1. The applicant is asthmatic and takes inhaled medications when required.[9] He has no other reported physical health issues.
2. In a report prepared for the purposes of sentencing, Dr Mukherjee diagnosed the applicant with complex post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), stating that the applicant 'has suffered from developmental adversity related to his father's disappearance and experiences amidst the Sri Lankan civil war'. [10] .
3. The applicant has also been diagnosed with anxiety and depression since going into immigration detention. This is set out in Ms Aiello's report.[11] A report dated 10 March 2025 prepared by STARTTS social worker Ms Magitha Suresh indicates that as at the time of the report the applicant had participated in weekly counselling sessions commencing on 6 February 2025.[12]
4. At the hearing, Ms Suresh stated that the applicant continues to have weekly counselling sessions, either face to face or by video conference. She stated that the applicant has suffered from significant stress while in immigration detention. He has difficulty sleeping and eating and suffers from nightmares. Ms Suresh stated that the applicant's work as a forensic cleaner while in prison, which exposed him to blood, is likely to have been triggering. He is using breathing techniques and cognitive behaviour therapy to deal with these symptoms. Ms Suresh stated that the applicant would benefit from therapy to address trauma from his childhood, but this cannot be offered to him while he is in detention. When asked whether in her opinion the applicant's conditions may lead him to re-offend if he were under stress in the community, Ms Suresh noted that she is not a forensic psychologist. However, she stated that the applicant internalises his distress. She believes that the applicant would manage his condition even better in the community, where he would have access to support.

1. On 7 October 2020, the applicant was convicted of 'dishonestly obtain property by deception' at the Liverpool Local Court and find $1500. According to the applicant, this offence was committed in circumstances where a friend agreed to buy an iPad and a phone for him. The applicant was supposed to repay the friend in instalments. However, he lost the iPad before he finished paying for it. At the time, he didn't have the money for the iPad. He tried to give his friend the phone, which he had fully paid for. His friend did not accept this and reported the matter to the police, resulting in the conviction and fine.[13]
2. On 11 November 2021, the applicant was charged with 'attempt to import commercial quantity border - controlled precursor'. The applicant was convicted of this offence on 21 July 2023. He was sentenced in the NSW District Court at Parramatta to five years and seven months imprisonment, with a non-parole period of three years.
3. The agreed statement of facts[14] in the District Court proceedings describes the 'attempt to import commercial quantity border - controlled precursor' offence. The facts can be summarised as follows:
   • In November 2021, the applicant together with two co-offenders attempted to import a border-controlled pre-cursor, pseudoephedrine, by collecting a consignment delivered to Parramatta Newsagency having been imported from Nepal.
   • On 27 October 2021, the applicant entered Parramatta Newsagency, after having been driven there by his two co-offenders, presented a false driver's licence and collected a package.
   • On 11 November 2021, the applicant again entered Parramatta Newsagency, after having been driven there by his two co-offenders, and presented a false driver's licence and collected a package.
   • The applicant and his co-offenders were arrested after the package was collected.
   • During a police interview, the applicant confessed that his roommate, who was one of the co-offenders, had assisted him to obtain a false driver's licence and had offered him $1,500 to collect the packages. The applicant advised that he didn't know what was inside the packages, but didn't think about what was inside as he needed the money desperately. The applicant stated that he thought it may have been something illegal, possibly gold.
4. After serving his prison sentence, the applicant was granted parole on 10 November 2024 and was released from criminal custody. He was subsequently taken into immigration detention.

1. There are no reports of any adverse incidents involving the applicant, either in prison or in immigration detention.
2. On the contrary, records produced under summons by NSW Corrective Services indicate that the applicant was a model prisoner. There are multiple case notes attesting to the applicant's good behaviour, work ethic and politeness towards staff and other inmates during the period he was in prison on remand. For example, a case note report dated 9 January 2023[15] states:

[The applicant] is employed in Centre hygiene team and also on the Forensic Team. [The applicant] is a hard worker and dedicated towards his duties. [The applicant] is very punctual, reliable and works well in a team environment. [He] always follows directions and is co-operative and polite towards all staff and other inmates. He is a trusted employee and nil issues to report.

3. The applicant's good behaviour continued following sentencing. At Geoffrey Pearce Correctional Centre, the applicant worked in food services. Case notes indicate that he was praised for his punctuality and calm demeanour, that he followed instructions from staff and that he did a great job mentoring and training new inmates, including helping them settle in while showing good discipline and teamwork.[16]
4. The applicant participated in several training courses while in prison.[17] These are:
   • Drug and Alcohol Rehabilitation Course
   • Certificate III in Cleaning Operations (completed 6 July 2022);
   • Certificate of Completion of Workshop in Forensic Cleaning (completed 5 April 2022);
   • Certificate II in Hospitality (completed 6 March 2023);
   • Thinking About Change Program;
   • Problem Solving Program (completed 24 May 2022);
   • Better Living Program (completed 26 May 2022);
   • Self-Management Planning Program (completed 31 May 2022).
5. In relation to his time in immigration detention, the applicant states that:

Since being in immigration detention since November 2024, I have continued to engage in positive activities to better myself and maintain a constructive outlook. I have participated in English classes to improve my communication skills, which I believe will help me integrate and contribute to society. I have also stayed active by walking and playing cricket within the detention facility, which has helped me maintain my physical and mental well-being. Furthermore, I have been attending weekly counselling sessions with Startts to address trauma, which has been instrumental in helping me process my experiences and build resilience.

1. Section 501 of the Act deals with decisions to refuse or cancel a visa on character grounds. Relevantly to this case:

(a) Section 501(1) states that the Minister may refuse to grant a visa to a person if the person does not satisfy the Minister that the person passes the character test.

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

c) Section 501(7)(c) a person has a substantial criminal record if the person has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more.

1. An application to review a decision made under s 501(1) to refuse to grant a visa may be made to the Tribunal under s 500(1)(b), subject to s 500(4A), which does not apply in this case.
2. The Minister may give written directions under s 499(1) of the Act to a person or body having functions or powers under the Act if the directions are about the performance of those functions or the exercise of those powers. Section 499(2A) requires the Tribunal to comply with any directions made under s 499(1).
3. In this case, 'Direction No 110 - Visa refusal and cancellation under section 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under section 501CA' (the Direction) applies.
4. For the purposes of deciding whether to refuse an application for a visa or whether to revoke the mandatory cancellation of a visa, 5.2 of the Direction sets out several principles that must inform the decision-maker's application of the primary and other considerations set out in Part 2 of the Direction, where those considerations are relevant to the decision.
5. These principles are:

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

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

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

(4) The Australian community expects that the Australian Government can and should refuse entry to non-citizens, or cancel their visas, if they engaged in conduct, in Australia or elsewhere, that raises serious character concerns. This expectation of the Australian community applies regardless of whether the non-citizen poses a 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 noncitizen does not pose a measureable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community.

1. Section 7.1 of the Direction states that appropriate weight is to be given to information and evidence from independent and authoritative sources. Section 7.2 of the Direction states that the primary consideration of the protection of the Australian community is generally to be given greater weight than other primary considerations. It also states that primary considerations should generally be given greater weight than 'other' considerations.
2. The primary considerations are set out in section 8 of the Direction. They are:

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

(2) Whether the conduct engaged in constituted family violence;

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

(4) The best interests of minor children in Australia; and

1. A non-exclusive list of other considerations is set out in section 9 of the Direction. They are:

1. In FHHM v Minister for Immigration,[18] the Full Federal Court considered 8.4 of Direction 79, which also stated that primary considerations should generally be given greater weight than other considerations. O'Callaghan and Colvin JJ (Derrington J agreeing) referred to remarks made by Colvin J in Suleiman v Minister for Immigration,[19] and stated at [34] that '...particular circumstances may pertain that may justify greater weight being given to one or more of the other considerations than one or more of the primary considerations'.

1. As noted above, s 501(6)(a) of the Act states that a person does not pass the character test for the purposes of s 501(1) if the person has a substantial criminal record, which relevantly to this application is defined in s 501(7)(c) as a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more.
2. The issues to be determined are therefore:
   • Does the applicant pass the character test?
   • If not, should the discretion to refuse to grant a BVE to the applicant on that basis be exercised, taking into account relevant considerations in the Direction?

1. The applicant has a substantial criminal record as he was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of five years and seven months. He therefore does not pass the character test.

Should the discretion to refuse to grant a bridging visa to the applicant be exercised?

1. I have considered each of the relevant primary and other considerations. As the evidence supports a conclusion that immigration detention has had a deleterious effect on the applicant's mental health, I have considered this issue as another other consideration.

Protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct - 8.1**

1. In accordance with 8.1(1) of the Direction, in considering the protection of the Australian community I have had regard to the principle that the Government is committed to protecting the Australian community from harm as a result of criminal activity. I have also considered that entering or remaining in Australia is a privilege that Australia confers on non-citizens in the expectation that they are, and have been, law abiding, will respect important institutions, and will not cause or threaten harm to individuals or the Australian community.
2. As required by 8.1(2) of the Direction, I have considered:

(a) the nature and seriousness of the applicant's conduct; and > > (b) the risk to the Australian community, should the applicant commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct.

Nature and seriousness of the applicant's conduct - 8.1.1

1. Section 8.1.1(1) specifies several crimes that are to be regarded as serious or very serious crimes. However, the type of crimes specified do not limit the range of conduct that may be considered serious or very serious.
2. In relation to the seriousness of the applicant's offending generally, relevant factors under 8.1.1(1) that I must consider are:
   • The sentence imposed on the applicant - 8.1.1(1)(c);
   • The impact of the applicant's offending on any victims of offending and their family - 8.1.1(1)(d);
   • The frequency of the applicant's offending and/or whether there is any trend of increased seriousness - 8.1.1(1)(e);
   • The cumulative effect of repeated offending - 8.1.1(1)(f); and
   • Whether the applicant has re-offended since being formally warned about the consequences of further offending in terms of the applicant's migration status - 8.1.1(1)(g).
3. The Minister's representative did not question the applicant about the offence of 'dishonestly obtain property by deception'. Nor did she argue that this offence should be regarded as serious. In these circumstances I find that this offence was committed in the circumstances described by the applicant and that it is not a serious offence.
4. In relation to the applicant's other offence, as noted above, in November 2021 the applicant and two co-offenders attempted to import pseudoephedrine, a border-controlled pre-cursor, by collecting a consignment delivered to Parramatta Newsagency. The consignment originally contained pseudoephedrine with a pure weight of 4.77 kilograms. Before the consignment was collected, Australian Border Force substituted an inert substance for the pseudoephedrine.
5. The fault element for the offence under s 307.11(1)(c) of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) is recklessness, and absolute liability applies as to whether the quantity imported is of a commercial quantity.[20] The maximum penalty for this offence is 25 years imprisonment or 5,000 penalty units, or both.[21]
6. It was an agreed fact that the applicant was no more than reckless as to the contents of the consignment being a border-controlled pre-cursor and that his role in the attempted importation of the consignment was no higher than that of his co-offenders.[22]
7. The Court found that the offence was serious. In sentencing remarks, the Court stated:[23]

The offence is, however, objectively serious as evidenced in the > > maximum penalty, which acts as a legislative yardstick when considering the > > appropriate penalty. > > It is agreed by the parties that the Offender was no more than reckless as > > to the contents of the consignment. The Offender used a false identification to > > obtain the package and was to receive a relatively modest sum being $1,500.

8. Section 17A(1) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) relevantly states that a court shall not pass a sentence of imprisonment on a person for a federal offence, unless the court, after having considered all other available sentences, is satisfied that no other sentence is appropriate in all the circumstances of the case. The seriousness of the applicant's offence is therefore reflected in the sentence imposed. The Court was satisfied that, given the gravity of the offending behaviour and considering the applicant's subjective case in mitigation, the only sentence which could be imposed was a sentence of full-time imprisonment.[24]
9. Given that the AFP had substituted another substance for the pseudoephedrine, there was no direct victim of the offending. However, this does not mean that the applicant's offence should not be regarded as serious. The pseudoephedrine that was originally in the packages is a precursor to the manufacture of illicit drugs. Such drugs have a harmful effect on those who consume them and on the Australian community as a whole.
10. In relation to the frequency of the applicant's offending, the applicant has been convicted of two offences only in the almost thirteen years he has been in Australia. The first was a minor offence for which he was fined. The two offences of which the applicant has been convicted are not related.
11. There is nothing in the evidence to suggest that the applicant provided false or misleading information to the Department such as to justify an increase in an assessment of the seriousness of his offending. Further, there is no cumulative effect of repeated offending. Nor is there a trend of increasing seriousness. Therefore 8.1.1(1)(g) is not relevant.
12. The applicant has not been formally warned about the consequences of further offending in terms of his migration status, which means that 8.1.1(1)(h) is also not relevant. Neither is 8.1.1(1)(i), as the applicant's offences were committed in Australia.
13. The Minister's position is that the offence should be regarded as very serious, rather than as serious. I do not accept this submission.
14. In relation to this, the applicant's sentence of five years and seven months with a non-parole period of three years is well below the maximum sentence for this offence. Further, in sentencing the applicant, the Court stated that 'the Offender assumed most risk which is consistent with those whose role is towards the low or bottom end of the criminal enterprise'[25] and assessed the objective gravity of the applicant's offence as 'falling at the lower end'[26] of offending behaviour of this type.
15. One of the cases cited by the Minister in support of the proposition that the applicant's offending should be regarded as very serious is Kanara and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2011] AATA 132 (Kanara). In that case, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) noted that drugs 'cause real and serious harm to the Australian community'. However, the facts of that case are very different to this case.
16. In relation to Mr Kanara's offending, the AAT noted:

18. In February 2009, Mr Kanara was convicted in the Queensland Supreme Court of offences arising out of the raids on his home in 2007 and 2008, and the suspended sentences imposed in January 2007 were activated. The record shows: > > Trafficking in dangerous drugs: imprisonment 7 years and 7 months > > Two counts of possess dangerous drugs sch 1: imprisonment 4 years on each charge > > 2 counts of receive or possess property obtained from trafficking or supplying: imprisonment 2 years on each charge > > 3 counts of possess dangerous drugs: imprisonment 1 year on each charge > > 2 counts of unlawful supply of dangerous weapons: imprisonment 1 year on each charge

17. Mr Kanara's multiple drug-related offences differ significantly from the applicant's single offence which arose from recklessly agreeing to collect a parcel that had originally contained and was thought by his co-offenders to contain pseudoephedrine.
18. While it is beyond argument that drugs cause real and serious harm in the Australian community, I do not consider that the applicant's offending should be regarded as very serious based on the AAT's decision in Kanara or otherwise_._ I find that the offence committed by the applicant is serious, but not very serious.

1. In accordance with 8.1.2, when assessing the risk that the applicant may pose to the Australian community, I must have regard to, cumulatively:
   • The nature of the harm to individuals or the Australian community should the applicant engage in further criminal or other serious conduct; and
   • The likelihood of the applicant engaging in further criminal or other serious conduct, taking into account information and evidence about the risk of the applicant re-offending, as well as evidence of rehabilitation achieved by the time of the decision.
2. I find that if the applicant offended in the future in the way he has offended in the past, this could cause serious harm to members of the Australian community. In submissions provided to the delegate, the applicant agreed that this would be the case.[27]
3. In relation to the likelihood of the applicant engaging in further criminal or other serious conduct, I conclude that the risk that he will do so is low. I reached this conclusion notwithstanding the fact that the applicant's rehabilitation has not been tested in the community.
4. First, in sentencing remarks, the Court stated:

Notwithstanding the Offender has not given evidence I am satisfied the > > Offender is unlikely to reoffend and has good prospects of rehabilitation. In > > doing so, I have regard to his limited criminal history, early plea of guilty, > > ongoing steps towards rehabilitation in custody and what is outlined in his > > letter to the Court and psychiatric report.[28]

5. Second, the applicant has expressed remorse for his actions, both to the Court and to the Tribunal.
6. The Court accepted that the applicant had shown remorse.[29] In a letter to the Court, the applicant stated:[30]

I would like to take this opportunity to apologise to the community, the Court and my family for the poor decision I made in November 2021. I understand the seriousness of the offence I have committed and I take full responsibility for my actions. > > Being incarcerated has allowed me to learn the effects of how drugs are destroying people's lives in the community. Since coming into prison and interacting with other inmates whose lives have been ruined by drugs, I have witnessed the effects drugs have on their families and the community. I got to see firsthand the effect it has on other inmates physically and mentally. It makes me feel deeply remorseful about the potential harm I have caused in the community and families. I regret getting myself involved in this matter.... > > With a willingness to learn from my mistakes I have been able to gain a better understanding of people [and] the circumstances around them. I have grown from this experience and strengthened my moral conduct to become a better person. I am hopeful th:1t the Court and Your Honour will accept this apology, and my deep remorse to becoming involved in this....

7. In a statement dated 25 May 2025 that was submitted to the delegate, the applicant stated:[31]

Because of the experience that I have gone through, I feel like a different person now compared to the person I was when I committed the offence. The person that I was in November 2021 was very ignorant, naïve and far too trusting. However, I have learnt not to trust anyone blindly, to think about the consequences of my actions, how to ask for help and how to approach and solve problems the right way. I regret my actions deeply and want to correct it as much as I can by helping the community here and back in Sri Lanka once I am released. For example, I have spoken to Reverend John Jegasothy of the Uniting Church, about speaking to the community about my experiences in the criminal justice system to deter others from involving themselves in drugs. I am extremely remorseful about my past actions and am certain that I will never break the law again.

8. In his most recent statement dated 3 October 2025, the applicant states:[32]

I deeply regret the harm my actions caused to the Australian community, and I am fully committed to demonstrating through my actions and words that I am a changed person. > > I acknowledge the seriousness of my offense and the damage it has caused to the Australian community, including the potential for drugs to devastate lives and families. At the time of my offense, I acted with poor judgment and a lack of understanding of the far-reaching consequences of my actions. I take full responsibility for my choices and am sincerely sorry for betraying the trust of this country, which has provided me with so many opportunities. I am deeply remorseful and committed to ensuring I never repeat such mistakes. > > During my time in prison, on parole, and now in immigration detention, I have worked diligently to reflect on my actions and pursue rehabilitation. While in prison, I completed several courses to address the underlying issues that contributed to my offense and to equip myself with skills for a lawful and productive life.... > > These programs have been transformative, helping me understand the root causes of my past behaviour and reinforcing my determination to live a law-abiding life. During my parole, I complied with all conditions and worked to rebuild my life with integrity and accountability... > > I deeply regret the harm my actions have caused and am committed to earning back the trust I have lost. The lessons I have learned through my incarceration, parole, and detention, combined with my ongoing counselling and activities, have given me a renewed sense of purpose and a deep appreciation for the values of the Australian community, including trust, safety, and respect for the law. I am determined to continue my rehabilitation, pursue lawful employment, and contribute positively to society if given the opportunity.

9. The applicant again expressed remorse for his actions during the hearing. In her oral evidence, Ms Suresh also commented on the applicant's remorse, stating that she has heard genuine remorse from the applicant when he talks about his offence
10. I accept that the applicant has shown remorse, not only in writing and in his oral evidence, but also through the work he undertook while in prison and the excellent reports concerning both his work and his behaviour during the period that he was incarcerated.
11. Third, the applicant completed courses while in prison, which are detailed above. This includes a course addressing drug and alcohol abuse. The applicant does not take illicit drugs or abuse alcohol and has not done so in the past. However, I accept that participating in such a course assisted the applicant to recognise the deleterious effect substance abuse has on individuals and on the community. This awareness is reflected in the letters expressing remorse the applicant wrote to the Court, the delegate and the Tribunal.
12. Fourth, the applicant provided letters of support from friends and members of the Sri Lankan Tamil community. Mr Sujan Selventhiran, a Community and Refugee activist and a councillor on Cumberland Council, has committed to supporting the applicant in obtaining employment as a bricklayer if he is released into the community.[33] Mr Selventhiran confirmed this commitment at the hearing, further stating that the applicant would be able to obtain financial and other support in the community even if he does not have work rights. Mr Jeyasutharsan Jeyanantharajah, has promised to provide accommodation to the applicant.[34] However, I place less weight on Mr Jeyanantharajah's commitment in this regard in circumstances where he was not available for cross-examination. Reverend Dr John Jegasothy, a member of the Tamil community and of the Uniting Church Australia, also supports the applicant and has committed to assist him to resettle into the community.[35] Dr Jegasothy repeated this commitment at the hearing.
13. It was submitted on behalf of the Minister that the Tribunal should be cautious about finding that the applicant has sufficient supports in the community, in circumstances where the applicant's witnesses only know what the applicant has told them about his offending. I do not accept that submission and I place considerable weight on the evidence of Dr Jegasothy and Mr Selventhiran. It is clear that both Mr Selventharan and Dr Jegasothy are aware of the nature of the applicant's offence.[36] Their evidence indicates that they are well-connected in the Sri Lankan Tamil community and well-placed to offer financial and other support to the applicant. I consider that the support of people who occupy positions of influence in the Tamil community will operate as a significant protective factor in relation to the applicant's risk of re-offending.
14. I note that the applicant does not have a job lined up in the community. However, I do not consider that this is significant. In relation to this, there would be little point in the applicant applying for or accepting a particular job in circumstances where he may be given a bridging visa that does not allow him to work.[37]
15. Fifth, as noted above, the applicant has engaged in counselling in relation to his PTSD and anxiety and depression diagnoses since early 2025. At the hearing, the applicant stated that he has continued to attend counselling sessions throughout this year. This was confirmed by Ms Magitha Suresh in her oral evidence to the Tribunal. Ms Suresh stated that the applicant could continue to attend counselling if he were released from detention. He would also be able to commence trauma therapy, which for practical reasons would not be safe to offer the applicant while he is in immigration detention. The applicant's evidence indicated that he intends to continue with treatment in the community. Given the commitment to treatment that the applicant has demonstrated while in immigration detention, I am satisfied that he will continue with treatment in the community. Continued counselling will also operate as a protective factor reducing the risk of the applicant re-offending.
16. Where consideration is being given to whether to refuse to grant a visa to a non-citizen 8.1.2(2)(c) requires me to consider whether the risk of harm may be affected by the duration and purpose of the non-citizen's intended stay, the type of visa being applied for, and whether there are strong or compassionate reasons for granting a short stay visa. While I do not consider that there are compassionate grounds for granting a BVE to the applicant, the applicant applied for a BVE so that he could remain in the community pending the outcome of judicial review proceedings concerning the IAA's decision. As noted above, the outcome of those proceedings has resulted in orders setting aside the IAA's decision and requiring the Tribunal to hear and determine the applicant's application for a SHEV. Those proceedings will be listed before the Tribunal in due course.
17. The BVE is not a permanent visa. If the proceedings before the Tribunal are unsuccessful, subject to any further judicial review application, the applicant may again be taken into immigration detention. I consider that, if anything, the temporary nature of the BVE, tied as it is to other proceedings, lessens the risk of the applicant re-offending.
18. Overall, considering the temporary nature of the BVE, the Court's conclusion that the applicant is unlikely to re-offend and the evidence concerning the degree of rehabilitation that the applicant has achieved, I find this that the likelihood of the applicant engaging in further criminal or other serious conduct is low. I further find that the risk of harm to the Australian community if the applicant is released from immigration detention is low.

Conclusion in relation to Protection of the Australian community

1. I have found that the applicant's offence is serious. I accept that should the applicant again engage in similar conduct the resulting harm to an individual and more broadly to the Australian community would be serious. However, I consider that the risk that he will re-offend is low. I find that the applicant has demonstrated remorse and that he has achieved substantial rehabilitation.
2. The view of the Government is that the Australian community's tolerance for any risk of future harm becomes lower as the seriousness of the potential harm increases. I have had regard to 8.1.2(1), which states that '[s]ome conduct and the harm that would be caused, if it were to be repeated, is so serious that any risk that it may be repeated may be unacceptable'. I do not consider that this is such a case because, while the applicant was sentenced to a significant period of imprisonment, he committed one serious offence only, there is a low risk he will re-offend and he has achieved a significant degree of rehabilitation.
3. I conclude that protection of the Australian community weighs against granting a bridging visa to the applicant, but not significantly so.

1. The applicant has not committed a family violence offence. This consideration is neutral.

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

1. Section 8.3(1) of the Direction requires me to consider the 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. As the applicant does not have family members in Australia, 8.3(1) is not relevant to his case.
2. Under 8.3(2) of the Direction a decision-maker must consider the strength, nature and duration of any other ties that a non-citizen has to the Australian community where consideration is being given to whether to cancel visa or whether to revoke the mandatory cancellation of a visa. As this application concerns the refusal of a visa, 8.3(2) does not strictly apply. However, I have addressed the strength, nature and duration of other ties the applicant has to the Australian community, as this issue was addressed in the Minister's SOFIC and by the Minister's representative in oral submissions at the hearing. It is also appropriate to do so in circumstances where the applicant has been in Australia for thirteen years,
3. In considering the applicant's ties to the Australian community, I have placed weight on the fact that the applicant arrived in Australia as a 22-year-old and not as a young child. However, I have also placed weight on the fact that the applicant did not commit any offences until some seven years after his arrival in Australia
4. The applicant worked regularly between 2015 and 2020, when he lost his job because of Covid-19. I accept that through his employment, the applicant made a positive contribution to the Australian community. I also consider that the applicant made a positive contribution to the Australian community through his work while in prison. The Minister's representative agreed that the applicant's work in the prison system could be considered as a contribution to the Australian community. As noted above, NSW Corrective Services case notes[38] contain multiple references to the applicant's work ethic, his politeness and the excellence of his work. This work included forensic cleaning. Two such case notes state:[39]

[The applicant] has undertaken certified training and always undertakes his duties with the upmost diligence. Part of those duties include maintaining cleanliness in staff working areas, and another part is the forensic cleaning in the aftermath of inmate assaults and self-harm and suicide attempts. This is often extremely confronting and grisly work which [the applicant] completes without complaint. He is to be commended for the diligence and professionalism with which he completes his duties. > > .... > > [The applicant] is employed in the MRRC centre hygiene team and undertakes his duties with high enthusiasm and interacts with staff in a very polite and respectful manner. Over the last 6 weeks in particular [the applicant] has undertaken forensic cleaning tasks almost on a daily basis due to the presence of multiple chronic self-harmers being managed in O block. Inmate very regularly cleans the aftermath of serious self-harm incidents involving very large volumes of blood and bodily fluids spilled both in cells and in day rooms and conducts this work to a very high standard, which in turn allows the centre operations to run smoothly.

5. The applicant also has ties to and the support of members of the Sri Lankan Tamil community in Australia, as demonstrated by the evidence of Dr Jegasothy and Mr Selventhiran. I accept that a number of people in the Sri Lankan Tamil community are either Australian citizens or Australian permanent residents.
6. Overall, I consider that this consideration weighs somewhat in favour of exercising the discretion to grant a bridging visa.

The best interests of minor children in Australia - 8.4

1. The applicant does not have children and no other children are relevant to this consideration. It therefore carries neutral weight.

1. In relation to this consideration, 8.5(1) of the Direction states:

The Australian community expects non-citizens to obey Australian laws while in Australia. Where a non-citizen has engaged in serious conduct in breach of this expectation, or where there is an unacceptable risk that they may do so, the Australian community, as a norm, expects the Government to not allow such a non-citizen to remain in Australia.

2. In accordance with 8.5(4) of the Direction, I must consider the expectations of the Australian community as a whole and proceed on the basis of the Government's views expressed in the Direction, without independently assessing the community's expectations in the particular case.[40]
3. In RCLN v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs,__[41] Horan J stated:

The assessment of community expectations is therefore not a matter of evidence, and does not turn on the personal circumstances of the individual non-citizen: compare, in relation to an earlier iteration of the Ministerial direction: FYBR v Minister for Home Affairs (2019) 272 FCR 454 at [66] -[67] , [74] -[75] (Charlesworth J), [91]-[93], [103]-[104] (Stewart J); see also CKL21 v Minister for Home Affairs [2022] FCAFC 70; (2022) 293 FCR 634 at [29] -[30] (Moshinsky, O'Bryan and Cheeseman JJ). The "degrees of tolerance" referred to elsewhere in the Direction "are matters that fall for consideration by the decision-maker in the ultimate exercise of his or her discretion" (or, in the present context, the determination whether there is another reason to revoke the original cancellation decision), and "in determining whether it is appropriate to give more or less weight to a deemed community expectation of visa refusal that might otherwise arise simply because of the nature of the non-citizen's character concerns or offences": FYBR at [77] (Charlesworth J). In other words, the decision-maker can take into account the personal circumstances of the individual non-citizen in so far as they are relevant to another primary consideration or one of the other considerations, and adjust the relative weight to be given to each of the primary and other considerations accordingly.

4. The applicant has engaged in conduct in breach of Australian laws. The Australian community therefore expects the Government to not allow him to remain in Australia. This is so, even if the applicant has not committed offences of a kind set out in 8.5 (2).
5. Given that the applicant does not have an extensive criminal history and in view of the low risk that he will re-offend, I conclude that this consideration weighs against exercising the discretion to grant the applicant a bridging visa, but not significantly so.

1. A legal consequence of the decision not to grant a bridging visa to the applicant is that he will remain in immigration detention pending removal from Australia under s 198 of the Act. However, this could not occur pending the outcome of the application to be decided by the Tribunal as a result of orders made by the Court on 24 October 2025 and any subsequent litigation. The applicant could potentially remain in immigration detention for a lengthy period.
2. Another legal consequence is that there will be significant restrictions on the applicant's ability to apply for another visa. An application for any visa other than a protection visa would be subject to s 501E; that is, it could not be made from within the migration zone unless it was for a Bridging Visa R (Class WR) as prescribed by cl 2.12AA of the Migration Regulations 1994. The applicant could only apply for such a visa in response to an invitation. As the applicant has already applied for a SHEV, if the Tribunal finds against him on that application, he could only apply for another protection visa if the Minister lifted the statutory bar under s 48B.
3. Another legal consequence of the decision is that, depending on the visa that may be applied for once the applicant is offshore, the applicant may be subject to indefinite or permanent exclusion from Australia as he may not be able to meet Special Return Criteria 5001(c) if it applies to the relevant Schedule 2 criteria of the visa.
4. The applicant has made protection claims in relation to Sri Lanka. Part 9.1.2 (2) of the Direction states that where it is open to a person to apply for a protection visa, it is not necessary at this stage to consider non-refoulement issues in the same level of detail as those types of issues are considered in a protection visa application. I am satisfied that it is appropriate to defer consideration of whether the applicant is owed non-refoulement obligations. His protection claims will be assessed by the Tribunal and consideration will subsequently be given to any character or security concerns associated with those claims.[42]
5. The Minister's representative submitted that this consideration weighs in favour of granting the BVE. I agree with that submission. I find that the legal consequences of the decision weigh somewhat in favour of granting a BVE.

1. This consideration refers to impediments the applicant may face if removed from Australia to Sri Lanka in establishing himself and maintaining basic living standards in the context of what is generally available to other citizens of Sri Lanka. I must take into account the applicant's age and health, whether there are substantial language or cultural barriers, and any social, medical and/or economic support available to him in Sri Lanka.
2. The applicant is 34 years of age and lived in Sri Lanka until the age of 22. As the applicant grew to adulthood in Sri Lanka, I do not consider that he would face any language or cultural barriers on return to that country.
3. The applicant suffers from asthma and, more significantly, has mental health conditions including complex PTSD. I consider that the applicant would have access to the same level of treatment for his physical and mental health conditions as available to other Sri Lankan nationals. However, this would not be at the same standard as the treatment available to the applicant in Australia.
4. The applicant's mother and siblings are in Sri Lanka. The applicant's evidence is that he is in regular contact with his family. This leads me to conclude that the applicant would have emotional support in that country. However, the evidence does not support a conclusion that that the applicant's family would be able to provide him with economic support.
5. I conclude that the applicant would face significant impediments in re-establishing himself in Sri Lanka and in maintaining basic living standards in the context of what is generally available to other citizens of that country.
6. I conclude that this consideration weighs somewhat in favour of granting the applicant a bridging visa, particularly given the state of the applicant's mental health and in circumstances where the applicant's family members could not support him economically.

1. In relation to this consideration, I must consider any impact on Australian business interests if the applicant is not allowed to remain in Australia. I note that an employment link would generally only be given weight where the decision would significantly compromise the delivery of a major project, or delivery of an important service in Australia.
2. The applicant has worked in Australia in the past and could be expected to work in the future, subject to his mental health. However, there is no clear evidence of a job offer and it would be speculative to conclude that the applicant will be employed in the reasonably foreseeable future. There is no evidence that a failure to grant a BVE to the applicant would significantly compromise the delivery of a major project, or delivery of an important service in Australia.
3. I conclude that this factor should be given neutral weight.

Effect of ongoing detention on the applicant's mental health

1. Ms Suresh gave oral evidence about the applicant's current mental health. As noted above, Ms Suresh stated that the applicant has been dealing with symptoms of complex PTSD for a long time. She stated that his symptoms have been exacerbated since his arrival in Australia and his imprisonment. The applicant has had sleep disturbance, has been hearing voices and has nightmares. The applicant also has anxiety and panic attacks.
2. Ms Suresh stated that the applicant has adopted strategies to manage his symptoms. He now maintains a sleep diary and is practising breathing techniques and cognitive behaviour therapy. However, Ms Suresh stated that these issues came to a head recently when there was a threat that the applicant would be deported. His sleep was reduced and he was hardly eating. She stated that the applicant needs to have trauma therapy to help him deal with the trauma he has suffered in the past. However, this therapy cannot be safely done in the detention environment. The applicant could participate in this therapy if he were in the community.
3. Based on Ms Suresh's evidence, I find that the experience of imprisonment and immigration detention have had a deleterious effect on the applicant's mental health. I accept that the applicant would benefit from trauma therapy, which could only realistically be offered to him if he were in the community. I am satisfied that the ongoing negative impact being in immigration detention has on the applicant's mental health is a consideration which weighs somewhat in favour of granting the applicant a BVE.

1. I have made the following findings concerning the relevant primary considerations in the Direction:

(a) Protection of the Australian community against criminal and other serious conduct weighs against granting the bridging visa, but not significantly so. > > (b) The family violence consideration is neutral. > > (c) The strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia weigh somewhat in favour of granting the bridging visa. > > (d) The best interests of minor children consideration is neutral. > > (e) The expectations of the Australian community weigh somewhat against granting the bridging visa.

2. I have made the following findings concerning the other considerations:

(a) The legal consequences of the decision weigh somewhat in favour of granting the bridging visa. > > (b) The extent of the impediments if the applicant were removed to Sri Lanka weigh somewhat in favour of granting the bridging visa. > > (c) Australian business interests are neutral. > > (d) The effect of ongoing detention on the applicant's mental health weighs somewhat in favour of granting the bridging visa.

3. However, compliance with the Direction is not achieved by focussing on the weight I have given to the various considerations in isolation. In deciding this case I must 'bring together the considerations as part of a single evaluation of their relative significance thereby weighing them all together'.[43]
4. In CRNL v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs stated:

The balancing process is directed to determining whether there is "another reason" why the visa cancellation should be revoked. It requires an identification of the matters that may constitute "another reason" and bringing to bear the considerations that the Direction requires the Tribunal to take into account where relevant in determining whether or not the Tribunal is satisfied that there is another reason (or reasons) to revoke the visa cancellation. Some of the considerations set out in the Direction, where relevant, may weigh in favour of revocation, and so may constitute "another reason" capable of supporting the state of satisfaction required in order for revocation under s 501CA(4)(b)(ii) to occur. But whether they do qualify as a reason of that kind will need to be assessed in the context of different considerations set out in the Direction which may weigh against revocation, where relevant. That is why it is appropriate to describe it as a process of weighing and balancing. But to go beyond that to treat the Direction as mandating some sort of calculation of the net weight to be given to the considerations on each side is to lose sight of the ultimately evaluative nature of the statutory task.[44]

5. As noted above, 7.2 of the Direction states that the primary consideration of the protection of the Australian community is generally to be given greater weight than other primary considerations. It also states that primary considerations should generally be given greater weight than 'other' considerations.
6. In this case I have found that the protection of the Australian community and the expectations of the Australian community weigh in favour of not granting a BVE to the applicant. These considerations are balanced against the considerations that weigh in the applicant's favour: that is, the applicant's ties to Australia, the legal consequences of the decision, the impediments the applicant will face if he is removed to Sri Lanka and the effect of detention on the applicant's mental health.
7. I conclude that this is a case where the factors that weigh in favour of granting a BVE to the applicant outweigh the factors that weigh against doing so. In relation to this, I place weight on the low risk that the applicant will re-offend, the high degree of rehabilitation achieved, the fact that the applicant will have strong support if he is released into the community and the fact that the BVE is for a limited purpose. I note also that the applicant has already satisfied a different constituted Tribunal that he would comply with the conditions of a BVE.
8. I conclude that the decision under review should be set aside and the discretion to refuse to grant a BVE should not be exercised.

[7] EBQ21 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2025] FedCFamC2G 1751 (24 October 2025)

[8] Tribunal proceedings 2446016 - HB 250-262.

[18] [2022] FCAFC 19.

[19] [2018] FCA 594 at [23].

[20] Section 307.11(2)-(3), Criminal Code (Cth).

[21] Section 307.11(1), Criminal Code (Cth).

[37] I note that when the differently constituted Tribunal set aside the decision refusing to grant the applicant bridging visa, it recommended that any visa granted to the applicant should not contain a work restriction. See HB 261.

[40] See Ismail v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship & Multicultural Affairs [2024] HCA 2, at [38] and [51] to [52].

[41] [2024] FCA 876 at [56].

[42] See Plaintiff M1/2021 v Minister for Home Affairs [2022] HCA 17 at [9] and [30].

[43]CRNL v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FCAFC 138 at [28].