1. Section 501(3A) of the Migration Act provides that the Minister must cancel a visa that has been granted to a person if:

(a) the Minister is satisfied that the person does not pass the character test because of the operation of:

(i) paragraph 6(a) (substantial criminal record), on the basis of paragraph (7)(a), (b) or (c); or

(ii) paragraph (6)(e) (sexually based offences involving a child), and

(b) the person is serving a sentence of imprisonment, on a full-time basis in a custodial institution, for an offence against a law of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory.

1. Section 501(6)(a) of the Migration Act provides that a person does not pass the character test if they have a substantial criminal record as defined by s 501(7). Section 501(7)(c) provides that, for the purposes of the character test, a person has a substantial criminal record if they have been sentenced to a term of imprisonment for 12 months or more.
2. Section 501CA(4) relevantly provides that the Minister may revoke the cancellation 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 499(1) of the Migration Act states:

The Minister may give written directions to a person or body having functions or powers under this Act if the directions are about:

(a) the performance of those functions; or

(b) the exercise of those powers.

1. Section 499(2A) of the Migration Act provides that 'a person or body must comply with a direction under subsection (1)'.
2. On 7 June 2024, the Minister made Direction No. 110 Visa refusal and cancellation under section 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under section 501CA (the Direction) pursuant to s 499(1) of the Migration Act. The Direction commenced on 21 June 2024.

(a) whether the Applicant passes the character test for the purposes of 501CA(4)(b)(i) of the Migration Act > > (b) whether there is another reason why the cancellation decision should be revoked, as provided for by s 501CA(4)(b)(ii) of the Migration Act.

2. The Applicant was sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment on 21 November 2022. I am satisfied that the Applicant has a substantial criminal record as defined by s 501(7)(c) of the Migration Act. By the operation of s 501(6)(a), the Applicant does not pass the character test.

1. Paragraph 5.1(1) of the Direction states that the objective of the Migration Act is 'to regulate, in the national interest, the coming into, and presence in, Australia of non-citizens...'.[2]
2. Paragraph 5.1(2) provides that 'where the discretion to refuse to grant or to cancel a visa is enlivened, the decision-maker must consider the specific circumstances of the case in deciding whether to exercise that discretion'.[3]
3. Paragraph 5.2 sets out principles to provide a framework 'within which decision-makers should approach their task...'.

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

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

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

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

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

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

(7) Decision-makers must take into account the primary and other considerations relevant to the individual case. In some circumstances, the nature of the non-citizen's conduct, or the harm that would be caused if the conduct were to be repeated, may be so serious that even strong countervailing considerations may be insufficient to justify not cancelling or refusing the visa, or revoking a mandatory cancellation.

(8) The inherent nature of certain conduct such as family violence is so serious that even strong countervailing considerations may be insufficient to justify not cancelling or refusing the visa, or revoking a mandatory cancellation, even if the information available at the time of consideration suggests that the non-citizen does not pose a measurable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community.

1. Paragraph 6 of the Direction provides that 'informed by the principles in paragraph 5.2, a decision-maker must take into account the considerations identified in sections 8 and 9, where relevant to the decision'.[4]
2. Paragraph 7 of the Direction states that:

(1) In applying the considerations (both primary and other), information and evidence from independent and authoritative sources should be given appropriate weight.

(2) The primary consideration at 8.1...(protection of the Australian community) is generally to be given greater weight than other primary considerations. Otherwise, primary considerations should generally be given greater weight than the other considerations.

(3) One or more primary considerations may outweigh other primary considerations.

1. Paragraph 8 of the Direction sets out the primary considerations as:

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

(2) whether the conduct engaged in constituted family violence

(3) the strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia

(4) the best interests of minor children in Australia

(5) expectations of the Australian community

1. Paragraph 9 sets out three 'Other Considerations' to be taken into account where relevant, although is not limited to these alone as other considerations.

(a) legal consequences of the decision > > (b) extent of impediments if removed > > (c) impact on Australian business interests.

PRIMARY CONSIDERATION 1: PROTECTION OF THE AUSTRALIAN COMMUNITY FROM CRIMINAL OR OTHER SERIOUS CONDUCT

Safety of the Australian community is the highest priority of the Australian Government

1. Paragraph 8.1(1) of the Direction provides that when considering the protection of the Australian community, decision-makers should keep in mind that the safety of the Australian community is the highest priority of the Australian Government. I have regard to the principle that 'entering or remaining in Australia is a privilege that Australian 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'.[5]
2. Paragraph 8.1(2) states that decision-makers should also give consideration to:
   1. The nature and seriousness of the non-citizen's conduct to date; and
   2. The risk to the Australian community, should the non-citizen commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct.

The nature and seriousness of the conduct to date

1. In considering the nature and seriousness of the conduct to date, I have had regard to paragraphs 8.1.1(a)-(i) to the extent relevant.

Subject offending, subsequent suspension of parole and non-compliance with Court-ordered community service

1. On 21 November 2022, after pleading guilty, the Applicant was convicted of Wilful damage, Assault occasioning bodily harm while intoxicated, Common assault in public place while intoxicated, which offences were committed on 31 July 2022.[6] The Court described the offending as follows.

This would seem to be a case where you were intoxicated, and for some completely

unknown reason, have decided to throw a traffic cone at a bike and the people on it, such that the cone struck the passenger of the bike, and then when they have stopped to confront you about it, you have, again for no apparent reason, punched the driver in the head, and then he has fallen to the ground, gotten up, and punched him again. Cowardly and completely gratuitous violence towards these two people.[7]

1. The Court sentenced the Applicant to terms of 12 and 6 months' imprisonment, to be served concurrently, and ordered the Applicant to undertake 100 hours of community service. The Applicant was released on parole.[8]

1. On 15 September 2023, the Parole Board Queensland suspended the Applicant's parole and issued a warrant for the arrest of the Applicant.[9] The Applicant was returned to prison on 23 January 2024.[10]

1. The Applicant was asked during the hearing about the suspension of his parole. The Applicant gave evidence that he was drinking with [PA] all day, but that he could not remember how much he drank and could not remember what happened that night.[11] A protection order was issued with the Applicant as respondent on 26 September 2023, with an expiry date of 25 September 2028.[12] The Applicant gave evidence that the aggrieved persons protected by the order are [PA] and his minor children.[13]

1. In respect of the community service order that was ordered by the Court, Queensland Corrective Services records report that the Applicant contravened the community service order, failing to complete 45 hours of outstanding service by 20 November 2023.[14] Records indicate the following.

(a) On 28 November 2022, the Applicant was issued with instructions to attend each week. > > (b) Initially, the Applicant attended as directed on most occasions. > > (c) On 13 April 2023, phone contact was made the Applicant and he was issued with new instructions to attend each fortnight until his hours were complete. > > (d) The Applicant failed to attend community service as arranged and only attended sporadically on some occasions. > > (e) On 1 August 2023, phone contact was made with the Applicant who explained that he was finding it difficult due to his employment. It was offered that the Applicant could complete his community service from home. > > (f) The Applicant did not complete any community service from home 'despite consistent efforts to engage him with the order'.[15]

1. During the hearing the Applicant said that he was busy with work and family commitments, and so was unable to comply with the requirements of the community service order.

1. On 7 January 2021, the Applicant pleaded guilty to charges before the Court.[16] He was convicted of Stealing, Contravention of domestic violence order (aggravated), Contravention of police protection notice, Enter dwelling with intend by break in company, Unlawful use of motor vehicles aircraft or vessels, Evasion and fail to give statutory declaration.[17] The Applicant was fined and sentenced to five separate terms with a head sentence of 12 months, and had his driving licence disqualified.[18] He was released on parole.[19] Queensland Police Service's sentencing schedule describes the offending as follows.

(a) Unlawfully possess vehicle. On 12 April 2019, police attended an address for a stolen vehicle. Police identified fingerprints of the Applicant on the vehicle.[20] > > (b) Contravention of police protection notice. On 26 February 2019, a police protection notice was issued against the Applicant naming his mother as the aggrieved. On 25 March 2019, the Applicant's mother called police after becoming fearful of the Applicant. Police attended and the Applicant told them that he had punched the air conditioning unit in his bedroom, causing damage.[21] > > (c) Contravention of police protection notice. On 26 April 2019 a police protection notice was issued against the Applicant naming his ex-partner as the aggrieved. On 27 April 2019, the Applicant attended his ex-partner's home in contravention of the order. Between 4 May 2019 and 26 May 2019, the Applicant sent threatening messages to his ex-partner on Facebook.[22] > > (d) Stealing. On 1 September 2019, police identified the Applicant's fingerprints in a victim's home who had reported a break-in and items stolen, being a television, electronic tablet, Playstation and $400 in cash.[23] > > > (i) In cross-examination, the Applicant said that he was house-sitting at the time for the victim, and made it look like someone else had broken into the residence. He said that he returned all items to the victim expect for the money. He agreed that he had taken the money for drugs.[24] > > (e) Enter dwelling with intent by break in company and wilful damage. On 17 September 2019, a victim entered his workplace and identified the Applicant searching under a kitchen bench. Two other males then attacked the victim.[25] > > > (i) In cross-examination, the Applicant denied the circumstances of the offending on 17 September 2019, as accepted by the Court. He said that he had been let into the house by the victim and said that he was not there with the intention to hurt or harm anyone. He said that he went to the house alone. The Applicant agreed that he went to the house to look for money, and agreed it was money to fuel his drug habit at the time.[26] > > (f) Unlawful use of motor vehicles aircraft or vessels - use. On 5 December 2019, the Applicant was identified to have used a stolen vehicle.[27] > > (g) Evasion. On 15 December 2019, the Applicant drove off at speed after police attempted to intercept the vehicle he was driving.[28]

2. On 8 August 2016, the Applicant pleaded guilty to, and was convicted of, Breach of order imposed (imposed on 22 October 2015), Contravention of domestic violence order (on 24 June 2016) and Contravene direction or requirement. He was sentenced to a concurrent term of four months and released on parole. Relevantly, the Court at that time stated:

...he's a young man who's breached probation orders, breached community service order, and is now by his way of guilty [sic], breached a suspended term of imprisonment.[29]

1. On 22 October 2015, the Applicant pleaded guilty to, and was convicted of, the following offences. He was sentenced to a concurrent term of imprisonment for eight months, suspended for 18 months.[30]

(a) Contravention of domestic violence order and Wilful damage. The Queensland Police Service Court brief indicates the facts to be as follows. On 30 September 2015, the Applicant and the victim attended a gym with their children. While at the gym, verbal altercations occurred between the Applicant and the victim. The victim entered a vehicle and attempted to drive away. The Applicant attempted to prevent the victim leaving and punched the back of her vehicle, and chased her vehicle on foot. After the victim departed, the Applicant kicked and punched the door of another vehicle, causing damage to the vehicle.[31] > > > (i) In cross-examination, the Applicant agreed that his children were in the car with his ex-partner and agreed that he was angry at the time of the offending.[32]

2. The Applicant's earliest criminal convictions as an adult were committed in June 2013, were for Wilful damage, Contravention of Domestic Violence order, Commit nuisance. He was sentenced to a 15-month probation order, with a requirement to attend anger management counselling.[33]
3. The Applicant's traffic history indicates that his driving licence has been suspended with reasons including driving while disqualified and failure to stop.[34]
4. Although the Applicant disputed certain facts underlying some the offences described above, I am not permitted to impugn the convictions against the Applicant.[35] I am entitled to receive evidence of the Applicant's conviction and sentence and treat it as probative of the factual matters upon which the conviction and sentence were based.[36]

1. The Applicant has not been charged or convicted with any offence since he has been in prison and in immigration detention. The applicant was informed about the privilege against self-incrimination before being questioned about events that occurred in prison.
2. Records indicate that on 22 February 2025, the Applicant believed that a visit had been cancelled when a fire alarm was activated. The Applicant 'reacted by grabbing a floor sign off the floor...and smashing it against a wall, kicking it and yelling in anger about his visit being cancelled'.[37] The report indicates that the Applicant 'calmed down' and was assured that the visit was not cancelled, and the Applicant was returned to the non-contact room for his visit to resume and he was 'calm and compliant'.[38] In cross-examination, the Applicant agreed that his actions were extreme, and he acknowledged his behaviour. He explained that the situation was stressful, and that his 'kids were screaming'.[39] I acknowledge the stressful environment for the Applicant in which this incident occurred, and place minimal weight on the incident.
3. Records indicated that on 17 July 2024, the Applicant was alleged to have slapped the face of another detainee.[40] In cross-examination, the Applicant said that he was not physically violent, and it was 'all verbal'. He said that he was 'disrespected' and said that he and the other detainee 'sat down and had a smoke together'.[41] In a written submission, the Applicant stated that he did not strike anyone but that he deeply regrets allowing his emotions to escalate the situation.[42] Given that there is no finding against the Applicant in relation to the alleged incident on 19 July 2024, I do not place any weight on this incident.

1. The Direction provides that, without limiting the range of conduct that may be considered 'very serious', the types of crimes or conduct viewed very seriously by the Australian government and the Australian community are 'violent and/or sexual crimes' and 'crimes of a violent or sexual nature against women or children, regardless of the sentence imposed' and 'acts of family violence, regardless of whether there is a conviction for an offence or sentence imposed'. [43]
2. Paragraph 4 of the Direction defines family violence to mean:

violent, threatening or other behaviour by a person that coerces or controls a member of the person's family (the family member) or causes the family member to be fearful. Examples of behaviour that may constitute family violence include:

(e) intentionally damaging or destroying property

1. The Applicant has been convicted of offences that involved violence. I have regard to the view of the Australian Government and the Australian community that violent crimes are viewed very seriously regardless of the sentence imposed. The Applicant has engaged in acts of family violence. I have regard to the view of the Australian Government and the Australian community that acts of family violence are viewed very seriously, regardless of whether there is a conviction for an offence or sentence imposed.

1. I do not make any finding in respect of paragraph 8.1.1(b).

1. Paragraph 8.1.1(1)(c) provides that 'with the exception of the crimes or conduct mentioned in subparagraph (a)(ii), (a)(iii) or (b)(i) above', the decision-maker must have regard to the sentence imposed by the courts for a crime or crimes.
2. The Applicant submits that the term of imprisonment imposed in 2022 was not simply because of the seriousness of the offence but several factors were taken into consideration with reference to section 9 and 11 of the Penalties and Sentence Act 1992 (QLD).[45] Relevantly, the Court stated:

In relation to that assault occasioning bodily harm, it is no longer the case that a sentence of imprisonment is the last resort, but given your young age and the fact that you seem to have done well on parole on the most previous occasion, that a sentence that would allow you back into the community and to be supervised in conjunction with the community service order, may best assist your rehabilitation.[46]

1. I accept that the Court has regard to numerous facts in sentencing an offender. However, I am satisfied, for the purposes of s 8.1.1(1)(c), that sentences of imprisonment have been imposed on the Applicant in the period October 2015 until November 2022, ranging from two months to 12 months in duration.

Impact on victim and their family: 8.1.1(1)(d)

1. I am to have regard to the impact of the offending on any victims of the offending and their family, where this information is available and where the Applicant has been afforded procedural fairness.[47]
2. I do not have victim impact statements, or other evidence from victims of the Applicant's offending before me.
3. The sentencing remarks for the subject offending relevantly state:

...you are extremely lucky that the person whom you punched to the head did not sustain more significant injuries when they fell to the ground...[48]

Frequency and increasing trend of seriousness: 8.1.1(1)(e)

1. I find that the Applicant has offended frequently since 2013 and that there has been an increasing trend in the seriousness with most recent offending including Assault occasioning bodily harm while intoxicated, Common assault in public place while intoxicated.

Cumulative effect of repeated offending 8.1.1(1)(f)

1. I accept the Minister's submission that the cumulative effect of the Applicant's repeated criminal offending is that it has exposed his family and community to violence and consumed a considerable amount of community resources.

1. In relation to paragraph 8.1.1(1)(g)-(i), I find that the Applicant has not provided false or misleading evidence to the Department, that the Applicant has not re-offended since being formally warned regarding his migration status, and that the offending was not committed in another country.

1. Having regard to all the matters provided for in cl.8.1.1 of the Direction to the extent relevant, I find the Applicant's conduct to be very serious.

Risk to the Australian community should the Applicant commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct

1. In considering the need to protect the Australian community from harm, I have regard to the Government's view that the Australian community's tolerance for any risk of future harm becomes lower as the seriousness of the potential harm increases. Some conduct and the harm that would be caused, if it were to be repeated, is so serious that any risk that it may be repeated may be unacceptable.[49]
2. In assessing the risk that may be posed by the Applicant to the Australian community, I have regard to, cumulatively:

(a) the nature of the harm to individuals or the Australian community should the non-citizen engage in further criminal or other serious conduct; and > > (b) the likelihood of the non-citizen engaging in further criminal or other serious conduct, taking into account: > > i. information and evidence on the risk of the non­citizen re-offending; and > > ii. evidence of rehabilitation achieved by the time of the decision, giving weight to time spent in the community since their most recent offence (noting that decisions should not be delayed in order for rehabilitative courses to be undertaken). > > ...

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

1. The Minister submits that if the Applicant were to reoffend by committing property and violent offending, the harm that would flow is likely to be financial harm to the Australian community, and serious physical and psychological harm.[50]
2. Should the Applicant engage in further criminal conduct or other serious conduct in the nature of his previous criminal conduct, I am satisfied that the nature of harm to others would be significant with the potential for serious physical and psychological harm.

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

1. I have regard to the likelihood of the Applicant engaging in further criminal conduct or other serious conduct, taking into account:

(i) information and evidence on the risk of the non-citizen re-offending; and > > (ii) evidence of rehabilitation achieved by the time of the decision, giving weight to time spent in the community since their most recent offence... .[51]

Information and evidence on the risk of the Applicant re-offending

1. The Applicant and his mother, [LE], each gave evidence of the Applicant's traumatic childhood, and of the Applicant's success in rugby league, representing State and Australian in under 15 and under 18 age groups. The Applicant suffered shoulder injuries when he was 18 which meant he was unable to pursue rugby. The Applicant met [RF], when he was 15 and they had their first child, Minor Child 1, just before they both turned 17 years of age.[52]
2. The Applicant gave evidence that alcohol and meth have caused him to offend, as well as trauma. He said that he feels angry when he is unheard or misunderstood.[53]

1. Dr Jacqueline Yoxall, Registered Psychologist and Academic, prepared a report dated 14 July 2025, following an assessment of the Applicant via videoconference. Dr Yoxall interviewed both the Applicant's wife, [KT], and the Applicant's mother, [LE], for the purposes of her report.[54] Dr Yoxall gave evidence to the Tribunal on 5 August 2025.
2. Dr Yoxall concluded that the Applicant's offending occurred within a context of significant untreated trauma and maladaptive coping through substance use, and stated that:

(a) the Applicant reported that he struggled with depression over time, that he had attempted suicide in 2015, that he had a history of binge drinking and that he developed full blown drug dependence between 2019 and 2020, when he was using daily > > (b) the Applicant reported struggling with depression regarding the loss of his rugby career, childhood trauma, the loss of his first marriage and from being prevented from seeing his children and reported that he blamed himself after his younger brother died by suicide in 2017.

3. Dr Yoxall conducted various assessments for the purposes of assessing the Applicant's likelihood of reoffending and reported that:

(c) the Applicant was at low to moderate risk of general reoffending. > > (d) the balanced moderate loadings across the historical, clinical and risk management scales suggest that the Applicant is at an overall moderate risk of future violent behaviour > > (e) the Applicant is assessed as having a low to moderate risk of committing future domestic violence offences, where the only two qualitative options are 'low to moderate' and 'high'.

4. Dr Yoxall reported that the Applicant demonstrates a high degree of insight into the relationship between his past trauma, emotional dysregulation and offending.
5. In evidence, Dr Yoxall confirmed her view that the Applicant's risk level is conditional upon continued abstinence from drugs and alcohol, and ongoing emotional regulation and trauma informed support.[55] Dr Yoxall agreed that the Applicant's risk level may elevate to varying degrees depending on how the dynamic factors change.
6. Dr Yoxall considers that the Applicant has substantial protective factors in place.

1. In sentencing remarks made on 21 November 2022, the Court stated:

You are someone who has a significant issue in relation to anger management, and whilst I am told that you have address it or are addressing it, insofar as you have attended at an anger management course...in my view, you need to do something particularly in relation to that...[56]

I am told that you previously had a significant substance misuse, and on this occasion, you were intoxicated with alcohol. That is an ongoing problem for you, and it would, in my view, also be in your best interest to undertake something in relation to - continuing in relation to your drug and alcohol - and or alcohol problem.[57]

On parole order, you will be under some strict conditions in relation to alcohol or drug in any case, and hopefully, you will engage yourself I some further counselling in relation to your anger management.[58]

1. Greg Hutcheon, Psychologist, provided a report dated 29 September 2024 for the purposes of assessment and treatment of adjustment difficulties in the context of being in detention. Mr Hutcheon saw the Applicant on six occasions between 13 May 2024 and 2 September 2024.
2. Mr Hutcheon diagnosed the Applicant as having a moderate depressive disorder, a history of substance use disorder, a history of childhood exposure to domestic violence and subclinical symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder.
3. Mr Hutcheon stated that the Applicant reported:

(f) that he drinks alcohol to excess and can be aggressive when drinking; that at age 23 he started using amphetamines daily and became homeless before entering rehab in 2020 and has not used since that time > > (g) that he saw a psychologist when he was 18, and reported a positive experience with psychology while in rehab > > (h) that he tried to hang himself in 2015 while using methamphetamine and was in ICU for two days and started anti-depressants at that time.

4. Mr Hutcheon concluded that the Applicant engaged very well in therapy and presented as initiative-taking to address his past offending and engaged in ongoing substance abuse treatment and exploration of his previous domestic violence.

1. A Queensland Corrective Services Risk of Re-offending Assessment - RoR PPV dated 22 February 2021, indicates that the Applicant was assessed with a score of 16, out of a range of 1-20 with 20 being the highest risk of re-offending.[59]

Evidence of rehabilitation and protective factors

1. In his application for review to the Tribunal, the Applicant stated:

I believe I have changed so much for the better. Even though my record doesn't show that. I have worked tremendously hard to get my life on track and be the father, husband and son I can be.[60]

1. The Applicant gave evidence that he entered a rehabilitation program with Victory House in 2020. Over 12 months, the Applicant agreed that he undertook one-one counselling, and engaged in group therapy as regards drug and alcohol use. The Applicant said that his goal was to get off meth and be a good husband and father. The Applicant accepted that his anger management issues and alcohol were a major part of his most recent offending.[61] The Applicant agreed that prior to returning to custody in January 2024, he would drink alcohol once every three months, but once he started drinking, he did not know when to stop.
2. In a letter dated 26 March 2023, David and Louise Nahi, Senior Pastors, Directors of Vibe Church, stated that they have known the Applicant for four years. They state that the Applicant completed the challenging 12-month program of Victory House 'with impressive commitment' and offered him employment after graduation. They state that the Applicant volunteered to encourage others, including speaking at football clubs about his own story as a deterrent for those from troubled backgrounds.[62] In a letter dated 11 July 2025, David Nahi states that alcohol 'is something [the Applicant] can overcome just as he did with drugs'.[63] David Nahi gave evidence to the Tribunal, and gave evidence about the programs in Victory House. Mr Nahi explained that education and coursework is undertaken both in group sessions and on an individual basis. He described working with the Applicant primarily in relation to meth addiction, but also anger management.
3. In a letter dated 26 March 2024, Mr Rodney Wass states that he has known the Applicant for four years and that the Applicant 'is a person of excellent moral character'. Mr Wass states that the Applicant has been an excellent role model for other in the church and is dedicated and reliable.[64]
4. In a letter dated 26 March 2024, James Sadler, AOD counsellor, stated that the Applicant completed more than 12 months of Victory House rehabilitation program. Mr Sadler stated that the Applicant worked for eight months as a member of staff, and that he as 'seen significant changes' in the Applicant's life.[65]
5. In cross-examination, the Applicant described the courses he has completed and explained that he speaks to a psychologist every 2-3 weeks and keeps in contact with James Sadler and David and Louise Nahi.
6. The Applicant's mother, [LE], gave evidence that the Applicant would be able to obtain employment if he remains in Australia, and evidence about the support that the Applicant would receive from his family and their church.
7. The Applicant gave evidence that he had employment opportunities in concreting lined up if he remains in Australia.
8. Queensland Corrective Services records indicate that the Applicant undertook the following programs.

(a) Men's Domestic Violence Education and Intervention Program, 48 hours, completed on 9 March 2021[66] > > (b) Domestic Violence Awareness, 8 contact hours, 13 July 2024[67] > > (c) Positive Parenting Technique, 5 contact hours, 7 July 2024[68] > > (d) Home Safety, 5 contact hours, 23 July 2024[69] > > (e) Anger Management Techniques, 5 contact hours, 4 April 2024[70] > > (f) Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 7 contact hours, 4 April 2024[71] > > (g) Conflict Resolution Techniques, 7 contact hours, 6 April 2024[72] > > (h) Emotional Healing, 6 contact hours, 7 April 2024[73] > > (i) Depression Management, 5 contact hours, 30 April 2024[74] > > (j) Stress Management, 4 contact hours, 30 April 2024[75] > > (k) Basic Parenting Skills, 5 contact hours, 8 May 2024[76]

9. The Applicant described involvement in SMART recovery, and his sessions with a psychologist since being in immigration detention.

1. The Applicant submits that his likelihood of reoffending is very low because he has addressed his drug use by participation and completion of courses.[77] The Applicant's legal representative submitted that there are strong protective factors in place for the Applicant, in terms of family support, motivation to be a present father for his children and employment.

1. The Minister submits that there is insufficient evidence to support a conclusion that the Applicant is rehabilitated and makes the following submission.

Dr Yoxall also observed that the Applicant has been abstinent from illicit drug use since 2020. Despite being abstinent during that period, the Applicant continued to offend, particularly while under the influence of alcohol. The role of alcohol in the Applicant's offending is further exemplified by the suspension and cancellation of his parole. In September 2023, the Applicant had been binge drinking with his brother-in-law, whether there was an escalation in aggressive behaviour from the Applicant. Even while subject to parole, the Applicant continued to consume alcohol despite knowing that it was a leading cause of his latest conviction.[78]

1. The Minister contends that the Applicant posed an unacceptable risk to the Australian community and that primary consideration 1 should weigh very heavily against revocation of the cancellation decision.[79]

Conclusion on the protection of the Australian community

1. Having regard to all the matters provided for in cl.8.1.1 of the Direction to the extent relevant, I find the applicant's conduct to date to be very serious. I find that the nature and seriousness of the Applicant's conduct weighs heavily against revocation of the cancellation decision.
2. Should the Applicant's conduct be repeated, the harm perpetrated against the Australian community would be significant.
3. I find that the Applicant completed 12 months of rehabilitation and was subsequently employed with Victory House, commencing in March 2020, and that the Applicant has not used drugs since then. Despite his abstinence from drugs, the support of his family, and employment, the Applicant committed violent offending while under the influence of alcohol in July 2023. He was released on parole, with advice from the Court that 'you will be under some strict conditions relating to alcohol or drugs, in any case, and hopefully you will engage yourself in some further counselling in relation to your anger management'.[80] In September 2023, the Applicant's parole was suspended and cancelled following an incident in which he had been drinking alcohol.
4. Dr Yoxall assessed the Applicant as having a low to moderate risk for general and domestic violent offending, and overall moderate risk of future violent offending. Dr Yoxall's evidence is that these risk assessments are entirely conditional upon continued abstinence from drugs and alcohol, and ongoing emotional regulation and trauma informed support. I acknowledge that the Applicant has not had the opportunity to test his ability to regulate his emotions and abstain from alcohol in the community since January 2024, and that he has completed programs and engaged in rehabilitation since that time. I also accept that the Applicant has protective factors in the way of strong family support, motivation to be a present father for his children, and employment. However, the evidence before the Tribunal is that even with these protective factors and having completed a lengthy rehabilitation program at Victory House, the Applicant was unable to abstain from alcohol use while in the community.
5. I consider the likelihood of the Applicant engaging in further criminal conduct or other serious conduct, taking into account information and evidence on the risk of the Applicant re-offending; and evidence of rehabilitation achieved, to be moderate.
6. I find that primary consideration 1 weighs heavily against revocation of the cancellation decision.

1. Paragraph 8.2(1) of the Direction provides that the Government has serious concerns about conferring on non-citizens who engage in family violence the privilege of entering or remaining in Australia. The Government's concerns in this regard are proportionate to the seriousness of the family violence engaged in by the non-citizen.
2. Primary consideration 2 is relevant in circumstances where:

a. a non-citizen has been convicted of an offence, found guilty of an offence, or had charges proven howsoever described, that involve family violence; and/or

b. there is information or evidence from independent and authoritative sources indicating that the non-citizen is, or has been, involved in the perpetration of family violence, subject to procedural fairness.[81]

1. Paragraph 4 of the Direction defines family violence to mean:

violent, threatening or other behaviour by a person that coerces or controls a member of the person's family (the family member) or causes the family member to be fearful. Examples of behaviour that may constitute family violence include:

(e) intentionally damaging or destroying property

1. Queensland Police Service records indicate that the Applicant has been named as the respondent in numerous protection orders since 2012.[83] The names of the people protected are redacted in the records before the Tribunal. However, I am satisfied on the evidence before the Tribunal that the contraventions of orders described below concern the Applicant's mother, and the Applicant's ex-partner.
2. The Applicant has been convicted of contraventions of protection orders. I am satisfied that the following contraventions of orders involved family violence as defined by the Direction.[84]

(a) On 11 June 2013, the Applicant was convicted of Contravention of domestic violence order.[85] Queensland Police Records indicate that on 11 May 2013, the Applicant attended hospital with the victim for treatment. The Applicant grabbed the victim's arm after she refused to give him car keys and yelled at the victim while kicking a vehicle in the car park.[86] > > (b) On 22 October 2015, the Applicant was convicted of Contravention of domestic violence order.[87] Queensland Police Service Court brief indicates the facts to be as follows. On 30 September 2015, the Applicant and the victim attended a gym with their children. While at the gym, verbal altercations occurred between the Applicant and the victim. The victim entered a vehicle and attempted to drive away. The Applicant attempted to prevent the victim leaving and punched the back of her vehicle and chased her vehicle on foot. After the victim departed, the Applicant kicked and punched the door of another vehicle, causing damage to the vehicle.[88] > > > (i) In cross-examination, the Applicant agreed that his children were in the car with his ex-partner and agreed that he was angry at the time of the offending.[89] > > (c) Contravention of domestic violence order (aggravated offence). On 24 May 2016, the Applicant was observed hitting a vehicle with a pipe while his ex-partner and children were in the vehicle. Police observed the Applicant yelling at his ex-partner and his mother and attempting to pull a child from one of the females. > > > (ii) In cross-examination, the Applicant said that he could not remember the incident. > > (d) Contravention of police protection notice. Queensland Police Service Sentencing Schedule indicates that on 26 February 2019, a police protection notice was issued against the Applicant naming his mother as the aggrieved. On 25 March 2019, the Applicant's called police after becoming fearful of the Applicant. Police attended the premises and the Applicant told them that he had punched the air conditioning unit in his bedroom, causing damage.[90] > > > (i) In cross-examination, the Applicant said that he was going through mental struggles at this time. > > (e) On 7 January 2021, the Applicant was convicted of Contravention of domestic violence order (aggravated).[91] Queensland Police Court records indicate that on 17 December 2019, the Applicant attended his mother's home. At that time, the Applicant's mother was protected by a domestic violence protection order. The Applicant argued with his mother over $150 and became aggressive and punched a chair. The Applicant's mother told the Applicant that she was going to call the police, and she told police that the Applicant then headed to the kitchen to get a knife and said 'what's going to happen tonight, I'm going to make the police shoot me'.[92] > > > (i) During cross-examination, the Applicant confirmed that he was under the influence of meth during the incident on 17 December 2019. He said that maybe the money was meant for drugs, but that he could not remember. > > (f) Contravene police protection order. Queensland Police Service Sentencing Schedule indicates that between 26 April and 27 May 2019, the Applicant engaged in conduct against his ex-partner, who was protected by a police protection order.[93] > > > (i) On 27 April 2019, the Applicant attended his ex-partner's residence in contravention of a condition that he not be within 100m of her premises. > > > > (ii) Between 4 May 2019 and 26 May 2019, the Applicant sent messages to his ex-partner on Facebook, including 'Me too and I'm gonna kill his misses and kids'...'I will bury them alive'...'Don't get in the way u might join them'.[94] In cross examination, the Applicant said that he could not remember sending the Facebook messages and agreed that he might have been affected by meth. The Applicant said that he was 'looking from motivation' to end his own life. He said that he wanted to be with his ex-partner, but did not know how to go about it.[95]

3. The Applicant submits that the family violence breaches occurred when the Applicant had significant methamphetamine addition, mental health issues and alcohol misuse. The Applicant submits that there has been no family violence perpetrated against his wife, [KT].[96] [KT] has provided evidence to the Tribunal confirming that she has not been subject to family violence by the Applicant.
4. Ms Yoxall reported the following.

Mr Vogel said that he now regrets that their three children witnessed the arguments and witnessed his demise due to drug use. He realises the impact of domestic violence on children and is very ashamed that he perpetuated this upon his own wife. He said that he has now learnt a lot about his own emotional functioning, the impact of his own experience of domestic violence as a child and his own depression and drug use. He has completed a program for perpetrators of domestic violence. He has engaged in counselling to address his past trauma. He now has strategies he has learnt to manage his emotions and has established communication and problem-solving skills. He has not engaged in domestic violence of any form towards his current wife in the 6 years that they have been together.[97]

1. In considering the seriousness of the family violence engaged in by the Applicant, I am required to take into account the following factors where relevant:

(a) the frequency of the non-citizen's conduct and/or whether there is any trend of increasing seriousness;

(b) the cumulative effect of repeated acts of family violence;

(c) rehabilitation achieved at time of decision since the person's last known act of family violence, including:

(i) the extent to which the person accepts responsibility for their family violence related conduct;

(ii) the extent to which the non-citizen understands the impact of their behaviour on the abused and witness of that abuse (particularly children);

(iii) efforts to address factors which contributed to their conduct; and

(d) whether the non-citizen has re-offended since being formally warned, or since otherwise being made aware by a Court, law enforcement or other authority, about the consequences of further acts of family violence, noting that the absence of a warning should not be considered to be in the non-citizen's favour. This includes warnings about the non-citizens's migration status, should the non-citizen engage in further acts of family violence.

1. With regard to paragraph 8.2(3)(a) of the Direction I find that the Applicant's family violence was frequent in the period 2013 until 2019. I find that both the Applicant's ex-partner and his mother were subject to the family violence. I find that the Applicant has not been involved in the perpetration of family violence since 2019.
2. With regard to paragraph 8.2(3)(b), the Minister submits that a cumulative effect of family violence conduct is the allocation of public resources. The Minister refers to a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal in which it was observed that violence that is gendered and directed at women 'normalises those socially enforced gender imbalances that allow sex based inequalities and violence to arise in the first place'.[98] I accept the Minister's submissions.
3. With regard to paragraph 8.2(3)(c), I find that the Applicant engaged in rehabilitation for family violence through Victory House in 2020 and engaged in further programs since returning to custody in January 2024. The Applicant accepts responsibility for his family violence related conduct. I find that the Applicant has not been involved in the perpetration of family violence since 2019, and I accept that no family violence has been committed by the Applicant against [KT].
4. With regard to paragraph 8.2(3)(d), I find that the Applicant committed family violence in contravention of protection orders.

Conclusion in relation to primary consideration 2

1. I accept and give weight to the Applicant's rehabilitation in relation to family violence, and the evidence that he has not engaged in family violence in six years.
2. I find that primary consideration 2 weights moderately in favour of revocation of the visa.

PRIMARY CONSIDERATION 3: STRENGTH, NATURE AND DURATION OF TIES TO AUSTRALIA

Impact on immediate family members in Australia

1. I am to consider any impact of the decision on the Applicant's immediate family members in Australia, where those family members are Australian citizens, Australian permanent residents or people who have a right to remain in Australia indefinitely.[99] The Direction does not prohibit me from considering the impact of the decision on any immediate family members who are not Australian citizens, Australian permanent residents or people who have a right to remain in Australia indefinitely.
2. The Applicant has a large family in Australia comprising his parents, his wife [KT], his five children, and nieces and nephews. Evidence was given about the Applicant's family during the hearing and evidence about the Applicant's family is contained in the Hearing Book.
3. On 18 August 2025, the Tribunal requested confirmation from the Minister as to whether the Applicant's parents, siblings, nieces and nephews are Australian citizens, Australian permanent residents or people who have a right to remain in Australia indefinitely. On 20 August 2025, counsel for the Applicant provided a table outlining the Applicant's understanding of his immediate family members' residency status.[100] On 20 August 2025, counsel for the Minister provided information resulting from the Department's searches, noting that the Department would not hold records for individuals born onshore and have not travelled or otherwise come to the Department's attention.[101]

[KT], the Applicant's wife and mother of Minor Child 4 and Minor Child 5

1. [KT] is a dual citizen of Australia and Samoa.[102] [KT] gave evidence to the Tribunal and submitted written documents.[103]
2. [KT] and the Applicant have been in a relationship since 2019 and married on 26 October 2023.[104] [KT] gave evidence that she visits the Applicant once or twice per week and speaks to him every day.
3. [KT] states that she feels 'lost and alone every single day' and has been 'socially anxious' since the Applicant has been gone.[105] [KT] states that she barely eats, that most days she does not want to wake up or get of bed, she can't afford groceries and does not have time or money to get professional help.
4. [KT] gave evidence that her parents, sister and family are in Australia. She said that her parents live 'an hour or so away', and that her sister lives close to her and helps out when she can. She said that the Applicant's family help out when they can.[106]
5. [KT] gave evidence that she would not follow the Applicant to New Zealand with her children if he is deported. She said this is because her family lives here, and she wants her sons to be close to family. [KT] explained that Minor Child 4 is very close to her sister and her sister's partner, and also to the Applicant's parents. She said that Minor Child 5 is close with everyone. [KT] said that her grandmother lives in New Zealand, but that she has limited contact with her grandmother.
6. [KT] said that she wants to give her children the best chance to help them in the long run and considers it will be better for them in Australia. She said that she has looked into schooling in New Zealand, and that the supports and schooling are better in Australia. [KT] explained that Minor Child 4 has ADHD and needs support and structure and stability at school. She said that she is waiting to have him assessed by a psychologist or a psychiatrist.
7. [KT] said that she did not know if she would visit the Applicant if he was removed from Australia, as it is hard to say at this point. She agreed that she would have to try her best to maintain contact via phone and FaceTime.
8. [KT] gave evidence that since the Applicant has been detained, she has been driving UberEats with the children in the back seat, and that is her main source of income. She said that if the Applicant remains in Australia, she will probably still continue to do that work and said that it is difficult to get childcare, so she would not be able to return to any other work.

Minor Child 1, Minor Child 2 and Minor Child 3

1. Minor Child 1, Minor Child 2 and Minor Child 3 are the Applicant's children with his ex-partner, [RF]. I find that Minor Child 1, Minor Child 2 and Minor Child 3 are Australian citizens or have the right to remain in Australia indefinitely.[107]
2. In his Personal Circumstances form, the Applicant stated:

In the last two years I've started restoring my relationship with my three oldest children...with her entrusting me with days out with my kids. My youngest [Minor Child 3] is hesitant around me because she was one years old when me and [RF] separated. My son [Minor Child 2] has asked me and his mother for sleepovers but [RF] is not at the stage of allowing that...

I'm not too sure on the impact it will have on my oldest three due to us just restoring our relationships. I know my son [Minor Child 2] will be upset for sure because he's closer to me more than ever. But the biggest impact for my kids may be that they may not grow up with their siblings...[108]

1. On 21 November 2022, the Court stated 'I am advised that you are back in touch with the children from your previous relationship...'.[109]
2. The Applicant submits that although he has had difficulty spending time with his three oldest children, those children are 'fully aware of their Father and were looking forward to rebuilding their relationship with him'.[110] He gave evidence that his oldest daughter, Minor Child 1, 'wants him around'.
3. The Applicant's mother, [LE], gave evidence that she has not heard from [RF] in recent years, and has been unable to contact or see Minor Child 1, Minor Child 2 or Minor Child 3.
4. Ms Yoxall stated that the Applicant reported to her that Minor Child 1, Minor Child 2 and Minor Child 3 live in a location unknown to him.[111]

1. Minor Child 4 and Minor Child 4 are the Applicant's children with his wife, [KT]. Minor Child 5 was born after the Applicant returned to custody in January 2024. I find that both Minor Child 4 and Minor Child 5 are Australian citizens.
2. [KT] stated that '[Minor Child 4] struggles every single day, crys every single night before going to sleep wishing his dad was home...[Minor Child 4] needs his dad, he needs the man of the house, he may be very young but he's so aware that his data isn't home and doesn't know how to regulate those emotions he's feeling.'[112]
3. [KT] declared that '...it has really taken its toll on [Minor Child 4]. [The Applicant] is his best friend, someone who he looks forward to seeing every day, having his dad in the house to play fight with and show his toys to. [Minor Child 4] has been struggling a lot, especially at school'.[113]
4. [KT] states that Minor Child 4 and Minor Child 5 are her parents' first grandchildren, and it would tear her family apart and break her parents' and siblings' hearts if the Applicant is deported. She would hate to 'pull them away from the life they have only ever known to go to a country that they know nothing about'.
5. [KT] gave evidence that she would not follow the Applicant to New Zealand with her children if he is deported. She said this is because her family lives here, and she wants her sons to be close to family. [KT] explained that Minor Child 4 is very close to her sister and her sister's partner, and also to the Applicant's parents. She said that Minor Child 5 is close with everyone.
6. [KT] said that she wants to give her children the best chance to help them in the long run and considers it will be better for them in Australia. She said that she has looked into schooling in New Zealand, and that the supports and schooling are better in Australia. [KT] explained that Minor Child 4 has ADHD and needs support and structure and stability at school. She said that she is waiting to have him assessed by a psychologist or a psychiatrist.

[LE], Applicant's mother, and [JE], Applicant's father

1. The Applicant's mother is 54 years of age and provided a statement[114] and oral evidence to the Tribunal. I accept that [LE] and [JE] each have an indefinite right to remain in Australia.[115]
2. [LE] described the cycle of abuse experienced by her family when the Applicant was young.[116] [LE] confirmed that the Applicant will be able to obtain employment if the cancellation decision is revoked, and that he is very close to all his family.
3. In a submission dated 26 March 2024, [LE], stated that the Applicant 'has been a great help to my husband and me in paying our household bills, especially considering his father's inability to contribute due to illness'.[117]

1. The Applicant is one of eight siblings, one of whom died in 2017.[118] In his Personal Circumstances form, the Applicant indicates that his brother, [EV] lives in New Zealand. [119]
2. I find that four of the Applicant's siblings have an indefinite right to remain in Australia, and that one sibling holds Australian citizenship.
3. The Applicant and his mother gave evidence that the Applicant is close to all of his other siblings who live in Australia. [LE] described the Applicant's family as being very close, and being part of a church together.
4. [LE] submitted that the Applicant's deportation 'would have a significant impact on his children and siblings as he is a vital source of support and stability for them'.[120]

1. The Applicant has five minor nephews, and two minor nieces, and I accept that they are either Australian citizens or have an indefinite right to remain in Australia.[121]
2. In his Personal Circumstances form, the Applicant stated:

I cannot speak on each of my niece and nephew separately because the love I have for each of them is the same no matter how close or far they may live I will always do my very best to support and love them all....I love them all and hope I can watch them all grow old.[122]

1. In an undated reference, [PA] states that he is the father of two of the Applicant's nephews and a niece. He states that the Applicant 'baby sits them on weekends and is always asking for my oldest son who is also autistic. He takes them on trips and loves having movie nights with them, he shows nothing but unconditional love towards them.'[123]

[R&RD], Applicant's parents-in-law ([KT]'s parents)

1. [R&RD] of the parents of [KT] and I find that they are Australian citizens or have an indefinite right to remain in Australia.[124]
2. In an undated letter, [R&RD] express their 'belief' in the Applicant and note the 'change that he has gone through over the years'. They refer to their two grandsons, and that it would break their hearts if they were not around to watch them grow'.[125]

1. [ST] is the Applicant's sister-in-law, and sister of [KT]. I find that [ST] is an Australian citizen.[126]
2. [ST] states that if the Applicant is deported it would 'ache on our family and cause a lot of emotional and mental pain'. She states that the Applicant is a very loving father and that the Applicant looks out for his family and everyone around him. [ST] states that they will help to guide him through life and through some difficult times where needed.[127]

1. In a letter dated 27 March 2024, [MS] states that she is the Applicant's close friend and mother to two of his nephews. She states that after the Applicant met his wife, and had Minor Child 4, the Applicant decided on his own to attend rehabilitation 'where his life changed in a positive way forever'.[128]

1. [PA] states that he has known the Applicant for over 19 years, is one of his closest friends and is the father to two of his nephews and a niece. [PA] was the leading hand in the place where the Applicant was working prior to being returned to custody. [PA] states that he could see how hard the Applicant was working to be a better person and beat his addiction and can see the love he has for his family.[129]

Strength, nature and duration of any other ties

1. I am to consider the strength, nature and duration of any other ties that the Applicant has to the Australian community, having regard to:

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

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

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

b) the strength, duration and nature of any family or social links with Australian citizens, Australian permanent residents and/or people who have an indefinite right to remain in Australia.[130]

1. The Applicant arrived in Australia at 10 months of age. I have regard to the Applicant arrived in Australia as an infant and has lived in Australia for almost all his life.
2. I find that the Applicant was heavily involved in underage sport, and that he represented Australia in an overseas rugby tour when he was 17 years of age.
3. I find that the Applicant has a positive employment history that includes working as a labourer, a house supervisor at Victory House, and an operator.[131] I give weight to the Applicant's participation in volunteer work through Victory House, and his involvement with family and friends.

Conclusion in relation to primary consideration 3

1. I find that the Applicant's immediate family members, and in particular [KT] and Minor Child 4 and Minor Child 5 would be adversely impacted if the cancellation decision is not revoked. I accept [KT]'s evidence that she would not move to New Zealand with the Applicant, and I accept that Minor Child 4 and Minor Child 5 would remain in Australia with [KT]. I find that Minor Child 4 and Minor Child 5 would not have their father in their day to day lives and that [KT] would raise the children on her own. I accept that Minor Child 4 has a very close relationship with the Applicant, and that he would be significantly emotionally impacted by the decision.
2. I find that Minor Child 1, Minor Child 2 and Minor Child 3 would be adversely impacted if the cancellation decision is not revoked because of the lack of opportunity to build a relationship in person with their father in the further.
3. I find that the Applicant has close relationships with his parents, his siblings and their partners and his nieces and nephews, as well as his in-laws. I am satisfied that the Applicant has assisted his parents financially in the past, and that he may not be able to do so if the cancellation decision is not revoked. I find that the Applicant has provided care for his nieces and nephews, and that he would not be able to do so in the future if the cancellation decision is revoked.
4. I give weight to the time that the Applicant has spent positively contributing to the Australian community, in terms of his volunteer work through Victory House, his employment and his sporting achievements. I find that the Applicant has developed strong ties with the Australian community.
5. I find that primary consideration 3 weighs heavily in favour of revocation of the cancellation decision.

PRIMARY CONSIDERATION 4: BEST INTEREST OF MINOR CHILDREN

1. I must determine whether non-revocation of the cancellation decision is, or is not, in the best interests of children who are affected by the decision. Where there are two or more relevant children, the best interests of each child should be given individual consideration to the extent that their interests might differ.[132]
2. In considering the best interests of any child, the following factors must be considered where relevant:

(a) the nature and duration of the relationship between the child and the non-citizen, noting less weight should generally be given where the relationship is non-parental, and/or there is no existing relationship and/or there have been long periods of absence, or limited meaningful contact;

(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; and

(h) evidence that the child has suffered or experienced any physical or emotional trauma arising from the non-citizen's conduct. [133]

1. Minor Child 4 is the Applicant's oldest child with his wife, [KT], and is five years old. In his Personal Circumstances form, the Applicant stated:

My relationship with my first son [Minor Child 4] to my second wife is amazing full of fun laughter and love...[134]

1. [KT] gave evidence that she takes Minor Child 4 and Minor Child 5 to visit the Applicant on a regular basis, and that they are in contact by phone and video calls.
2. [KT] states that '[Minor Child 4] struggles every single day, crys every single night before going to sleep wishing his dad was home...[Minor Child 4] needs his dad, he needs the man of the house, he may be very young but he's so aware that his data isn't home and doesn't know how to regulate those emotions he's feeling.'[135]
3. [KT] declared that '...it has really taken its toll on [Minor Child 4]. [The Applicant] is his best friend, someone who he looks forward to seeing every day, having his dad in the house to play fight with and show his toys to. [Minor Child 4] has been struggling a lot, especially at school'.[136]
4. [KT] states that Minor Child 4 and Minor Child 5 are her parents' first grandchildren, and it would tear her family apart and break her parents' and siblings' hearts if the Applicant is deported. She would hate to 'pull them away from the life they have only ever known to go to a country that they know nothing about'.
5. [KT] gave evidence that she would not follow the Applicant to New Zealand with her children if he is deported. She said this is because her family lives here, and she wants her sons to be close to family. [KT] explained that Minor Child 4 is very close to her sister and her sister's partner, and also to the Applicant's parents.
6. [KT] said that she wants to give her children the best chance to help them in the long run and considers it will be better for them in Australia. She said that she has looked into schooling in New Zealand, and that the supports and schooling are better in Australia. [KT] explained that Minor Child 4 has ADHD and needs support and structure and stability at school. She said that she is waiting to have him assessed by a psychologist or a psychiatrist.
7. With regard to 8.4(4)(a) of the Direction, I find that Minor Child 4 has a very close relationship with his father, despite the Applicant being in prison and immigration detention for 18 months of Minor Child 4's young life.
8. With regard to paragraph 8.4(4)(b) of the Direction, I am satisfied that if the cancellation decision is revoked, the Applicant will play a positive parental role for Minor Child 4, and I find that there are 13 years until Minor Child 4 turns 18.
9. With regard to paragraph 8.4(4)(c), there is no evidence before the Tribunal that the Applicant's conduct has had a negative impact on Minor Child 4, or any evidence to suggest that any likely future conduct will have a negative impact.
10. With regard to paragraph 8.4(4)(d), I find that the likely effect that separation from the Applicant would have on Minor Child 4 would be significant. He may be deprived of an opportunity to maintain and develop a relationship with his father. While I accept that Minor Child 4 could maintain contact with the Applicant via electronic means, or telephone, I accept that this would not be comparable to having the Applicant physically in their day to day lives. I accept that Minor Child 4 has ADHD and requires structure and stability in his life, and so separation from the Applicant may have a particularly negative impact on Minor Child 4.
11. With regard to paragraph 8.4(4)(e), I find that I find that Minor Child 4 lives with [KT], who fulfils a parental role for Minor Child 4.
12. With regard to paragraph 8.4(4)(f), I accept [KT]'s evidence that Minor Child 4 wishes his father was at home.
13. With regard to paragraph 8.4(4)(g), there is no evidence before the Tribunal that Minor Child 4 has been, or is at risk of being subject to or exposed to family violence perpetrated by the Applicant, or otherwise abused or neglected by the Applicant in any way.
14. With regard to paragraph 8.4(4)(h), there is not evidence before the Tribunal that Minor Child 4 has experienced any physical or emotional trauma arising from the Applicant's conduct.

1. Minor Child 5 is the Applicant's youngest with his wife, [KT], and is 18 months old. Minor Child 5 was born after the Applicant returned to custody in January 2024. [KT] gave evidence that she takes Minor Child 4 and Minor Child 5 to visit the Applicant on a regular basis, and that they are in contact by phone and video calls.
2. [KT] states that Minor Child 4 and Minor Child 5 are her parents' first grandchildren, and it would tear her family apart and break her parents' and siblings' hearts if the Applicant is deported. She would hate to 'pull them away from the life they have only ever known to go to a country that they know nothing about'.
3. [KT] gave evidence that she would not follow the Applicant to New Zealand with her children if he is deported. She said this is because her family lives here, and she wants her sons to be close to family. [KT] explained Minor Child 5 is close with everyone.
4. [KT] said that she wants to give her children the best chance to help them in the long run and considers it will be better for them in Australia. She said that she has looked into schooling in New Zealand, and that the supports and schooling are better in Australia.
5. With regard to 8.4(4)(a) of the Direction, I find that Minor Child 5 was born after the Applicant returned to custody. However, I find that Minor Child 5 has visited the Applicant regularly in immigration detention and contacts him by phone and video calls.
6. With regard to paragraph 8.4(4)(b) of the Direction, I am satisfied that if the cancellation decision is revoked, the Applicant will play a positive parental role for Minor Child 5, and I find that there are over 16 years until Minor Child 5 turns 18.
7. With regard to paragraph 8.4(4)(c), there is no evidence before the Tribunal that the Applicant's conduct has had a negative impact on Minor Child 5, or any evidence to suggest that any likely future conduct will have a negative impact.
8. With regard to paragraph 8.4(4)(d), while I accept that Minor Child 5 could maintain contact with the Applicant via electronic means, or telephone, I accept that this would not be comparable to having the Applicant physically in his day-to-day life. I find that separation from his father would likely have a negative effect on Minor Child 5, both because he would not have the benefit of having his father physically in his life, but also because of the impact and consequences for [KT]. I find that Minor Child 5 may be deprived of an opportunity to continue to build a relationship with his father.
9. With regard to paragraph 8.4(4)(e), I find that I find that Minor Child 5 lives with [KT], who fulfils a parental role for Minor Child 5.
10. With regard to paragraph 8.4(4)(f), I accept through [KT]'s that Minor Child 5 wants his father at home.
11. With regard to paragraph 8.4(4)(g), there is no evidence before the Tribunal that Minor Child 5 has been, or is at risk of being subject to or exposed to family violence perpetrated by the Applicant, or otherwise abused or neglected by the Applicant in any way.
12. With regard to paragraph 8.4(4)(h), there is no evidence before the Tribunal that Minor Child 5 has experienced any physical or emotional trauma arising from the Applicant's conduct.

Minor Child 1, Minor Child 2 and Minor Child 3 - Applicant's children

1. Minor Child 1, Minor Child 2 and Minor Child 3 are the children of the Applicant and his ex-partner, [RF]. They are now 13, 10 and 7 years of age. I find that they will each be affected by the decision.
2. There is limited evidence before the Tribunal in relation to Minor Child 1, Minor Child 2 and Minor Child 3. Where there is evidence to suggest that their interests differ, I have I considered their interests individually. Where there is insufficient evidence to find that their interests differ. I have considered their interests together.
3. In his Personal Circumstances form, the Applicant stated:

In the last two years I've started restoring my relationship with my three oldest children...with her entrusting me with days out with my kids. My youngest [Minor Child 3] is hesitant around me because she was one years old when me and [RF] separated. My son [Minor Child 2] has asked me and his mother for sleepovers but [RF] is not at the stage of allowing that...

I'm not too sure on the impact it will have on my oldest three due to us just restoring our relationships. I know my son [Minor Child 2] will be upset for sure because he's closer to me more than ever. But the biggest impact for my kids may be that they may not grow up with their siblings...[137]

1. On 21 November 2022, the Court stated 'I am advised that you are back in touch with the children from your previous relationship...'.[138]
2. The Applicant submits that although he has had difficulty spending time with his three oldest children, those children are 'fully aware of their Father and were looking forward to rebuilding their relationship with him'.[139] He gave evidence that his oldest daughter, Minor Child 1, 'wants him around'.
3. With regard to 8.4(4)(a) of the Direction, I find that the Applicant has had limited contact with Minor Child 1, Minor Child 2 and Minor Child 3 since he and [RF] separated. However, I accept that the Applicant and [KT] were trying to restore the Applicant's relationship and contact with Minor Child 1, Minor Child 2 and Minor Child 3. I accept that Minor Child 2 sought more contact with the Applicant prior to the Applicant returning to custody in January 2024.
4. With regard to paragraph 8.4(4)(b) of the Direction, I am satisfied that if the cancellation decision is revoked, and if the Applicant can restore contact with [RF], the Applicant may play a positive parental role for Minor Child 1, Minor Child 2 and Minor Child 3 in the future. Respectively, there are 5, 8 and 11 years until each of the children turn 18 years of age.
5. With regard to paragraph 8.4(4)(c), there is no evidence before the Tribunal that the Applicant's conduct has had a negative impact on Minor Child 1, Minor Child 2 and Minor Child 3, or any evidence to suggest that any likely future conduct will have a negative impact.
6. With regard to paragraph 8.4(4)(d), there evidence before the Tribunal is that Minor Child 1, Minor Child 2 and Minor Child 3 currently have no contact with the Applicant, and so the likely effect of separation in the immediate future may be minimal. I find that Minor Child 1, Minor Child 2 and Minor Child 3 could maintain contact with the Applicant via electronic means, or telephone. However, I find that Minor Child 1, Minor Child 2 and Minor Child 3 may be deprived of an opportunity to build a relationship with their father, and so the likely effect of separation in the longer term could be significant and negative for the children.
7. With regard to paragraph 8.4(4)(e), on the evidence before the Tribunal, I accept that [RF] fulfils a parental role for Minor Child 1, Minor Child 2 and Minor Child 3.
8. With regard to paragraph 8.4(4)(f), there is no evidence before the Tribunal as to the known views of Minor Child 1, Minor Child 2 and Minor Child 3.
9. With regard to paragraph 8.4(4)(g), the evidence before the Tribunal is that either Minor Child 1 or Minor Child 2 was exposed to family violence perpetrated by the Applicant in 2016, as described above.
10. With regard to paragraph 8.4(4)(h), there is no evidence before the Tribunal that Minor Child 1, Minor Child 2 and Minor Child 3 have experienced any physical or emotional trauma arising from the Applicant's conduct.

1. The Applicant has nieces and nephews in Australia, all of whom are minor children. I find that each of those minor children will be affected by the decision.
2. In his Personal Circumstances form, the Applicant stated:

I cannot speak on each of my niece and nephew separately because the love I have for each of them is the same no matter how close or far they may live I will always do my very best to support and love them all....I love them all and hope I can watch them all grow old.[140]

1. The Applicant said that the last time he looked after some of his nieces and nephews was in Christmas, before his return to custody.
2. I find that the three minor children of [PA] are protected by a protection order against the Applicant, due to expire on 25 September 2028.[141] The conditions of the order include that the Applicant must be of good behaviour towards the aggrieved and not commit domestic violence against them.[142] I consider that the interests of the minor children of [PA] differ to the Applicant's other nieces and nephews.
3. Save for the three minor children of [PA], there is no evidence before the Tribunal to find that that the interests of the Applicant's other nieces and nephews interests differ, so I have considered their interests together.

Minor children of [PA] - niece and two nephews

1. In an undated reference, [PA] states that he is the father of two of the Applicant's nephews and a niece. He states that the Applicant 'baby sits them on weekends and is always asking for my oldest son who is also autistic. He takes them on trips and loves having movie nights with them, he shows nothing but unconditional love towards them.'[143]
2. With regard to 8.4(4)(a) of the Direction, I accept that the Applicant has close relationships with the three minor children of [PA], although he has been in prison and immigration detention for the past 18 months. I find that the minor children of [PA] are protected by a protection order, due to expire on 25 September 2028.[144]
3. With regard to paragraph 8.4(4)(b) of the Direction, while I am satisfied that the Applicant would play a positive role as an uncle, I do not consider that the Applicant is likely to play a positive parental role to the minor children of [PA], as the evidence is that they each have parents, aunts, uncles and grandparents.
4. With regard to paragraph 8.4(4)(c), there is no evidence before the Tribunal that the Applicant's conduct has had a negative impact on the minor children of [PA], or any evidence to suggest that any likely future conduct will have a negative impact.
5. With regard to paragraph 8.4(4)(d), I am satisfied that the likely effect that any separation from the Applicant would have on the minor children of [PA] would be negative because the minor children of [PA] would be deprived of having their uncle in their day to day lives and building their relationship with him. I find that the minor children of [PA] could maintain contact with the Applicant via electronic means, or telephone.
6. With regard to paragraph 8.4(4)(e), on the evidence before the Tribunal, I accept that there are other persons who fulfil a parental role for the minor children of [PA].
7. With regard to paragraph 8.4(4)(f), there is no evidence before the Tribunal as to the known views of the minor children of [PA].
8. With regard to paragraph 8.4(4)(g), I do not make any finding as to whether the minor children of [PA] were exposed to family violence perpetrated by the Applicant.
9. With regard to paragraph 8.4(4)(h), there is no evidence before the Tribunal that the minor children of [PA] have experienced any physical or emotional trauma arising from the Applicant's conduct.

Applicant's nieces and nephews (other than the minor children of [PA])

1. With regard to 8.4(4)(a) of the Direction, I accept that the Applicant has close relationships with his nieces and nephews, although he has been in prison and immigration detention for the past 18 months.
2. With regard to paragraph 8.4(4)(b) of the Direction, while I am satisfied that the Applicant would play a positive role as an uncle, I do not consider that the Applicant is likely to play a positive parental role to any of his nieces and nephews, as the evidence is that they each have parents, aunts, uncles or grandparents.
3. With regard to paragraph 8.4(4)(c), there is no evidence before the Tribunal that the Applicant's conduct has had a negative impact on his nieces and nephews, or any evidence to suggest that any likely future conduct will have a negative impact.
4. With regard to paragraph 8.4(4)(d), I am satisfied that the likely effect that any separation from the Applicant would have on his nieces and nephews would be negative. His nieces and nephews would be deprived of having their uncle in their day to day lives and building their relationship with him. I find that the Applicant's nieces and nephews could maintain contact with the Applicant via electronic means, or telephone.
5. With regard to paragraph 8.4(4)(e), on the evidence before the Tribunal, I accept that there are other persons who fulfil a parental role for the Applicant's nieces and nephews.
6. With regard to paragraph 8.4(4)(f), there is no evidence before the Tribunal as to the known views of the Applicant's nieces and nephews.
7. With regard to paragraph 8.4(4)(g), there is no evidence before the Tribunal that the Applicant's nieces and nephews were exposed to family violence perpetrated by the Applicant.
8. With regard to paragraph 8.4(4)(h), there is no evidence before the Tribunal that the Applicant's nieces and nephews have experienced any physical or emotional trauma arising from the Applicant's conduct.

Conclusion in relation to primary consideration 4

1. I find that it would be in the best interests of each of Minor Child 4 and Minor Child 5 for the cancellation decision to be revoked, and I give significant weight to this finding.
2. I find that the Applicant has had limited contact with Minor Child 1, Minor Child 2 and Minor Child 3, both because of previous protection orders and because he has been in prison or detention since January 2024. However, I accept that the Applicant had commenced building a relationship with his three oldest children prior to imprisonment, and if the cancellation decision is not revoked, they may be deprived of building a relationship with their father in the future. I find that it would be in the best interests of Minor Child 1, Minor Child 2 and Minor Child 3 for the cancellation decision to be revoked.
3. I find that it would be in the best of interests of the Applicant's minor nieces and nephews for the cancellation decision to be revoked.
4. I find that primary consideration 4 weighs heavily in favour of revocation of the cancellation decision.

PRIMARY CONSIDERATION 5: EXPECTATIONS OF THE AUSTRALIAN COMMUNITY

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 would not allow them to enter or remain in Australia.[145]
2. Paragraph 8.5(2) directs that visa cancellation or refusal, or non-revocation of the mandatory cancellation of a visa, may be appropriate simply because the nature of the character concerns or offences is such that the Australian community would expect that the person should not be granted or continue to hold a visa. In particular, the Australian community expects that the Australian Government can and should cancel non-citizens' visas, if they raise serious character concerns through conduct of the kind including 'family violence'.[146]
3. Paragraph 8.5(3) of the Direction states that the expectations outlined in paragraph 8.5 apply regardless of whether the non-citizen poses a measurable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community.
4. Paragraph 8.5(4) states that this consideration is about expectations of the Australian community as a whole, and decision-makers should proceed on the basis of the Government's views as articulated above, without independently assessing the community's expectations in a particular case.
5. The Applicant submits that the Australian community would not expect their government to cancel a visa simply because of health issues, especially if the community is aware that the person has addressed their health issues responsible for their offending. It is submitted that in the Applicant's case, his offending behaviours could be attributed to his substance addiction and misuse.
6. However, in Ismail v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2024] HCA 2, the High Court described paragraph 8.4(4) (as it was then):

...to be understood as directing the decision-maker not to attempt to infer what the expectations of the Australian community would be 'in the particular case'...but to proceed on the basis that the views of the Australian Government...are the relevant norm described as the expectations of the Australian community. That norm, as applicable by reference to the terms of para 8(1)-(3), is then to be weighed with other relevant matters as required by paras 6 and 7 of Direction 90.[147]

7. I find that the Applicant has committed offences that are viewed very seriously by the Australian community. I find that the Australian community, as a norm, would expect that the Australian Government would not allow the Applicant to remain in Australia.
8. I find that primary consideration 5 weighs against revocation of the cancellation decision.

1. There are no refoulement considerations in evidence in this case.
2. The legal consequences of non-revocation of the cancellation decision are as follows.

(a) The Applicant remains an unlawful non-citizen.[148]: > > (b) The Applicant is not allowed to make an application for another visa except for a protection visa or a prescribed visa.[149] > > (c) The Applicant must remain in detention and must be removed from Australia as soon as reasonably practicable.[150] > > (d) The Applicant may be subject to permanent exclusion from Australia, subject to Special Return Criteria.[151]

1. Paragraph 9.2 requires consideration of the extent of any impediments that the non-citizen may face if removed from Australia to their home country in establishing themselves and maintaining basic living standards, in the context of what is generally available to other citizens of that country, taking into account age and health, whether there are substantial language or cultural barriers; and any social, medical and/or economic support available to them in that country.

1. The Applicant is 30 years of age.
2. The Applicant has identified as experiencing anxiety and depression, and ongoing pain for shoulder surgeries from when he was a teenager. The Applicant attempted suicide in 2015.[152] In his Personal Circumstances form completed in 2024, the Applicant indicated that he had been off prescription medication for almost seven years.[153]

1. The Applicant has lived in Australia since he was 10 months old and had not visited New Zealand in that time.
2. Due to the similarities in language and culture between New Zealand and Australia, I find that language and cultural barriers would not be an impediment to the Applicant in establishing himself in New Zealand.

Social, medical and/or economic support available

1. The Applicant has one brother living in New Zealand. The evidence of the Applicant and the Applicant's mother was that the family have very limited contact with the Applicant's brother in New Zealand, and his current whereabouts are unknown. I accept and find that the Applicant does not have social connections in New Zealand, and that this will be an impediment to the Applicant establishing himself in New Zealand.
2. Although I accept that the Applicant has a history of anxiety and depression, and shoulder injury, I find that the Applicant will have access to health services and treatment for those conditions in New Zealand. The Applicant will also have access to welfare services in New Zealand.
3. I find that the Applicant's employment experience and skills would be transferable to New Zealand.
4. The Minister accepts that this consideration weighs in the Applicant's favour, but that it does not outweigh the primary considerations weighing very heavily in favour of non-revocation.[154]
5. I find that other considerations (b) weighs moderately in favour of revocation of the cancellation decision.

1. Paragraph 9.3 requires decision-makers to consider any impact on Australian business interests if the Applicant is not allowed to remain in Australia. There is no evidence before the Tribunal to suggest that Australian business interests will be impacted if the Applicant is not allowed to remain in Australia, and so I give other consideration (c) neutral weight.

1. The Applicant arrived in Australia as an infant of 10 months. One of the principles in the Direction relevant to the Applicant is that...'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'.[155] This principle is part of a framework within which decision-makers should approach their task, and sits alongside the other principles under paragraph 5.2, including that the safety of the Australian Community is the highest priority of the Australian Government.
2. Informed by the principles in paragraph 5.2, I am required to take into account the considerations identified in paragraphs 8 and 9, where relevant to the decision.[156]
3. The safety of the Australian community is the highest priority for the Australian Government. I find the Applicant's conduct to date to be very serious. Should the Applicant engage in further conduct in the nature of his previous criminal conduct, I am satisfied that the nature of harm to others would be significant. Despite a lengthy period of rehabilitation, abstinence from drugs, and the strong protective factors of employment and family, the Applicant offended while under the influence of alcohol in July 2023. In September 2023, his parole was suspended and cancelled following an incident in which he had been drinking alcohol. The expert evidence is that the Applicant's risk is low to moderate for general and domestic violence offending, and moderate for violent offending. However, that assessment is entirely conditional upon the Applicant's continued abstinence from drugs and alcohol, and ongoing emotional regulation and trauma informed support. While I acknowledge that the Applicant has been in prison and detention since January 2024, and that he has completed rehabilitation programs since that time, the evidence before the Tribunal is that the Applicant has not abstained from alcohol use in the community. I consider the likelihood of the Applicant engaging in further criminal conduct or other serious conduct, taking into account information and evidence on the risk of the Applicant re-offending; and evidence of rehabilitation achieved, to be moderate. I find that primary consideration 1 weighs heavily against revocation of the cancellation decision.
4. The Applicant has a history of contraventions of protection orders involving incidents of family violence against his former partner, and his mother. I give weight to my finding that the Applicant has not perpetrated family violence since entering rehabilitation in Victory House in March 2020. I find that primary consideration 2 weighs moderately against revocation of the cancellation decision.
5. I find that the Applicant's immediate family members will be impacted by the decision, with [KT], Minor Child 4 and Minor Child 5, most significantly impacted in the immediate future. I give weight to the impact of the decision on Minor Child 1, Minor Child 2 and Minor Child 3 in terms of the effect it will have on their ability to build a relationship with their father in the future. I find that the Applicant's parents, siblings in Australia and nieces and nephews will be negatively impacted by the decision. I give weight to the strength, nature and duration of the Applicant's ties to Australia, with particular weight to the fact that he has lived in Australia since he was an infant of 10 months. The Applicant represented Queensland and Australia in underage rugby and has contributed to the community through volunteer work and employment. I find that primary consideration 3 weighs heavily in favour of revocation of the cancellation decision.
6. I find that the best interests of each of the Applicant's minor children for the Applicant to remain in Australia. I find that it is in the best interests of the Applicant's minor nieces and nephews, for the Applicant to remain in Australia. Primary consideration 4 weighs heavily in favour of revocation of the cancellation decision.
7. I find that primary consideration 5 weighs against revocation of the cancellation decision, being that the Australian community would expect that the cancellation decision would not be revoked.
8. I find that the other considerations (a) and (b) being the legal consequences of the decision, and the extent of impediments facing the Applicant if deported, weigh moderately in favour of revocation of the cancellation decision.
9. I am required to 'bring together the considerations as part of a single evaluation of their relative significance, weighing them all together'.[157] In doing so, in the circumstances of this case, I find that primary considerations 1, 2 and 5 outweigh primary considerations 3 and 4 and other considerations (a) and (b). In my overall evaluation, I am not satisfied that there is another reason why the cancellation decision should be revoked.

1. The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

I certify that the two hundred and fifty-three (253 paragraphs) are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Senior Member C Shepherd.

......................[SGND]......................................

[35] Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v SRT [1999] FCA 1197; (1999) 91 FCR 234 at [25]; HZCP v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 1803 at [41]- [95].

[36] Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Ali [2000] FCA 1385; (2000) 106 FCR 313 at [41].

[43] Paragraph 8.1.1(1)(a) of the Direction.

[45] Applicant's Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions.

[47] Paragraph 8.1.1(1)(d) of the Direction.

[49] Paragraph 8.1.2(1) of the Direction.

[50] Respondent's Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions, [37].

[51] Paragraph 8.1.2(2)(b) of the Direction.

[77] Applicant's Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions at [32].

[78] Respondent's Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions, [38.2].

[79] Respondent's Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions, [86], Oral closing submissions, 5 August 2025.

[84] Clause 8.2(2)(a) of the Direction.

[86] HB498, and Applicant's Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions at [34].

[96] Applicant's Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions, [39].

[98] Respondent's Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions, [45]-[46], with reference to XFKR and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] AATA 2385 at [45].

[99] Paragraph 8.3(1) of the Direction.

[100] Email to Tribunal Registry from Counsel for the Applicant, 20 August 2025.

[101] Email to Tribunal Registry from Counsel for the Minister, 20 August 2025.

[107] HB680, Email to Tribunal Registry from Counsel for the Minister, 20 August 2025.

[110] Applicant's Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions, at [47] and [48].

[115] HB88, 96 and email to Tribunal Registry from Counsel for the Minister, 20 August 2025.

[121] HB94, Email from Counsel for the Minister to Tribunal Registry, 20 August 2025; Email from Counsel for the Applicant to the Tribunal Registry, 20 August 2025.

[124] HB96, Email from Counsel for Minister to Tribunal Registry, 20 August 2025.

[126] Email from Counsel for Minister to Tribunal Registry, 20 August 2025.

[130] Paragraph 8.3(2)(a)-(b) of the Direction.

[132] Paragraph 8.4(1)-(3) of the Direction.

[133] Paragraph 8.4(4)(a)-(h) of the Direction.

[139] Applicant's Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions, at [47] and [48].

[141] Oral evidence of Applicant, 4 August 2025 and HB264.

[144] Oral evidence of Applicant, 4 August 2025 and HB264.

[145] Paragraph 8.5(1) of the Direction.

[147] Ismail v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2024] HCA 2 at [52].

[148] Section 15 of the Migration Act.

[149] Section 501E of the Migration Act.

[150] Sections 189 and 198 of the Migration Act.

[151] Section 503 of the Migration Act.

[155] Paragraph 5.2(6) of the Direction.

[157] CRNL v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FCAFC 138, [23].