of a working holiday visa when he committed the offences and the visa for which he has applied is a limited stay working holiday visa. The applicant has not lived in the Australian community for most of his life or from a very young age and thus cannot seek to take advantage of the principle in 5.2 (6) that Australia may afford an applicant a higher tolerance of criminal or other serious conduct in those circumstances.
9. The Tribunal considers that the applicant's ties to Ms Haman and N, the best interests of N, his ties to the Australian community, the extent of impediments if removed to Uruguay do weigh slightly in favour of exercising the discretion not to refuse the visa on character grounds. However, for reasons set out above the Tribunal does not consider that these considerations outweigh those matters which weigh in favour of refusing the visa on character grounds.
10. His relationship with Ms Haman and N is of short duration, he has only completed one year of his carpentry studies and apart from the statements made by the applicant and Ms Haman there is little evidence as to how N's interests will be affected if he returns to Uruguay. Further there is limited evidence as to the interest or involvement of N's biological father in her upbringing and how this might impact on any future relationship of the applicant and N.
11. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant feels settled in Australia and would like to remain, however, he has applied for a working holiday visa which is a temporary visa with a requirement that a visa applicant must have an intention to visit for the purpose of a holiday. The evidence before the Tribunal indicates that he may not be able to satisfy that requirement. The Tribunal has taken this into account in considering 8.1.2 (c) of the Direction. It also does give some context to the applicant's situation.
12. The Tribunal has some sympathy for the applicant as he is a young man who has made significant efforts to turn his life around following his criminal conviction and is obviously held in high regard by many members of his local community, however, overall, the Tribunal considers that the visa should be refused on the basis of s.501 of the Act.

Solicitors for the Respondent: A. Westenberg, Sparke Helmore Lawyers