1. Prior to the conviction on 21 July 2023, Mr Kohen had been sentenced to a community corrections order for a period of 18 months in respect of three offences on 7 August 2019.
2. The first of the offences was 'stalk/intimidate intend fear physical etc harm(domestic)'. Contained in the documents is a New South Wales Police Fact Sheet in relation to that offence.[6]
3. The fact sheet records the date of arrest as 18 October 2018 and in the antecedents to the fact sheet it is recorded:

Police believe the family of the [applicant] are genuinely terrified of him and hold grave fear that if he is to be released he will cause serious harm and/or death to them as an act of revenge for them seeking out police assistance. Police witnesses first-hand the anxiety and fear in the victim and her family. Whilst in custody, the [applicant's] mood changed rapidly from calm to irate and police hold fears for the safety of the victims and protected persons.

4. Under the hearing full facts, it is recorded that the applicant had been in a relationship with the victim for five years and the relationship had ended 4 years earlier. The applicant and the victim had a son that was 7 years. An application for an apprehended violence order was made by police on 19 June 2018, however they had order expired as neither party attended court on 5 July 2018 as they were both overseas. The general basis for this application centred around threatening SMS messages sent to the victim from the applicant.
5. It is recorded in the fact sheet that at about 5pm on 3 October 2018, Mr Kohen arrived at the victim's address for a pre-arranged visit with their son. The applicant was playing with his son in a bedroom while the victim was doing other things around the house. The victim heard the applicant raising his voice so she went into the bedroom to find the applicant and their son arguing over a game of cards. The victim intervened and a verbal argument ensued. The applicant started yelling and swearing at the victim, calling her a "bitch" and "cunt" and threatening to "fuck her up". The victim told the applicant to leave but he refused and continued to yell. Eventually, the applicant left the home and the police were called. The victim's son went to meet the applicant outside the home near the front door. The victim's son was able to coax the applicant away from the premises. The applicant remained outside for a short time and then left and returned to the front door of the premises. The victim attempted to speak with the applicant through an open window, during which the applicant stated, "I'll teach you, I'll kill you and all your kids. I am above the police and the court". Eventually the applicant left the address and the police were called. Police attended the premises and spoke with the victim and three other individuals, who all appeared shaken up by the actions of the applicant.
6. In cross examination, Mr Kohen agreed he used some words against his ex-partner in Hebrew but denied that he threatened to kill her or the kids. He stated that this was a one-off incident and that police had never been called to the house before.
7. The second of the offences was 'contravene prohibition/restriction in AVO (Domestic)'. A New South Wales Police Fact Sheet has also been provided in that regard.[7] It is recorded in the fact sheet that on 3 October 2018 an apprehended violence order was taken out by police. The applicant was listed as the defendant. Although the names of the protected people are redacted from the fact sheet, it is clear from Mr Kohen's evidence at the hearing that the protected persons were his former partner and her children. The factsheet records that almost immediately, after the applicant was handed the AVO, he sent the victim a SMS message. Between the time of service of the AVO on Mr Kohen at 11.40am until around 7:30 pm on 13 October 2018, Mr Kohen sent a total of 277 SMS messages to the victim in breach of the AVO. When asked about the breach in cross -examination, Mr Kohen stated he was not familiar with the application of an AVO and those messages related to his son.
8. It is noted in the fact sheet that on 18 October 2018 the applicant was arrested and conveyed to the police station. The applicant then participated in an interview where he denied the allegation of intimidating and making threats to the victim. He made admissions to breaching an apprehended violence order (AVO).
9. The third offence was for 'dishonestly obtain property by deception'.

1. On 21 July 2023, Mr Kohen was convicted in the District Court of New South Wales of 'Reckless wounding'. Mr Kohen was sentenced to 23 months and two weeks imprisonment to be served by way of intensive correction order. In addition, a personal violence order was imposed on Mr Kohen.[8] The Tribunal has been provided with the sentencing remarks in relation to the convictions of 21 July 2023.[9]
2. The offence was committed on 25 September 2020 and Mr Kohen subsequently entered a plea of guilty on 3 April 2023. The sentencing judge set out the agreed facts between the parties which can be summarised as follows.

(i) At the time of the offending, Mr Kohen was staying in his car in a car park in Mullumbimby for some months. The victim was camping at the park with some friends. He had a tent in front of his vehicle for sleeping. On 24 September 2020, Mr Kohen and the victim had a dispute. That evening, Mr Kohen voiced complaints about the noise made by the victim and his friends. > > (ii) On 25 September 2020, the victim woke around 6:30am to the sound of the Mr Kohen's vehicle door closing and Mr Kohen driving off. Soon after, the victim went to get water at one end of the car park, and when he returned, Mr Kohen had returned and was in the back of his car. The vehicle doors were closed, and the windows were ajar. Mr Kohen started yelling at the other campers, telling them to "fuck off" and "get out". The victim asked Mr Kohen who he was speaking to. Mr Kohen responded by pointing his finger out the window at the victim. > > (iii) The victim said, "come here motherfucker" and "what's your go?" to Mr Kohen. Mr Kohen responded, "come here and I'll tell you". The victim walked over to the Mr Kohen's vehicle and opened the back hatch. Mr Kohen was sitting in the back of his vehicle facing the boot. Mr Kohen told the victim, "don't touch my stuff". A verbal altercation continued with both Mr Kohen and the victim telling each other to "fuck off". Mr Kohen punched the floor in his car and said, "you're a big fucking man, aren't you? Come here and sort this out away from everyone else". > > (iv) The victim walked down to the driver's side of Mr kohen's car and offered Mr Kohen a cigarette or coffee, telling him to "calm down". Mr Kohen got out of the vehicle and turned to face the victim. Mr Kohen had his right hand in his jacket pocket and was fiddling with something inside. Mr Kohen then said something like, "you think you're really smart, you're fucking wrong. You're going to die". > > (v) Mr Kohen then swung his right hand which held a switchblade in the direction of the victim's head/throat area. The victim turned away from Mr Kohen and the knife made impact with his left back/shoulder, leaving a laceration. Mr Kohen then tried to grab the victim with his left hand and lunged at him twice more. The victim pushed Mr Kohen and ran, yelling, "this motherfucker just stabbed me". > > (vi) Another camper stepped between the victim and Mr Kohen. She led the victim down the river and examined the laceration. Mr Kohen continued to yell at the victim. Soon after, a ranger approached the victim and asked what happened. Out of fear, as Mr Kohen was lurking around, the victim told the ranger that he fell over. The police then attended the scene and spoke with Mr Kohen who told them that victim had fallen over. > > (vii) At around 3:20 PM, police located Mr Kohen outside a laundromat where they placed him under arrest. Mr Kohen again denied the stabbing, telling police that he was in his car and that he came out when the victim told him that he fell. Mr Kohen was then conveyed to the police station and entered custody.

3. The sentencing judge made the following comments regarding the seriousness of the offence:

I ultimately made a determination that the objective seriousness was towards the upper end of the low range. Why I did that was that it was an offence that was committed in public. It was an offence that must have been terrifying to the victim. While I took into account that the threat to kill and the intention to strike at the victim's head and neck area were serious components of the offence, happily the place that the wounding actually took place was relatively benign and there was a relatively limited physical injury, although the victim impact statement is eloquent as to particularly the psychological effects of the offence on the victim. > > It is an aggravating factor that the offence involved the actual use of a weapon. Although this offence often involves weapons being used to achieve the wound, that is not an element of the offence and it serves to aggravate. An additional aggravating circumstance that does not relate to the assessment of objective seriousness is the fact that the offender was in breach of conditional liberty, being a Community Corrections order at the time of the offence. > > Whilst it is not appropriate I this case to find that the actions of the victim provoked Mr Kohen and that contention was not put on his behalf ..., it is certainly available without entering the realm of victim blaming that there was a feisty interaction between each of them, using poor language and aggression, before Mr Kohen determined to offend in a way that was totally disproportionate with what had already been taking place between he and [the victim].

4. The sentencing judge also observed that the offence represented 'a significant escalation in criminality from other matters on his record'.
5. After imposing the sentence, the sentencing judge stated:

If you breach the intensive corrections order, you won't come back before me, you would go to the State Parole Authority and unless it was a very minor breach, they will revoke that ICO and you'll serve it out, unless you get parole so you need to take all of the orders that I made very seriously. Do you understand that?"

1. On 8 August 2023, the State Parole Authority made an order revoking Mr Kohen's intensive corrections order as of 25 July 2023.[10] The reason for the revocation is recorded as being for breach of standard condition 1, that Mr Kohen 'must not commit any offences (outstanding charges).'
2. A breach report[11] indicates that on 25 July 2023 (4 days after Mr Kohen had been sentenced), he was arrested and charged for:
   • Recklessly deal with proceeds of crime >$5000 -T1
   • Custody of a knife in public place - subsequent offence
   • Possess prohibited drug
   • _Supply prohibited drug >indictable & (a) 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) 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 non-citizen reoffending; 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).

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

1. The Tribunal finds that any future offending from Mr Kohen of a similar nature, in particular in relation to the convictions stalking and intimidating for breaching AVO's and reckless wounding would have the potential to cause physical and/or psychological harm to members of the Australian community. I am of the view that the harm caused is so serious that any risk of similar future offending is unacceptable.
2. The nature of Mr Kohen's conduct has the potential to have significant impact on the individual victims, including physical and mental trauma and an impact on the social wellbeing of our communities, including the use of resources such as law enforcement.
3. I accept that Mr Kohen has had a traumatic family and childhood history. He served in the Israeli army and has a diagnosis of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).[13] He experiences heightened levels of anxiety and depression.[14] In Australia, Mr Kohen has experienced homelessness and a relationship breakdown in recent years which has resulted a separation from his son.[15]
4. In relation to the reckless wounding offence of 21 July 2023, the sentencing Judge in the District Court accepted that that there was a link between Mr Kohen's PTSD and his offending behaviour of reckless wounding in which Mr Kohen reacted to a perceived threat. The sentencing judge also referred to some "persistent drug use" by the applicant which contributed to the "disintegration of his personality that led to this offending".[16] The sentencing judge also made the following remarks:[17]

I have before me a sentence assessment report that is consistent with [the Applicant] having expressed remorse and some insight into the effect on the victim, although he continues to hold the victim in part responsible for what took place, in the sense that he told the author of the sentencing assessment report that "the victim was confrontational at the time and that he acted defensively in the situation". The way that he acted was a clear breach of the law and was a significant overreaction to what had been happening between him and [the victim] at the time... > > I accept the author of the sentencing assessment reports assessment that he is a person with a medium risk of reoffending. I am guarded about his prospects for rehabilitation but while ever he continues to engage in drug and alcohol rehabilitation and psychological support, his prospects for rehabilitation will improve

5. It is also noted that the sentencing judge decided to that Mr Kohen's risk of reoffending was best addressed by him serving the period of imprisonment in the community so that he could access services that would not be available to him in prison. Yet despite that, Mr Kohen breached the intensive corrections order.
6. The Tribunal accepts that Mr Kohen has expressed regret and remorse for the consequences arising from his conduct, particularly in relation to the separation from his son. However, Mr Kohen at times has at times minimised his behaviour.
7. In an intensive corrections order reinstatement report dated 7 March 2024[18] it notes that:

Mr Kohen repeatedly expressed a belief the matter constituting his breach was either the result of 'being unfairly targeted by police", or alternatively an "unfortunate accident". He appeared to lack insight into his behaviour and consequently did not identify any changes to his lifestyle or behaviour which may assist him with a voiding future breaches.

8. The Tribunal has before it a psychological report dated 21 April 2024, prepared for the Mental Health Team while Mr Kohen was in detention.[19] It is recorded that Mr Kohen stated he was being treated by PTSD specialists and was prescribed medication. He stated that he has 'used a lot of medication from Zyprexa and Seroquel, but nothing really helped alleviate my symptoms.' It is also recorded that after three years on medication with no improvement he started alternative therapy with cannabis oil and that he was officially registered in a large-scale cannabis oil trial and he felt he was on the path to recovery. It is also noted that Mr Kohen was highly knowledgeable about mental health and psychiatry and was insightful of his diagnosis of PTSD and the damage which the condition. Recommendations are made for supportive counselling from a program such as STARTTS so Mr Kohen could process his past trauma as well as address the events which he has faced in Australia and manage his anxiety, hypervigilance and apprehension. It is notes that Mr Kohen was receptive to the idea of counselling.
9. The report also notes:[20]

Mr. Kohen proceeded to explain that unfortunately his anger outbursts and PTSD related symptoms including anger, irritability and becoming easily annoyed at minor triggers, unstable moods, outbursts and reactions to minor situations, finally became too difficult to control and they caused problems in his relationship with his partner. He clarified that their arguments and altercations were never in physical form, rather, they were verbal quarrels. Mr. Kohen said his partner obtained an Apprehended Violence Order (AVO) and hence his family life suffered. In the same period, Mr. Kohen said he was subjected to a random attack while walking his dog in a park, where a stranger attacked him and his dog for no apparent reason. As self-defence, Mr. Kohen reportedly reacted by hitting the man once to protect himself and his dog, and as a consequence, was arrested and charged with 'reckless wounding' of a person and in the midst of the arrest, he said, "a very small bag of weed was found on my person and I got into trouble for it" ...

10. Also contained in the documents is a report from a STARTTS counsellor dated 4 June 2024.[21] It is noted that Mr Kohen attended 3 of the 4 sessions and was a no show for the last session on 28 May 2024. However, it is noted in the report that the session may have been missed due to a rescheduling confusion. The report indicates that Mr Kohen demonstrated an increasing self-awareness, and that he required ongoing support for his well-being and progress. In cross -examination, Mr Kohen explained that in relation to the offence of reckless wounding, he was reacting because of his post-traumatic stress disorder, and he took responsibility for his behaviour.
11. At hearing, while Mr Kohen accepted at times that the incidents, in relation to the events leading to the imposition and breach of the AVO were wrong, he also indicated they were one off incident and referred to "weed" as not being a serious drug.
12. The Tribunal accepts that while Mr Kohen has taken some steps to understand his behaviour and rehabilitate, his minimisation of some of his offending conduct demonstrates he still has some way to accepting the seriousness of his offending behaviour. Further the reports undertaken by STARTTS on 4 June 2024, notes:[22]

Given ongoing challenges, continued support is crucial for Mr. Kohen's well-being and therapeutic progress. Accordingly, STARTTS respectfully requests approval for additional sessions to ensure Mr. Kohen receives the necessary support during this difficult period.

13. There is no evidence that Mr Kohen has been given any further support since the STARRT report and it is clear he requires ongoing treatment. Absent that ongoing support Mr Kohen continues to be at risk of reoffending.

Conclusion on protection of the Australian Community

1. The Tribunal finds that the nature and seriousness of the Mr Kohen's offending weighs heavily against the revocation of the cancellation of his visa.
2. The results check demonstrates that between 2016 and 2021, Mr Kohen was convicted of multiple offences. The Tribunal accept that in relation to the offences of 20 December 2016 and 15 October 2021 that the applicant was sentenced to s10 and s 10A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) and an inference could be made that the nature of the conduct regarding the offences were not serious.
3. However, the Tribunal finds that in relation to the balance of Mr Kohen's offending and conduct, it has been very serious. Mr Kohen's criminal record illustrates repeated criminal behaviour. Between 2016 and 2021, Mr Kohen was convicted of multiple offences, including driving and drug offences which incurred fines, driver disqualification, and good behaviour bonds.
4. Subclause 8.1.1(1)(a) of Direction 110 specifies that the following types of crimes as viewed very seriously by the Australian Government and Australian Community.

(i) violent and/or sexual crimes;

(ii) crimes of a violent and/or sexual nature against women or children, regardless of the sentence imposed;

(iii) acts of family violence, regardless of whether there is a conviction for an offence or a sentence imposed;

1. The Tribunal finds that the offences for which Mr Kohen was sentenced on 21 July 2023 and 7 August 2019 are viewed very seriously by the Australian Government and Australian community. Despite Mr Kohen's contentions regarding details of the breach in cross examination, the conviction for the offences on 7 August 2019 included stalking and intimidation and contravention of a domestic AVO involving a woman and children. Further, the offence for which Mr Kohen was sentenced on 21 July 2023 was for reckless wounding of another person.
2. Subclause 8.1.1 also requires the Tribunal to have regard to the following:

(i) the sentence imposed by the courts for a crime or crimes. > > (ii) the impact of the offending on any victims of the offending or other conduct and their family, where information in this regard is available. > > (iii) the frequency of the offending and/or whether there is any trend of increasing seriousness. > > (iv) the cumulative effect of repeated offending. > > (v) whether the applicant has provided false or misleading information to the Department, including by not disclosing prior criminal offending. > > (vi) whether the applicant has re-offended since being formally warned, or since otherwise being made aware, in writing, about the consequences of further offending in terms of the applicant's migration status (noting that the absence of a warning should not be considered to be in the applicant's favour). > > (vii) where the offence or conduct was committed in another country, whether that offence or conduct is classified as an offence in Australia.

3. Mr Kohen has an extensive criminal history and continued to offend in circumstances where he was warned that he would be jailed if he offended while on an intensive corrections order. In relation to the sentence imposed by the courts, for the offence of reckless wounding, the Court imposed a term of imprisonment of 23 months and two weeks, to be served by way of an intensive correction order in the community. As outlined above, due to further offences the intensive correction order was revoked as of 25 July 2023, and Mr Kohen served the remainder of his sentence of one year, 11 months, one week, and three days in prison.[23]
4. In relation to the impact on the victims, there is limited evidence before the Tribunal about the impact that the applicant's violent offending has caused his victims.
5. In relation to the frequency of the Mr Kohen's offending and whether there is any trend of increasing seriousness, the Tribunal find that the criminal history indicates that Mr Kohen's offending has escalated in frequency and severity from 2016 and up until 2024 after which Mr Kohen has been in jail and then immigration detention.
6. Having considered Direction 110, the findings of the District Court in sentencing, the sentences imposed by the Court and the totality of Mr Kohen's escalating criminal offending, the Tribunal finds that the nature and seriousness of the Mr Kohen's offending weighs very heavily against the revocation of the cancellation decision.
7. Mr Kohen has shown some remorse and insight for his offending at times, but at other times continues to minimise his conduct. There is no doubt he regrets the harm he caused to the victim of the offence of reckless wounding. He is no doubt upset that he has been separated from his son, partner, and community. Despite his assertion that he continues to have the support of his community, there is no recent supporting evidence that he will have the support of his community in Australia. Contained in the bundle are a series of references and statements from people in the applicant's community including a Rabbi. They are dated on or about August 2023 or are undated and speak of the applicant's contribution to his community.
8. Mr Kohen has previously breached the intensive corrections order and requires ongoing treatment. It remains untested how he will conduct himself when again faced with similar challenges in the community if he was released to the community. Mr Kohen's criminal history demonstrates a disregard for Australian law.
9. Having regard to the nature and seriousness of the Mr Kohen's offending and conduct, the potential significant harm to the Australian community should Mr Kohen commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct, and taking into account the continued likelihood of the Mr Kohen's re-offending, the Tribunal finds that that the need to protect the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct weighs very heavily against revocation of the cancellation decision.

Primary Consideration 2: Whether the conduct engaged in constituted family violence; - 8.2

1. Direction 110 requires the Tribunal to consider whether Mr Kohen has been convicted of any offence or had charges proven that involve family violence. Paragraph 8.2(1) of Direction 110 reflects the Australian government's concerns about conferring on non-citizens who commit acts of family violence the privilege of coming into or staying in Australia.
2. Paragraph 8.2(2) of Direction 110 provides that this consideration is relevant 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, and the non-citizen being considered under section 501 or section 501CA has been afforded procedural fairness.

1. 'Family violence' is defined in paragraph 4(1) of Direction 110 as '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'. 'Member of the person's family', for the purposes of the definition of the definition of family violence, includes a person who has, or has had, an intimate personal relationship with the relevant person.
2. As noted above on 7 August 2019, Mr Kohen was convicted of Stalk/intimidate intend fear physical harm (domestic) - T2. That conviction related to the event of 3 October 2018, when Mr Kohen caused his former partner to be fearful because of his conduct in which he intimidated her through verbal abuse and threats to her and her children. Mr Kohen denied, stating at the hearing that he had stated 'I'll teach you, I'll kill you and all your kids. I am above the police and the courts'. Mr Kohen was ultimately convicted of the offence and Mr Kohen admitted in cross examination that the words that he did use did cause his former wife to be fearful at the time. The Tribunal finds that, regardless of the word's used, Mr Kohen's conduct on 3 October 2018, leading to the 7 August 2019 conviction, constituted intimidating and threatening conduct that caused his former wife and children to be fearful, and therefore constitutes family violence under Direction 110.
3. Further, as has been noted above, on the date of the offence on 3 October 2018, an AVO was taken out by police and handed to the Mr Kohen on 8 October 2018. Mr Kohen almost immediately beached the terms of the AVO by sending over 200 SMS messages to his former partner between over a period of a few days leading to him also being convicted for contravening a prohibition/restriction in AVO (Domestic) on 7 August 2019.
4. The Tribunal also notes the Mr Kohen's criminal check record reveals he had previously been convicted for contravening an AVO on 6 July 2020 and 17 August 2020.
5. In considering the seriousness of family violence engaged in by a non-citizen, Direction 110 requires the following factors at paragraph 8.2(3) must be considered 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-citizen's migration status, should the non-citizen engage in further acts of family violence.

1. Mr Kohen has engaged in conduct constituting family violence as defined under Direction 110. Mr Kohen has been convicted of breaching AVO conditions on 7 August 2019, 6 July 2020, and 17 August 2020. That points to an increasing frequency of family violence. In cross examination, Mr Kohen demonstrated a lack of insight his family violence offending, indicating he had always had a good relationship with his family, and it was an escalation of an isolated incident, yet there is evidence that there were repeated convictions.
2. The Tribunal finds that family violence in this case should be regarded as very serious and weighs heavily against revocation of the cancellation decision.

Primary Consideration 3: The strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia; - 8.3

1. In accordance with subclause 8.3(1), the Tribunal has considered the impact of the decision on Mr Kohen'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
2. Subclause 8.3(2)(a)(i) of Direction 110 requires the Tribunal consider if the applicant arrived in Australia as a young child. Mr Kohen arrived in Australia as an adult on 30 August 2015.[24] He would have been 33 years old on arrival and has not spent any of his formative years or undertaken his schooling in Australia.
3. Subclause 8.3(2)(a)(ii) of Direction 110 states that 'more weight should be given to time the non-citizen has spent contributing positively to the Australian community.' In the form Mr Kohen completed for revocation of the cancellation of his visa, he stated that he had engaged in community programs, including Jewish cultural activities and assisted young people with mental health issues.[25] He also provided a statement from Mark Robertson, a CEO for a mental health non for profit called onevision productions.[26] Mr Robertson states that Mr Kohen helped those around him and is a foundational part of his community helping street youth and laying the foundations of what it is to live in peace. Mr Robertson states that Mr Kohen is missed in the community, and it is hoped he will be back with them soon. He also states:

We are devastated about Asaf being in prison and all really aware of the situation that took place, which stems down to jealousy of a guy that was not happy in Asaf's relations with a girl that he likes

4. The nature and extent of the work of onevision productions is unclear. However, Mr Robertson's statement about the cause of Mr Asaf being in prison, indicates he does not have a complete picture of the nature and of the offences Mr Kohen was imprisoned for. Further, the reference provides little detail of the nature and extent of Mr Kohen's involvement in helping street youth.
5. Mr Kohen also stated in the form he completed for revocation of the cancellation of his visa that he was self-employed from 2008 to 2017, doing 'mainly gardening on properties, management and ear[th] [sic] moving'.[27] Mr Kohen also provided an undated letter which indicates that he has been provided an offer of employment from Phillip Hawkes of Goldleaf Landscaping.[28] The Tribunal accepts that Mr Kohen has been employed in Australia, however the nature of his employment does not represent a particularly strong tie to Australia.
6. As stated above, Mr Kohen has also provided letters of support from friends and members of his community.[29] As noted, those letters appear to have been dated in August 2023 or are undated and attached to the form Mr Kohen completed for revocation of the cancellation of his visa on 2 April 2024. There are no recent statements from members of his community.
7. The Tribunal accepts that Mr Kohen has developed some ties during his residence in Australia. However, there is little evidence that those friendships and community ties have continued while Mr Kohen has been in prison and detention.
8. Subclause 8.3(2)(b) requires the Tribunal to have regard to 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.
9. Mr Kohen does have son aged 14 years in Australia.[30] He described at the hearing that he has a very positive and close bond with his son. He and his former partner separated about 10 years ago and his son has been living with her since. He described that up until the imposition of the AVO he would see his son regularly. However, Mr Kohen has not seen his son since being in prison and detention, but states that his son's mother regularly sends him photos of his son. Mr Kohen was upset that he had missed his sons Bar Mitzvah. Mr Kohen also stated that his son is now living with his mother in Melbourne and no longer in the Byron Bay area. Mr Kohen felt now that his son had reached the age of 14 it was important that he father present in his life. As noted previously, there was an AVO preventing Mr Kohen from being with his son between 2018 and 2022. Mr Kohen was then permitted weekly supervised visits with his son and since his detention the applicant has not seen his son. While there is no doubt that Mr Kohen seeks a relationship with his son, on the present evidence before the Tribunal, he does not have a strong relationship with his son.
10. Mr Kohen also stated at the hearing that he had been a father figure to the older two children of his son's mother. The evidence suggests that those individuals are now both adults as they were 16 and 25 years old in 2018.[31]
11. Mr Kohen also indicated he had a current girlfriend, Ms Friedman. In cross examination Mr Kohen stated that they had considered getting married while he was in detention, but that he had decided against it because of his present situation. He stated that they were not planning on getting married but had daily conversations. He confirmed that he was in a relationship with her and that she was deeply in love with him, but that he was not that in love and did not want to elude her into a wedding. Ms Friedman has not made any representations in support of these claims.
12. The Tribunal finds that except for ties to his son, Mr Kohen's other relationships and contribution to the Australian community should be given limited weight in favour of the revocation of the cancellation decision.
13. Regarding his relationship with his son, the Tribunal again notes that Mr Kohen presently has a limited relationship with his son. For that reason, the Tribunal finds that because Mr Kohen has a child in Australia the consideration weighs only moderately in favour of revocation.

Primary Consideration 4: the best interests of minor children in Australia; - 8.4

1. Clause 8.4 requires the Tribunal to consider whether non-revocation under s 501CA is, or is not, in the best interests of a child affected by the decision. In considering the best interests of the child, the following factors must be considered where relevant:

a) the nature and duration of the relationship between the child and the non-citizen. Less weight should generally be given where the relationship is non-parental, and/or there is no existing relationship and/or there have been long periods of absence, or limited meaningful contact (including whether an existing Court order restricts contact); > > b) the extent to which the non-citizen is likely to play a positive parental role in the future, taking into account the length of time until the child turns 18, and including any Court orders relating to parental access and care arrangements. > > c) the impact of the non-citizen's prior conduct, and any likely future conduct, and whether that conduct has, or will have a negative impact on the child; > > d) the likely effect that any separation from the non-citizen would have on the child, taking into account the child's or non-citizen's ability to maintain contact in other ways; > > e) whether there are other persons who already fulfil a parental role in relation to the child; > > f) any known views of the child (with those views being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child); > > g) evidence that the child has been, or is at risk of being, subject to, or exposed to, family violence perpetrated by the non-citizen, or has otherwise been abused or neglected by the non-citizen in any way, whether physically, sexually or mentally; > > h) evidence that the child has suffered or experienced any physical or emotional trauma arising from the non-citizen's conduc84.

2. As noted above, Mr Kohen has son who is 14 years.[32] There is nothing in the evidence which indicates that Mr Kohen maintained any relationship with his son while in detention including by speak on the telephone. There is nothing beyond Mr Kohen's own evidence, about his relationship with his son. While the Tribunal accepts that Mr Kohen seeks to remain a positive influence in his son's life, his criminal history to date has not been a positive influence on his son, particularly his offences relating to family violence. Mr Kohen gave no indication how his relationship would continue now that his son and his son's mother have moved to Melbourne. Mr Kohen could maintain some relationship with his son from overseas. The Tribunal finds that this consideration should be given moderate weight in favour of revocation of the cancellation of the Mr Kohen's visa.

Primary Consideration 5: Expectations of the Australian Community; - 8.5

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. Paragraph 8.5(2) of Direction 110 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 refuse entry to non-citizens, or cancel their visas, if they raise serious character concerns through conduct, in Australia or elsewhere, of particular kinds. > > a) acts of family violence; or ...

3. In accordance with clause 8.5(3) the expectations of the Australian community apply regardless of whether Mr Kohen poses a measurable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community and in addition, in accordance with 8.5(4) of Direction 110, the Tribunal must consider the expectations of the Australian community as a whole and proceed on the basis of the Government's views expressed in Direction 110, without independently assessing the community's expectations in the particular case.
4. Paragraph 8.5 of the Direction expresses a "deemed community expectation" that all persons who have committed serious criminal offences giving rise to character concerns should not be permitted to enter or remain in Australia: FYBR v Minister for Home Affairs,[33] at [75] per Charlesworth J.
5. It is not for the Tribunal to determine for itself what the community's expectations are in a particular case: Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs v HSRN,[34] at [31]-[35] per Moshinsky, Stewart, and Jackman JJ.
6. In RCLN v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs,[35] Horan J stated at [56]:

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.

7. Mr Kohen has been convicted of a very serious offence which involves violence and family violence (paragraph 8.1.1(1)(a) of the Direction). The Tribunal finds that the Australian community would expect the Mr Kohen's visa to remain cancelled.
8. This primary consideration weighs very heavily against revocation of the cancellation decision.

1. Subclause 9.1 of Direction 110 requires the Tribunal to consider the legal consequences of its decision, taking into account any non-refoulement obligations and whether the applicant is covered by a protection finding.
2. Mr Kohen stated in the form he completed for revocation of the cancellation that he would face threats to his safety and wellbeing if he were returned to Israel during the period of conflict with Hamas, particularly as a war veteran.[36] The nature of Mr Kohen's claim indicates a potential for Australia's international non-refoulement obligations to be engaged in relation to Mr Kohen.
3. It remains open to Mr Kohen to make an application for a protection visa, during which Mr Kohen's claim regarding Australia's non-refoulement obligations would be fully assessed. There is no evidence that such an application has been made or that there is a protection finding made in relation to Mr Kohen.
4. Further, the Tribunal also accepts that the legal consequence of a visa cancellation decision is that Mr Kohen will be an unlawful non-citizen and even if a protection application is made, he may continue to be subject to a period of time in immigration detention. Further, even if no protection claim is made, Mr Kohen will be subject to indefinite exclusion from Australia by operation of the Special Return Criteria in cl 5001(c) of Schedule 5 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), which is a relevant legal consequence that the Tribunal must take into account: Rano v Minister for Home Affairs, Minister for Cyber Security [2024] FCA 1003 per Feutrill J at [12]-[14].
5. Presently, Mr Kohen is not the subject of a protection finding. Mr Kohen did not elaborate on the matters in relation to any protection application at the hearing. On that basis the Tribunal gives only moderate weight in favour of the revocation of cancelation of the visa in relation to this consideration.

1. Subclause 9.2 of Direction 110 requires consideration of the extent of any impediments that Mr Kohen may face if removed from Australia to his home country.
2. Mr Kohen is currently 51 years old and has resided in Australia since he was 33 years old and he is not likely to experience language or cultural barriers when he returns to Israel, having spent most of his formative years, in Israel. He stated in the hearing that he has not lived in Israel for 30 years. The Tribunal notes that Mr Kohen has not lived exclusively in Israel and other than Australia has also spent about 11 years living in Europe prior to living in Australia.
3. There is no evidence to suggest that Mr Kohen won't be able to access the health, treatment, and welfare services in Israel to the same degree as any other Israeli citizen.
4. At hearing Mr Kohen confirmed that his mother, father, brother and sister still reside in Israel. He also confirmed that he has remained in constant contact with his parents, that he is very close to them and that they are supportive. He explained his parents are getting older, but they have their own home.
5. The applicant stated that he had little contact with his sister and brother. However, he clearly has a good relationship with his parents and while there will be some adjustment period, Mr Kohen is unlikely to face significant financial hardship upon a return to Israel. Mr Kohen will be familiar with the environment, social systems, and language of Israel. As such, this consideration weighs only moderately in favour of the revocation of the cancellation decision.

1. Clause 9.3 of Direction 110 provides that the Tribunal must consider any impact on Australian business interests if Mr Kohen is not allowed to remain in Australia. There is no evidence of impact on Australian business interests within the meaning of Direction 110. The Tribunal finds that this consideration is therefore not engaged.

1. Consistent with Direction 110, the Tribunal has given weight of various degrees to the primary and other considerations. Subclause 7(1) of Direction 110 states that appropriate weight is to be given to information and evidence from independent and authoritative sources. Subclause 7(2) of Direction 110 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. Subclause 7(3) of Direction 110 provides that one or more primary considerations may outweigh other primary considerations.
2. In the recent decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court concerning the operation of Direction No. 90 in CRNL v Minister for Immigration Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs at [35],[37] the Court found that the Tribunal must weigh and balance the various primary and other relevant considerations outlined in the Direction (in this case Direction 110) against each other but to treat Direction 110 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.
3. The Tribunal has found Mr Kohen does not pass the character test and has carefully considered all the evidence before it and weighed up the relevant considerations as guided by Direction 110 in considering whether there is another reason why the cancellation of his visa should be revoked.
4. In relation to the Primary Considerations the Tribunal found:
   1. The protection of the Australian community weighs heavily against revocation of the cancellation of Mr Kohen's visa. The nature of Mr Kohen's offending should be considered very serious and should he reoffend, it would again cause harm. The risk Mr Kohen reoffending is moderate, given his breach of an intensive corrections order and AVO's. In those circumstances the Tribunal considers there is a real risk to the community that Mr Kohen will reoffend. The Tribunal has found that while Mr Kohen has shown some remorse and insight for his offending, he requires continued rehabilitation and continues to minimise certain offences.
   2. Given the nature of his offences, the consideration concerning family violence weighs heavily against Mr Kohen.

1. In relation to the strength, nature and duration of Mr Kohen's ties to the Australian community, the Tribunal accepts that if the decision is not revoked that it will have some impact on Mr Kohen's relationship with his son. Mr Kohen has had some other ties to friends and community, but those ties are not significant. The Tribunal find because of his ties to his son, those consideration weighs moderately in favour of revocation.
2. The consideration regarding the best interests of minor children being Mr Kohen's son also only weighs moderately in favour of revocation given the nature of his relationship with his son in recent years.
3. The Tribunal consideration regarding expectations of the Australian community weighs heavily against revoking the cancellation of the visa.

1. Of the other considerations, the Tribunal has found there is a potential for Australia's international non-refoulement obligations to be engaged in relation to Mr Kohen, but at present they only weigh moderately in favour of revocation. In relation to the extent of impediments if Mr Kohen is removed to Australia they also only weigh moderately in favour of revocation. The consideration concerning business interests weighs neutrally.
2. Mr Kohen has breached the expectation that he be a law-abiding citizen who respects Australian institutions. The Tribunal considers that in these circumstances the protection of the Australian Community, the nature of the offences in relation to family violence and the expectations of the Australian community outweigh all the other considerations. Accordingly, the Tribunal finds that there is no other reason which would warrant the revocation of the mandatory cancellation of Mr Kohen's visa.
3. For the reasons given above the Tribunal affirms the decision of a delegate of the Minister dated 8 May 2025 not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of Mr Kohen's visa.

[33] [2019] FCAFC 185.

[34] [2023] FCAFC 68.

[35] [2024] FCA 876.

[37] [2023] FCAFC 138.